By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor Tue Apr 17, 5:54 PM ET
PARIS (Reuters) - The spiritual leader of the world's 77 million Anglicans has said conservative Christians who cite the Bible to condemn homosexuality are misreading a key passage written by Saint Paul almost 2,000 years ago.
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, addressing theology students in Toronto, said an oft-quoted passage in Paul's Epistle to the Romans meant to warn Christians not to be self-righteous when they see others fall into sin.
His comments were an unusually open rebuff to conservative bishops, many of them from Africa, who have been citing the Bible to demand that pro-gay Anglican majorities in the United States and Canada be reined in or forced out of the Communion.
"Many current ways of reading miss the actual direction of the passage," Williams said on Monday, according to a text of his speech posted on the Anglican Church of Canada's Web site.
"Paul is making a primary point not about homosexuality but about the delusions of the supposedly law-abiding."
The worldwide Anglican Communion is near breaking point over homosexuality, with conservative clerics insisting the Bible forbids gay bishops or blessings for same-sex unions. Its U.S. branch, the Episcopal Church, named a gay bishop in 2003.
In fact, Williams also revealed on Tuesday that he had considered canceling the Anglicans' once-a-decade 2008 Lambeth Conference, which has the potential to become a flashpoint over homosexuality.
"Yes, we've already been considering that and the answer is no," he told the Anglican Church of Canada's Anglican Journal.
"We've been looking at whether the timing is right, but if we wait for the ideal time, we will wait more than just 18 months."
In the passage of Romans that Williams referred to in Monday's speech, Paul said people who forgot God's words fell into sin. "Men committed indecent acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion," Paul wrote.
Williams said these lines were "for the majority of modern readers the most important single text in Scripture on the subject of homosexuality." But right after that passage, Paul warns readers not to condemn those who ignore God's word.
"At whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself," wrote Paul, the first-century apostle whose epistles, or letters, to early Christian communities elaborated many Church teachings.
NEITHER SIDE WINS
Williams said reinterpreting Paul's epistle as a warning against smug self-righteousness rather than homosexuality would favor neither side over the other in the bitter struggle that threatens to plunge the Anglican Communion into schism.
It would not help pro-gay liberals, he said, because Paul and his readers clearly agreed that homosexuality was "as obviously immoral as idol worship or disobedience to parents."
This reading would also upset anti-gay conservatives, who have been "up to this point happily identifying with Paul's castigation of someone else," and challenge them to ask whether they were right to judge others, he added.
"This does nothing to settle the exegetical questions fiercely debated at the moment," Williams said.
But he said a "strictly theological reading of Scripture" would not allow a Christian to denounce others and not ask whether he or she were also somehow at fault.
Williams warned of the danger of schism.
"The Communion has to face the fact that there is a division in our Church and it's getting deeper and more bitter," he said. "If the Anglican Church divides, everyone will lose."
You just have to accept that western Churches get worked up on this issue. Until the later twentieth century when liberal western thought began to question whether homosexuality was not, in fact, 'natural', no one read St. Paul's words in the way Dr. Williams now suggests they can be read; the universal tradition of the Church, undivided and divided, was that homosexuality, like fornication, lust and other sexual acts devoted solely to selfish pleasure (you can work out what else to include here) desecrated the body, which is the temple of God, and led one into sin; therefore homosexuality, like the other acts, was regarded as sinful and to be discouraged and repented of, if committed.
Well, first of all the western churches quietly stopped going on about fornication and lust - goodness me there was so much of that going on they'd better just give up the fight. That made some conservative cling all the tighter to the condemnation of homosexuality, as that remained against the civil law until the 1960s in the UK. This is one reason that homosexuality became such an issue; it was a touchstone of orthodox belief; but people tended to forget that it was one of a range of types of sexual behaviour which the Church counsels against.
Perhaps because the conservatives made such a point of it, so too did the liberals; this was helped by the fact that a large minority of Anglican clergymen had homosexual inclinations; those of a conservative hue tried to stay celibate and argued that whilst they could not help liking their own gender, they could abstain from doing anything about it; this the Anglican Church accepted as a middle way; on the other side, the liberals argued that 'hey, it's natural, so we'll do it' - not the most orthodox of view points.
In this argument both sides try to cite scripture to back up opinions they already have; I never heard anyone change their mind on this as the result of debate. This is where the Orthodox Church has an advantage. What has the Church always said about this act? It has forbidden it - as with other forms of lust. We condemn the act, not the sinner, and we ask the sinner to repent.
I am sorry the Anglicans are so worked up and wrong-headed on this one - if they took an Orthodox view they would not be like that; but then, if they took Orthodox views on other things - like the ordination of women, they'd be OK too; but then they'd be able to join the Orthodox Church and wouldn't need to exist! Instead, some of us decided that instead of belonging to a Church which had some Orthodox and some unOrthodox views, it would be better to belong to the Orthodox Church - which is one reason I am an ex-Anglican. The main reason, of course, is that the Coptic Church is the Church of God and the best place to be. (A little bias creeping in there, perhaps?).
it's just weird to me how people still after maybe 1600 yrs of completeing the bible we have now, still think that everyone else is understanding it in wrong ways. wasn't that one of the reasons of the split of the churchs. or as i would like to call it, sapration from the Orthodox church since it is in fact the original apostalic church.
It depends which of the many splits you are talking about. The first one is in 451 over the definition of the nature of Christ, with the Chalcedonians taking one view and the non-Chalcedonians another (though many people now think this was a matter of confusion over some pretty technical theological language - others don't). The Greek Orthodox take the view that Chalcedon was an ecumenical Council and since they agreed with it, they are the Orthodox Church; we take the view that it was not, that it was wrong on the crucial point, and added something to the Faith, and that therefore we are THE Orthodox Church. The Russians, who weren't even Russian and were pagans at the time, got their Orthodoxy from Constantinople and therefore think that is the only real Orthodoxy.
The second split comes in 1054 between the Greeks and the Romans, with the latter, now known as Roman Catholics, taking the view that the Greeks had gone wrong and were schismatics, and THEY are the only true Church; the Greeks think the Romans were wrong, just like the Copts were wrong, and that therefore they are STILL the only real Church. We stayed out of it, had our own troubles with the Muslims, and think we are the real Church.
Then, after the early 1500s, there comes the splits in western Christendom which lead us to the current unhappy state where were have goodness knows how many Protestant Churches, all claiming they've got it right: the Catholics know they have; so do the Greeks and the Russians; and we stay quiet, and hope we witness to the Faith, and stick to what we've always taught - which is just what the Apostles did - we try not to bad mouth others - Jesus told us not to.
So, there you go - a history of the divisions in short compass. Almost the only thing we all agreed on until recently (apart from the fact that our Church was THE Church) was that there is a Triune God, Jesus is the Son of God - oh and homosexuality is wrong. Now the Anglicans and Episcopalians have gone and made even that a divisive issue. The capacity of Christians to find something over which to divide is truly remarkable - especially when you think that He told us to be united! Maybe were're just a little deaf - or a lot disobedient.
In all seriousness for a moment, we should try to love our fellow Christians, men and women - but keep it platonic - especially with the guys. We hate the sin, and love the sinner. We in the Coptic Church keep to what the Church has always taught; it has always rejected homosexual acts - it is not our position to say that those acts are OK now because it is the 21st century. The Church knows best. The fact that the Anglicans can't make up their minds shows, alas, that they lack the essential feature of an Apostolic Church - fidelity to the teachings of the Church across 2000 years. A shame, but there you go.
I just had a feeling you would be responding, and it's good that you are because you do have a unique vantage point on all of this. My concern is what this division could tell the world about Christianity. If I was an atheist and i saw this, i would think, "oh, the church keeps changing its mind, and its supposedly proclaiming the word of God. If God changes his mind, then Christianity means nothing." and about homosexuality, I'm having a hard time just accepting that people have a choice whether or not to be homosexual. What if they don't?
[quote author=EpNomos EnTaio link=topic=5225.msg70064#msg70064 date=1176961476] and about homosexuality, I'm having a hard time just accepting that people have a choice whether or not to be homosexual. What if they don't?
every individual has choices, at times due to ones financial or social standing they are limited but they still have a choice......for example; one can choose to remain unemployed or break the cycle, the same is applied for those who identify themselves as homosexuals, they dont wake up on one morning, thinking the guy next door is hot.....ppl turn to homosexuality becoz of the failed relationships with the opposite sex, and at times guys get along better with guys than girls and vice versa but they still choose to give up on the journey for their partner and thus loose faith in God's will and his plan for us
Ok, since this got to homosexuality in general, here is a great document that was done by one of my church servants that talks about homosexuality in the bible, our world today, and how is it a grave sin. i knwo this document is that good because i was there when he presented it to our friday meeting =).
Yes, I fear I could not but post on this one; it occupied far too much time at Church meetings when I was an Anglican.
We are all grateful for the document Kerestina directed us towards; the Church speaks with a clear voice - and we must listen and follow that teaching.
As I said before, let us not get obsessed with homosexuality; it is one of a series of 'lusts of the flesh' that the Church warns us against. If one takes it as such one sees what the answer to the statement 'but homosexuals can't help it, they are born that way' is. Too much time is spent on this one. Heterosexual men are naturally attracted to women; they can't help it. But they can help trying to fornicate with them or seduce them or molest them; just because our marred and weakened human nature gives us such urges does not mean we cannot pray for help with these urges; we can - and should.
Likewise, even if you think you are a born homosexual, you can try to obey the Church and control those urges and do nothing about them; it is no different from a single man not giving in to the urge to fornicate. Yes, you could argue that single men can get married and find a legitimate outlet for their passion; quite true, but not every man gets married, and those who feel they are in some way born to be homosexual are, effectively taking the road of being a single man - with the self control and continence that involves.
But there is no doubt whatsoever that the Church condemns this sin, as it does other sins of the flesh. The Coptic Church, unlike the Anglican, also takes a firm line against fornication and adultery; in that it is consistent with the teaching of the early Church. Anglicanism has become a 'pick and mix' Church, choosing which bits of the faith to accept. Some things are not ours to give away - and this is one of them.
Do, however, remember, that whilst we hate the sin, we love the sinner and pray for him or her.
We hate the sin, and we also believe that the sin is caused by a perversion of the mind. That would mean that we hate the perversion that caused the sin. Despite the fact that the person would be trying to repent, wouldn't the mere fact that he has that perversion make him guilty of sin? Also, there are case studies where people tried to control their urges and force themselves to be straight, but it didn't work. What about that?
Minagir, I liked the lecture notes you posted up. I would love to read more!
Can I respond by avoiding the language of psychology and psychotherapy perhaps? I'm not comfortable with what I take to be a largely secular way of categorising this. 'A perversion of the mind'? Well, perhaps, although once you go there you get the psychological counter-argument about exactly what is and is not 'perverted', which leads to the swamps of cultural relativism and spiritual death.
The Church gets it right when it talks about 'sin' - and we know the origin of sin - the workings of Satan on our weakened nature. Sin is to to miss the target of God's will for us. Thus, whether we aim our lust selfishly at a woman to whom we are not married, (or even, if selfishly at our wife), or at another man, we fall short of the standard God wants us to reach. The Church teaches all these things are wrong. It does not tell us that we can argue with it on this, it tells us clearly.
One of the problems for the Anglican Church is that in the west it cannot say this because it has lost faith in the language of the Church. It talks in the language of secular science - and once you do that you end up abandoning things the Church has always taught. So, in the US and the UK, Anglicans have a real problem saying that homosexual practices are sinful; they don't even try to say that heterosexual promiscuity is one too (which is why they look as though they are obsessed with homosexuality), because promiscuity is thought of as 'normal'.
Well, there is a lot of stuff which, by that standard, is 'normal' - but Christ's way it to recover the image of God in which we were made - not to rest in sin.
OK, so it doesn't matter who our object of lust is, lust is always bad. I'm with you there. But, if two men can have a relationship that is not based on lust, your logic dictates that they are not committing sin. We know it is a sin, so there has to be another explanation.
Again, an interesting way of looking at it. If two men have a relationship which is like that of David and Jonathan, no problem - if they take it to Brokeback Mountain lust enters in and they commit a sin.
It seems clear that the Church has always recognised that close male friendships are fine - but sexual ones are not. Is that helpful to us in discussing this, or does it leave difficulties?
Sorry for being so difficult, I'm just having a hard time understanding this! Well, is it possible for two males to have a relationship that is sexual, yet not lustful? Or, is it inherent in the very nature of their relationship that it will be lustful? What if someone, guy or girl, is homosexual and doesn't feel it's wrong and consequently don't repent, is that their fault?
It is clear that Rowan Williams is NOT a man of God, but a man wishing to appease others.
Our Pontiff said in his book (which were published AFTER his lecture on homosexuality and the ordination of women priests) that if you love someone, you should correct them, not let them live in sin. But to appease their problem - you are not doing them any favours.
Furthermore, from the Bible, In Isiah - chapter 20/21?? I forget , He says "Woe to you who change right from wrong, and wrong from right, for the wrath of the Lord shall be upon you".
From Our Lord Jesus Christ, He said :"Even if you do miracles in my name, and cast out demons, i assuredly say I do NOT know you, you lawless". Lawless means someone who breaks His Commandments.
THis is a strange man Mr WIlliams. Solomon asked for wisdom, and for a reason: "To judge these "wicked" people". Saying something is wrong, is NOT condeming that person. We do not condemn anyone. Its not for us condemnation. This word does not belong in the mouth of any one who is Christian. However, to testify that something is wrong is not condemnation. Its evangelisation.
When Jonah went to the land of Ninevah, it said in the Bible that these people could not discern between their right and left hand. THey didnt know between what was right and wrong. They were lost. Jonah came and told them to repent. Repent for what then!???? Why? If they were homosexuals, then what did they need to repent for if homosexuality is not wrong? If they were fornicators, then why repent?? Fornication then is not wrong according to this anglican bishop!! Nothing is wrong. THe only wrong thing is telling someone to repent!! This apparently is wrong.
According to Rowan William's logic, it appears the ONLY person in the wrong here was Jonah for telling the people of Ninevah to repent!!!!!
I think i can see why John (alias Anglican) has decided to become Coptic: And many will follow.
Vassilios is quite correct; it is attitudes such as these which made me decide, sadly, that although there are many good people in the Anglican Church, and although it does much good in the world among the poor and the suffering, it is not an Orthodox Church, and it was not, in good conscience, possible for me to stay in it.
I am happy to say, however, that although it was such negative things that made me leave the Anglican Church, I joined the Coptic Church for entirely positive reasons; its approach is both Orthodox and loving, in the way you describe.
On the interesting question posed by EpNomos EnTaio, the answer would be that two males cannot have such a relationship without lust entering into it. The teachings of the Church are clear, and such acts are inherently sinful; we may think we know better in the west of the twenty-first century, but the Church is quite firm in its age-old condemnation of this sin. We cannot pick and choose which 'bits' of its teaching we 'choose' to accept; that is the Anglican error.
Of course, I may be quite wrong, but if I am in the company of HH Pope Shenouda III, I think not; and I would rather be 'wrong' with him than 'right' with Archbishop Rowan - though, as I say, it is the Pope's teachings which are those of the universal Church, so he has to be correct.
I think it is difficult for people outside the UK to 'read' Rowan Williams. He is a genuinely good and holy man, trying his best to discern the will of God in a difficult situation; that such a one goes wrong on this question is the clearest indication there could be that the Anglicans are, as a Church, in the wrong place.
If the trumpet gives and uncertain sound - and all that. Well, Pope Shenouda is a certain sound and a rallying cry; I hope others who are where I was will take a good look at what the Coptic Orthodox Church teaches; do not believe what you are told by those outside it, read the works of the Pope and Fr. Malaty and Fr. Hanna - and see if that is not where Orthodoxy is to be found. The Copts have been very welcoming to those of us in the British Orthodox Church, and we have a totally British ethos - with a totally Orthodox theology - none of this stuff one finds elsewhere about having to speak old Church Slavonic or whatever. Although, I have to say, I do find the Coptic parts of the Liturgy quite wonderfully uplifting when I am at a Coptic service; it is a beautiful and holy tongue.
What we cal the Anglican Church and other so-called churches as well do many great great works in the world. The works that are done are very needed. It is important to note that any kind of organization of good will can do these same things. That is not to take anything from the Anglicans.
If they are fit to feed the world than they should do it. Also if corporate America is fit to feed the world than they should also.
Any and all other humane acts of philanthropy and hope can come from absolutely anyone anywhere it does not matter what you believe. You can believe in nothing that would not stop you from freeing the captives of the world.
Remember America was built from the abuses of slavery and the ravages of war. But the concept of God was always present at the same time. Even after slavery many Americans benefited from the insults of aparthied, segregation and utter inhuman treatment of what we call black people. But these same "Americans" while performing (or supporting) these hanus ungodly acts also loved Jesus and what they called the church.
So it is not surprising the kinds of uselessness we see in Anglican 'Theology' ( for lack of a better word). These people know that they can not edify God and enrich others with His truth with the shameful things they have instituted for themsleves.
They know that.
These people are edifying themselves.
The Holy Church is not how they see things.
They see themselves as already central to all that is good and just (real or imagined) and thus have a since of "holiness" from pedigree and rich heritage. In thier minds they are blessed to do no wrong. Thus we see them today wondering when we (the Holy Universal Church) is going to "get with the program". They think we are behind since we do not have liberal ideas that embrace 'people'. To them gay is good.
But we embrace the Holy Church and its ancient order as it was established by Christ and the fathers. We find gay a condition that needs healing like all other mental and physical illnesses.
We know that we have people in this condition and pray and work for them to be healed so that they can be whole and recieve the Holy Communion. We know that the filthyness that is connected with this activity is against God and nature. It is full of desease.
The Anglicans have created a more liberal (non-Christian) mind-set. That's a critical thng to say but it is my view based on what God teaches. Women was made for man. and the body is not to defiled. These are teachings and commandments from God. Homosexuality can not adhere to any of this.
We must pray for all who speak the name of Christ.
Just the speaking of His name is Holy.
So while a person may be outside The Universal Church of Christ God still hears every voice that is truly calling on His saving grace. Not just lip service and ceromony but real calling; asking for saving from the sins they have commited. Those who are truly penetant may be saved with the grace of the HOly Spirit. Those who are happy with thier sins ....well thats why we must pray for them.
We must pray for those who are convinced that gayness is normal and good and 'Christian'.
Western liberalism is an ideology which pretends that it is not one; it presents itself as normative in ways that allow it to present those who disagree with it as bigots. Thus it starts from the position that to be 'open-minded' is the most desirable thing possible; but that in itself is an ideological position. Liberal 'open-mindedness' does not embrace the 'rights' of traditionalists to deplore behaviour which is contrary to our beliefs - that is bigotry, which it will not 'tolerate'. Its tolerance is open only to things that attack tradition, the family and those pillars which uphold traditional societies. This is not real tolerance - it is an ideology of radicalism which strikes at the heart of what the Christian message preaches.
Liberalism preaches the centrality of man and his desires; 'do what you will' is the whole of the law. Christianity places God at the centre of our existence and calls us to repent of our sins and to remake sinful selves with His help and the help of His Church and its sacraments. For the liberal, 'true freedom' is to be found in license and self-will; for us, it is in obedience to the will of God.
The Liberal tries to remake the world in his own image; we are called to remake the world in the image of God. Because of the economic and political position of the west we can easily be misled into thinking that its values are universal; if you look, you will see that in the period when the west made its greatest advances, its leaders still believed in God, and the Churches were more powerful than they are now. We should not be seduced into thinking that liberalism is somehow preferable to the law of God.
Comments
here's the article: ... ?
You just have to accept that western Churches get worked up on this issue. Until the later twentieth century when liberal western thought began to question whether homosexuality was not, in fact, 'natural', no one read St. Paul's words in the way Dr. Williams now suggests they can be read; the universal tradition of the Church, undivided and divided, was that homosexuality, like fornication, lust and other sexual acts devoted solely to selfish pleasure (you can work out what else to include here) desecrated the body, which is the temple of God, and led one into sin; therefore homosexuality, like the other acts, was regarded as sinful and to be discouraged and repented of, if committed.
Well, first of all the western churches quietly stopped going on about fornication and lust - goodness me there was so much of that going on they'd better just give up the fight. That made some conservative cling all the tighter to the condemnation of homosexuality, as that remained against the civil law until the 1960s in the UK. This is one reason that homosexuality became such an issue; it was a touchstone of orthodox belief; but people tended to forget that it was one of a range of types of sexual behaviour which the Church counsels against.
Perhaps because the conservatives made such a point of it, so too did the liberals; this was helped by the fact that a large minority of Anglican clergymen had homosexual inclinations; those of a conservative hue tried to stay celibate and argued that whilst they could not help liking their own gender, they could abstain from doing anything about it; this the Anglican Church accepted as a middle way; on the other side, the liberals argued that 'hey, it's natural, so we'll do it' - not the most orthodox of view points.
In this argument both sides try to cite scripture to back up opinions they already have; I never heard anyone change their mind on this as the result of debate. This is where the Orthodox Church has an advantage. What has the Church always said about this act? It has forbidden it - as with other forms of lust. We condemn the act, not the sinner, and we ask the sinner to repent.
I am sorry the Anglicans are so worked up and wrong-headed on this one - if they took an Orthodox view they would not be like that; but then, if they took Orthodox views on other things - like the ordination of women, they'd be OK too; but then they'd be able to join the Orthodox Church and wouldn't need to exist! Instead, some of us decided that instead of belonging to a Church which had some Orthodox and some unOrthodox views, it would be better to belong to the Orthodox Church - which is one reason I am an ex-Anglican. The main reason, of course, is that the Coptic Church is the Church of God and the best place to be. (A little bias creeping in there, perhaps?).
In Christ,
John
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070417/wl_canada_nm/canada_anglicans_homosexuality_col
How do you guys feel about this? Any thoughts?
it's just weird to me how people still after maybe 1600 yrs of completeing the bible we have now, still think that everyone else is understanding it in wrong ways. wasn't that one of the reasons of the split of the churchs. or as i would like to call it, sapration from the Orthodox church since it is in fact the original apostalic church.
It depends which of the many splits you are talking about. The first one is in 451 over the definition of the nature of Christ, with the Chalcedonians taking one view and the non-Chalcedonians another (though many people now think this was a matter of confusion over some pretty technical theological language - others don't). The Greek Orthodox take the view that Chalcedon was an ecumenical Council and since they agreed with it, they are the Orthodox Church; we take the view that it was not, that it was wrong on the crucial point, and added something to the Faith, and that therefore we are THE Orthodox Church. The Russians, who weren't even Russian and were pagans at the time, got their Orthodoxy from Constantinople and therefore think that is the only real Orthodoxy.
The second split comes in 1054 between the Greeks and the Romans, with the latter, now known as Roman Catholics, taking the view that the Greeks had gone wrong and were schismatics, and THEY are the only true Church; the Greeks think the Romans were wrong, just like the Copts were wrong, and that therefore they are STILL the only real Church. We stayed out of it, had our own troubles with the Muslims, and think we are the real Church.
Then, after the early 1500s, there comes the splits in western Christendom which lead us to the current unhappy state where were have goodness knows how many Protestant Churches, all claiming they've got it right: the Catholics know they have; so do the Greeks and the Russians; and we stay quiet, and hope we witness to the Faith, and stick to what we've always taught - which is just what the Apostles did - we try not to bad mouth others - Jesus told us not to.
So, there you go - a history of the divisions in short compass. Almost the only thing we all agreed on until recently (apart from the fact that our Church was THE Church) was that there is a Triune God, Jesus is the Son of God - oh and homosexuality is wrong. Now the Anglicans and Episcopalians have gone and made even that a divisive issue. The capacity of Christians to find something over which to divide is truly remarkable - especially when you think that He told us to be united! Maybe were're just a little deaf - or a lot disobedient.
In all seriousness for a moment, we should try to love our fellow Christians, men and women - but keep it platonic - especially with the guys. We hate the sin, and love the sinner. We in the Coptic Church keep to what the Church has always taught; it has always rejected homosexual acts - it is not our position to say that those acts are OK now because it is the 21st century. The Church knows best. The fact that the Anglicans can't make up their minds shows, alas, that they lack the essential feature of an Apostolic Church - fidelity to the teachings of the Church across 2000 years. A shame, but there you go.
In Christ,
John
I just had a feeling you would be responding, and it's good that you are because you do have a unique vantage point on all of this.
My concern is what this division could tell the world about Christianity. If I was an atheist and i saw this, i would think, "oh, the church keeps changing its mind, and its supposedly proclaiming the word of God. If God changes his mind, then Christianity means nothing."
and about homosexuality, I'm having a hard time just accepting that people have a choice whether or not to be homosexual. What if they don't?
and about homosexuality, I'm having a hard time just accepting that people have a choice whether or not to be homosexual. What if they don't?
every individual has choices, at times due to ones financial or social standing they are limited but they still have a choice......for example; one can choose to remain unemployed or break the cycle, the same is applied for those who identify themselves as homosexuals, they dont wake up on one morning, thinking the guy next door is hot.....ppl turn to homosexuality becoz of the failed relationships with the opposite sex, and at times guys get along better with guys than girls and vice versa but they still choose to give up on the journey for their partner and thus loose faith in God's will and his plan for us
i knwo this document is that good because i was there when he presented it to our friday meeting =).
Homosexuality
Yes, I fear I could not but post on this one; it occupied far too much time at Church meetings when I was an Anglican.
We are all grateful for the document Kerestina directed us towards; the Church speaks with a clear voice - and we must listen and follow that teaching.
As I said before, let us not get obsessed with homosexuality; it is one of a series of 'lusts of the flesh' that the Church warns us against. If one takes it as such one sees what the answer to the statement 'but homosexuals can't help it, they are born that way' is. Too much time is spent on this one. Heterosexual men are naturally attracted to women; they can't help it. But they can help trying to fornicate with them or seduce them or molest them; just because our marred and weakened human nature gives us such urges does not mean we cannot pray for help with these urges; we can - and should.
Likewise, even if you think you are a born homosexual, you can try to obey the Church and control those urges and do nothing about them; it is no different from a single man not giving in to the urge to fornicate. Yes, you could argue that single men can get married and find a legitimate outlet for their passion; quite true, but not every man gets married, and those who feel they are in some way born to be homosexual are, effectively taking the road of being a single man - with the self control and continence that involves.
But there is no doubt whatsoever that the Church condemns this sin, as it does other sins of the flesh. The Coptic Church, unlike the Anglican, also takes a firm line against fornication and adultery; in that it is consistent with the teaching of the early Church. Anglicanism has become a 'pick and mix' Church, choosing which bits of the faith to accept. Some things are not ours to give away - and this is one of them.
Do, however, remember, that whilst we hate the sin, we love the sinner and pray for him or her.
In Christ,
John
Also, there are case studies where people tried to control their urges and force themselves to be straight, but it didn't work. What about that?
Minagir,
I liked the lecture notes you posted up. I would love to read more!
Interesting points you make here.
Can I respond by avoiding the language of psychology and psychotherapy perhaps? I'm not comfortable with what I take to be a largely secular way of categorising this. 'A perversion of the mind'? Well, perhaps, although once you go there you get the psychological counter-argument about exactly what is and is not 'perverted', which leads to the swamps of cultural relativism and spiritual death.
The Church gets it right when it talks about 'sin' - and we know the origin of sin - the workings of Satan on our weakened nature. Sin is to to miss the target of God's will for us. Thus, whether we aim our lust selfishly at a woman to whom we are not married, (or even, if selfishly at our wife), or at another man, we fall short of the standard God wants us to reach. The Church teaches all these things are wrong. It does not tell us that we can argue with it on this, it tells us clearly.
One of the problems for the Anglican Church is that in the west it cannot say this because it has lost faith in the language of the Church. It talks in the language of secular science - and once you do that you end up abandoning things the Church has always taught. So, in the US and the UK, Anglicans have a real problem saying that homosexual practices are sinful; they don't even try to say that heterosexual promiscuity is one too (which is why they look as though they are obsessed with homosexuality), because promiscuity is thought of as 'normal'.
Well, there is a lot of stuff which, by that standard, is 'normal' - but Christ's way it to recover the image of God in which we were made - not to rest in sin.
In Christ,
John
It seems clear that the Church has always recognised that close male friendships are fine - but sexual ones are not. Is that helpful to us in discussing this, or does it leave difficulties?
In Christ,
John
Well, is it possible for two males to have a relationship that is sexual, yet not lustful? Or, is it inherent in the very nature of their relationship that it will be lustful?
What if someone, guy or girl, is homosexual and doesn't feel it's wrong and consequently don't repent, is that their fault?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070417/wl_canada_nm/canada_anglicans_homosexuality_col
How do you guys feel about this? Any thoughts?
Hi, I just read this passage:
It is clear that Rowan Williams is NOT a man of God, but a man wishing to appease others.
Our Pontiff said in his book (which were published AFTER his lecture on homosexuality and the ordination of women priests) that if you love someone, you should correct them, not let them live in sin. But to appease their problem - you are not doing them any favours.
Furthermore, from the Bible, In Isiah - chapter 20/21?? I forget , He says "Woe to you who change right from wrong, and wrong from right, for the wrath of the Lord shall be upon you".
From Our Lord Jesus Christ, He said :"Even if you do miracles in my name, and cast out demons, i assuredly say I do NOT know you, you lawless". Lawless means someone who breaks His Commandments.
THis is a strange man Mr WIlliams. Solomon asked for wisdom, and for a reason: "To judge these "wicked" people". Saying something is wrong, is NOT condeming that person. We do not condemn anyone. Its not for us condemnation. This word does not belong in the mouth of any one who is Christian. However, to testify that something is wrong is not condemnation. Its evangelisation.
When Jonah went to the land of Ninevah, it said in the Bible that these people could not discern between their right and left hand. THey didnt know between what was right and wrong. They were lost. Jonah came and told them to repent. Repent for what then!???? Why? If they were homosexuals, then what did they need to repent for if homosexuality is not wrong? If they were fornicators, then why repent?? Fornication then is not wrong according to this anglican bishop!! Nothing is wrong. THe only wrong thing is telling someone to repent!! This apparently is wrong.
According to Rowan William's logic, it appears the ONLY person in the wrong here was Jonah for telling the people of Ninevah to repent!!!!!
I think i can see why John (alias Anglican) has decided to become Coptic: And many will follow.
I am happy to say, however, that although it was such negative things that made me leave the Anglican Church, I joined the Coptic Church for entirely positive reasons; its approach is both Orthodox and loving, in the way you describe.
On the interesting question posed by EpNomos EnTaio, the answer would be that two males cannot have such a relationship without lust entering into it. The teachings of the Church are clear, and such acts are inherently sinful; we may think we know better in the west of the twenty-first century, but the Church is quite firm in its age-old condemnation of this sin. We cannot pick and choose which 'bits' of its teaching we 'choose' to accept; that is the Anglican error.
Of course, I may be quite wrong, but if I am in the company of HH Pope Shenouda III, I think not; and I would rather be 'wrong' with him than 'right' with Archbishop Rowan - though, as I say, it is the Pope's teachings which are those of the universal Church, so he has to be correct.
I think it is difficult for people outside the UK to 'read' Rowan Williams. He is a genuinely good and holy man, trying his best to discern the will of God in a difficult situation; that such a one goes wrong on this question is the clearest indication there could be that the Anglicans are, as a Church, in the wrong place.
If the trumpet gives and uncertain sound - and all that. Well, Pope Shenouda is a certain sound and a rallying cry; I hope others who are where I was will take a good look at what the Coptic Orthodox Church teaches; do not believe what you are told by those outside it, read the works of the Pope and Fr. Malaty and Fr. Hanna - and see if that is not where Orthodoxy is to be found. The Copts have been very welcoming to those of us in the British Orthodox Church, and we have a totally British ethos - with a totally Orthodox theology - none of this stuff one finds elsewhere about having to speak old Church Slavonic or whatever. Although, I have to say, I do find the Coptic parts of the Liturgy quite wonderfully uplifting when I am at a Coptic service; it is a beautiful and holy tongue.
In Christ,
John
If they are fit to feed the world than they should do it. Also if corporate America is fit to feed the world than they should also.
Any and all other humane acts of philanthropy and hope can come from absolutely anyone anywhere it does not matter what you believe. You can believe in nothing that would not stop you from freeing the captives of the world.
Remember America was built from the abuses of slavery and the ravages of war. But the concept of God was always present at the same time. Even after slavery many Americans benefited from the insults of aparthied, segregation and utter inhuman treatment of what we call black people. But these same "Americans" while performing (or supporting) these hanus ungodly acts also loved Jesus and what they called the church.
So it is not surprising the kinds of uselessness we see in Anglican 'Theology' ( for lack of a better word). These people know that they can not edify God and enrich others with His truth with the shameful things they have instituted for themsleves.
They know that.
These people are edifying themselves.
The Holy Church is not how they see things.
They see themselves as already central to all that is good and just (real or imagined) and thus have a since of "holiness" from pedigree and rich heritage. In thier minds they are blessed to do no wrong. Thus we see them today wondering when we (the Holy Universal Church) is going to "get with the program". They think we are behind since we do not have liberal ideas that embrace 'people'. To them gay is good.
But we embrace the Holy Church and its ancient order as it was established by Christ and the fathers. We find gay a condition that needs healing like all other mental and physical illnesses.
We know that we have people in this condition and pray and work for them to be healed so that they can be whole and recieve the Holy Communion. We know that the filthyness that is connected with this activity is against God and nature. It is full of desease.
The Anglicans have created a more liberal (non-Christian) mind-set. That's a critical thng to say but it is my view based on what God teaches. Women was made for man. and the body is not to defiled. These are teachings and commandments from God. Homosexuality can not adhere to any of this.
We must pray for all who speak the name of Christ.
Just the speaking of His name is Holy.
So while a person may be outside The Universal Church of Christ God still hears every voice that is truly calling on His saving grace. Not just lip service and ceromony but real calling; asking for saving from the sins they have commited. Those who are truly penetant may be saved with the grace of the HOly Spirit. Those who are happy with thier sins ....well thats why we must pray for them.
We must pray for those who are convinced that gayness is normal and good and 'Christian'.
Do not ridicule but pray.
DAT
There is much wisdom in what you say.
Western liberalism is an ideology which pretends that it is not one; it presents itself as normative in ways that allow it to present those who disagree with it as bigots. Thus it starts from the position that to be 'open-minded' is the most desirable thing possible; but that in itself is an ideological position. Liberal 'open-mindedness' does not embrace the 'rights' of traditionalists to deplore behaviour which is contrary to our beliefs - that is bigotry, which it will not 'tolerate'. Its tolerance is open only to things that attack tradition, the family and those pillars which uphold traditional societies. This is not real tolerance - it is an ideology of radicalism which strikes at the heart of what the Christian message preaches.
Liberalism preaches the centrality of man and his desires; 'do what you will' is the whole of the law. Christianity places God at the centre of our existence and calls us to repent of our sins and to remake sinful selves with His help and the help of His Church and its sacraments. For the liberal, 'true freedom' is to be found in license and self-will; for us, it is in obedience to the will of God.
The Liberal tries to remake the world in his own image; we are called to remake the world in the image of God. Because of the economic and political position of the west we can easily be misled into thinking that its values are universal; if you look, you will see that in the period when the west made its greatest advances, its leaders still believed in God, and the Churches were more powerful than they are now. We should not be seduced into thinking that liberalism is somehow preferable to the law of God.
In Christ,
John