Does the Church of England need evangelicals?

Your statement is nonsenseical to me

 

I have always said "love the sinner and hate the sin" I don't hate anyone

 

That pretty much applies to the sense of the one it is copied from too. which was:

Not doing the right thing when one could have done is a sin of omission and can just as easily get one into the hell that Biblical fundamentalists insist awaits ALL who have sinned, and happen to be also dubious of the effectiveness of the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ, for them. (i.e. unbelieving and therefore not saved).

But what of those sinners who believe in the atonement and resurrection of Christ for them, and intend to live in fidelity with a single partner? Are you suggesting they should not even be regarded as members of Christ's church, having entitlement to all the blessings that entails?

Is a suggestion being tacitly made that because one may not be a sinner, one is then entitled to the blessing of the church upon their intentions to remain faithful to their partner, keeping themselves only unto him/her, but those we claim to be sinners obviously must forfeit any entitlement?
.

 

Quote me the verse that says that having fidelity to one partner sexually entitles you to salvation in Christ

 

That's your interpretation of what "Biblical fundamentalists" say and believe, and rather overstated at that. Eternal punishment does await some, and Jesus indicated that this fate awaits those who are unrepentant of their sins (Luke 13). "ALL who have sinned" is a gross oversimplification of the position, since probably no "Biblical fundamentalist" would say such a thing; after all, even those fine folks have sinned on many occasions (but hopefully they repent each time and turn away from those sins).

Mat 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

Who are they giving 'first place' to in their lives? Is Jesus really their Lord and Master, the One whom they love and strive to obey? Or are they making themselves the lord of their lives, putting their own physical and emotional desires ahead of God's will (even going so far as to trivialize and 'explain away' what God has made plain in scripture concerning his displeasure of homosexual relations)? "By their fruits you will know them." Will they repent before their final hour? Only God knows. But consider how greatly they risk condemnation by God, especially if their actions in and around church mislead youths into similar lifestyles of sinful conduct: Better if they had drowned first, Jesus said (Matt. 18:6-7).

It's not at all a question of what "we" claim, but of what God has said in His written word (and I hope you will give as much credence to it as do the "Biblical fundamentalists" whose love for the Bible you appear to be ridiculing).

I'll give an example and hand the question back to you. I am known in my local parish to be a married man. Suppose I began showing up for Sunday services with a younger woman on my arm whom I introduced as my new lover? Suppose I point out to everyone that my dear wife of many years no longer desires intimate relations, so I am now monogamous with this other young woman? Does my sexual fidelity to one woman at a time show me to be a faithful Christian? Clearly, it would be unloving of the rector or the congregants to 'judge' me, right? They should 'give us a pass' and make a big deal about how inclusive our church is toward sinners, right? What if the other men and women in my church observe the rector's acceptance of this relationship and begin to find sexual partners for themselves and bring them along to church? Would our parish be a good example to the world of Christian love? After all, God understands our physical and emotional needs, and He would never condemn anyone for finding someone to "love" who will meet those temporal needs, isn't that right? I am entitled to the blessings of the church and to God's blessing of my new relationship, isn't that what you are saying?

 

Let us always remember, the main motivator implicit in homosexuality is not love for another person, but sex. Were this about genuine love (not lust), people would have no need to self-identify as homosexuals; they would stay out of each other's beds and would simply be (and let themselves be known as) "best friends." If they lived together, they'd be "best friends who share the housing expense" or simply "roommates." In church they'd be "best friends who worship together." Not "homosexuals."

Which goes to show that the motivation behind open homosexuality within the church walls is to attempt to normalize homosexual activity among Christians so it will no longer be viewed as sinful or aberrant.

 

Not quite! Most gay couples have not previously made solemn vows to 'keep only unto their spouse, until death do them part'. (In fact they are not allowed to do it by the church, in front of a minister and a congregation).

In the example you mention you make no mention of the fact that the congregation member is breaking a solemn vow made before Almighty God. The church cannot be expected to bless that. Otherwise your example is, I admit, to all intents and purposes, food for thought.
.

 

But what is this saying about heterosexuals motivation for being married? Is THAT equally questionable? They also should not behave like 'brute beasts which have no understanding', but reverently discretely and in the fear of God, I'm given to understand. But whether they will or do is left to their conscience alone and no Christian soul should act as a gooseberry in the marriage bedroom along with them to find out if they don't. Are you suggesting ALL single sex 'couples' are incapable of love without behaving like 'brute beasts without understanding', but also ALL heterosexual couples are incapable of lust or sexual sin? There are many physical ways of expressing one's love for one's 'marriage' partner which are not explicitly forbidden by God, and some which ARE even for heterosexual couples. Surely the church has no business prying into such personal sexual relationships to find out if anything 'illegal' is going on, according to God's Law. Particularly since we are supposedly now all living by faith in God's Grace. That should be a matter entirely between themselves, their faith, their consciences and the Omnipresent God who is in the bedroom along with them.

I think the only thing the church would be giving would be it's blessing on what would be a monogamously loving relationship, within the will of God, of two individuals. This is why I do not think it is appropriate to call this kind of relationship 'Marriage', because marriage has always entailed something rather different, as is pointed out in the marriage ceremony itself. Marriage, in its fullest sense also may involve procreation by various means known and accepted by God. That would not be something the church could pray for God's blessing upon, in a single sex relationship

I think the notion that it might be is what raises all the objections.
.

 

Families may also be started with adoption, which is surely worthy of God’s blessing as well.

 

As a general proposition, I agree: the church is not supposed to "pry into". However, that's not what is happening. LGBs currently have a tendency to throw their homosexuality in the church's face, flaunting it and demanding that the church be fully accepting of it. They are being rather militant about it. As I mentioned before, if they instead presented themselves to the church as "very good friends" or "roommates," the only ones objecting would be a few busybodies who whisper gossip and speculate amongst themselves (which might be cause for some repentance on their part, of course). At the very least, their personal policy should be "don't ask, don't tell"; instead many of them seem to have an attitude like, "we're announcing to the church that we're gay, and you all in the church need to get used to that." (And unfortunately, some churches appear to have adopted the attitude, "that's totally cool, and we celebrate your militant gayness with you!")

I'll agree that lust is very often a factor (hopefully never the primary one, but it happens) in a hetero couple's decision to marry. Be that as it may, heterosexual marriage is not forbidden or frowned upon as such by God, and consummation of the marriage bed (which of course can include procreation) are taught in the Bible to be an important and legitimate part of the marriage relationship.

 

Point taken but I wasn't intending to exclude the possibility of 'familes' or the impossibility of pronoucing a blessing for them, just excluding the possibility of obtaining them through a failing attempt at supposed procreation, however briefly pleasurable it may have been for those involved.
.

 

Amen Rexlion! Great minds think alike

 

I appreciate the clarification.

 

Agreed, but not an ESSENTIAL part of ALL marriage relationships. There are many childless marriages, so procreation is not mandatory within even a normal marriage, just naturally blessed and sactified by God within the relationship. This procreation aspect of 'marriage' however is not naturally possible within a single sex relationship. Therefore a request by the church to God, for a blessing, for such, would be futile.
.