Monday, July 20, 2009

Notable and Quotable

It's true that the election of a practising gay person as a bishop in the US in 2003 was the trigger for much of the present conflict. It is doubtless also true that a lot of extra heat is generated in the conflict by ingrained and ignorant prejudice in some quarters; and that for many others, in and out of the Church, the issue seems to be a clear one about human rights and dignity.But the debate in the Anglican Communion is not essentially a debate about the human rights of homosexual people. It is possible - indeed, it is imperative - to give the strongest support to the defence of homosexual people against violence, bigotry and legal disadvantage, to appreciate the role played in the life of the church by people of homosexual orientation, and still to believe that this doesn't settle the question of whether the Christian Church has the freedom, on the basis of the Bible, and its historic teachings, to bless homosexual partnerships as a clear expression of God's will. That is disputed among Christians, and, as a bare matter of fact, only a small minority would answer yes to the question....

Arguments have to be drawn up on the common basis of Bible and historic teaching. And, to make clear something that can get very much obscured in the rhetoric about 'inclusion', this is not and should never be a question about the contribution of gay and lesbian people as such to the Church of God and its ministry, about the dignity and value of gay and lesbian people. Instead it is a question, agonisingly difficult for many, as to what kinds of behaviour a Church that seeks to be loyal to the Bible can bless, and what kinds of behaviour it must warn against - and so it is a question about how we make decisions corporately with other Christians, looking together for the mind of Christ as we share the study of the Scriptures.

--Rowan Williams: The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today (27 June 2006)

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It is possible - indeed, it is imperative - to give the strongest support to the defence of homosexual people against violence, bigotry and legal disadvantage, to appreciate the role played in the life of the church by people of homosexual orientation..."

What other sinful orientations do we take this stance for? Insert the word "incest" for "homosexual". Does it carry the same weight? Substitute the word "adulterers" and see how that feels. Now, try "zoophiles" and "pedophiles". How about "thieves", "witches", "satan worshipers", or "serial killers"?

Is it really imperative to give the strongest support to the defence of homosexuals from "legal disadvantage"? Isn't it really imperative to give them the life altering Good News that Jesus offers them forgiveness and amendment of life if they will repent and call upon His name?

Why are so many bent on codependent support for sin? Why are so many calling wickedness and evil good and blessed?

Sick & Tired of Nuance

9:14 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home