Keith Bates

Posts tagged with "homosexuality"

Divisions begin with the heterodox

Saturday, 22. August 2009, 02:50:28

Jared Wilson talks about the divisions being promoted by one group in the church.

I guess some half-wit will call me homophobic again.

Division Begins with the Heterodox

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has voted to allow congregations' appointing of homosexual clergy in non-chaste same-sex relationships.

I am not wringing my hands.

This is not a rant about homosexual behavior (which I believe is a sin, in case anyone's wondering). It is about what happens in evangelical discourse when these sorts of things are discussed.

When concerned folks raise voices of protest and warning, when they say adamantly "This isn't right," they are accused of singling out the sin of homosexuality for special treatment, laser-focusing in on the homosexual as a sinner above all sinners, worse than the rest of us.

But I actually think it's sort of the other way around. It is the proponents of gay clergy who single out homosexuality. It is they who are pressing us to respond to this issue. Nobody is pushing for resolutions on the allowance of adulterous clergy, of gossipy clergy, of alcoholic clergy, of p()rn-addicted clergy, or what-have-you.

It is not those who protest who are singling out this sin. It is the proponents of the sin as normative -- or at least, passable -- who are singling it out.

This reminds me of where we got our creeds -- the original stands for normative truth -- in the first place. They were subsequent to heresy. It took heretics to promote their particular heterodoxy for the Church to say, "Supposing we summed up orthodox doctrine as a standard of sorts?"

And so it wasn't the crafters of the creeds who were being divisive. It was the heterodox.
Just as it wasn't God who was being divisive when he said, "Don't eat from this tree," but it was the serpent who introduced the option of disobedience.

And it isn't those who believe the Bible when it says homosexual behavior is a sin that are being divisive; it is those who are introducing the idea that it isn't. If you push a decision on something that innovates on the Bible's testimony, you're creating the division. But, sure, many of us will oblige in parting ways with you. If pressed -- as when votes like this go the way they did -- we will cooperate in division.

Article

5 comments

Rev. Paul Zahl- On Homosexual Practice in the Episcopal Church

Thursday, 23. July 2009, 07:56:36

homosexuality, church

I just came across this excellent talk given by Rev. Paul Zahl from the Episcopalian Church of the USA about the theological issues raised by ordination of actively homosexual people. It's not about homophobia, discrimination or anything else other than theology. As Zahl clearly argues in this article, there are some theological absolutes which, if ditched, reduce the church to unitarianism and away from the need for salvation.

I got a fair bit of abuse from one person who was more inspired by the chip on her shoulder than by what was written in a previous article I posted about homosexuality in the church. I'm not harping on a particular group of people here, but the fact is that the church world-wide has to come to terms with the fact that we can't just line up with what the world says is right when that contradicts scripture.

This is from internetmonk.com:

So I shall begin this brief keynote address summing up the actual reasons why traditional Episcopalians are opposed to the consecration of Gene Robinson and are also opposed to the blessing in the church of same-sex unions. I won’t harp on this, but feel the reasons need to be acknowledged, publicly, and theologically. It is not fair to call people on the traditional side “homophobic”. Of course homophobia is possible, but it is also a terrible slur in the contemporary context. It is like the word “anti-semitic”. It halts all discourse. Full stop. And it destroys people and careers. Homophobia and anti-semitism are real things. But as words, they are used overmuch today to tar and dismiss voices that may in fact be sincere and liberal.

So what is the big deal? Why do people like me stand against the Gene Robinson consecration and the blessing of same-sex unions? Why do we feel these two things are destructive of life in the Christian church? I note in passing that our struggle against them so far has been unsuccessful, failed, and demoralizing for the zeal and good conscience of our ministries.

Why is the issue so important?

First, we believe the gay position as we hear it undermines the anthropology of the Gospel. It undermines the teaching concerning the inherent sinfulness of the creature before the Creator. It wants to exempt a particular category of persons, gay men and women, from Original Sin on the basis that they are “created” a certain way, therefore how can it be wrong? For reasons beyond our human understanding we are all created sinners: distorted, inverted, libidinal and narcissistic. Our baggage is psycho-genetic, not the sum of our deeds. The gay argument confuses creation with redemption – as in the old 1970’s poster “God don’t make no junk”. That was a half truth then, and it is a half truth now. The core, universal, and seemingly impenetrable claim of the gay lobby is this: If I came into the world this way, then how can it be wrong? That claim is in opposition to the classic Christian doctrine, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant, of the human being as being intrinsically and inherently fallen in all cases. The claim is Arminian explicity and Pelagian implicitly.

If the anthropology is flawed, then inevitably the soteriology is flawed. If “God don’ t make no junk”, then what need is there for a Savior? Why did Christ have to die on the Cross, if the need of the human race were not rooted in our paralysis and inability to help ourselves? The result of an overly high anthropology is an overly low soteriology.

The result of an overly low soteriology is a weak Christology. If Christ is not a Savior in the full and plain sense of the word, then He did not have to be God. The whole encounter of Jesus with the Pharisees in Mark, Chapter Two, when he made a connection between his divine authority and the forgiveness of sins, ceases to mean anything. High anthropology means low soteriology means inadequate Christology.

Finally, the Trinitarian implications of the weak Christology implicit in the gay lobby’ s argument – become now the Episcopal Church’s argument – are devastating. The Son who is no Saviour becomes automatically subordinate to the Father. We are quickly into Arianism and what we today call unitarianism. Now most theological liberals I know in ECUSA insist that they are Trinitarian Christians. And I believe them. But I wonder whether they have realized the implications for the whole of theology of the overly high anthropology of the arguments we have been hearing from the gay lobby and their friends. Please, think through the implications of a weakened profile of Original Sin.

The second “theological” argument traditionalists want to use is the hermeneutical one. I myself think this is second in importance to the theological “domino effect” I have just tried to spell out. The hermeneutical objection to the Robinson consecration is very important, but it is not decisive in quite the same way the argument from anthropology is. Nevertheless, we believe the plain and unexceptioned meaning of the Bible is against the practice of homosexuality in all cases. We cannot get around this. And I am grateful when folk on the other side acknowledge and do not try to weasel out of the “fact on the ground” of the Biblical voice against their idea. Yes, I realize there are wholly inclusive implications to Jesus’ and Paul’ s Gospel, but they stop at the Rubicon of homosexual practice.

The third “theological” argument – and I put the word “theological” in quotes to make the point that these arguments, unlike my first one, are more ecclesiological than theological in the pure sense – relates to tradition. We believe, and especially the many Anglo-Catholics among us, that such a break with catholic and universal Christian tradition that the Robinson consecration constituted is a mighty and awesome thing. To do any thing so completely in discontinuity with what everyone has said everywhere and in every time is simply so ambitious. It feels Promethean to me.

And finally, related to the argument from tradition, there is the ecumenical argument. It is alarming to have split ourselves off from the Roman Catholic Church and almost all the Orthodox Patriarchates, not to mention the large numerical majority of our Anglican co-religionists overseas, especially in the Global South.

Conceptually, neither the ecumenical argument nor the argument from tradition is binding for most theologians, and certainly not for most Protestant ones. That is why I emphasized the first piece of this – the move from low anthropology to final unitarianism. But the ecumenical argument does involve people’s lives, and respect for (millions of) others’. It surely has got to be weighed in and not just portrayed as a sort of primitive reaction to American unilateralism. I think of Janet Jackson’ s Tuesday apology this week to 99 million Super Bowl viewers: “if I have offended anyone…” Both her action and her apology smack of opportunism, and make me sick. Is our church guilty of Janet-Jackson thinking?

Now I began by saying that we need to look at the arguments concerning the issue, at least the losing ones – the ones from “my” side – so we don’t just skip over them in our rush to ecclesiological or structural arguments. I would like to conclude this part of our debate concerning “Anglican comprehensiveness” with a plea, from the position of weakness, to you, and by extension to the Episcopal Church as a whole, and to its bishops in particular.

My plea has a formal side and it has a material side.

The formal side, and I intentionally use philosophical language here in order to be as clear as possible, is a plea for Alternative Episcopal Oversight. Traditional people in the Episcopal Church, in order to feel able to stand and be secure, require a concrete gesture of generosity on behalf of the bishops. This would be to let us sign up with ECUSA bishops, and some overseas Anglican bishops, with whom we feel safe. Most of us, because of the titanic nature of the issues involved in the Gene Robinson consecration, no longer feel we can serve with zeal and in good conscience within the structures of ECUSA. We need the freedom to sign up with bishops and structures – and I do not mean the AMiA, although many of us feel we are being pushed out in that direction – we need the freedom or space to sign up with ECUSA and other overseas Anglican bishops with whose commitments we feel safe. We no longer feel safe in ECUSA.

I should add that my own bishop, Henry Parsley, voted against Robinson’s consecration and has been respectful of the traditional position.

What the ECUSA bishops need to allow us to do is have Alternative Episcopal Oversight on our terms, not on their terms. They need to cede control, for a season and a space, to us, the losers. The concession has got to come from the victors, the ECUSA bishops who have won this most impressive victory at Minneapolis, and not from the losers: us, in other words. I use the language of power here because our Christian faith teaches us that the stronger has always got to give up power to the weaker. That is Grace. God did it. Philippians, Chapter Two enshrines this principle theologically. “…Though he was in the form of God, (he) did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant…” (vss. 6-7).
The stronger, I repeat, the stronger, the victor, has to give up control and power to the weaker, the loser, in order for reconciliation, in the Christian sense of the word, to take place. So the formal side of my plea is for ECUSA to allow Alternative Episcopal Oversight without control or condition. My plea is for the bishops to lay aside their fears and trust us to God. I predict that if the bishops were to see their way to conceding this to us, the defensiveness and anger of people on my side would go down by half if not by three-quarters. In fact, if I understand people right, the day we are allowed to “call our own shots” in the area of AEO will be the day we come back to our original loyalty. I predict that. I predict it because it happens that way in love. Which brings me to the material side of my plea.

We are talking about Grace, or love, here. In relationships with people you love, you often do what they want to do simply because they want to do it. If my wife has an interest that I regard as dumb – let’ s just imagine! – I still need to make it, at least somehow, my interest. Not because of the interest itself – not at all – but because of my love for her. The ECUSA bishops need to give us what we so obviously, urgently, and desperately need, out of love. Not because of anything else. It has been astonishing to me, after almost 30 years ordained service in the Episcopal Church, that almost none of my old friends who are now Episcopal bishops or leaders on the ascendant side have reached out, personally. Ian Douglas is a significant exception.

The material principle behind the formal concept of Alternative Episcopal Oversight is, simply put, love.

There are so many illustrations in life of the principle of love from the stronger to the weaker. Lincoln’ s choice of “Dixie” as the song to be played by the White House band on the night that word arrived of Lee’ s surrender at Appomattox; the amazing overture of the Catholic President of the Republic of Ireland, John Bruton, to the Protestant Orangemen at Drumcree in the historic stand-off at Portadown in 1999; the simple miracles of reconciliation that happen every day in marriages and families and friendships throughout the world of our common life. Do you remember that line in John Ford’s 1939 legendary masterpiece, Stagecoach, when the whisky drummer beseeches the bickering passengers on the coach, just before the Indian attack as it turns out, to “have a little Christian charity”? The point is extremely important.

With the formal side of my plea granted, rooted and rooted only in the material principle of Christian love from the stronger to the weaker, the whole situation we are in would turn around. With its not being granted, I think I might safely predict that almost every traditionalist Episcopal minister and priest in the United States will no longer feel able to serve in ECUSA. There is a dire reality we are looking at. It is also a promising new future out there if the church can heed this plea.

Thank you very much.

No comments

The Anglican train wreck

Wednesday, 15. July 2009, 23:27:52

homosexuality, church

The latest scene of denominational disintegration over the ordination of homosexuals is happening in the Anglican Church. The U.S. brand of Anglicanism, The Episcopal Church, recently voted to remove homosexual practice as a barrier to ordination of bishops in direct contradiction of a request from the Anglican Communion for a moratorium on this while the rest of the Communion tries to work out the right way ahead.

Some evangelical clergy in the Anglican Church are rapidly moving to establish a parallel organisation, basically heading towards leaving the church. Other evangelicals are staying within the Communion hoping to bring some change. This is similar to the dilemma faced by many evangelicals and charismatics in the Uniting Church in Australia.

Bishop Tom Wright has written a very good article on the whole issue, which was printed in The Times. He succinctly covers areas such as sexuality, scripture and identity as its traditionally understood in society and why recent pressures for change are bad.

Bishop Tom Wright writes:

'In the slow-moving train crash of international Anglicanism, a decision taken in California has finally brought a large coach off the rails altogether. The House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church in the United States has voted decisively to allow in principle the appointment, to all orders of ministry, of persons in active same-sex relationships. This marks a clear break with the rest of the Anglican Communion.

'Both the bishops and deputies (lay and clergy) of TEC knew exactly what they were doing. They were telling the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other “instruments of communion” that they were ignoring their plea for a moratorium on consecrating practising homosexuals as bishops. They were rejecting the two things the Archbishop of Canterbury has named as the pathway to the future — the Windsor Report (2004) and the proposed Covenant (whose aim is to provide a modus operandi for the Anglican Communion). They were formalising the schism they initiated six years ago when they consecrated as bishop a divorced man in an active same-sex relationship, against the Primates’ unanimous statement that this would “tear the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level”. In Windsor’s language, they have chosen to “walk apart”.

'Granted, the TEC resolution indicates a strong willingness to remain within the Anglican Communion. But saying “we want to stay in, but we insist on rewriting the rules” is cynical double-think. We should not be fooled.

'Of course, matters didn’t begin with the consecration of Gene Robinson. The floodgates opened several years before, particularly in 1996 when a church court acquitted a bishop who had ordained active homosexuals. Many in TEC have long embraced a theology in which chastity, as universally understood by the wider Christian tradition, has been optional.

'That wider tradition always was counter-cultural as well as counter-intuitive. Our supposedly selfish genes crave a variety of sexual possibilities. But Jewish, Christian and Muslim teachers have always insisted that lifelong man-plus-woman marriage is the proper context for sexual intercourse. This is not (as is frequently suggested) an arbitrary rule, dualistic in overtone and killjoy in intention. It is a deep structural reflection of the belief in a creator God who has entered into covenant both with his creation and with his people (who carry forward his purposes for that creation).

'Paganism ancient and modern has always found this ethic, and this belief, ridiculous and incredible. But the biblical witness is scarcely confined, as the shrill leader in yesterday’s Times suggests, to a few verses in St Paul. Jesus’s own stern denunciation of sexual immorality would certainly have carried, to his hearers, a clear implied rejection of all sexual behaviour outside heterosexual monogamy. This isn’t a matter of “private response to Scripture” but of the uniform teaching of the whole Bible, of Jesus himself, and of the entire Christian tradition.

'The appeal to justice as a way of cutting the ethical knot in favour of including active homosexuals in Christian ministry simply begs the question. Nobody has a right to be ordained: it is always a gift of sheer and unmerited grace. The appeal also seriously misrepresents the notion of justice itself, not just in the Christian tradition of Augustine, Aquinas and others, but in the wider philosophical discussion from Aristotle to John Rawls. Justice never means “treating everybody the same way”, but “treating people appropriately”, which involves making distinctions between different people and situations. Justice has never meant “the right to give active expression to any and every sexual desire”.

'Such a novel usage would also raise the further question of identity. It is a very recent innovation to consider sexual preferences as a marker of “identity” parallel to, say, being male or female, English or African, rich or poor. Within the “gay community” much postmodern reflection has turned away from “identity” as a modernist fiction. We simply “construct” ourselves from day to day.

'We must insist, too, on the distinction between inclination and desire on the one hand and activity on the other — a distinction regularly obscured by references to “homosexual clergy” and so on. We all have all kinds of deep-rooted inclinations and desires. The question is, what shall we do with them? One of the great Prayer Book collects asks God that we may “love the thing which thou commandest, and desire that which thou dost promise”. That is always tough, for all of us. Much easier to ask God to command what we already love, and promise what we already desire. But much less like the challenge of the Gospel.

'The question then presses: who, in the US, is now in communion with the great majority of the Anglican world? It would be too hasty to answer, the newly formed “province” of the “Anglican Church in North America”. One can sympathise with some of the motivations of these breakaway Episcopalians. But we should not forget the Episcopalian bishops, who, doggedly loyal to their own Church, and to the expressed mind of the wider Communion, voted against the current resolution. Nor should we forget the many parishes and worshippers who take the same stance. There are many American Episcopalians, inside and outside the present TEC, who are eager to sign the proposed Covenant. That aspiration must be honoured.

'Contrary to some who have recently adopted the phrase, there is already a “fellowship of confessing Anglicans”. It is called the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church is now distancing itself from that fellowship. Ways must be found for all in America who want to be loyal to it, and to scripture, tradition and Jesus, to have that loyalty recognised and affirmed at the highest level.'

The full article plus commentary on Times religion correspondent Ruth Gledhill is here

No comments

GordonMoyes.com » Sex, stereotypes and the Scripture

Thursday, 7. May 2009, 05:34:02

homosexuality, christian

Gordon Moyes has published a prety good article by Rod Benson about homosexuality and scripture.

Sex, stereotypes and the ScriptureAn address by Rod Benson at the launch of “Beyond Stereotypes: Christians and Homosexuality”Australian Evangelical Alliance, Robert Menzies College, Sydney, 30 April 2009.
My name is Rod Benson and I am a heterosexual. And an evangelical.Now that I have outed myself as a person of unsame-sex orientation, and a person of a minority faith, some of you breathe a cautious sigh of relief, while for others the confession discredits everything I am about to say.
But the discussion we are inviting through the launch of this book, Beyond Stereotypes: Christians and Homosexuality, is a discussion worth having. Indeed I believe it is a discussion we need to have in Australia,and especially in Sydney, at this time. You be the judge.

Read the rest of the article at: GordonMoyes.com » Sex, stereotypes and the Scripture

Blogged with the Flock Browser

No comments

Pope Calls for Respect for Humanity

Tuesday, 23. December 2008, 04:41:14

homosexuality

From the ABC:

Pope wants humanity 'saved' from homosexuality

Pope Benedict XVI says saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour is just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.

"(The Church) should also protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed," the pontiff said in a holiday address to the Curia, the Vatican's central administration.

"The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less."

The Catholic Church teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are.

It opposes gay marriage and, in October, a leading Vatican official called homosexuality "a deviation, an irregularity, a wound".

The pope said humanity needed to "listen to the language of creation" to understand the intended roles of man and woman.

He compared behaviour beyond traditional heterosexual relations as "a destruction of God's work".

He also defended the Church's right to "speak of human nature as man and woman, and ask that this order of creation be respected".

2 comments

Which Planet Are We Living On Now?

Saturday, 3. November 2007, 21:16:19

homosexuality, society

From www.smh.com.au

Transsexual fights for her lesbian rights

A TRANSGENDER psychotherapist has taken a gay association to an equal opportunities tribunal, alleging she was discriminated against by being refused entry to a lesbian event.

Tracie O'Keefe, of Sydney, said she requested an invitation to a South Australian event organised by lesbian support group Sappho's Party.

The group has a policy of excluding transgender people from its workshops, camps and social events because it only supports lesbians who were born female.

Full story

No comments

POLAND TO BE FORCED TO DENY CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES

Friday, 27. April 2007, 10:47:54

homosexuality, society, freedom

POLAND TO BE FORCED TO DENY CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES
If you ever had any doubts about the EU being any less than an evil entity, you can dispel those right now.

In a 'debate' in the European Parliament in Strasbourg, April 25, 2007, a precedent was set as several countries including The Netherlands, Italy and France attacked Poland for legislating to disallow the promotion of homosexuality in their school curriculum.

Beginning the debate in the EP France's MEP Rour Martine called statements in defense of the traditional family by Polish parliamentarians, "diatribes" and noted that they "must stop", adding that they were "repulsive" and "hateful".

"These are not Europe's values," she proclaimed.

These comments were followed by similar outrageous attacks by Dutch and Italian representatives.

To follow this, there will be an 'investigation' and invasion by this centralised body into Poland's sovereign rights to choose how their own education system will be run, with the certain result that Poland will be forced to comply with the evil directives of the godless European state or face the consequences.

The European Union is a microcosm of what is to occur globally (as the Bible warns us in the book of Revelations). What happens there is to be mirrored across the world.

What will you do when your children are forced into public schools where they will be hammered with distorted views on sexuality?

Let us fight the darkness while we can.

RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION: POLAND TO BE FORCED TO DENY CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES

No comments

Awesome Interview With Former Lesbian in Christianity Today

Saturday, 24. March 2007, 00:06:19

salvation, homosexuality, christian

The Rebirth of Venus
Charlene Cothran, editor of a magazine for African-American gays and lesbians, on how she renounced homosexuality and came to Christ.
Interview by Amy Tracy
Charlene Cothran, publisher and editor-in-chief of Venus Magazine, a national publication for African-American gays and lesbians she launched 13 years ago, made a startling announcement: After 29 years as a gay activist, she's become a Christian, renounced her homosexuality, and changed the format of her magazine to spread the gospel to the gay community.
Amy Tracy, whose own similar conversion story was told in an earlier Christianity Today article, interviewed Cothran about her new direction.

No comments

SEXUALITY - A MAKE OR BREAK ISSUE FOR THE CHURCH

Wednesday, 2. August 2006, 00:54:23

church, homosexuality, society

SEXUALITY - A MAKE OR BREAK ISSUE FOR THE CHURCH

On a visit to New Zealand earlier this year The Archbishop of Sydney, the Most Rev Peter Jensen, spelt out to New Zealand evangelicals why he believes human sexuality is correctly the issue at which Anglican churches should consider breaking fellowship.

Archbishop Jensen told a national Latimer Fellowship conference in Christchurch that the real reason this is a make or break issue has to do with the teachings of the Bible. "The biblical ideal of sexual relationships specifically excludes same-sex relationships. the
biblical teaching makes this a matter of spiritual life and death.

That is crystal clear from both the Old and New Testaments," he said. "I say with all solemnity to those who say the blessing of same-sex unions is okay, and who will ordain clergy living in same-sex unions: How can you do this when the souls of those involved are in peril? This is an enormously serious matter. And in the blessing of same-sex unions and the consecration or ordination of persons living in those relationships, we are saying to the community as a whole that these relationships have the blessing of God, when the scriptures say those who are in them are excluded from the kingdom of Heaven.

"This lifestyle is spiritually perilous. Encouraging it is endangering the lives and eternal destiny of those involved, and it
is inconsistent with the duties of a minister of Gods word."

Archbishop Jensen said the whole sexual revolution - and not just the homosexual part of it - was anti-human and dehumanizing.
"What the Bible teaches us about the right way to live is profoundly humanistic - it's very good for us. It's very obvious that its true,
but we seem to be so wimpish about saying it, as though somehow the secular world has it all right."

Archbishop Jensen went on to say "Of course, the cultural flow is against us. The roar of approval of sex outside marriage has been
quite deafening. The theological appeal to tolerance, to rights, to justice, to individual liberty, have all had the approval of the
cultural elites of the Western world.

"Any opposition to theological liberalism is easily labelled with the dreaded words 'homophobic' and 'fundamentalist'. It is part of the
propaganda war to label those who take my point of view as obsessed, homophobic, fanatical, negative, fundamentalist, divisive and
puritan. But it is one thing for those responsible to take no action when the law is broken; it is another thing when a diocese or church adopts a policy which is contrary to scripture and which touches a matter of salvation. When such things occur at an official level, and I am part of the institution, then I am involved whether I like it or not."

Archbishop Jensen said such developments had been some time coming, and protests should have been made long before to serve as a warning that "what we see coming towards us constitutes a schismatic offence. Dioceses and bishops around the world have to realize that an official endorsement of sex outside marriage - heterosexual or homosexual - will lead to disturbances and problems within their church. Evangelicals and many others will not be able to acquiesce as a matter of conscience. There will be permanent disruption in the affairs of the church - I believe it will become ungovernable if people persist," Archbishop Jensen said.

Source: New Zealand Challenge Weekly

No comments

Why the Homosexual agenda must be resisted.

Wednesday, 26. July 2006, 08:18:01

homosexuality, society

When you raise the issue of the sanctity of marriage, the so-called progressive or tolerant people are quick to accuse you of being narrow minded or intoelrant.

There is a reason why homosexual marriage registers and civil registers must be resisted: becasue once you break the link between marriage and heterosexuality then everything is negotiable and nothing is sacred.

This article shows the terrible fruit of opening the door even a little bit.

Fanatical Swedish Feminists
The stuff about chopping men to bits might have been a bit much.

With Congress about to take up the Federal Marriage Amendment, let’s travel a little and take a look at how marriage is faring in Scandinavia — specifically Sweden, famous as a bellwether of family change. In 1987, Sweden offered same-sex couples the first domestic partnership package in Europe. This led Denmark in 1989, then Norway in 1993, to set up a more elaborate system of “registered partnerships” (with nearly all the rights of marriage), which Sweden adopted in 1994. I discussed some of these changes in The End of Marriage in ScandinaviaFebruary 2004 piece. yet much has happened since then.

The years 2004 and 2005 saw the growth, collapse, and apparent rebirth of a campaign to abolish Swedish marriage and replace it with a gender-neutral partnership system that allows for multi-partner relationships. This story of the drive to abolish marriage in Sweden is bound up with one of the most bizarre and fascinating political tales of recent years: the rise and burnout of Sweden’s first political party built entirely around women’s issues: the Feminist Initiative (FI). (See “The definitive guide to equality in Sweden.”)

The rest of the article is here

No comments

EMU Continues to Bury Its Head in the Sand

Thursday, 13. July 2006, 05:58:00

church, homosexuality, ministry

The Uniting Church in Australia's triennial Assembly once again refused to change its anti-biblical path of allowing the ordination of practising homosexuals into ministry.

You would think that the dissenting voice in the church, Evangelical Members of the Uniting Church or EMU would have finally come to their senses and staged a co-ordinated walk out of the denomination, as they have threatened to do in the past.

Instead they have come up with, yet another dissenting body, The Assembly of Confessing Congregations. This Assembly, while a part of the UCA will offer parallel teaching and mission resources. They will also provide a way for Confessing Ministry Workers to be linked with Confessing Congregations.

My friend Steve Estherby who heads up EMU said this: "This action has been necessary because of the refusal of the National Assembly to affirm the traditional teaching and practice of the Uniting Church, For us, the Assembly of Confessing Congregations represents the hope of a new beginning and a way in which we can remain associated with the UCA with integrity."

I'm sorry Steve, but it's clear that you and your friends still don't get it. You lost, they won. The UCA will ordain gay ministers and there is nothing you can do about it.

The only way forward with integrity is to leave the UCA. This is just continuing the deception that you can remain in a denomination that has abandoned all pretence of obedience to scripture and is pursuing a path of secular humanism.

Let me state this clearly. No person who claims to be evangelical can remain any longer in the UCA.

To remain is actually a form of idolatry that says "My belonging to a man-made organisation is more important to me than being faithful to God."

The UCA, as long as it turns its back on God's word, will continue to decline and wither away.

No comments

Uniting Church Refuses to Change Course

Wednesday, 12. July 2006, 11:21:09

homosexuality, church, society

This week's National Assembly of the Uniting Church in Australia has committed the church to its crazy course of self-destruction.

The Assembly has once again failed to make a definitive stance on ordination of homosexual clergy. The status quo position which was formalised in the notorious Proposition 84 at the last Assembly three years ago will remain in force, namely that it will be up to each Presbytery to decide its own position. This effectively opens the doors to openly homosexual ministers in the church.

The Uniting Church's position is in clear breach of scripture which says that homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. I don't know how leaders in the UCA square this up with the Basis of Union (the foundational doctrinal statement of the Church) which states that the UCA will listen to the scriptures.

In a recent article, Rev. Howard Bradbury a former UCA minister says that he was shocked by Proposition 84 because it seemed to come out of nowhere. Yet when he reflected on it, he didn't understand why he was surprised as it should have been obvious that this was the way the church was heading.

There is tremendous deception and self-deception operating among all UCA members, but especially amongst those who call themselves charismatic and evangelicals in the UCA.

No longer can they say "We didn't see this coming."

No longer can they say "This will never affect us."

No longer can they say "Proposition 84 will be overturned."

Ironically the one resolution that the Assembly was able to agree on was a statement that they were unable to come to agreement on the issue.

No comments

Presbyterians Suggest Gender-Inclusive Language in Worship

Tuesday, 20. June 2006, 00:07:09

church, homosexuality, denominations

From FOX-NEWS
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200051,00.html

All I can say is that from historical experience with the Uniting Church in Australia, this is always a sign of a denomination that is crumbling.

Presbyterians Suggest Gender-Inclusive Language in Worship

Monday , June 19, 2006

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — The divine Trinity — "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" — could also be known as "Mother, Child and Womb" or "Rock, Redeemer, Friend" at some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) services under an action Monday by the church's national assembly.

Delegates to the meeting voted to "receive" a policy paper on gender-inclusive language for the Trinity, a step short of approving it. That means church officials can propose experimental liturgies with alternative phrasings for the Trinity, but congregations won't be required to use them.

"This does not alter the church's theological position, but provides an educational resource to enhance the spiritual life of our membership," legislative committee chair Nancy Olthoff, an Iowa laywoman, said during Monday's debate on the Trinity.

The assembly narrowly defeated a conservative bid to refer the paper back for further study.

A panel that worked on the issue since 2000 said the classical language for the Trinity should still be used, but added that Presbyterians also should seek "fresh ways to speak of the mystery of the triune God" to "expand the church's vocabulary of praise and wonder."

One reason is that language limited to the Father and Son "has been used to support the idea that God is male and that men are superior to women," the panel said.

Conservatives responded that the church should stick close to the way God is named in the Bible and noted that Jesus' most famous prayer was addressed to "Our Father."

Besides "Mother, Child and Womb" and "Rock, Redeemer, Friend," proposed Trinity options drawn from biblical material include:

— "Lover, Beloved, Love"

— "Creator, Savior, Sanctifier"

— "King of Glory, Prince of Peace, Spirit of Love."

Early in Monday's business session, the Presbyterian assembly sang a revised version of a familiar doxology, "Praise God from whom all blessings flow" that avoided male nouns and pronouns for God.

Youth delegate Dorothy Hill, a student at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts, was uncomfortable with changing the Trinity wording. She said the paper "suggests viewpoints that seem to be in tension with what our church has always held to be true about our Trinitarian God."

Hill reminded delegates that the Ten Commandments say "the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."

The Rev. Deborah Funke of Montana warned that the paper would be "theologically confusing and divisive" at a time when the denomination of 2.3 million members faces other troublesome issues.

On Tuesday, the assembly will vote on a proposal to give local congregations and regional "presbyteries" some leeway on ordaining clergy and lay officers living in gay relationships.

Ten conservative Presbyterian groups have warned jointly that approval of what they call "local option" would "promote schism by permitting the disregard of clear standards of Scripture."

No comments

Archbishop Jensen on Homosexuality and the Church

Wednesday, 24. May 2006, 07:14:30

homosexuality, church, society

The Archbishop of Sydney, Australia, the Most Rev Peter Jensen, has spelled out to New Zealand evangelicals why he believes human sexuality is correctly the issue at which Anglican churches should consider breaking fellowship.

Archbishop Jensen told a national Latimer Fellowship conference in Christchurch that the real reason this is a make or break issue has to do with the teachings of the Bible. "The biblical ideal of sexual relationships specifically excludes same-sex relationships. The biblical teaching makes this a matter of spiritual life and death. That is crystal clear from both the Old and New Testaments," he said.

"I say with all solemnity to those who say the blessing of same-sex unions is okay, and who will ordain clergy living in same-sex unions: How can you do this when the souls of those involved are in peril?

"This is an enormously serious matter. And in the blessing of same-sex unions and the consecration or ordination of persons living in those relationships, we are saying to the community as a whole that these relationships have the blessing of God, when the scriptures say those who are in them are excluded from the kingdom of Heaven.

"This lifestyle is spiritually perilous. Encouraging it is endangering the lives and eternal destiny of those involved, and it is inconsistent with the duties of a minister of Gods word.

"This lifestyle is also unhealthy. I am astonished that the medical profession has not risen to a person and told us the truth and opposed it. The dereliction of duty of the medical profession is one of the most shameful parts of this whole thing." Archbishop Jensen said the whole sexual revolution - and not just the homosexual part of it - was anti-human and dehumanizing.

"What the Bible teaches us about the right way to live is profoundly 'humanistic' - it's very good for us [as humans]. It's very obvious that its true, but we seem to be so wimpish about saying it, as though somehow the secular world has it all right."

The advocates of same-sex blessings and ordinations had been rather surprised at the response in the churches, said Archbishop Jensen. "It might be that having seen that women's ordination has come relatively painlessly, they thought this development would be accepted widely as well.

"It is also the case that the higher leadership of many of the churches has been more liberal in theology that the people in the pews. The bureaucracy has been ahead of the pew. Of course, the cultural flow is with them. The roar of approval of sex outside marriage has been quite deafening. The theological appeal to tolerance, to rights, to justice, to individual liberty, have all had the approval of the cultural elites of the Western world.

"And if you're a church leader and you mix with the cultural elites, as you listen to your mates they all say, 'good on you, wonderful'. Editorials in newspapers will praise you for doing this.

"The person in the pew might think rather differently. But any opposition to theological liberalism is easily labeled with the dreaded words 'homophobic' and 'fundamentalist'." The fact was, said Archbishop Jensen, that human sexuality was immensely important to our sense of self and it touched on the authority of scripture in a profound way.

"There is a very considerable group of people saying this is the point where we must make a stand. If we are not prepared to stand here, we will stand nowhere.

"Defending such doctrines as the uniqueness of Christ will prove impossible - the culture will see to that, and the church has developed a habit of succumbing."

Archbishop Jensen said it was important to note that the belief that the practice of homosexuality was wrong was virtually the unanimous verdict of Christians in space and time. "It is weird that modern Western culture so easily trumps theology in the church, and particularly in a church which has apparently always respected tradition.

"It is part of the propaganda war to label those who take my point of view as obsessed, homophobic, fanatical, negative, fundamentalist, divisive and puritan.

"But it is one thing for those responsible to take no action when the law is broken; it is another thing when a diocese or church adopts a policy which is contrary to scripture and which touches a matter of salvation. When such things occur at an official level, and I am part of the institution, then I am involved whether I like it or not."

Archbishop Jensen said such developments had been some time coming, and protests should have been made long before to serve as a warning that "what we see coming towards us constitutes a schismatic offence."

"Dioceses and bishops around the world have to realize that an official endorsement of sex outside marriage - heterosexual or homosexual - will lead to disturbances and problems within their church. It is a bridge too far.

"Evangelicals and many others will not be able to acquiesce as a matter of conscience. There will be permanent disruption in the affairs of the church - I believe it will become ungovernable if people persist," Archbishop Jensen said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John McNeil, a veteran of 40 years of newspaper and radio journalism, is South Island editor for Challenge Weekly, New Zealand's non-denominational, independent national Christian newspaper.

No comments

Episcopal Church Panel Recommends 'Caution' in Appointing Gay Bishops

Wednesday, 12. April 2006, 01:14:08

church, homosexuality

Source: Focus on the Family. www.family.org

Episcopal Church Panel Recommends 'Caution' in Appointing Gay Bishops

by Pete Winn, associate editor

The American branch of one of the largest Christian denominations is in danger of decertification.

A special advisory committee is recommending that the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA) exercise "considerable caution" from now on before electing homosexual bishops.

The commission also recommended that the American church offer "apology and repentance" and stop holding blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples, at least for a while.

The Rev. Dr. Kendall Harmon, a church law expert and theologian for the ECUSA's Diocese of South Carolina, said the committee report is another salvo in a dispute over homosexuality that threatens the relationship of the 2.3 million-member American church to the worldwide Anglican Communion — the world's third-largest Christian denomination at 88 million.

He compared the church's relationship to the Communion to a rocky marriage.

"This is a marriage that's in full separation," he said, "and it's in danger of divorce."

ECUSA has been at odds with the worldwide church since 2003, when the American church allowed V. Gene Robinson — a practicing homosexual — to become the bishop of New Hampshire.

As a response to Robinson's elevation to bishop, Harmon said a "high-stakes marriage counselor" was brought in to try to mend the rift. The Eames Commission, as it was called, asked the American church to stop appointing gay bishops and sanctioning same-sex marriages.

"That commission's report — The 2004 Windsor Report — said basically what we need to do is create space," Harmon said. "What we need to do is stop any more movement. We need you (ECUSA) to have a moratorium on what you've been doing."

This new ECUSA report, he added, is the American response "to pleas of the Anglican Communion that we need some space."

"It's a long, long way short of what's being asked for," he said.

The Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner, one of the church's most important theologians, said it's important to know that the ECUSA panel does not set policy for the overall American church — its role is advisory only.

Still, the church's bishops may entertain and pass some of the proposals at ECUSA's general convention in June. If they do, the worldwide church could refuse to accept the action — and the divorce may become final.

"There's a big difference between not doing it at all (appointing gay bishops), and just doing it with caution," Radner said.

The proposal, he explained, takes on added significance since next month the diocese of California is going to have an election for bishop, and three of the candidates have same-sex partners.

"They've already, said, 'Yeah, we'll exercise caution, and if we choose to elect any of these people, we will go ahead and do it,' " Radner noted. "That's a huge loophole."

Harmon said the relationship between the American church and the Anglican Communion was headed the wrong way long before the American church OK'd the election of a homosexual bishop.

It began in 1998 at the Lambeth Conference, the once-every-10-year gathering of all Anglican bishops from around the world, who come to London at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The archbishop, the titular head of worldwide Anglicanism, makes his home at Britain's Lambeth Palace.

Led by the bishops of the "global South" — Africa and Asia — the Lambeth Conference passed a resolution which said, "Homosexual practice is incompatible with Scripture."

"It passed by a huge majority of the bishops who were present there," Harmon said, "and it reflected the vast majority of the Communion's belief."

The resolution did not, however, reflect the beliefs of some of the most important bishops in the Western churches — namely in the U.S. and Canada.

"The bishop of Los Angeles actually came home and said, 'The Holy Spirit was not there,' " Harmon said.

As a result of what happened in 1998, the Western churches moved towards embracing what Harmon called "various nonbiblical practices of human sexuality" — culminating in the election of Robinson.

For Radner, there are two possible outcomes to the crisis.

"One is that the Episcopal Church will have to be disciplined in some way — their bishops will not be invited to the Lambeth Conference in 2008, and there are some legal implications of that which are unclear," he said. "This would cause chaos in the American church."

The other possibility? That the worldwide church would accept the American response.

Things could shake out by the end of the summer, he said.

No comments