From here:
“Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ
In recent days, questions have been asked about the Church of England’s attitude to new legislation in several countries that penalises people with same-sex attraction. In answer to these questions, we have recalled the common mind of the Primates of the Anglican Communion, as expressed in the Dromantine Communiqué of 2005.
The Communiqué said;
‘….we wish to make it quite clear that in our discussion and assessment of moral appropriateness of specific human behaviours, we continue unreservedly to be committed to the pastoral support and care of homosexual people.
The victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us. We assure homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by Him and deserving the best we can give – pastoral care and friendship.’
We hope that the pastoral care and friendship that the Communiqué described is accepted and acted upon in the name of the Lord Jesus.
We call upon the leaders of churches in such places to demonstrate the love of Christ and the affirmation of which the Dromantine communiqué speaks.”
Yours in Christ,
+Justin Cantuar +Sentamu Eboracensis
The church, once again, is permitting its agenda to be set more by cultural priorities – and there can be little doubt that our society is obsessively preoccupied with homosexuality – than God’s. If it were the other way around, I can’t help suspecting that there would be at least the occasional ecclesiastical Communiqué calling for protection for the unborn. But that, of course, is not something that would be universally popular and the last thing that Western Anglicanism is interested in is being less than culturally relevant.
As expected, the emphasis is on pastoral care for same-sex attracted individuals – so long as no one is encouraged to resist same-sex attraction. This will inexorably lead, as we have discovered in North America, to blanket approval of homosexual activity within committed, faithful, monogamous relationships.
“and there can be little doubt that our society is obsessively preoccupied with homosexuality”
You astound me. You _never_ talk about it, David. 🙂
“This will inexorably lead, as we have discovered in North America, to blanket approval of homosexual activity within committed, faithful, monogamous relationships.”
But … (to play Devil’s advocate here) wouldn’t God bless such relationships if they contain those three items? I mean, surely God looks favourably if they are kept faithful and monogamous and have Jesus in the relationship?
Are we sure we’re on the right side of history in all this?
If you are going to “have Jesus in the relationship” than you also must accept everything that God has taught us through His Holy Bible, and that includes:
1) That all homosexual activity is a sin
2) That all sexual activity outside of marriage is a sin
3) That marriage is when God joins a man to his wife, making marriage an exclusively heterosexual relationship
Thus it is simply impossible for the “faithful” part of “committed, faithful, monogamous” to be any part of a homosexual “marriage”.
4) That we should actually put homosexuals to death. 🙁
Hello Vincent,
I assume you are getting your 4) from Leviticus.
But as I pointed out you must accept everything that God has taught, and that includes John 8:7. So although unrepentant sinners will still suffer death it shall not be at our mortal hands, for it is not for us sinners to be throwing stones at each other.
Let’s be clear on the verse that we are talking about….
Lev 20:13: If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.
Vincent makes a very good point. We all pick and choose parts of the Bible to believe literally.
If you take that passage in isolation from everything else that God has taught us than you would likely come to the wrong conclusion that we are to execute homosexuals. But we do not have the luxury of picking and choosing over God’s Holy Bible like it was some sort of buffet lunch. We must accept all of it.
Jesus did not change the fact that sex outside of marriage (which He affirms is strictly heterosexual) is a sin, and therefore all homosexual acts remain sinful.
What Jesus did is to give us a more thorough understanding of many things. As we see in Romans 1 there is a list of things for which a person deserves death, homosexual acts being included in this list. But with the more thorough understanding that Jesus has given us we are now aware of the fact that we are not the ones who are to pass judgment and certainly not the ones who are to impose punishment. That God reserves for Himself.
So I maintain that those who engage in homosexual acts and refuse to : 1) confess, and 2) repent are condemning themselves to God’s Judgment, and most likely also spending the rest of eternity burning in hell.
AMP – I am not arguing with your two points listed at the end of your comment. What I am saying is that the Lev passage appears to clearly say that we put them to death now… as in using capital punishment.
Like you, in light of other passages, I agree that this is not what we should do. But this proves my point. We all choose to take some passage literally and other passages metaphorically or “in light of other passages.”
“…the Lev passage appears to clearly say that we put them to death now…”
No it doesn’t. It called on the people of the time to do so. I suppose if you insist on living under the old covenant (or if you are a Muslim) you might argue that is still the case, but as Christians we are no longer under that old covenant. We need to take New Testament teaching into account – that Jesus pointed out that all foods are clean, for instance. However, nowhere did Jesus or the Apostles relax the guidelines on sexual immorality. In fact, they were very much reinforced.
Thanks AMP.
No one is suggesting that homosexuals be put to death. The reality is that we ALL have that old nature within us – that is our sinful nature – and that varies from one individual to another. Some are more susceptible to sexual sin and others are more susceptible to other sin. Regardless we must constantly fight against this sinful nature and seek the Lord. When the church agrees to so-called blessing of any sinful activity, it ceases to be a Christian church.
Turn to the Word of God to guide us
Right, so according to you guys, what Christ actually did was let us off the hook when it comes to doing God’s will and executing homosexuals, and instead give us leave to be smugly judgemental about them and making sure they feel terrible about being alive. That makes being a Christian, in this particular regard, really easy. That’s awesome.
Another splendid example of a straw man, confusing (perhaps dishonestly and deliberately, perhaps not) who people are with what they do. The Bible, as far as I can tell, is silent on homosexuality as an orientation, and we Christians should be loving and caring toward homosexual people.
But that does not change the reality that sexual activity between people of the same sex is outside God’s guidelines.
Having said that, it brings us to the next popular straw man – that people with same gender orientation are not free to love who they want. No! That is confusing, or equating, love with sex. No one is free to have sex with whomever they want and remain within God’s guidelines.
So it’s not about love is it? It’s all about sex.
Enjoy your version of the religion, man. As if the one you follow isn’t significantly different from a bunch of other versions over the centuries. But a version of Christianity that really really has a problem with a choice (of course it’s a choice! Like being a Christian, in fact) that does not create any victims (and yes, I’m thinking of the children too) is missing something fundamental (ha! Bum joke) about life. You’re making God sound like a headcase. Not Christ, interestingly, but God.
I mean, honestly, do you guys only ever interact with sincere joy with anyone outside of your specific group?
What????
I like the four question marks. Nice touch.