Dr Morgan said: “[One] of the glories of Anglicanism has been about being held together by our beliefs as contained in historic creeds and formulas but not by agreement to particular statements about that faith in each generation. That is the difference between belonging to a Communion rather than a confession.”Further criticising the conservatives, he said: “Moreover, GAFCON members do not believe in engaging in dialogue with people with whom they disagree on human sexuality because it means being open to the possibility that the position of one’s opponent might be true when the plain sense reading of Scripture shows in their view that it is not.”
Calling for the freedom for Churches to make their own interpretations of the Bible’s teaching on this issue, he said: “Why is it that, as far as Anglicanism is concerned, we do not interpret the Scriptures literally when it comes to issues such as usury or marriage and divorce to name but two, but insist on a literal interpretation of texts that allegedly deal with homosexuality?
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2008/09/18/homosexuality-should-not-be-an-issue-to-tear-the-anglican-communion-apart-says-the-archbishop-of-wales-91466-21845446/
4 comments:
I wish it were as simple as that, but the Bible seems to have conflicting passages on usury (Christ's parable of the talents seems to promote the idea of investment at interest) and on marriage and divorce (the OT and NT statements are different, although you'd think the NT would prevail). On homosexuality in both OT and NT there doesn't seem to be any ambiguity, which is what is driving the thought of those who say you give up the idea of Biblical authority if you allow for relaxation of those prohibitions. Although many of us think (as do I) that differing opinion on the prohibitions (for instance, they aren't touched on at all by Jesus, in comparison to the ones on usury and divorce) shouldn't lead to a split in the church, it's hard to get beyond "what we feel in our hearts" about the importance of those prohibitions as make or break examples of whether you believe in the authority of scripture or not.
Celinda
I've taught for 20 years. I've taught mostly middle school students. Over the years I've had students that I've (and most of the other teachers) knew were gay. They were often horrible ridiculed call a host of names many which I'm sure every one here has heard. I can't believe anyone makes this choice and chooses to suffer these indignations. I've even known of kids beating "fags" up (teachers can't be everywhere).
I wish I could just say, well the bible says its wrong but I have my experience too. I can't believe God has given me this special "look/insight" for me to just say theese people are wrong.
I had a conversation with my former rector, a woman. I told here if I lived strickly by the good book, I've never had taken communion from her. She of course is for realignment and I've since left that parish.
In the end I feel like if God doesn't want homosexuals in God's church, then GOD will take care of the situation.
Sorry, I know this is a liberal view. I'm somewhat liberal on some things.
Celinda, tell us all, please. Where in the OT and the NT are you finding prohibitions against sex between two women?
I'm having trouble locating such passages.
LPR
I certainly can't "tell all," but after finding that "the apostle Paul" was a faster Google quest for that passage than "St. Paul," I found the one you asked about in Romans 1:26: "...even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature." "They," I'm pretty sure, refers to non-Jews in the Roman culture, whose sexual practices Jews (like Paul) strongly disapproved of. In any event, the context is that (humankind) "exchanged the truth for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator..."
Post a Comment