Does the Church of England need evangelicals?

You had said:

Those 3 items are what I believe he's referring to in his answers above. It would appear you have found some common ground.

 

Ah I see now from where the confusion emanates. I was thinking that they were subjects for discussion and, as such, possibly false statements rather than questions. But yes, it's nice to have some agreement for a change. Sorry about that @Tom Barrial, my mistake.
.

 

"Sodomite" was the usual translation of the Greek arsenokoites until the 1940's or so. The KJV renders it as "abusers of themselves with mankind" in 1 Cor. 6:9. The NKJV still uses the word "sodomites". The NIV uses the grammatically-clunky "men who have sex with men". The NET uses "practicing homosexuals" (perhaps to draw attention to the fact that the sin lies in the behavior itself). The ESV combines malakoi and arsenokoites into "men who practice homosexuality".

 

Sorry to be unclear. All religious people are not bigots, a lil all capitalists are not greedy, and all homosexuals are not promiscuous,in my opinion.

 

Quite so! That was the reaction I was hoping would be forthcoming from most reasonable forum members. Since I want the whole of humanity to appreciate what Jesus Christ has done for us, I would be happy to see anyone who fits into any of these categories, and others, in church. Church is not a club for only holy people. It is a sanitorium for the healing of sin-sick humanity and Jesus Christ himself is the Managing Director and the Senior Surgeon and Chief Psychiatrist. Anyone He welcomes is welcome to education and sanctification, however long it may take.
.

 

Church is the hospital tent on the battlefield. Sadly we have too many victims of friendly fire.

 

Which is why some homsexuals wish to pledge thier troth to one another for their lives long, (whether or not we may approve of that), they are hoping and believing that God does, since God disaproves of infidelity because of the damage it does to families and human relationships. Just the same as with heteroxual couples who are equally as capable of fidelity or sexual sin.
.

 

Engaging in depravity with fidelity.... yes, that should score big points with God.

 

Then Jesus stooped down again and wrote in the dust.

 

Did Jesus say, if one is going to commit adultery then one should have fidelity and stick to a single adulterous partner? Or did He subsequently tell her, "go and sin no more"?

Besides, I am speaking to a broad principle, not standing with stone in hand waiting to kill an individual.

 

Are you saying that some people think that by doing an act of fidelity will get you into heaven?

 

Our Father in Heaven,
hallowed be your Name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
And forgive us our sins
as we forgive those
who sin against us.
Save us from the time of trial,
and deliver us from evil.
For the kingdom, the power,
and the glory are yours,
now and forever. Amen.​

What concerns me about the general tenor of the arguments being put is that they do not sound like the forgiveness of the gospel. They sound more like law than love. They seem to nudge into the zone where we are required to do things to earn salvation, rather than the simple acceptance of grace in Christ Jesus. Pelagianism is, the last time I looked, still a heresy.

Now I remember when I was growing up being taught that being black was the mark of Cain - something I have long since rejected as a distortion.
I also remember singing the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate, He made them high and lowly and ordered their estate - something else I have now rejected.

Now we are confronted with the whole LGBTQIabc... issues in the current age. We are presented with an argument that it is 'who they are' rather than something that they do. Sadly of course how we feel about this seems to be a church-splitting issue, and even more sadly, it is our church that it is splitting.

The goal for all of us is to be more like Christ. When I hear long arguments against a group of people who are not like us, I wonder if we are presenting a goal to be 'normal' rather than to be 'like Jesus'.

Grace is fundamentally more challenging than judgment, and a whole lot harder to do.

 

​

As I said before, I'm not condemning any individuals. The Lord's Prayer is not to the point, because the prayer says we forgive those who sin "against us"; when some persons whom I don't know engage in homosexual lust or physical activity, they are not trespassing (sinning) against me, rather they are sinning against God. It is not my role to forgive those who sin against God. I am called upon to forgive those who sin against me.

Forgiveness of sin is not equivalent to justification of sin. A Christian can forgive people who do him wrong, yet still make a reasonable and rational judgment that wrong has been (or is being) committed. Moreover, a Christian most certainly can look at sin in the world (whether it be greed, theft, denying the existence of God, lust, murder, etc.) and rightly judge it to be sin. We are in agreement that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ and cannot be earned, yet Jesus did tell people to conduct themselves properly and to avoid sin.

I don't understand where this is coming from, because no one here is saying or believing that it is "who they are." It is "what they do" that is objectionable... in that point, you and I agree entirely!

Jesus demonstrated love toward people, yet Jesus also demonstrated intolerance toward sin and often called a spade "a spade" when unrighteousness was involved. I see certain parts of the church over-emphasizing the 'love' part of Jesus' message to the detriment of both holiness and good sense. The church, in imitating Jesus, should likewise resist and speak out against sin.

 

Are you saying that some people think that by not doing an act of fidelity will not get you into hell?
.

 

Easy does it. Forgiveness of sin whilst not equivalent to the justification of sin - yet most certainly is the justification of the sinner.

In Greek Justification and Righteousness are strongly interconnected and part of the same root. This is worth remembering when reading, especially in Romans. Whilst it is advisable for Christians to avoid sin, our identity is not grounded in what we are against, but rather in what we are for.

Whether the Lord's Prayer is to the point or not is a matter I will leave you to take up with Jesus.

However, people are likely to say 'I'm gay' rather than 'I do gay things'. That is grounded in an understanding of it being an ontological proposition, rather than a teleological proposition. This is one of the fundamental causes of the dissonance on this subject. It is very reminiscent of Tillich's discussion of Ontology Teleology and Epistemology in his Systematic Theology. (it used to grace my shelves and appears to be 'on loan' or otherwise absent, so I can't get a direct quote for you). I will say he is a bit like Paul in that he is very hard to understand!

I sense that a lot of Jesus' intolerance toward sin was more particularly directed to abuse of the religious positions, hypocrisy, and up-your-selfness. When confronted by the woman caught 'in the very act ...' Jesus is very aware of those who were preposterous enough to bring her to Jesus as if she was doing it on her own, and very specifically Jesus does not condemn her. Of course, I see that it was not an endorsement of sin.

Interestingly we have no idea what Jesus wrote in the dust.

 

My starting point is the understanding from scripture that homosexual lust and homosexual physical intimacy are sins, as are any other sexual lusts or sins. If you disagree with that, none of the following will be at all helpful or meaningful.

Indeed, this goes to the very root of the matter. So let's explore it.

Is it "an ontological proposition"? Is homosexuality a matter of who or what some people are? I would say, yes and no. Here's why.

We all are sinners, on that we all can agree. From the standpoint of us all being born with a fallen nature that draws us toward sin, "sinners" is what we are. However, when we became Christians and the Holy Spirit first indwelt us, we were changed. Spiritually speaking, we are renewed and reborn. Scripture says we no longer are slaves to sin; we have been given by God the capacity to resist sin (we are called to 'side' with the spirit and to not yield our bodies to the temptations we experience, Romans 6:1-13, and God will not give us more than we are able to resist, 1 Cor. 10:13). Our old self was buried with Christ in baptism and we were raised to new life in Him; our lives are hidden in Christ (Col. 3:3) and we are told (v. 2) to set our minds on things above (God's grace and power to deliver us from evil) rather than things on earth (what we have been/are being delivered from).

Therefore, no Christian would rightly say, "I'm proud to be a sinner!" When a Christian admits that he is a sinner by (his old fallen) nature, he says it with a sense of shame and with a grateful, thankful heart to God for all He's done to renew and deliver the person by His grace.

From one standpoint, "sinner" is what we are. And yet, from another standpoint, we are not stuck in that condition. We will still stumble often, but we are called to also view ourselves as (ontologically) redeemed children of God. This is because God has placed in us a new nature, and we are called upon to take up (and act in accordance with) that new nature.

Eph, 4:18-24 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. But that is not the way you learned Christ!— assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

Anyone who identifies personally as "a sinner who is lost in sin" is not a converted disciple of Jesus Christ. (Nor is someone who identifies as "proud to be a sinner." Nor is someone who denies that his sins are sins!)

Now let's consider the implications of all this. As sinners saved by grace (redeemed children of God, people called to "put off" our old selves and to "put on" our new selves), do we Christians rightly self-identify by the sins we are drawn to? For example, under what circumstance would it be appropriate for you or I to announce our identity with a sense of pride rather than of shame, "I am an adulterer Christian," or, "I am a greedy Christian," or, "I am a sex-lusting Christian"? Should we expect rectors and congregations to acknowledge such self-identifications as normal, appropriate, and welcome? If some Christians or churches attempt to correct our misconceptions and tell us that such self-identification is unscriptural and inappropriate, does that make them "unloving" or "bigoted" or "intolerant"? Of course not. In truth, it is more appropriate for you and I to identify ourselves simply as "Christians" and to neither take pride in nor seek to justify our temptations and base desires. If we mention those desires at all, it should be done with a sense of humility and with acknowledgement of God's grace working in us to help us overcome the shortcomings.

Therefore, the Christian (redeemed by Christ and born again by the Spirit) who feels yearnings for same-sex intimate physical relations should be counseled and taught (from the Bible and by the surrounding Christian community) who he now is in Christ. Ontologically he is no longer "a proud gay" or "a proud lesbian" but is now a humble sinner saved by God's grace; he is now a Christian who is called by Christ to strive to put away the old self with its yearnings for sinful satisfactions. He should rightly recognize and acknowledge the wrongness of giving in to those desires, as well as the wrongness of misrepresenting same-sex orientation as a 'good thing', a thing to take pride in, or a thing to promote and encourage among peers. (Note: a church which fails to so counsel and teach, but which instead takes actions that tend to suggest it's okay to identify as an LGB Christian, is at the very least remiss in its duties.)

Such desires might feel at times like a very great burden, but the reality of that burden is little different from the reality of the temptation burdens each one of us carries. I have burdens of temptations, too.... don't you? But let us not speak of them (let alone lift them up with pride, or take delight in identifying ourselves with our sinful desires), for that would be neither dignified nor edifying. Instead, may each Christian rejoice and take comfort in his Savior and in the ongoing salvific work of the Holy Spirit who renews us daily (2 Cor. 4:16).

In summation, I agree that the spiritually unredeemed LGB person is ontologically lesbian, gay, or bisexual. I disagree that the same is true of the spiritually redeemed, renewed, reborn Christian, because ontologically he is a new creation in Christ.

 

I think you are saying that conversion/redemption de-ontologises a person's basic nature, in this case, their sexuality.

Romans 6:1-4
What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin go on living in it? o you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.​

I think if it was easy, which it clearly seems to be for you, it would not be splitting our Church. Our Bishop is one of a number championing the cause here in Australia and at odds with his Metropolitan over it. I believe not in the infallibility of Popes or Bishops so I can live with that, I don't simply jump to a default position of presuming my Bishop to be an enemy of the Gospel.

 

Sexuality can be used for good or for evil. We can (indeed we are supposed to) govern it rather than let it govern us. As Christians, we know that the Holy Spirit is with us and in us, acting as a counselor and helper, giving us the strength to govern ourselves in obedience to His will and word.

I'm not saying it's always easy for any of us to govern ourselves (proof of that is all the things we still do wrong... but without conversion we'd almost certainly be sinning much more frequently and severely). I think the sex drive can be such a powerful motivator, it can lead (and has led) some people to 'rationalize away' the plain words of scripture so they may ease their prickling consciences. Whether those in the church who engage in this are truly converted or not, only God knows for certain, yet it is the church's duty to stay on track with communicating the message of the full word of God.