|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: What 'listening process'?
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Pete - there are plenty of LGBTI evangelicals. Many of them are conservative (Two:23, Diverse Church, Accepting Evangelicals). I don't know but I would guess that the same goes for ACs. Traditionalist v LGBTI is a false dichotomy.
To suggest that all LGBTI Christians have the same theological stance towards sexuality is bizarre and just plain wrong.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Pomona, there are affirming evangelicals, but they're few in number, 'cause to hold that position, you gotta make the Bible sign off on gay relationships.
And that's near-impossible. Leviticus is explicit: Paul is explicit. Sure, you can read-in qualifications about Bacchus and abuse, but it's a thin argument, which is why it's failed in most cases.
The poverty of the argument is illustrated by its failure to persuade pete173 and other open evangelicals. I'm sure he'd jump at the chance to affirm gay relationships. He fought for (secular) gay rights when that position was reviled. I don't for a second believe that he wants to hold the position he does. He honestly believes that's God's will.
Most affirming Christians don't take an evangelical approach to scripture. I certainly don't.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Byron's helpfully provocative stuff suggests that I and others can "take things forward". The present reality is that I can't see a way forward - because in Sidney Smith's words about two women having an argument from upstairs windows across the street, we are discussing things from entirely different premises.
But to paraphrase the former Bishop of Liverpool - the church already accepts a diversity of opinion on the morality of warfare, from military chaplains to absolute pacifists. How can the questions of whether I can shoot people in the head or drop rockets on them be merely theologoumena, whereas only one opinion on the morality of gay sex is permissible?
Or - if you want something more explicitly linked to eternal salvation - how come Calvinists and Arminians can coexist in the same church, even though one regards its opponents as crypto-Pelagians and the other thinks its adversaries make God into an arbitrary tyrant - and yet a diversity of opinions on other men's bottoms is somehow not allowed?
[ 25. November 2014, 05:44: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
And that's near-impossible. Leviticus is explicit: Paul is explicit. Sure, you can read-in qualifications about Bacchus and abuse, but it's a thin argument, which is why it's failed in most cases.
I disagree. I'm not an evangelical but it seems pretty clear to me that what is being referred to in the Bible is not the lifelong, monogamous, faithful same-sex partnerships under discussion today. All of the references imply or necessitate one or more of adultery, prostitution, lust or idolatry. The Bible does not speak directly to the situation we are addressing, so we have to work from the broad principles - most chiefly "by their fruits shall ye know them". A bad tree cannot bear good fruit. This is the flaw in ++Justin's attempts to be nice about gay relationships while still contending that they're sinful.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
The poverty of the argument is illustrated by its failure to persuade pete173 and other open evangelicals. I'm sure he'd jump at the chance to affirm gay relationships. He fought for (secular) gay rights when that position was reviled. I don't for a second believe that he wants to hold the position he does. He honestly believes that's God's will.
Most affirming Christians don't take an evangelical approach to scripture. I certainly don't.
I'm not sure about the "poverty of the argument" issue. Talking this issue over with a good friend from the Northumbria Community recently (during a delightful walk on the lovely beach at Alnmouth), an example came up which intrigues me in the context of this thread.
Tony and Peggy Campolo have different views on this issue; he is more conservative than she is. Recently, they've been appearing together and debating their different views on a public platform. My friend told me that it has created some interesting ripples!
My guess is that Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis and maybe pete173 as well would love to be able to find a way to (shall we say) the Desmond Tutu position. All three have enormous respect for Desmond Tutu and the courage and subsequent compassion he showed during the apartheid era and so the pull towards solidarity with him over gay issues must be very strong. They just can't see how to get there and be faithful to the classic evangelical position. Yet!
I think Steve Chalk's hermeneutical and ethical arguments make a strong point in favour of a much more open dialogue, and I'm quite intrigued by the thought of a some respectful "duking in public" between the husband and wife Campolo team. There's something in that so far as informing hearts and minds. I think the gut issues are kindness and fairness; peaceful co-existence may lie down that road.
It's easy for me, I guess. I've explained my own journey. But I haven't held, and don't now hold, any particular formal positions of community leadership so I can speak for myself, possibly with greater freedom than folks like Campolo and pete173. I understand why they have to weigh their words.
My hope is that the open evangelical position is open enough to be able to tread down the road that Chalky and Brian McLaren have pointed to. We all benefit from a generous orthodoxy, even if the generosity doesn't always seem that orthodox. I think evangelicalism would be healthier if it went that way. There is a lot to be said for just encouraging people to exercise mercy and kindness, acknowledge the always-possible planks in all our eyes, be very careful how we all judge others.
[ 25. November 2014, 11:22: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Besides in practice Evangelicals allow some possibility of reading the Scriptures against their 'plain reading', for example on divorce or usury. The Epistle to the Hebrews is hardly a 'plain reading' of the Old Testament. What is irritating is seeing a counterintuitive reading of the gay passages dismissed out of hand by people who accept equal or greater degrees of handwaving on other parts of the Bible.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
That is one of Chalky's basic hermenutical points, Ricardus.
Linked again.
Here's a quote
quote:
So, here is my question. Shouldn’t we take the same principle that we readily apply to the role of women, slavery, and numerous other issues, and apply it to our understanding of permanent, faithful, homosexual relationships? Wouldn’t it be inconsistent not to?
What are we to make of the kind of fancy exegetical footwork which can allow (in spite of the 1 Timothy 2 argument from the order of creation) one approach to the role of women in church leadership, while rejecting the acceptance of faithful same-sex relationships because it would overturn a ‘creation ordinance’? Is this ‘pick and choose’ approach to the New Testament more to do with an outworking of social conditioning and cultural prejudices than a genuine grappling with its text?
At the very least it's good to ask the question. His earlier comments on slavery are also worth reading.
Of course counter-arguments can be, and have been, made. But I don't think Steve can be fairly accused of rationalising in favour of a changing social view, any more than the abolitionists could, or those many voices in favour of OoW could. Many saw the abolitionists, many have seen the OoW proponents, as dangerous unbiblical radicals as well. Whatever may be the position over OoW, it's now very widely accepted that, at least on abolition of slavery, the defenders of the status quo were wrong to cry "dangerous unbiblical radical". Used to paddling in the shallows, they missed the deeper waters.
All I'm saying, all Chalky is saying, is that the argument can be made, people may still disagree, but defenders of the staus quo should think carefully before dismissing the argument and the arguers as either dangerous or unbiblical. Such actions may point the fingers back at themselves.
--------------------
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
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Some great points here, which help lift me out my funk, and think it may be possible to get past this. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
On Paul, the word "arsenokoitai" is a roadblock to many 'cause it's so sweeping ("arseno-," man, and "-koitai," laying with). You do need "exegetical fancy-footwork" to get it to not apply to all sexuality activity between men. (And, given what Paul wrote elsewhere, women too.)
And in good conscience, I can't make the argument, 'cause I think, given his cultural and religious background, it's overwhelmingly likely that Paul would've condemned homosexuality in all circumstances. I just think he's as wrong about that as he was an imminent eschaton.
I totally agree with Ricardus, to me, it seems crazy to tolerate diversity on warfare but not on sexuality. That old refrain about sex being worse than violence. But that's me applying my own standard, rooted in reasonableness: from an authoritarian POV, all that matters is that Paul said that sex was a "salvation issue," and violence wasn't. And that's the problem.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
You have to be right about what Paul meant in Romans 1. There"s really nothing to debate there in terms of exegetics.
I think in his pre-ABC days, Rowan Williams argued that we could look again at the words 'natural' and 'unnatural' and recognise the change in our understanding of what 'pertaining to nature' might mean to us today (rather than what it meant for Paul as a 1st century Jew). I think again that at that point the hermeneutical argument comes into play.
None of that strikes me as 'fancy footwork' at all. Homosexual desire is natural for a homosexual. It seems fair to argue that the real perversity is to pretend otherwise; that's the point where lying comes in.
Is it legitimate for evangelicals to consider such possible meanings via biblical study? I can't see why it shouldn't be.
[ 25. November 2014, 17:07: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
It may be, but the certainty of open evangelicals makes me doubt it'll get anywhere. I dunno. I hope I'm wrong. But if these arguments could persuade, wouldn't they have persuaded those who fight for social justice, take a nuanced approach to the Bible, and support women's ministry?
The "salvation issue" thing just seems insurmountable. From their POV, if they get it wrong, they're sending people to eternal torture. So long as there's any risk that the interpretation is wrong, they'll err on the side of caution. As they see it, better a life of celibacy than an eternity in hell.
How anyone could think that a being that inflicts such cruelty is worthy of godhood beats the hell outa me, but then I'm no evangelical, so I would say that.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
"After all, it is rating one's own conjectures at a very high price to roast a man alive on the strength of them"
Montaigne, commenting on witch trials.
There's an echo of Jesus in that (Matt 7) with the additional observation that if you judge someone is fit for roasting, you may be fitting yourself up for the spit.
[ 25. November 2014, 18:09: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I realise I'm no longer an evangelical (I don't think - I think the boundaries are blurry) but I don't think the Bible is clear at all. Certainly I know personally many conservative evangelicals who do not think the Bible is clear on the issue - Byron, would you at least do me the courtesy of trusting my own involvement in said evangelical groups and me knowing that they're really not small in number? I think the UK situation is quite different to the US one, evangelical being a bit differently defined too. Don't know about Accepting Evangelicals, but certainly Diverse Church and Two:23 (Two:23 is the main group, Diverse Church is the 18-30 group) have a mix of LGBTI evangelicals, some believing that they should be celibate and some believing that sexual relationships are OK. Both groups get along fine and honour the other position.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Pomona, I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong, and hope I am. I just see affirming evangelicals swiftly marginalized by the majority: in the UK, Oasis gets kicked out the Evangelical Alliance; in the U.S., well, just look at the World Vision hatefest.
Then we have liberal evangelicals like N.T. Wright compare equal marriage to Communist reeducation. I've heard from multiple people that Wright's been nothing but kind to his LGBT friends and colleagues, and I believe them (they've no reason to defend him). He's not driven by bigotry. Like Pete, he's convinced the Bible offers no wiggle room on this.
Open evangelicals would love to affirm gay relationships; not doing so makes their life difficult, especially if they're "same sex attracted." Yet most can't. What's gonna change?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
In fairness, most of the conservative evo LGBTI people I know are lay people and not in a position to become well-known. However, I was recently at a (con evo) Youthwork Conference and the response to a Diverse Church workshop was extremely positive. So I wonder if the situation in the pews is very different to the opinions of the leadership.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Attitudes seem to transcend the grassroots/leadership gap: the World Vision backlash was driven by grassroots support, and the evangelical congregations in the Church of England threaten to withhold donations. I think they feed off one another TBH.
The situation may be better on the ground as people there apply a more intuitive/common sense approach than theologians who apply an abstract framework, and leaders who are abuzz with political considerations.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Pomona, I think you are spot on here, certainly as far as open evos are concerned. Most of my open evo friends are agnostic or approving of, for example, SSM, but very few leaders are willing to stick their heads above the parapet. Partly, this is from a desire not to be seen as "letting the side down in front of those godless liberals", but I suspect the real driver is cultural identity.
As far as I can see, biblical evidence on either side of the debate is pretty thin on the ground, as regards the licitness of same sex relationships. It would be perfectly possible to build a good case from scripture which is either supportive or condemning of such relationships. What makes us chose one rather than the other is, I suspect, culture. I think it is quite possible to imagine, in a different cultural context, a situation where, for example, Tom Wright would strongly support SSM. There is nothing in the text that forbids it. That it is possible to construct a case for the "conservative" view that does not do violence to the scripture does not mean that view is true, merely that the evidence is scanty and that clever scholars are very good at eisegesis the reverse understanding is, of course, equally possible, and may well be equally scriptural.
To those who find it hard to imagine how scripture could be thought to be ambiguous here, I can only cite my own experience. I had been a Christian for twenty or so years before o ever heard an argument that God disapproved of homosexuality. I had always assumed, as a plain reading of scripture, thaPaul was concerned that, in the midst of his condemnation of heterosexual sin, gay people should not feel that they had a free pass to behave in a way that would be sinful for straights. Seriously, no other interpretation even occurred to me, bearing in mind the context. Culture, you see.
--------------------
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
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
I agree that culture plays a major part, Jolly Jape, but Tom Wright goes against evangelical culture all the time: he went to bat for Steve Chalke over the atonement, and defends women's ministry from a scriptural POV. He also criticizes common evangelical assumptions about the second coming and rapture, and is a vocal critic of the N.I.V. translation.
Given the unanimous support from his gay colleagues, the most reasonable conclusion to draw is that he honestly believes the Bible makes gay relationships incompatible with Christianity, or at least, with evangelicalism.
I know affirming evangelicals, but their evangelicalism is more cultural than theological. The more folk get into evangelical theology, the more they tend to oppose gay relationships as a "salvation issue." There are exceptions amongst theologians and leaders, but not enough to turn the tide at present.
Will that change? I hope it does, I really do, but I'm not optimistic.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I know affirming evangelicals, but their evangelicalism is more cultural than theological. The more folk get into evangelical theology, the more they tend to oppose gay relationships as a "salvation issue."
Fascinating observation. I think if you aren't prepared to read theological writings from outside your own particular framework, then you do get locked into a kind of self-enclosing idea of which theology is "sound". James Barr wrote effectively about that self-enclosure some thirty-odd years ago now.
Tom Wright is different, of course. You're quite right that he's not afraid to challenge received wisdom in other aspects of faith so my guess is that his position over gayness is a thought out personal conviction.
I lay no great claims to theological expertise; my own convictions do follow much thought and I've read pros and cons arguments pretty extensively. In the end, I reached a point where (to use my wife's favourite phrase about conviction) I could simply say "I know in my knower". Not an argument that convinces anyone else of course!
Maybe I'm an exception? I read stuff from all over the theological spectrum, make my own mind up about it. I'm an evangelical who reads a lot of theology! It helps me to understand my own and other communities better.
[ 26. November 2014, 10:08: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
... I've read pros and cons arguments pretty extensively...
Even sometimes when you'd rather be doing something else I suspect, since the hosts have to read every post!
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
... I've read pros and cons arguments pretty extensively...
Even sometimes when you'd rather be doing something else I suspect, since the hosts have to read every post!
Your sympathy is appreciated! Of course I do read a lot of theological opinions here and over the years it's helped me a lot to appreciate the diversity of our unrestful community.
Sometimes there is a lot of spouting, without much appearance of "listening"! But in general I find Ship debates illuminate real differences, and often go deep in uncovering why they are there. I've found that to be educational.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I totally agree with Ricardus, to me, it seems crazy to tolerate diversity on warfare but not on sexuality.
As I say, the comment was made by James Jones, towards the end of his time as Bishop of Liverpool. I think it was part of an address to General Synod.
James Jones very publicly campaigned against the consecration of Jeffrey John and against the repeal of Section 28. A few years later he confessed publicly that he had been an arse on homosexuality. I'm not sure what he now personally thinks about the issue but his comments above seem to prove that change is possible, even among the more conservative Evangelicals.
ETA: I have not heard his former conservative allies lining up to anathematise his apostasy. I'm not sure what to make of this.
[ 26. November 2014, 11:30: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Interesting, Ricardus. Many Christians use theology as a vehicle for homophobia. Open evangelicals are different in that opposing gay relationships goes against their inclinations. (Illustrated most dramatically by Pete Broadbent fighting for gay rights in the 80s.)
Love "I know in my knower," Barnabas62! TBH, that's pretty much my position, but I'd go against my instincts if I thought I had cause to do so. I see none, none at all.
I couldn't agree more about folk getting stuck in a theological ghetto. That goes for everyone. As vehemently as I might disagree with 'em, I always try to be fair to my opponents, and be sure to ask (non-affirming) evangelicals to explain their position to me. I try to return the favor (whether they want it or not ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ), and emphasize that I'm not a dedicated follower of fashion on this.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I still don't see how being a 'traditionalist' on this issue should prevent you from co-existing in the same church with people who have equally strong and Christian but different convictions about it. Any more than being a 'traditionalist' about the ordination of women means that they don't accept you, and the rest of us, as members of the same Church.
As evangelicals have explained it to me, equal ordination is "adiaphoron," or a "thing indifferent" to use the old school phrasing. In short, as it's not a core doctrine, Christians can agree to disagree.
Gay relationships, by contrast, are, thanks to Paul's words in Corinthians, a "salvation issue." For many (not all) evangelicals, it can't be tolerated without corrupting the church.
I know this has been said many times before, and I've never yet heard a satisfactory answer: divorce is explicitly condemned by our Lord himself, who does not (in any of the four gospels) so much as mention homosexuality. So why is that not a 'salvation issue' while the other is? Plenty of heterosexual evangelicals, including clergy and pastors, have been divorced and remarried.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
Also, can we assume that, since the evangelicals are kicking up such a fuss about gays, none of the other issues that divide evangelicals from liberals or anglo-catholics are 'salvation issues'?
If so I'd love to know what is a salvation issue. The nature of salvation obviously isn't a salvation issue since liberals and evangelicals don't agree about it.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I agree that culture plays a major part, Jolly Jape, but Tom Wright goes against evangelical culture all the time: he went to bat for Steve Chalke over the atonement, and defends women's ministry from a scriptural POV. He also criticizes common evangelical assumptions about the second coming and rapture, and is a vocal critic of the N.I.V. translation.
I suspect that there's a question of closing ranks as well. It's one thing to take sides on an intra-evangelical argument, but it's another to adopt a position held largely by critics of evangelicalism as a whole.
I think Wright has a kneejerk reaction against arguments of the form 'we used to believe xyz, but now due to modern science/ democracy etc we know that's all empty superstition.' I suspect Rowan Williams' mishandling of the matter was also partly down to that.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
On Paul, the word "arsenokoitai" is a roadblock to many 'cause it's so sweeping ("arseno-," man, and "-koitai," laying with). You do need "exegetical fancy-footwork" to get it to not apply to all sexuality activity between men. (And, given what Paul wrote elsewhere, women too.)
The next word, malakoi, also refers to some variant of sexual relations between men. Therefore, logically, arsenokoitai can at most refer to all sexual activity between men not covered by malakoi.
To argue that between them the two words must cover all sexual activity between men requires additional argument (namely, specifying what is covered under each of the two words and showing that they jointly exhaust the territory).
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The next word, malakoi, also refers to some variant of sexual relations between men. Therefore, logically, arsenokoitai can at most refer to all sexual activity between men not covered by malakoi.
To argue that between them the two words must cover all sexual activity between men requires additional argument (namely, specifying what is covered under each of the two words and showing that they jointly exhaust the territory).
I accept that it can be argued (most anything can). Given Paul's background, I don't buy it (given the Mosaic law and surrounding culture, any 1st century Jewish person giving homosexuality the OK is, well, unlikely in the extreme).
I'd far rather argue that Paul was simply wrong. It's what I honestly believe, it's a much stronger argument, and it criticizes biblical authority, which I consider worth doing for its own sake.
Others will, of course, take a different tack, which is fine by me. We need different approaches.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I know this has been said many times before, and I've never yet heard a satisfactory answer: divorce is explicitly condemned by our Lord himself, who does not (in any of the four gospels) so much as mention homosexuality. So why is that not a 'salvation issue' while the other is? Plenty of heterosexual evangelicals, including clergy and pastors, have been divorced and remarried.
It's the things listed in 1st Cor., c.6: from the NRSV:-
quote:
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers -- none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.
"Moichos" is usually translated as "adulterer," and according to gospels, remarriage is adultery unless on the grounds of sexual immorality (Mark doesn't make even this exception), so yeah, non-affirming evangelicals should be much stronger on no-fault divorce.
As to why many aren't, well, guess it hits too close to home.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I know this has been said many times before, and I've never yet heard a satisfactory answer: divorce is explicitly condemned by our Lord himself, who does not (in any of the four gospels) so much as mention homosexuality. So why is that not a 'salvation issue' while the other is? Plenty of heterosexual evangelicals, including clergy and pastors, have been divorced and remarried.
It's the things listed in 1st Cor., c.6: from the NRSV:-
quote:
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers -- none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.
"Moichos" is usually translated as "adulterer," and according to gospels, remarriage is adultery unless on the grounds of sexual immorality (Mark doesn't make even this exception), so yeah, non-affirming evangelicals should be much stronger on no-fault divorce.
As to why many aren't, well, guess it hits too close to home.
I do think sins that "we" are not likely to commit are the ones that get targetted, it gives us this nice warm judgemental glow that we're not sinners like them.
Although to be fair, being divorced or married to a divorced woman precludes you from being appointed as a Rector in the Sydney Anglican diocese.
[ 27. November 2014, 23:43: Message edited by: Evangeline ]
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I do think sins that "we" are not likely to commit are the ones that get targetted, it gives us this nice warm judgemental glow that we're not sinners like them.
Testify. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Hmmmm, reading 1 Cor. 6 again in light of the adultery/divorce pericope, I'm getting the horrible feeling I've been wrong about the motives of many non-affirming evangelicals.
Shit. My attempt to see the good in people gets another kick. Oh well, it's some, not all.
quote:
Although to be fair, being divorced or married to a divorced woman precludes you from being appointed as a Rector in the Sydney Anglican diocese.
One gay priest did give a grudging respect to the "mad sincerity" of conservatives. Though I doubt even Sydney's campaigned for the reinstitution of slavery and coverture of late. All a matter of degree.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
As regards the divorce/remarriage thing I think one difference is that with remarriage we are often dealing with something which is of the past, already done, and where the question is "Can there be here something on the lines of 'forgiveness/fresh start'?" With the gay and SSM issues it's about an intention to carry on in the future doing things afresh over and over again which the Bible certainly seems to forbid. I do agree that many churches are not firm enough over this divorce etc thing - but it's not quite the same thing as the gay issue.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
The done & dusted excuse doesn't fly. According to Matthew and Mark's account of Jesus' teaching, a man who divorces his wife and remarries is committing adultery. So divorcees are, by this, in an ongoing state of adultery. According to Paul, adultery is just as much a "salvation issue" as homosexuality. Therefore, with remarried divorcees, there's an intention to carry on in the future doing things afresh over and over again which the Bible certainly seems to forbid.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I do think sins that "we" are not likely to commit are the ones that get targetted, it gives us this nice warm judgemental glow that we're not sinners like them.
Testify.
Hmmmm, reading 1 Cor. 6 again in light of the adultery/divorce pericope, I'm getting the horrible feeling I've been wrong about the motives of many non-affirming evangelicals.
Shit. My attempt to see the good in people gets another kick. Oh well, it's some, not all.
quote:
Although to be fair, being divorced or married to a divorced woman precludes you from being appointed as a Rector in the Sydney Anglican diocese.
One gay priest did give a grudging respect to the "mad sincerity" of conservatives. Though I doubt even Sydney's campaigned for the reinstitution of slavery and coverture of late. All a matter of degree.
They do insist on "biblical" roles for women and that women are to be submissive to their husbands so I don't think coverture is too long a bow to draw, I suspect there would be a number who would support it.
I haven't heard despite asking, why they don't support slavery. What they are also particularly quiet about is the biblical imperative to give away all you have to follow the Lord and common ownership of assets as per the church in Acts, the model upon which we are supposed to be basing our communities.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I think you're being a bit premature, Leo.
This week's edition of The Church Times has a letter from someone (The Revd Bob Yeomans) describing the process in the West Country and it appears far from satisfactory.
It describes something that is micro-managed in the best Soviet style: 4 papers presented; 'facilitators' tasked with reporting back to the powers-that-be, rather than the participants; etc, etc, etc.
I can't give a link because the CT is subscription only but I'm sure a lot of people on the Ship will be able to get a squint at the paper and read for themselves.
In other areas, people who were originally approached have been 'disinvited' and one is bound to wonder if this is because they might be expected to say things that the HoB don't want said, and an attempt to find out how the invitees are arrived at hasn't been successful.
Does that give any of you the feeling that the process is open, honest and above-board?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Our local Chapter (meeting of Anglican clergy)spent a day discussing this, and it was very helpful. Both sides were able to express themselves well and lovingly, and there was a strong sense of supporting each other even when we disagree.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I wonder if members of the House of Bishops are looking across the Irish Sea this morning and seeing just how quickly a seemingly entrenched institution can be sidelined?
According to my Hibernian relatives, its not been the abuse and revelations about the Magdalenes that have done it, its been the pronouncements of the church hierarchy and the fact that they still persist in hiding archives and records.
Are you watching, CofE?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The conversations are now under way and seem to be going well according to reports here.
Do bear in mind that those reports come from one particular side of the fence. Other mileage may vary if, as some claim, the participants have been chosen (or not chosen) to represent specific views.
The real question is what next? Dialogue and conversation have fast become buzz words but what will be agreed and more to the point what will be done?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
Missed edit window ....
Jeremy Pemberton's remarks about the interpretation and place of scripture lie at the heart of the debate I feel. When the CofE's attitude changes to SSM and SSr's (and it will), what next will be thrown out as we further redact the bible in light of "culture"? Will the CofE move down the line of Don Cupitt and the Sea of Faith?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Pffft. Some of them don't even believe in the authenticity of the Johannine comma.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Have no fear, EM: it is becoming clear that the aims of the facilitated conversations (FCs) are:
1. Reaching an understanding on how to 'disagree well' - which is fine, that is how they are advertised.
2. To stifle any meaningful discussion, especially with people whose personal experience of how the current 'don't tell' hypocrisy impacts on people - and that wasn't advertised.
To achieve this last the selection process for people to take part in the FCs is about as opaque as can be achieved, being done by bishops. The published criteria look reasonable on paper (50/50 male-female, some LGBT people, 25% under 40, etc, but those will be hard to meet in some dioceses.
I know 3 people who've been turned down for FCs: 2 are gay, 1 is gay and under 40, 1 is straight but was married to someone who came out as gay. All three have been told that they don't meet the criteria for selection.
The long-grass that they're kicking the ball into is growing ever higher and more luxuriant.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Just to take you off on a bit of a tangent: this Saturday the URC is holding an Extraordinary General Assembly specifically to discuss the issue of allowing (or not) churches to host Same-sex Marriage services if they so wish. They can already choose to be licensed for Civil Partnerships, but I don't know how many have done so.
Union Chapel in Islington has registered for Civil Partnerships, but they are one of the Congregational churches which never joined the URC.
[ 25. June 2015, 15:51: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Union Chapel in Islington is also acting as a concert hall. I suspect that they are desperate to keep the money coming in to keep the fairly spectacular building upright.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I doubt if they make money from Civil Partnerships. It costs a lot to register and they may not recoup it in ceremonies - but I don't know. For them I think it may well have been a matter of principle to offer CPs.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Am getting ready in the next few weeks for my small part in the 'facilitated conversations': spoke briefly to a friend who went for another diocese about the practicalities and they suggested lots of chewing gum, otherwise the temptation to resume smoking might be too great!
The other suggestion was to take alcohol because it might be helpful to have strong drink at the end of the day
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
L'o - best of luck and may everyone participate in BYO
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
