I took her remarks to mean that she accepted the the term Anglican has a broad meaning, and indeed always has been, and the 39 Articles, were not easily achieved, and represent a middle course that allowed the breadth of England to be true to Christ and Sovereign and best as possible. Since the time of the Elizabethan Settlement the rubber band of Anglicanism ahs been stretched in many directions, and as far as possible, and then some, so we see in our own time some fracturing in this tatty old maiden aunt we love to call mother. The important thing should be not how high we make the walls, but how high we lift Jesus.
Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place. Deut.27:15. Can anyone read that and say with a straight face that the issue is not cut-and-dried? God couldn't make it any clearer (without an audible voice from heaven). Yet there are many even evangelical 'believers' who go to jewellers shops and buy crucifixes, or accept them as gifts from pious friends and relatives, which have been fashioned by the work of the hands of a craftsman. They then put it on a chain round their neck, and wear it UNDER their clothes in a 'secret' place, rightly not wanting to overtly boast their piety before others perhaps. It is also an 'abomination' to eat crabs, clams and lobsters but we don't threaten those who sell and consume them with death, by stoning. The 'abomination' of adultery is no longer a capital offence. How irrational is this hypocrisy of picking and choosing which 'abominations' we decide to police and punish for and which ones we are tolerant of in others out of compassion and gratitude to God for his overlooking of our own transgressions? Laws are no use at all without intrusive probing into personal liberty and strict punishments for infringement. What kind of society would it be in which every 'abomination' was rigorously rooted out and eradicated by capital punishment of the offenders for every 'abonination' identified in Holy Scripture? Do you imagine that would be a society that Jesus Christ would be happy to reign over and police? Would that be your idea of perfection? Knowing you love Christ, I don't think so. .
I take it then that your hero in Les Miserables would be Javert rather than Valjean. Javert represents the Law: Passionate, resolute, strict, vigorous, principled and relentless. Valjean represents Grace: Compassionate, understanding, loving, caring, patient, kind and gentle. If you have not seen the film Les Miserables yet, I thoroughly recommend it. Though some people can't stand musicals I believe Les Miserables is not just entertainment, it is theologically profound. .
They was settled by a Church Council in 70 AD. As for the LGBT stuff, if a Church Council were called to permit or condemn it all over again, most of the Christian world and 80-85% of the Anglican world would condemn it in an instant.
That was the start of a reformation, but only a beginning for most of us. I heard there was another one later on. There have always been those who preferred to lag behind, like metaphorical sons of Korah. It was only many years later that it was widely accepted by all Christian believers, that circumcision was not essential for Coverage by the New Covenant but baptism was. As for LGBT 'stuff', church councils were not generally in the business of 'Condemning', or shouldn't have been, but more in the business of deciding right conduct according to the teachings of Christ. In the case of LGBT 'stuff' such discerning judgment is very difficult, since Jesus Christ left absolutely no guidance on how right or not it might be to 'condemn' them. Apart from Luke 6:37, John 3:17, 1 John 3:20-21. Before the church goes around 'condemning' people, it aught to get its act together better at going round 'loving' people, which it has not got an unblemished historical record of on yet, on LGBT 'matters', or even anti-semitism, if pogroms in York, Germany, Russia, etc and the Spanish Inquisition - - are anything to go by. The church still has a lot to learn. Being tolerant of other people's misdemeanours is not the same as accepting their norms as being normal. I'm not advocating anything like that but Jesus Christ was very tolerant of very many things and people, so should his church be, but Jesus was also very intolerant of hypocrisy. .
You know, there's also, Saint Paul, the Apostles, the Prophets... And as for Jesus Christ, he didn't condemn eating fatty food either, but we still shouldn't do it. When we have a new monstrous evil/sin in 500 years, from some new brokenness, then would you demand Jesus condemned it also? Should his words have been pre-emptively filled with 5,000-10,000 years of future condemnations? No. He condemned the principle. His followers - the prophets, the apostles, condemned individual things. The principle he taught was, "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell." (Matthew, 5:30) So anything which causes us to sin: be it sodomy, or adultery, or deceit, it is better for us to cast out the reason why we commit that sin, rather than be cast out entirely into hell ourselves. Sodomy and effeminacy, "top" and "bottom", are both wicked sins, as St. Paul patiently individually listed them out and specified.
No one is "condemning people." This is a straw man. You're conflating condemnation of people (which is not proper) with condemnation of sin (which all Christians should do).
The church has stood against homosexual behavior for more than 1,900 years. Do you think they were wrong for all that time? And somehow, just in the last two or three decades, church leaders have become oh-so-much wiser than all their forebears? Give me a break!
Actually Jesus condemned nobody and nothing according to the evidence of his teaching in the four cannonical Gospels. He spoke of condemnation and how it could be avoided but he did not condemn. Certainly he preached personal holiness of life, honesty, respect for God's law, compassion toward our neighbour and even forgiveness of our enemies and those who despitefully abuse us, but he did not dispense condemnation. Luke 6:37, John 3:17, John 3:19, John 5:24-27. Judgment is not condemnation. Judgment can also mean aquittal. And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Mark 2:15-17. Rexlion was quite right when he wrote: "I think the pastor did the right thing, because where else but in church are people likely to hear God's honest truth"? How else is any kind of sinner going to hear about God's amazing grace and his gift of forgiveness, if the church insists on every man in its congregation behaving like a Red Neck Lumber Jack on a testosterone overdose. We are not all created to fit that Hollywood Hero Ideal and neither are we called to condemn sin. WE are called to Resist Sin, The World and the Devil. WE are called to RENOUNCE sin not just DENOUNCE it. Denouncing sin is often the hypocritical act of a scapegoater. Renouncing sin is the courageous vow of a saint. I suggest that there are many who do not yet know what is sinful in themselves, who still get off on identifying it in others, particularly others who may not be as overtly macho as themselves. Good advice for disciples of Christ to follow as they fight valliantly under His banner against sin, the world, and the devil, but not much of a welcome invitation or introduction to those who have not heard and experienced what Jesus has done for them "While THEY were still YET Sinners", (as we all once were), or what He can do for the sinner who will allow His Holy Spirit to enter them and regulate their conduct at God's pace and in God's Grace and God's time and at God's pleasure, rather than at the demands of judgmental men and The Law. Are you still thinking it is US that will cast these things out, on our own? Tell that to the seven sons of Sceva. Acts.19:13-16. .
I carefully read through the quote you refer too and find no specific reference to the condemnation of people. Since I didn't mention people at all, (referring ambiguously only to them), in that post, it can't be true that I put up a straw man, surely. I have not actually at any point in the current conversation suggested that the church should approve of sodomy or fellatio between same sex couples nor between couples of opposite sexes for that matter. I imagine both would be equally applicable to Gays and Straights as far as God is concerned. I have said only that it should not condemn homosexuals or homosexuality as a condition, (which is a position which we seem to be in agreement on), it not, as you rightly say, being proper. .
I apologise for my sloppy reading. I noticed that this morning too and you are absolutely correct. Before the church goes around 'condemning' people, it aught to get its act together better at going round 'loving' people, which it has not got an unblemished historical record of on yet, on LGBT 'matters', or even anti-semitism, if pogroms in York, Germany, Russia, etc and the Spanish Inquisition - - are anything to go by. The church still has a lot to learn. So, yes - I did write that - because the church, some of it, (meaning many people in it, who are fully forgiven members of Christ's church), Do condemn people, (unlike their master). I accept, from what you say though, that you do NOT condemn people, and that is as it should be. Neither do I most of the time, when I am obedient to the Spirit of my Master Jesus Christ. I have to admit though that his work in my life is not yet complete, I sometimes struggle to be tolerant with difficult people and I suspect the rest of Christ's church, ( on earth, ) suffers from the same handicap. .