I agree with your statement here, to a point (but I’d also like to address something you stated a few pages back). I think you said something to the effect that my own bias against the liberal direction many mainline churches are taking is itself pharisaic. Here you point to outdated exegesis by Catholic theologians, yet I wonder what you mean by that.
My point is that you are issuing a judgment of your own in saying that the direction of mainline churches is “off the tracks.” And indeed, much of modern day exegesis suggests that they are in fact getting exactly on the track of real understanding of the message of Jesus. One of course can quarrel with the conclusion as you do, but we are all pharisaic to the degree we adhere to rules without thinking about why they are in place AND most especially if they still address the reasons for their adoption.
I understand the episcopalian church is on course to essentially state (if it hasn’t done so already) that homosexuality (under certain circumstances) is an acceptable lifestyle. However, liberal churches (under the fallacious banner of improved exegesis) are actually redefining sin (and calling good – conduct which God has clearly deemed sinful).
It is dangerous to state what the EC states as a whole, since we don’t have a heirarchy of required adherence. The Archbishop of Canterbury has for instance asked all to step back and do nothing for a time and let the matter rest. Privately, he has written that he cannot find in scripture any reliable admonition against homosexuality.
I deny it is a fallacious banner as you put it. Many if not most of the exegetes who make claims that the OT and NT properly understood do not speak against homosexuality as we know it, have no axe to grind. They themselves are untouched by the gay issue, and are professional experts, simply following the evidence.
It is not at all “redefining sin” so much as it is defining it correctly. God has not as you say, “clearly” deemed it sinful.
I would say that many American Episcopal churches, moved by the difficulty with the texts in question, and the unreliability of the conclusion that they truly reflect a ban on homosexual behavior as understood today, AND coupled with so many other examples of Christ’s inclusiveness and embrace of “other” in his world, have concluded that a person’s sexual orientation is simply not a subject that should bar anyone from full communion with the church, and expecially with the sacraments. If God deems otherwise, then God will deal with the individual and at least know that the Church has done her best to be compassionate and welcoming to all people.
IMO liberal mainline churches who are essentially changing and misrepresenting the word of God to conform with their own intuitive sense of justice or fairness When Paul states homosexuals, adulterers, drunkards, and so on will not inherit the kingdom (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-11) I don’t question those words or seek to pervert them with some absurd argument regarding its historical context (or whatever). Paul, as the other apostles, Christ himself, the prophets, and so on define sin for us. Really they’re relaying the word of God to us.
?
Of course you know that Paul doesn’t use the term homosexual at all. That term was invented in the 1800’s. If you do not see that the type of practice that Paul was seeing was not the type we deal essentially with today, then of course, you can’t assess the truth of Paul’s meaning. Paul was speaking about temple prostitutes, the use of children, and other relationships that deal with physical power over another individual. Moreover, the submissive partner was usually acting out of nature, being effeminate in dress and mannerism. Paul’s time did not have a clue that homosexuality was something that one is oriented to by nature or genes. He thought, as did all people of his time that homosexuality was simply an overflow of heterosexuality. One so crazed by passion that they no longer cared who they coupled with. There was NO understanding that homosexual persons could be involved in loving, caring, supportive relationships.
There is nothing as you put it of being an “absurd” interpretation. It is the considered opinion of excellently trained and highly respected theologians and biblical experts worldwide. That you choose to deny it is of course your right.
Of course in no place did Christ speak of the issue whatsoever.
. Even a homosexual can be saved, and will struggle no less with his or her passions then the rest of us … but it seems that there must be a mark or outward witness of ones status with God (as John explains throughout his epistles).
Can you name me one instance where God has asked of a person, to bear a burden by definition and not choice so grave as this? The priesthood is one in which one has the choice of accepting or not, same with religious. No one is commanded that they must refrain from sex their entire life because they had the unfortunate fate of having been born a priest or nun. How can you conclude that God has placed such a burden on a whole class of people like this?
Don’t tell me they can change. The overwhelming majority of experts in the field admit it is not changeable, and even in those cults that claim they turn people back to heterosexuality, the “success” rate is pitifully small, and even many of those claim that the urges never go away, they just suppress them. At what psyche cost, I have no idea.
TY for the kind remarks. 