|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Meet the FOCAs...
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
From today's Guardian report of the launch of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans at GAFCON
quote:
Details of Foca were finalised yesterday morning and the reading of the statement was greeted with standing ovations, spontaneous singing, hugging and tears of joy. One of those present said he thought the skies were about to open so the delegates could ascend to heaven.
Or, possibly, for the earth to open so that they could go the other way...
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rabcpresbyterian
Shipmate
# 12060
|
Posted
This surely must be the best thread title ever.
--------------------
Any man's death diminishes me, for I am part of mankinde - John Donne
Posts: 894 | From: here be dragons | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
Is Archbishop Jensen the Head FOCA?
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
Sounds like the FOCAs don't want to meet me.
If they can't stand the rest of the Anglican Communion, why are they still in it?
If they're still in it, why won't they come to Lambeth, recognise the authority of the Instruments of Unity, etc etc?
And as for Archbishop Akinola's promise at the GAFCON/FOCA press conference yesterday, that:-
quote:
"If you receive an SOS from anywhere in the world we will move in"
- the cure seems a great deal worse than the disease - at least, if you aim to be part of the one, holy, Catholic church with an episcopal structure in the apostolic tradition (which Jensen obviously doesn't).
[ 30. June 2008, 12:10: Message edited by: badman ]
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
Is Archbishop Jensen the Head FOCA?
It's Sydney - you certainly can't have a Mother FOCA.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scribehunter
Shipmate
# 12750
|
Posted
Jensen will presumably not be included in the "Primate's Council", which is charged with mothering the focAs:
quote:
We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, do hereby acknowledge the participating Primates of GAFCON who have called us together, and encourage them to form the initial Council of the GAFCON movement. We look forward to the enlargement of the Council and entreat the Primates to organise and expand the fellowship of confessing Anglicans. Source: Gafcon Statement
Posts: 143 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ObadiahSlope
Apprentice
# 11010
|
Posted
Stephen Noll posted at Standfirm
quote:
Note that the GAFCON Statement does not capitalize “Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans” or “Confessing Anglican Fellowship (CAF).” This was intentional. At this point it is best to speak of the “GAFCON movement” as a fellowship of confessing Anglicans. Perhaps at some later point the Primates’ Council may choose an official designation for the entity that emerges.
Sorry!
Posts: 12 | From: the inner west | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tyler Durden
Shipmate
# 2996
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rabcpresbyterian:
This surely must be the best thread title ever.
Amen to that!
--------------------
Have you ever noticed that anyone driving slower than you is a moron, while anyone driving faster is a maniac? Jerry Seinfeld
Posts: 509 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Posted by Stephen Noll on 06-30-2008 at 07:02 AM
An interpretation which surfaced only this morning, and well after hilarity had ensued!
Now it must be a headache to be on PR stable door closing duty for the geniuses who could come up with GAF[FE]CON as a name in the first place, but when it comes to clumsily attempting to latch Dietrich Bonhoeffer's glory to their cause, with this header
quote:
A Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans
they just didn't think their cunning plan all the way through, did they?
L.
[ 30. June 2008, 15:32: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
ObadiahSlope
Apprentice
# 11010
|
Posted
Nice theory Louise.
But if that were the case. it would be capitalised in the text as well as the subheads.
But it isn't. quote:
A Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans
We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, are a fellowship of confessing Anglicans for the benefit of the Church and the furtherance of its mission. We are a fellowship of people united in the communion (koinonia) of the one Spirit and committed to work and pray together in the common mission of Christ. It is a confessing fellowship in that its members confess the faith of Christ crucified, stand firm for the gospel in the global and Anglican context, and affirm a contemporary rule, the Jerusalem Declaration, to guide the movement for the future.
The subheads follow the capitalise the big words style. So unless you believe, for example, "The Road Ahead" is the title of something, its just capitalisation in subheads.
Deplorable grammar. But no organisation named FOCA either.
Posts: 12 | From: the inner west | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
An email from a friend today suggested these alternatives: Fellowship of Confessing Evangelical
Males; or Confraternity of Resentful Angry Prelates.
Or, in an attempt to portray themselves as decent fellows, CHAP: Confederation of Homophobic Anglican Prelates.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
The Archbishop of Canterbury has apparently met the FOCAs and doesn't like what he sees.
quote:
A ‘Primates’ Council’ which consists only of a self-selected group from among the Primates of the Communion will not pass the test of legitimacy for all in the Communion.
And
quote:
We have seen instances of intervention in dioceses whose leadership is unquestionably orthodox simply because of local difficulties of a personal and administrative nature. We have also seen instances of clergy disciplined for scandalous behaviour in one jurisdiction accepted in another, apparently without due process.
and
quote:
emerging from the legacy of colonialism must mean a new co-operation of equals, not a simple reversal of power. If those who speak for GAFCON are willing to share in a genuine renewal of all our patterns of reflection and decision-making in the Communion, they are welcome, especially in the shaping of an effective Covenant for our future together.
If they aren't willing, I suppose they aren't welcome.
His full response is here
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
[The ABC's] full response is here
Also linked from the Lambeth v Jerusalem thread.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) ++Rowan.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubifex Maximus
Shipmate
# 4874
|
Posted
I'm sorry that it has come to schism, as it appears to have done. I think the thing that I find hard to understand as a non-anglican and, these days, as a Died Again Christian, is why this issue has been identified as the one straw that is breaking the camel's back. I know that traditionalists have always said that the real issue isn't homosexuality as such, but the authority of scripture. I can remember when no less a person than the Bishop of Durham cast doubt on a real and historical resurrection. There was a bit of a stink, but no schism.
Surely this was far more pressing touchstone issue to Christians than the sexual orientation of a bishop? The resurrection is cited in the creed, after all.
This seems to create a slightly wierd paradox for me that the FOCAs would be wholly against Jeffrey John because he's gay, in spite of the fact that he has spoken movingly on how important it is that the resurrection is real.
It also creates the wicked thought in the mind of evil, post modern, post Christian, commie, fag loving libruls like me that homosexuality really is the issue and not scripture at all...
Can anyone help me to understand this?
--------------------
Sit down, Oh sit down, sit down next to me.
Posts: 400 | From: Manchester | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
++Rowan.
Yes, I have to say his response is just what I wanted to see - politely and calmly pointing out the FOCAs' complete lack of legitimacy.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Most of us are as puzzled as you, Tubifex.
But I must defend the former (last but one) bishop of Durham. He's been repeatedly attacked for not believing the resurrection. In fact it is very clear that his faith is founded on the risen Christ. It's just that he doesn't understand it in a crudely literalist way. There is no way, even taking scripture at face value, that the risen body of Jesus was simply the flesh and blood of his earthly life. He could walk through walls!
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Most of us are as puzzled as you, Tubifex.
But I must defend the former (last but one) bishop of Durham. He's been repeatedly attacked for not believing the resurrection. In fact it is very clear that his faith is founded on the risen Christ. It's just that he doesn't understand it in a crudely literalist way. There is no way, even taking scripture at face value, that the risen body of Jesus was simply the flesh and blood of his earthly life. He could walk through walls!
And let's not forget that the quotation was "The resurrection is much more than a mere conjouring trick with bones." It seems to this evangelical that he had more faith in the resurrection than his evangelical critics!
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Geneviève
Mother-Hatting Cat Lover
# 9098
|
Posted
I agree, that is an impressive statement from ++Rowan.
However, I have to disagree with one phrase:
quote:
No-one should for a moment impute selfish or malicious motives to those who have offered pastoral oversight to congregations in other provinces;
From where I sit, intervention in dioceses has been motivated primarily by issues of power, publicity, and hoping to grab real estate.
ETA: to blab on and on about the Windsor Report, and how TEC is not in compliance, and then to repeatedly violate it is completely hypocritical.
[ 30. June 2008, 22:06: Message edited by: Geneviève ]
--------------------
"Ineffable" defined: "I cannot and will not be effed with." (Courtesy of CCTooSweet in Running the Books)
Posts: 4336 | From: Eastern US | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Geneviève:
I agree, that is an impressive statement from ++Rowan.
However, I have to disagree with one phrase:
quote:
No-one should for a moment impute selfish or malicious motives to those who have offered pastoral oversight to congregations in other provinces;
From where I sit, intervention in dioceses has been motivated primarily by issues of power, publicity, and hoping to grab real estate.
ETA: to blab on and on about the Windsor Report, and how TEC is not in compliance, and then to repeatedly violate it is completely hypocritical.
That's because ++Rowan ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif) is a nicer guy than you or me, Genevieve.
And I thought I was a fluffy bunny.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
If they're still in it, why won't they come to Lambeth, recognise the authority of the Instruments of Unity, etc etc?
Martin most likely being stubborn, but trying to look at the situation from all possible sides (so please don't judge him harshly if he is visiting a dead horse issue or missing the obvious ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ):
So, why don't they go to Lambeth? It seems to be exactly the place where they should be going.
I thought the Windsor Report seemed a bit harsh and finger-pointy, but I also thought that it leaned in favor of the conservative bishops. What if they all showed up at Lambeth and found out that they could actually get away with much more than they thought, perhaps in the way of ultimatums and/or passing new statements to rival or amend the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral? Or, if the bishops do truly intend to make the Anglican Communion look less like the British Empire of yesteryear (a point which I actually think has a possibility of success), wouldn't Lambeth be the place to do it?
What reasons have been given for not showing up? The general global attitude seems to be against TEC and perhaps the AC-Can, so why not take chances?
[ 01. July 2008, 02:34: Message edited by: Martin L ]
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubifex Maximus
Shipmate
# 4874
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Most of us are as puzzled as you, Tubifex.
But I must defend the former (last but one) bishop of Durham. He's been repeatedly attacked for not believing the resurrection. In fact it is very clear that his faith is founded on the risen Christ. It's just that he doesn't understand it in a crudely literalist way. There is no way, even taking scripture at face value, that the risen body of Jesus was simply the flesh and blood of his earthly life. He could walk through walls!
Indeed, and I agree with him, and you for that matter but still my suspicions remain. +David Jenkins' critics didn't see it the way you, I, or Jolly Jape do way and it stil wasn't worth splitting over. Nor was +David Jenkins the first; existential and 'non-realist' theology has been a major strand in Anglican Christianity over the last fifty years "Honest to God" anyone? Self describing traditionalists may have voted individually with their feet or sought parishes that welcomed them, but it took the issue of Christian Homosexuality to make a group of them stand up and be counted.
Of course, there may be a lot of other stuff about this group in Jerusalem now believing that they have the power because they have grown strong enough and wanting all those nice pretty churches. I was a Methodist and I always felt a bit envious of the C of E with all those lovely medieval parish churches...
--------------------
Sit down, Oh sit down, sit down next to me.
Posts: 400 | From: Manchester | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
A couple of points in response to the last two posts (and as always, please bear in mind I am posting these to try and provide some context, NOT as statements of my own position (which I would be delighted to bore you with on another occasion).
Re. David Jenkins. I don't think he was a non-realist. The thing you do have to remember was that he loved the media spotlight and was a master of the canny phrase. A bit of a media whore as we might say nowadays. So when he came up with the phrase "not just a conjuring trick with old bones", he got his media attention. But what they said was that he was comparing the resurrection to a conjuring trick etc. He neither said it was such a trick, nor was he reported as such at the time. But that's how he is remembered now. He was at least a victim of his own desire for the limelight.
Re Lambeth. If you read their discussions on the matter, reasons vary. Some are indeed going, some believe it represents a form of communion with the American church (or the American & Canadian churches). Some simply see it as a waste of time (and that also includes non-GAFCONites).
In respect of the latter, there is currently a discussion on the go concerning the ability of Lambeth to actually do anything at all. Spawn has written on this in the CEN - a copy of his article is here. As to what will actually happen - we'll see. But you do need to bear in mind that there have been loud complaints over many years that TEC-seconded staff at the Anglican Communion offices have long been working to further TEC's POV through control of agendas and the like. One might dismiss such views as somewhat dramatic at best, and wild conspiracy theories at worst, were it not for the fact that a couple of internal papers turned up in public that seemed to give considerable credence to this. But in any event, to have Ian Douglas, the TEC representative on the Lambeth Design Group, to sit down alongside the Presiding Bishop of TEC and flatly deny Rowan (whose show the whole thing is) - and at present it would appear that Rowan has lost that one - is only going to be interpreted one way.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
As I understand it the FOCAs are inside the tent p***ing out not outside the ten p***ing in?
Saul the Apostle
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Saul the Apostle wrote quote:
As I understand it the FOCAs are inside the tent p***ing out not outside the ten p***ing in?
For the time being, yes, I think so. Except in the USA (not sure about Canada).
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gill H
Shipmate
# 68
|
Posted
Re the unintentional hilarity of the acronym - my organisation was almost called the Qualifications and National Curriculum Authority until someone pointed out that QNCA would most likely be pronounced 'Quanca' ... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
(ETA: still doesn't beat UCCF, which apparently was almost called the Fellowship of University and College Christian Unions.)
[ 01. July 2008, 09:16: Message edited by: Gill H ]
--------------------
*sigh* We can’t all be Alan Cresswell.
- Lyda Rose
Posts: 9313 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubifex Maximus:
I'm sorry that it has come to schism, as it appears to have done. I think the thing that I find hard to understand as a non-anglican and, these days, as a Died Again Christian, is why this issue has been identified as the one straw that is breaking the camel's back. I know that traditionalists have always said that the real issue isn't homosexuality as such, but the authority of scripture. I can remember when no less a person than the Bishop of Durham cast doubt on a real and historical resurrection. There was a bit of a stink, but no schism.
Surely this was far more pressing touchstone issue to Christians than the sexual orientation of a bishop? The resurrection is cited in the creed, after all.
I think this is a very good question, and one that many of the conservative bishops and primates would struggle to answer precisely.
Bear in mind, I'm writing as someone whose church split from mainstream Presbyterianism in the '60s due to liberal theology, specifically in relation to the Resurrection, so I'm also somewhat perplexed that it is homosexuality which is causing the latest schism.
Aspects of theology such as the exact meaning of the Resurrection and the divinity of Christ have been questioned and argued about since the start of the church, and in the CofE for at least a century, maybe two or more (I'm no historian, this could be incorrect). It has been an incremental change, with the liberals able to retort "you misunderstand us" or "we hold to classic Christian theology on these issues, which you misunderstand" to their orthodox critics. (Which side is correct is not what I am trying to argue here, just showing how the debate can be seen from the conservative side). This makes it much more difficult to have a united conservative front against liberal bishops or national churches in those areas. The homosexual issue, by contrast, is considerably more clear cut. If, for example, a priest in England is in an open relationship with a homosexual lover, then not just theologians but ordinary ministers and churchgoers all around the world can clearly see that this is at odds with traditional church teaching on sexual issues. That may not make the issue any more important, but it does make it far easier to build a coalition across different dioceses and nations and continents. Threatening schism can be as much about achieving critical mass as it is about deep points of doctrine.
Also, never underestimate how quickly society and the church has changed on sexuality, with homosexuality seeing perhaps the most rapid and complete change in attitudes. In about 40 years, male homosexual practice has gone from being criminalised in society at large, to being grudgingly allowed in wider society but condemned by the Church, to being mostly accepted in society, to being tolerated in the church among lay members, to being allowed among priests and bishops. It's difficult to think of any other belief or practice where all branches of the church and most people in society have condemned something, only for society to embrace it and parts of the church to accept it, in such a short period.
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
(ETA: still doesn't beat UCCF, which apparently was almost called the Fellowship of University and College Christian Unions.)
Given what went on at mine, that could well have been appropriate.
There's a trade union in Australia called the CFMEU*, which is universally, and appropriately, referred to as the Come F*** ME Union.
*Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union.
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
Zwingli said: quote:
Also, never underestimate how quickly society and the church has changed on sexuality, with homosexuality seeing perhaps the most rapid and complete change in attitudes. In about 40 years, male homosexual practice has gone from being criminalised in society at large, to being grudgingly allowed in wider society but condemned by the Church, to being mostly accepted in society, to being tolerated in the church among lay members, to being allowed among priests and bishops. It's difficult to think of any other belief or practice where all branches of the church and most people in society have condemned something, only for society to embrace it and parts of the church to accept it, in such a short period.
I would actually diagree with that statement. Homosexual practice is still generally not accepted in most of British society, despite a film/mediachattering classes push to get it so.
There is a much more 'shrug of the shoulders' attitude to homosexuality than a while ago, but it is still a minority activity. Homosexuality has always been around but the whole thrust of scripture is simply that a better way is that of love between a man and a woman in marriage for life. We can make all the correct 'right on' bro noises we like but society generally has to understand that the Judaeo-Christian way does put checks and balances on behaviour however unfashionable such an approach may be in 2008.
Saul the Apostle
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I'm not sure it's all that complicated. There's an increased appreciation that in general, homosexuals are born with that orientation and therefore it is perverse to argue that they make perverse choices.
Some people do make perverse choices about how they use their sexuality, and, guess what? That doesn't seem to correlate with orientation at all.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not sure it's all that complicated. There's an increased appreciation that in general, homosexuals are born with that orientation and therefore it is perverse to argue that they make perverse choices.
Some people do make perverse choices about how they use their sexuality, and, guess what? That doesn't seem to correlate with orientation at all.
I won't go into it again on this thread, as it is somewhat off topic, and I explained a bit further in the recent Dead Horses thread, but the conservative view, or at least the Reformed view, has always been that homosexual sin, like all sin, is the result of original sin, with which we are born, and that our choices are then an inevitable consequence of that. We sin because we are born sinners, rather than we are sinners because we sin. So any new findings demonstrating that homosexuals are so predisposed from birth makes no difference.
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not sure it's all that complicated. There's an increased appreciation that in general, homosexuals are born with that orientation and therefore it is perverse to argue that they make perverse choices.
That's a red herring (and probably a dead horse).
If you believe in the Fall, as most GAFCONites presumably do (and as I do) then it makes no difference whether or not someone was born with an orientation towards a particular sin. We are all born with an orientation towards sin, in some measure, and we all have a moral duty to resist those sins we are most liable to. Knowing we will fail without the grace of God to strengthen us.
That has nothing at all to do with the question of whether some action is a sin or not - we answer that from the Bible or from church tradition.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not sure it's all that complicated. There's an increased appreciation that in general, homosexuals are born with that orientation and therefore it is perverse to argue that they make perverse choices.
That's a red herring (and probably a dead horse).
If you believe in the Fall, as most GAFCONites presumably do (and as I do) then it makes no difference whether or not someone was born with an orientation towards a particular sin. We are all born with an orientation towards sin, in some measure, and we all have a moral duty to resist those sins we are most liable to. Knowing we will fail without the grace of God to strengthen us.
That has nothing at all to do with the question of whether some action is a sin or not - we answer that from the Bible or from church tradition.
So, GAFCONites and other evangelicals see the homosexual orientation as akin to a 'disease'. Because of the Fall, some human beings suffer from a warping of their sexual orientation. It's not their fault- they didn't choose it- but they're still 'sick'.
Um- I see all kinds of scary consequences of this line of thinking
I actually find this explanation bordering on the offensive (and just one reason why I had to jettison much of my former evangelicalism)
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
It's more a matter of we see everyone as fallen, of which homosexual orientation is one manifestation that affects some people (and by no means the most serious, or even one of the more serious, manifestations.)
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
I don't know or understand the Anglican background to all of this but as stated:
sin is sin is sin, surely?
Sexual sin is:
a. not the unforgiveable sin,
b. sexual sin is sin if committed by a heterosexual or a homosexual.
Thats my understanding as a charismatic (aka wheezy asthmatic sometimes) evangelical.
Some of us Christian folks act like homosexual sin was the unforgiveable 'big one'. My view it is a sin, but it is forgiveable.
The FOCAs? Well I've never met them personally but I guess we share similar views on most things. As stated in another thread, having it out with the head mitre fella at Lambeth may have been a better way than meeting in Jerusalem, but I respect their choice and understand , to a degre, their frustrations.
Saul the Apostle
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not sure it's all that complicated. There's an increased appreciation that in general, homosexuals are born with that orientation and therefore it is perverse to argue that they make perverse choices.
That's a red herring (and probably a dead horse).
If you believe in the Fall, as most GAFCONites presumably do (and as I do) then it makes no difference whether or not someone was born with an orientation towards a particular sin. We are all born with an orientation towards sin, in some measure, and we all have a moral duty to resist those sins we are most liable to. Knowing we will fail without the grace of God to strengthen us.
That has nothing at all to do with the question of whether some action is a sin or not - we answer that from the Bible or from church tradition.
I'm still baffled. Even if we accept that argument, and we agree with the FOCAs that homosexual activity is sinful, then how does it lead to sexually active gay people being excluded from the priesthood? After all, gluttony is a sin, but we aren't schisming over the issue of fat bishops.
Nor does it explain why it isn't better for gay people to be married than not, just as it is for heterosexuals.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
The issue is one of attitude towards sin. I'm a bit of a fat bastard myself, but I accept that eating too much is wrong, on a number of levels and for a number of reasons, and it's something with which I struggle on a daily basis (alright, weekly, maybe). What I don't do - and what I'm not free to do - is to pronounce that which is sinful as 'good'. That's the difference.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
ken
It is a DH in one sense; on the other hand it was simply a personal observation on why folks are more inclined to "shrug their shoulders" these days (Zwingli and Saul discussion). It was a social observation, rather than a theological one. Its the way a fair number of folks think. "Why criticise people for the way they are born" has a certain straightforward appeal.
The extent to which it might factor into theology has been considered and I think I'll drop into the DH soon to have a looksee. It's Romans 1 territory. "Natural" and "perverse" are Romans 1 concepts.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not sure it's all that complicated. There's an increased appreciation that in general, homosexuals are born with that orientation and therefore it is perverse to argue that they make perverse choices.
Indeed, and it seems equally perverse to argue that the gay people we can all see around us these days, now gay people are visible, are anything but harmless and ordinary. Insisting that the evidence of people's eyes and the repeated findings of research are wrong and must be dismissed in the face of a few difficult to interpret Greek words in an ancient text is what seems really perverse to most people.
It puts Christians in the same light and moral standing as racists and the old fashioned Sectarian bigot who could show from the Bible that the Pope was Anti-Christ and that tolerating Catholics and giving them equal civil rights was wrong - regardless of how harmless and human your Catholic neighbours might be
I cut my teeth on the controversies of the 17th century churches when wars were fought over service books and Bishops and Divine Right (but really it was mostly about fear of Popery) and who apart from dinosaurs like Ian Paisley gives a monkeys about it now? The very 'Papist' and 'Puritan' extremes the 39 articles were written to define the C of E against are now signing up to them as their shibboleth and declaring themselves to be 'Traditional Anglicans'.
It's a mad world indeed, my masters, where the believers in lay presidency and the users of the English missal can say with a straight face that they're 'Traditional Anglicans' adhering to all the Early Modern documents of that church, but people who in the light of reason and charity have come to different conclusion on one small piece of teaching about sexuality, which was never part of the historical core of Anglicanism must be unchurched.
An apt analogy would be witch-hunting, when witches as the dangerous scourge the early modern world believed them to be turned out not to exist, the churches eventually managed to come to terms with that despite those who insisted on saying that 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live' was pretty clear scripture.
'The Sodomite' as the dangerous monster that traditional religion has imagined turns out like the witch, not to exist. Instead we have ordinary harmless gay folk and insisting that they are somehow inferior, polluting and to be shunned, and that this is one of The Most Important Issues in the World Today just makes the Church look paranoid, superstitious and slightly-mad
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Not really an accurate analogy, is it? This is not about persecution of one group by another. A better analogy is thinking of the Anglican Church as a type of club, which like all clubs has rules detailing what sort of behaviour is tolerated and what isn't. If you don't like the rules, then you're free to go and join another club that doesn't have the rules you dislike, or you can start a club of your own. What you're not free to do is loudly flout the rules of the club you're in. That's not persecution, that's just enforcing the club rules.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zwingli:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not sure it's all that complicated. There's an increased appreciation that in general, homosexuals are born with that orientation and therefore it is perverse to argue that they make perverse choices.
Some people do make perverse choices about how they use their sexuality, and, guess what? That doesn't seem to correlate with orientation at all.
I won't go into it again on this thread, as it is somewhat off topic, and I explained a bit further in the recent Dead Horses thread, but the conservative view, or at least the Reformed view, has always been that homosexual sin, like all sin, is the result of original sin, with which we are born, and that our choices are then an inevitable consequence of that. We sin because we are born sinners, rather than we are sinners because we sin. So any new findings demonstrating that homosexuals are so predisposed from birth makes no difference.
I agree with Barnabas here. The logical corollary to the fact that we are born sinners would be that both homosexual sinners and heterosexual sinners are born with a predisposition to sin, some of whom may sin in the matter of sexual activity. Thus some homosexuals may be promiscuoius, sexually abusive, and so on, and thus engage in porneia , sexual immorality. As may some heterosexuals. It doesn't follow from this , mediaeval distortions notwithstanding, that all homosexual activity is inherently sinful, any more than it follows from it that all heterosexual activity is inherently sinful. Because Paul condemns homosexual (and heterosexual) porneia does not mean he condemns homosexual sex per se, only the misuse of homosexual sex, by exact analogy with the way in which he condemns straight porneia.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I hope you're not dismissing Sacred Tradition as 'medieval distortions' ( ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) if you are...)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It is a DH in one sense; on the other hand it was simply a personal observation on why folks are more inclined to "shrug their shoulders" these days (Zwingli and Saul discussion). It was a social observation, rather than a theological one. Its the way a fair number of folks think. "Why criticise people for the way they are born" has a certain straightforward appeal.
It has a straightforward appeal if you want to ignore all sin. I was born with the desire to sleep with lots of women, and with a very bad temper.
"I was born that way" isn't an excuse because people can moderate their behaviour. And it hasn't even been proven that homosexuality is entirely genetic.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not really an accurate analogy, is it? This is not about persecution of one group by another. A better analogy is thinking of the Anglican Church as a type of club, which like all clubs has rules detailing what sort of behaviour is tolerated and what isn't. If you don't like the rules, then you're free to go and join another club that doesn't have the rules you dislike, or you can start a club of your own. What you're not free to do is loudly flout the rules of the club you're in. That's not persecution, that's just enforcing the club rules.
But it's not a club, is it. It's an expression of the body of Christ. And Paul has some pretty hard words about not discerning that body in communion. And, in any case, to suggest that entry into the "club" by adherence to a certain predefined code of rules is somewhat to stand scripture on its head, as Peter discovered.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Are we related? The only difference is that my desire to sleep with lots of women only really emerged from about the age of 13 onwards. Apart from that, snap!
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not really an accurate analogy, is it? This is not about persecution of one group by another.
What? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) It is precisely about the persecution of one group (a minority) by another (the majority). That's exactly what it is. Persecution which, for some of the Garcon archbishops, appears to legitimately include imprisonment, rape and torture.
As to your analogy: when gay clergy and laity obey the rules which the Church sets, they are deniedillegally rejected for jobs. Those who bless us, an act which indicates nothing more than that we are no less Godly than nuclear weapons – a pretty low bar, I think you’ll agree –are publically excoriated and threatened with dismissal. If people want to argue that we deserve to be persecuted, fine. But don’t pretend that persecution isn’t taking place.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
I'm not disagreeing with the thrust of your post, Louise, but would it not be fairer to say, rather than people who are gay are harmless, but they are as potential harmless - or as potentially harmful - as all the rest of us?
There is a point here (apart from a personal natural aversion to hagiographies). These discussions frequently devolve into one-sided diatribes, which end up with the poster letting us know how very evil everyone who disagrees with them is. Sure, that's more a problem elsewhere, but we have all seen it I'm sure. That's never going to convince anyone (other than perhaps convincing them to avoid our future posts). If we are going to be serious about this, then what we need to strive for is an acknowledgement that what we share is our full humanity, with all that that is heir to. That includes the right to be a prat, whether we are gay or straight. That's genuine non-discrimination.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I hope you're not dismissing Sacred Tradition as 'medieval distortions' ( if you are...)
I'm certainly saying that the mediaeval attitude to sex (ie, that it is inherently sinful) is a distortion of what we read in the scriptures, and I'd be surprised if you disagreed, so I'll assume you were being ironic.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
(Missed edit window - my last reply was to The Raptor).
JJ, I'm not sure that one can apply the momentous changes in the Apostolic times as analogous to the purported changes afoot today. [ETA re your last post - I don't disagree with you that the medieval attitude to sex as being inherently sinful was a distortion but I would affirm that the Traditional view of same-sex activity as being sinful is not a distortion but a correct discernment of the 'mind of Christ'. So, not being ironic, really, just asking for clarification which you've kindly given.]
dj_ordinaire, if there is persecution, then I would deplore it - if there are clergy who are abiding by The Rules™ and yet being denied positions on the sole ground of sexual orientation, then I think that that is monstrous. And 'monstrous' is too mild a word for what I think of one or two gems that ++Peter Akinola has come up with re: treatment of gays.
[ 01. July 2008, 14:19: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
