Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
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.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Oh, and I'm well aware that it's a dead horse, so I know we will never have a meaningful discussion on the topic, but the whole "the Bible doesn't really condemn homosexual practice, it's just that everyone in every denomination misinterpreted the Bible for two millennia, until sometime in about 1970 we worked out what Saint Paul really meant" crap is total, unmitigated bullshit, and everyone on both sides of the debate knows it. You're only lying to yourselves, and I doubt you even manage to honestly convince yourselves, which is why intelligent discussion of the topic is impossible.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
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.

---

Bad analogy, because of the "too much" part. Gay people have to cut out gayness entirely.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
As is the racist comparison.

---

I'm not sure it is, Matt. The movement for recognition and full inclusion of gays within the church was the result of reflection upon the way in which the church had excluded other groups, including other races.

---

Says who? I don't remember anyone making that comparison back in the 1970s and early 1980s, when there seemed to be more discussion on these issues in church than there is now.

I thought it was the result of gay men and women coming out and wanting to be treated equally - not any reflection on anyone else's part at all.

Yes, I meant "more discussion" then than now. There is a weird disconnection between real chruches and their media representation. Nowadays almost no-one ever mentions this whole business in church or in church meetings. What we see is a lot of journalists telling us that we are obsessed with homosexuality, or with sex in general, when in fact it is almost never talked about at all.

---

Not where you live, I guess. But certainly where I live it's a regular topic of discussion -- more so at church than outside church, in fact, since outside church homosexuality is generally accepted.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
(Missed edit window) a better analogy then would be one of my uncles: he drank too much in his youth owing to an over-fondness to alcohol which has resulted in his liver being damaged so much that he's been told by the medics never to have a drink again. He still has that over-fondness for alcohol and indeed it may be hard-wired into his genes but he hasn't touched a drop for over 5 years. Thus 'too much' has, for him, become 'nothing at all'.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not so uncertain given the weight of Church Tradition in interpreting them.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
This is a link to a letter written by some Oxford clergy setting out the reasons for their opposition to +John's appointment. I've explained time and again this point of view over the years on SOF - it seems that no-one is listening.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
JJ, even accepting that your analogy of slavery is close to the present issue - which I don't - any prophetic action revising Church Tradition in the way described needs to be taken by the Church as a whole, not just a faction doing their own thing in clear defiance of...er...the whole Church.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
(Missed edit window) a better analogy then would be one of my uncles: he drank too much in his youth owing to an over-fondness to alcohol which has resulted in his liver being damaged so much that he's been told by the medics never to have a drink again. He still has that over-fondness for alcohol and indeed it may be hard-wired into his genes but he hasn't touched a drop for over 5 years. Thus 'too much' has, for him, become 'nothing at all'.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
The examples are good ones, albeit ones outside of the immediate contemporary context of the Anglican Communion. Of the three, Luther is the one who causes me the most problems, I guess, at first blush since both St Paul (Council of Jerusalem) and St Francis (+++Innocent III) had their actions subsequently commended by the Church pretty quickly. So that leaves Luther, who creates something of a problem for me in that his actions were not endorsed by the (Western) Church; however, unlike the present case, he did have a fair weight of Tradition on his side - as well as Scripture - as well as his beloved St Augustine and other ECFs, he also had more recent luminaries such as St Anselm on his side, and his break with Rome was about his insistence that the western Church revert to teaching as it had in the past and drop what (he at least perceived to be) recent innovative practices; he did not demand that it teach something which it had never taught before. The stance of the 'provisional NH wing' of TEC, on the other hand, seems to me to be, "Tradition is either wrong or needs to be reinterpreted (as does Scripture) on this subject, and the Church has consistently got it wrong for the last 2000 years. Sorry, but this customer ain't buying.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
The use of 'customer' was unfortunate and smacks of consumerism, I guess; what I meant by it is that I'm being asked to remain in communion with those whose practices I regard as sinful. That gives me a problem.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the_raptor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
Being gay is not like wanting to commit adultry or whatever. It's not the orientation to do 'naughty things'. It's an orientation to love and to want to be loved in a particular way.

---

And the difference between being gay and being a polyamourist is?

---

The fact that you even pose that question speaks volumes. Why not go the whole hog and ask how homosexuality differs from paedophilia?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
[QUOTE] There is a weird disconnection between real chuches and their media representation. Nowadays almost no-one ever mentions this whole business in church or in church meetings. What we see is a lot of journalists telling us that we are obsessed with homosexuality, or with sex in general, when in fact it is almost never talked about at all.

---

Not where you live, I guess. But certainly where I live it's a regular topic of discussion -- more so at church than outside church, in fact, since outside church homosexuality is generally accepted.

---

quote:

---

We discuss what the Bible says about homosexuality on a regular basis. I lead a newcomer's class four times a year at my church, and someone asks about the church's interpretation of those six or seven verses dealing with same-gender sexual relations every single time.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by the_raptor:
Now, answer the question. Why are you accepting of monogamous relationships and not non-monogamous ones? Why are the FOCA's being called exclusivist hate mongers for not accepting gays, but it is okay to exclude polyamourists?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
The use of 'customer' was unfortunate and smacks of consumerism, I guess; what I meant by it is that I'm being asked to remain in communion with those whose practices I regard as sinful. That gives me a problem.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
The examples are good ones, albeit ones outside of the immediate contemporary context of the Anglican Communion. Of the three, Luther is the one who causes me the most problems, I guess, at first blush since both St Paul (Council of Jerusalem) and St Francis (+++Innocent III) had their actions subsequently commended by the Church pretty quickly. So that leaves Luther, who creates something of a problem for me in that his actions were not endorsed by the (Western) Church; however, unlike the present case, he did have a fair weight of Tradition on his side - as well as Scripture - as well as his beloved St Augustine and other ECFs, he also had more recent luminaries such as St Anselm on his side, and his break with Rome was about his insistence that the western Church revert to teaching as it had in the past and drop what (he at least perceived to be) recent innovative practices; he did not demand that it teach something which it had never taught before. The stance of the 'provisional NH wing' of TEC, on the other hand, seems to me to be, "Tradition is either wrong or needs to be reinterpreted (as does Scripture) on this subject, and the Church has consistently got it wrong for the last 2000 years. Sorry, but this customer ain't buying.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Not where you live, I guess. But certainly where I live it's a regular topic of discussion -- more so at church than outside church, in fact, since outside church homosexuality is generally accepted.

---

As it is here, more or less.

In practice Christians, even Evangelicals, do [accept homosexuality?] as well. Even those who do not think a homosexual partnership is the same thing as a marriage and do not think they should be marked in the same way in church.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Gay partnerships are exactly the same thing in every way as heterosexual ones are, with one exception that has no effect on what marriage is: the union two people who dedicate their lives to one another and to whatever children (or others) may become part of the family. Not at all the same thing as polyamoury, which explicitly breaks the "faithful, monogamous" definition (and essence, I believe) of Christian marriage.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Monogamy is the clear Biblical standard; polygamy

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by the_raptor:
And the FOCA's would add "between a man and a woman" to "faithful and monogamous", and they would have extensive biblical support for that definition. Even if you argue away any biblical condemnation of homosexuality, you are left with the fact that every mention of marriage is in the context of heterosexuality.

And who says polyamourists can't be faithful inside their larger definition of "marriage" or "committed relationship"?

Pure bigotry. Gays are "people like us", and polyamourists are outsiders and scapegoats.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
So you would argue that gay people should never go on a date, or hold hands with a beloved, or kiss someone they love, or dedicate themselves to caring for another human being.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
How do you defend this? Particularly given the fact that God Himself says, upon watching Adam among the creatures, that "It is not good for the man to be alone"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Why are you advocating exactly the opposite thing? You are violating a clear Biblical standard; how come?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(BTW, polyamourists are permitted all those things. Oh, unless they're gay, of course....)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adrian1:
I just think it's terribly sad that there are some in the Anglican Communion, most notably in what's sometimes referred to as the 'Global South' who are prepared to sacrifice the church's unity over an issue which is barely mentioned in the Bible and over which there's unlikely to ever be a consensus. Although I'm no Biblical scholar by any means, I'm very certain that Our Lord said nothing whatsoever in the Gospels about what grown up people who love each other choose to do in private. He did say a great deal about His followers loving one another and he prayed at some considerable length that they 'might be one' - united so that the world might believe. As a non-Biblical scholar, the only reference to homosexual practice that I'm aware of is in Romans Chapter 1 and it's by no means clear exactly what the writer's saying because he doesn't offer any elaboration on what is the briefest of brief statements. Even people who claim to have a scholarly knowledge of the Bible and, trust me, I'm not one of them, are by no means agreed as to what's referred to - hence the current situation. It is all very sad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the_raptor:
And who says polyamourists can't be faithful inside their larger definition of "marriage" or "committed relationship"?

Pure bigotry. Gays are "people like us", and polyamourists are outsiders and scapegoats.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
The use of 'customer' was unfortunate and smacks of consumerism, I guess; what I meant by it is that I'm being asked to remain in communion with those whose practices I regard as sinful. That gives me a problem.

---

I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly here, Matt, but it seems that you are saying that what I interpreted your primary beef with ssm to be (ie unilateral action in the face of a lack of communion wide consensus) is, in a sense, secondary to your willingness to share communion with those who view these matters differently. Is this last statement of yours the your definative position? As I have said, I can appreciate a difference in view about the appropriateness or otherwise of a specific action by a specific group of people, such as the bishop and people of New Hampshire. I have certain reservations about that myself, though I think it hardly a communion breaking issue. But to refuse to share communion with others because you have an honestly held theological difference with them (ie the licitness of homosexual acts within a marriage-like committed and covenanted relationship) seems to me quite another thing. How do you reconcile that with Paul's warnings in Corinthians about failing to discern the body of Christ in communion? Isn't the logical upshot of this that you are actually saying that those who hold the contrary view are not Christians at all.

---

With respect, there seem to be a couple of conceptual conflations going on above:-

1. The conflation of belief and practice. Opinion is one thing; the fact that I am in disagreement with other Anglicans as to whether same-sex sexual practices are sinful creates its own problems of course between us but not of the same order of magnitude as actions: the Anglican Communion has essentially (Lambeth 1998 and the Windsor Covenant) asked for certain actions not to be taken, and its discipline has been ignored. To give you a Catholic example, I know quite a few Catholics on the progressive wing of that Church who disagree with the Magisterium over issue such as the DH under discussion here, plus ordination of women and celibacy of the clergy; however none of these individuals would dream of eg: ordaining an practising homosexual, or a woman, or a married individual, in defiance of that Magisterium (or at least if they did they realise that they would be putting themselves beyond the pale). Rather they hope and pray (and talk) that the Magisterium will change tack on these issues. It's the hearty "f*** you" that certain parts of TEC and AC-Can have said to the rest of the AC that is, as I see it, the primary and potentially communion-breaking issue

2. Conflation of 'not being in communion with' with 'not regarding others as Christians'. Most of my mother's family are Catholic. As such, thanks to their Magisterium, they are not allowed to regard themselves as being in communion with me, yet none of them regards me as anything less than a Christian (as far as I know!). I guess that that is what I am possibly saying about the NH crowd and their supporters - they're Christians (as far as I know anyone to be Christian) but I'm not sure that we're still in full communion with each other as part of the same Church. Dunno.

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
The examples are good ones, albeit ones outside of the immediate contemporary context of the Anglican Communion. Of the three, Luther is the one who causes me the most problems, I guess, at first blush since both St Paul (Council of Jerusalem) and St Francis (+++Innocent III) had their actions subsequently commended by the Church pretty quickly. So that leaves Luther, who creates something of a problem for me in that his actions were not endorsed by the (Western) Church; however, unlike the present case, he did have a fair weight of Tradition on his side - as well as Scripture - as well as his beloved St Augustine and other ECFs, he also had more recent luminaries such as St Anselm on his side, and his break with Rome was about his insistence that the western Church revert to teaching as it had in the past and drop what (he at least perceived to be) recent innovative practices; he did not demand that it teach something which it had never taught before. The stance of the 'provisional NH wing' of TEC, on the other hand, seems to me to be, "Tradition is either wrong or needs to be reinterpreted (as does Scripture) on this subject, and the Church has consistently got it wrong for the last 2000 years. Sorry, but this customer ain't buying.

---

You do realize that's your opinion (and the Western Protestant church's) for Luther. Ask a Roman Catholic or an Orthodox about the changes that Luthur brought about in Christianity and they will surely say that Luthur changed Tradition.

---

quote:

---

St. Francis certainly didn't go ask the church anything when he started. He simply did what he felt he had to do (and then got brought up to the church authorities after he ticked the local ones off). He started a new church without asking. He just decided that it had to be done (as he felt that the church was excluding people), so he did it.

---

quote:

---

And read much of Paul's writings and you see that the Jew/Gentile problem wasn't easily or quickly solved and Paul had to continue to push and pull against Tradition in order to get it changed. We see it as pretty clear cut. They didn't.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

2. Conflation of 'not being in communion with' with 'not regarding others as Christians'. Most of my mother's family are Catholic. As such, thanks to their Magisterium, they are not allowed to regard themselves as being in communion with me, yet none of them regards me as anything less than a Christian (as far as I know!). I guess that that is what I am possibly saying about the NH crowd and their supporters - they're Christians (as far as I know anyone to be Christian) but I'm not sure that we're still in full communion with each other as part of the same Church. Dunno.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I think the two situations are more equivalent than you'd like in that behind the Catholic canonical prohibition lies the same sort of reasoning. So, is +++Benedict guilty of not discerning the body of Christ?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
But here we have a bishop of the AC saying and doing that which the AC has said 'no' to.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Returning to the Catholic parallel, the analogy there would be if say, +Crispian Hollis (the nearest Catholic bishop to where I'm typing) were to announce that he was living with his male partner and that he saw nothing wrong in that. What advice would you give a Catholic as to whether +Crispian was in full communion with him or her?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

St. Francis certainly didn't go ask the church anything when he started. He simply did what he felt he had to do (and then got brought up to the church authorities after he ticked the local ones off). He started a new church without asking. He just decided that it had to be done (as he felt that the church was excluding people), so he did it.

---

Really?? I wasn't aware that St Francis had started a new church. What's it called?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

And read much of Paul's writings and you see that the Jew/Gentile problem wasn't easily or quickly solved and Paul had to continue to push and pull against Tradition in order to get it changed. We see it as pretty clear cut. They didn't.

---

But no separate ecclesial body emerged - it was thrashed out through consensus.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubifex Maximus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the_raptor:
And who says polyamourists can't be faithful inside their larger definition of "marriage" or "committed relationship"?

Pure bigotry. Gays are "people like us", and polyamourists are outsiders and scapegoats.

---

I'm still more mystified by this. I'm not aware that the church sanctions polyamoury, apart from the fundementalist LDS. It's true that polygamy is to be found in the early part of the bible. In any case this is a difference of catagory, isn't it? A gay man or a straight man may choose to be polyamourous or Monogamous while remaining gay or straight. You seem to be confusing nature with choice.

---