A number of Church of England married homosexual clergy and laity have written a letter to the House of Bishops in support of “the full inclusion of LGBTI people in the Church”. You can read the letter here.
It was also sent to the Sunday Times, making it more of a political machination than anything else, particularly coming hot on the heels of the announcement by the Bishop of Grantham that he is in a “gay relationship”, albeit a celibate one. What exactly is a celibate gay relationship? Two men who just cuddle in bed? I haven’t seen it explained anywhere.
Also lacking an explanation is how the bisexual element mentioned in the letter is to experience “full inclusion” since, for optimal satisfaction – and, let’s face it, that’s what this is all about – the Bs in the LGBTI huddle would need to marry two people, one of each sex.
What I find most interesting in the letter is the list of signatories. It comprises 50% clergy and 50% laity. I’m sure the overall ratio of clergy to laity is not one to one, so it seems apparent that the Anglican church has a disproportionate number of homosexual clergy in its otherwise rapidly shrinking ranks. The Anglican obsession with marrying people of the same sex is primarily one of clergy desperate to legitimise their unbiblical matrimonial arrangements.
Here is the list:
Clergy
The Revd Andrew Foreshew-Cain and Stephen Foreshew-Cain
The Revd Richard Harris and Ricardo Goncalves.
The Revd Garry Lawson and Timothy H. Wane
The Revd Clive Larson and John Markham
The Revd Paul Collier and Mr Collier
The Revd Canon Jeremy Davis and Simon McEnery
The Revd Geoffrey Thompson and Tony Steeles
The Revd Prof Mark Cobb and Keith Arrowsmith
Laity
Jeremy Timm & Mike Brown
Ruth Wilde & Ellie Wilde
Jack Semple and Ross Griffiths
Paul Jellings and Andrew Carter
Erica Baker and Susan Strong
Karen and Samantha Bregazzi-Jones
Keith Barber and Tim Mills
Simon Dawson and David Mooney
In addition a further seven clergy couples and Readers have indicated their support for this letter whilst wishing to remain anonymous in order to protect themselves, and often their Bishops, from attack.
I realize that I am displaying my ignorance here, but what is the I for? Inchoate comes to mind, as do a few others. But what does it signify?
I presume it stands for Intersex.
Actually, any attempt by the LGBT* people to co-opt the
asexual and the (medically-defined) intersexed is asymmetrical.
Largely, the asexual are uninterested in LGBT* politics, and those with an intersex condition want to be left just as they were formed in utero and be not viewed has having an abnormality
that necessitates surgical “correction”. Both the asexual and
the intersex rejection of a normative concept of a male and
female dichotomy with normative expectations of maleness and
femaleness is of a genus separate from the LGBT* rhetoric.
When “Go…and Tell” + Matthew 28:7 is supplanted by ‘Ask and Tell!”, that Church ceases to be the True Church.
These people write, “ . . . it is time to respect that a diversity of theology within the Church now exists and that there is more than one understanding of what a faithful Christian may believe on these issues”: time to respect apostasy and ignorance of legitimate theology, as in the rejection of authentic Christianity? I do not think so!
At a well known Canadian, so-called Anglican college, many years ago, the chaplain wrote that she had “moved beyond Christianity”. That college had no problems with such an apparent contradiction. IMO, the whole Anglican Church has moved beyond Christianity—well beyond it. It’s taken me some time to discern that the Anglican Church is definitely not Catholic in any meaningful way: in contradiction to the Creed, many believe that God is not “the Father Almighty” but feminine in some way. Individual parishes, full of people, including many clergy it seems, who are utterly ignorant of both the Bible and theology, vote on doctrinal matters: that is congregationalism.
Starting nearly three decades ago, I “dialogued” with many leaders of the Anglican Church about its falling away from orthodoxy: a lot of good it did me. I was stonewalled at every turn. Being a non-supporter of abortion (now euthanasia too) and same-sex marriage, which was discussed in our parish via the gerrymandered, pre-programmed atrocity out of 600 Jarvis Street, I was given the cold shoulder all around. Strange behaviour for “tolerant, diversity-loving, inclusive” types, n’est-ce pas? Twelve years ago, I finally threw in the towel. I’m now a Catholic and, as I watch the Anglican Church beclown itself over and over, I haven’t regretted my decision for one nano-second.
The Anglican Church is demonstrably apostate: as I can’t, perhaps others here can name the multiple heresies. Why don’t the heretics just rename themselves, toss out the Bible and BCP (which I still love and keep beside my computer) and rewrite their own religion? Kyrie eleison.
If I remember correctly, more than 15 years ago when he commented on the future of the Christian church, Dr. Alister E. McGrath only mentioned Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Pentecostalism, and Evangelicalism. He omitted Anglicanism. Perhaps he saw no future in his own denomination.
Personally, I’d never commit myself to any man, and I’d urge any man not to commit himself to any woman, who was in favour of ANY sexual vice. Sooner or later, that may so easily turn, as it has done in cases known to me, into a matter of the pot’s calling the kettle white.
“ANY sexual vice”.
I would be very grateful indeed if you could provide me with a list. A clear, honest, specific list.
Vincent, you do strain my resolve to ensure that all that I contribute here is both kind and honest.
To be “clear”, I am 78, and have been taught and examined by great ones, including Professors Godfrey Driver, John Emerton, George Kilpatrick, William McHardy, Hugh Montefiore, Charlie Moule, Emanuel Tov and William Horbury. All had submitted and learned minds, and knew the meaning of argument, proof and illustration. Is it genuinely your expectation that you could qualify to be of that company?
Lk. 10:25 On one occasion an expert in the Law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
Start with this article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23488230?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents and get yourself thus late in the day a copy of https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Homosex-Priscilla-D-M-Turner/dp/1482347865/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1366258469&sr=1-1&keywords=holy+homosex .
I suppose you could start with Acts 15 and try to guide Vincent from that point. Or you could just ignore him. I think most of us have chosen the latter.
Is anal sex with a married partner of the opposite gender a sexual vice?
Is oral sex with a married partner of the opposite gender a sexual vice?
Is masturbation a sexual vice?
I’m not being facetious or precious, and that such questions apparently strain your resolve both surprises me and makes me wonder if this place isn’t just a safe place for hurting Anglicans or a true interface for exchange.
I suppose the first question is, “Married to who(m?)
Vincent, I would be interested to know why you think any of your above examples would be considered vices, or why you think we would think they were. In other words, where in the Bible do you think they are directly addressed?
Masturbation: Genesis 38: 8-9. I don’t personally think the passage is an interdiction to masturbate, but it has long been invoked to make the practice appear sinful.
I don’t think the Bible addresses the other two, though I may be wrong. But they certainly have been taught as vices by many long standing Christian traditions. That’s the point, isn’t it? Christians across the ages cannot agree on what actually constitutes sin on such a granular level (not that that’s peculiar to Christians only).
If the sexual acts I listed are not vices, I’m left wondering what Dr. Priscilla Turner had in mind when she said “any sexual vice”, implying (it seems to me) that there are others beside homosexuality.
How about bondage and S&M between consenting married heterosexuals? I don’t think that mentioned in the Bible. Would that be a sexual vice?
I mean, are we saying that the only sexual vice we’re getting het up about is homosexuality. Seems rather tough on Teh Gays.
Incest, bestiality and adultery are three that come to mind without looking any further. And I don’t think we consider any of these any less or any greater than same-sex genital activity. I do agree with you that the episode in Gen 38 has nothing to do with masturbation, but the passages against homosexual sexual activity are way clearer than that one.