Primates refuse communion with lgbt-affirming churches

Abp.Welby's opening statement to the Bishops at the Human Dignity session.

Given everything we've been discussing on this board, this statement is pretty much what we expected it to be. Welby did surprise me by closing the door on any possible discipline for those Provinces in violation of 1.10, however:

I think the Africans will take this as Canterbury's abdication of moral leadership over the Anglican Communion, and in response they will begin the relocation of the Anglican political center-of-mass to Africa. GSFA/EFAC is almost certain to align with GAFCON after this (if not, it can't be over theology -- more likely it would be over ecclesiastical politics). Bp. Justin Badi Arama's proposed resolution re-affirming 1.10 is basically the first step in that process.

 

An interesting response from someone who has been at the receiving end of Evangelical Christian 'compassionate love'.
It would seem that, judging from the Bible literal-fundamentalist (interpretational) view of things, I, as a Disciple of Jesus Christ, should shun this person and treat them as a Gentile and a Tax Collector until they comply with 'The Law'. Definitely not fellowship or converse with him as a fellow follower of the philosophy and teaching of Jesus Christ.
.

 

1 Cor. 5:9-13:

 

Fine -: this is Apostolic teaching and we are not only adherants of Christ's teaching, but also that of His Apostles, this is true. The prejudice that is being committed though is in the assumption that all Gay people engage in sexual immorality and that we can be certain that that is true of every person declaring themselves unattracted to the opposite sex for the purpose of sexual intercourse or deep relationships, even those not involving sex at all.

How much is it possible to know concerning a person's sexual preferences? We can tell if a person is an incurable drunk, an addicted alchoholic, but do we throw them out of the church, refusing to even receive communion with them from the same chalice?
How many greedy people do you know that should be thrown out of the church?
How can you tell if your neighbour in the pew next to you is embezzling his employer of fiddling his expense account, robbing his boss.
How many 'Rudely Abusive People' do you know, getting over a hangover on a Sunday morning in church after wildly partying the night before?
How many of your fellow parisioners so idolise their house, SUV, race horses, sailing yacht or golf private club membership, that the love of them overides every other consideration in their life, particularly the plight of others?

Yet it seems only the 'Gay' people are singled out for the 'excommunication' treatment and not allowed back into the church, (which belongs to Jesus Christ incidentally and HE decides membership of it, not us), unless they are prepared to PROVE to the church that they completey comply with The Laws of sexual purity. What evidence should be provided by them, and to whom, before re-admission to the church is to be permitted?

And there are PLENTY of sexually immoral practices that non-Gay people get up to regularly and frequently. Would the church care to take it upon itself to stringently interrogate everyone in it and expel them if a private, sexually immoral, practice is exposed and deemed unacceptable, therefore forbidden among the faithful? What kind of a 'Church' would that have turned out to BE? Not a church that I would want to become a member of, for sure.

Should similar stringent vetting and exclusion be applied to drunkards, bad tempered misfits, dodgy financiers, (like Donald Trump), or the morbidly obese greedy gluttons who populate many a church's pews without disapproval, in the USA, every Sunday morning of the year?
.

 

and we condemn them too, we call them sins, and unless people repent of them they will be subject to God’s judgment and damnation… we do not treat sodomy as some sort of super crime; it’s as bad as adultery… the difference being that in the present culture adultery isn’t celebrated but sodomy is, so we make sure to make it known that it is a vile sin in the eyes of God

 

This has always been the issue. We do not condemn homosexuals as being some uniquely loathsome kind of sinner; we condemn their behavior, and if they repent of that behavior, they are welcome in the church as are all other repentant sinners. But we do not -- we cannot -- affirm homosexuality as a lifestyle or a legitimate sexual behavior, just as we cannot affirm adultery, habitual drunkenness, gluttony, larceny, fraud, or any other of the long laundry-list of sins.

An adulterer who demands that we accept his "lifestyle choice", that being an adulterer is his "identity", would be laughed out of the church, and rightly so. The same goes for the drunkard, the glutton, the thief, and the fornicator. When you accept Christ, you repent of your sin and do not return to it (as Paul says, "How can one who died to sin still live in it?").

As to homosexual behavior being a uniquely heinous sin: it is clear that the Bible treats sexual sin as a uniquely defiling kind of sin, as it involves your God-given body. For Christians, our body is God's temple -- the place where God the Holy Spirit dwells. The body does not belong to us, but to God, and we must preserve it and keep it as we would any other thing belonging to God. To engage in porneia is to make the house of God filthy, and invites his wrath. This was the sin of Sodom*, and it's why God burned that pit of unreprentant sin to ash.

*The theory that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed due to inhospitality is hilarious, and represents such a ludicrous reading of Scripture that I'm amazed that liberals still trot it out when challenged. It has its roots in a misreading of Jewish Rabbinic literature (the Babylonian Talmud), but the liberal scholarship on it (if you can even call most of it 'scholarship') is notoriously poor. Yet it keeps turning up like a bad stink that just won't dissipate.

 

The process is explained in Scripture.

Matt. 18:16-17:

God judges those outside the church. Those inside the Church are accountable to their brethren. (As Paul writes, "Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?") Christ is our final judge, and will uncover anything that is hidden...but this does not mean that we as disciples of Christ can ignore flagrant sin in the church. We are called to use discernment and compassion in equal measure, but in the end we cannot allow evil to flourish in our churches. Scripture is very clear on that.

 

For those who sin agains YOU, maybe, but have they sinned agains YOU?

.

 

YES. How do you not see this? If someone enters the church and sins, then as a member of said church, their sin is against me because I will be judged by outsiders for their bad behavior. This is why, e.g., the fall of a pastor for sexual shenanigans brings shame on his church -- they should have called him on it and removed him once the misbehavior became known. A sin within the church stains everyone in the church, and it is the obligation of every member of the congregation to be a watchman for such things.

1 Cor. 5:1-7:

 

But greed, agressive abuse, drunkeness, and robbery are also mentioned in the same sentence and buggery is not even mentioned specifically, just sexual impurity, which can also include having sex with your wife during her period. Are you going to condemn all those too and preach damnation of the sinners from the pulpit? Bear in mind also that this sexual impropriety was a man having 'normal sexual relations', but with his own mother. Probably, at the time considered by ALL society as being unacceptable behaviour, worse even than sodomy.
.

 

Isn't it just as well for you and me then that Jesus associated with sinners and got into trouble with really religious hypocrites for his pains? And before you tell me you are not Jesus, any of his servants should be like him, not scared that the sins of others might rub off on them if they even get near them.

I am actually doing the reccommended Safeguarding Courses set by The Church of England for all its leaders. I fully endorse what you say about blowing the whistle on wrong doing, particularly the kind of wrongdoing done in secret by even leaders in churches. By comparison to the kind of abuses committed by a few clergy, (in sheeps clothing), against children and vulnerable adults the supposed 'sins' of most Gay Christians pale into insignificance. They certainly don't measure up to the 'Millstone Round The Neck' variety that Jesus Christ DID condemn.

There is no record of Jesus saying it is a sin to be 'Gay'. Being 'Gay' does not necessarily entail sexual perversions and there are plenty of sexual perversions regularly engaged in by non-gays, which no one in the church feels irresistably obliged to investigate or eradicate. Such hypocritical scapegoating is sickening to witness.
.

 

It is equally true that he nowhere affirms it. or in any way speaks in a positive fashion about it.

Jesus also never specifically calls out bestiality or pederasty as being sinful. Are we to assume therefore that these sexual behaviors are acceptable?

Jesus preached from the Old Testament constantly, and always reaffirmed it as Divine instruction. We may assume that this includes the Old Testament proscriptions against homosexual behavior and other sexual sins. And the teachings of the Apostles, who speak with the authority given them by Jesus Christ, on sexual matters (by no means only Paul) are crystal clear.

You're also stealing a rhetorical base here: it's not a sin to be 'gay' (whatever that even means these days); it is a sin to engage in homosexual behavior. It is dishonest to continue to conflate these points. Nor is it "homophobic" to denounce the behavior as sinful and unchristian, because it is in fact proscribed in Scripture, and in plain language. And inasmuch as liberals constantly accuse the orthodox of placing homosexuals into a special category of sin, liberals do the same when categorizing them as not being sinful. If homosexual behavior is not sinful, must we affirm fornicators as well? Adulterers? Drunkards? Drug abusers? Wife-beaters? Why should homosexuals receive special consideration above all other sinners out there? I'm sure all the other sinners would love to claim their sin as an "identity" and thus make themselves a victim-group.

Homosexual behavior is sinful. It's not the only sin, or the worst sin, but it's not a situational sin that we can just ignore either. It's not adiaphora. To ignore, or worse still affirm, this kind of sin in the church brings judgement on everyone in the church.

 

Not by any means, just that Jesus had a lot to say about the most serious sins that defile us. He just didn't say homosexuality per se was among the most serious.

Not if it doesn't involve buggery. And what other 'sins' do you want to excommunicate people for, separating them from the love of God?

Just as to condone pedophilia and child beating would bring shame and disgrace upon the church, but because that would condone abuse of OTHERS by sinners. The church is supposed to be a protector of the vulnerable not a persecutor of the errant. Obviously the church needs to clean up its act, but not by conducting a witch hunt and driving out scapegoats to preserve a supposed 'clean sheet' on its own supposedly more trivial sins. Reviling, abusive violence, is as strongly condemned by St Paul, as sexual imorality.
.

 

Many sins cause harm only to the self: pride, envy, covetousness, dishonesty. And these sins are not actions; they are states of mind. A sin is not a sin only in execution of an act -- Jesus Christ himself said that if a man looks at a woman with lust his heart, he has committed adultery with her already (Matt. 5:27-28). Sin lies in the intent, in the unabashed and unrepentant desire to act in an unethical or immoral fashion. Sin is always a primary danger to oneself first and foremost, especially when it is indulged in and nursed along. It corrupts people and turns them rotten and hateful inside.

The church protects outsiders by helping to bring them to Christ; it protects the brothers and sisters by keeping the church pure and as free from sin as possible. When a church allows sin to flourish, it causes untold harm not just to the sinners, but to the brothers and sisters whose Christian walk is thereby put in jeopardy. The very worst thing a Christian can do for anyone is encourage them in their sin because it actively inhibits that person from repenting of their sin, and thereby bars them from the kingdom of Heaven. It is an awful, atrocious thing to do -- and yet many Christians think it is "loving" to encourage sinful behavior like this because their teaching has been so warped and distorted. It's a travesty.

The job of the church is twofold: spread God's Word to the nations; and provide a sanctuary where believers may gather, worship, and have fellowship with one another to grow in Christ. All of these things are done to bring sinners into God's kingdom. When sin is brought into the Church -- not only brought in, but celebrated and proclaimed as "Christian love" -- God's holy house is profaned and the church brought into disrepute.

We must be in the world, but we are not of the world. We are called apart, to live in holiness as emissaries of God through Jesus Christ. Scripture is our rule, our guidebook, our map, our polestar. Everything we do, everything we say, everything we think should be founded upon its teachings as the very word of God.

 

It is not normal for a person to shout to the world that they feel drawn toward a particular type of sin, because it's nothing to be proud of. Wouldn't you agree? For example, who in their right mind would let all their friends know, "I really want to have intimate physical relations with beagles"? Who would proudly brag that they are addicted to porn, or that they think constantly about murdering children with a chainsaw? These are all things that a person should be ashamed of, things they would not normally advertise to everyone around them. The same is true of homosexual yearnings.

When people announce themselves as 'gay', they are exhibiting a certain sense of pride in their condition. They're saying to the world, "I have this condition, I'm not the least bit ashamed of feeling this way, I think it's perfectly all right to indulge in this proclivity, and you're a bigot if you don't think the same way I do." The fact that they are so open and eager to be known as 'gay' may not be positive proof that they are engaging in the sport, but we may safely assume that they would not hesitate to do so if the opportunity arose... for the simple reason that they don't see homosexual activity as a sin.

Honestly, as a general proposition no one should be going around identifying themselves by their sexual preference. That should be private information, kept to themselves and their close (dare I say "intimate"?) circle. A Christian should be striving to overcome temptations, addictions, and the like; he should be pushing wrongful thoughts out of his mind and renewing his mind with the word of God; he should not be wearing his temptation like a badge of honor and trying to force everyone else to become more accepting of his wrong attitude.

Of course we love them, but we hate sin and speak out against it. Too many gays are attempting to say that we are being non-accepting toward them when, in reality, we are being non-accepting toward the sin they advertise and advocate on behalf of. They're making a false argument by making gayness a part of their identity, similar to a person making his suicidal tendencies a part of his identity; in truth both conditions are things one would be better off striving to resist or overcome, rather than take pride in them.

 

The same is true of any sexual 'yearnings', and temptations, discretion is called for, not pride, but the world is full of advertised 'sex' of the most lurid kinds all over the internet and elsewhere. People in the pew next to you may be viewing it every night or engaging in illicit sexual practices. How would you know. How would you help them to overcome such temptations? Not by refusing to even speak to them over a snack and a pint of beer. Jesus associated with sinners in the hope that they might be healed. Jesus was not afraid that sin or shame would 'rub off' on Him. Neither should we be. Clearly association with Gays who are happy to associate with Jesus and learn from him, would be an exception to the 1 Cor.5:11 principle, (which wasn't specifically about 'Gayness' anyway). Neither was it an encouragement to threats and persecution of sinners, which would be unchristlike.

Most sinners don't see sin as sin. Even you probably didn't until you got filled with The Holy Spirit and it may take many years for even the most sincere believer to get to the point that they can recogise all sin within themselves and deal with it themselves, without a great deal of help and sanctification and patience gifted from The Holy Spirit.

Agreed, but not all 'Gays' are as you describe, and I think 'Gay Pride' is somewhat of an overeaction to generations of outright persecution of 'Gays', which is still as prevaliant in the world and the worldly church as it ever was.

As I said, 'Gay Pride' is somewhat of an over reaction to persecution. What people who seem to be same sex oriented are entitled to is to be treated like any other peace loving persons, as peace loving persons, without prejudicial assumptions of 'law breaking', based only on some evidence of outward 'manerisms'. I would also reprimand a fellow Christian who constantly, indescretely flaunted his masculinity in full view of the women, (Donald Trump Style), in the congregation. Such behavour would be universally unseemly and not characteristically applicable only to 'Gays' in church.

It is only my personal opinion, and I admit I may be wrong but whatever 'Gays' may get up to in private which might be 'breaking THE LAW' should come under the same sin category as eating lobster or pork chops or picking up sticks on the sabbath. Crimes which The Christian Church would not entertain excommunication as a punishment for, let alone stoning in the street. Not like murder, robbery, wife beating, child abuse or incest. All of which are actually going on in churches as the news media keep revealing and the church tries to cover up.
.

 

Jewish dietary and ceremonial law were fulfilled in Jesus Christ*, and thus are no longer necessary. No such revelation was given to us regarding homosexual practice; thus it is still prohibited. The Decalogue and moral law remains in effect. How do we know that the moral law remains in effect? Because Jesus founds his teaching upon it, and reinforces it many times (and is even stricter on issues like, e.g., marriage -- see Matt. 19:1-10).

In fact it is in his teachings on marriage and family that Jesus excludes homosexuality as a valid form of sexual expression -- sexual union is only permitted in a marriage relationship and a Christian marriage is between a man and woman; and for those who cannot accept that, celibacy is the Christian alternative (Matt. 19:11-12; cf 1 Cor. 7). Jesus doesn't specifically mention homosexuality here because there's no need to. His teaching covers the issue of sex and marriage completely.

If the argument is that "Well, lots of Christians sleep around and get divorced, so that's hypocritical", then this is just an observation that fallen human beings tend to be hypocrites, which we already knew. It doesn't matter. The answer is not for churches to give up on the whole project as an impossible goal, but to start enforcing the statues set down by Christ. The church not only can judge the behavior of their congregants, but must do so to protect the rest of the church: to allow sin to flourish in the church puts everyone in grave peril. The church is the barrier between Satan's worldly kingdom and God's eternal kingdom -- to bring Satan into the house of God removes this barrier and leaves the congregation exposed. Those false teachers who bring evil into the house of God will be judged even more harshly than the rest (2 Peter 2).

I keep saying it and will keep on saying it: Christ will judge you by how well you kept the laws of God, not the laws of men.

*In Acts 10:9-16, Peter is given a vision that proclaims the end of the Jewish dietary laws for those living under Grace rather than the Law. In Matt. 12:1-8, Jesus allowed his disciples to pick grain on the Sabbath and thus proclaims himself Lord of the Sabbath.

 

I don't think any of us would disagree with you about that. But what makes you think there is a widespread problem of this type? We may hear an anecdote now and then of someone whose feelings were hurt, but is there any evidence that a significant number of Christians are being rude or abusive toward people who self-identify as gay?

Who is threatening gays with excommunication? This sounds like a red herring to me.

 

But marriage is a publicity known state. Everyone in a marriage (heretofore a man and a woman, generally resulting in offspring) can be presumed to be engaged in acts of marital intimacy. It’s difficult to have kids without it, the Blessed Virgin Mary of course notwithstanding.

marriage as it is traditionally known can be a kind of public statement of sexual preference. Sure there are always exceptions. But it isn’t commonly assumed that those in a marriage are practicing celibacy. Why we should suddenly assume as much about those in a sane-sex marriage is somewhat confounding.