Well, a similar situation in the Diocese of Toronto is one of the thingss that eventually made me leave the church.
I don't think you can really judge the collapse of relationships due to someone discovering their homosexuality with the same standards as for other situations, inasmuch that there aren't any accepted legal and traditional recourses and the personal risk involved is somewhat greater.
Trotting out the old Three Legged Stool for a second, this seems to be a case where Tradition is against it, Reason is for it, and Scripture is inconsistent, given that Paul's opinions an various things are frequently ignored or reinterpreted by the Communion and that Jesus fulfilled the Law by reducing to an essential point that is not at all incompatible with homosexuality.
I'm somewhat disappointed with the Archbishop of Canterbury's actions, and I'm concerned with the way this seems to reflect a larger crossraods in Christianity. It seems like communities are balancing between asserting the necessity of the evangelical mission and the universal moral authority of the faith, but are looking for a set of distinguishing practices -- ways to identify themselves in secular society as a people apart.
So when you say:
Straight people currently have an option that gay people don't, which is marriage. Jesus explicitly gave marriage as the context for sex. Ergo, only married people who aspire to leading Christian communities get to shag.
It feels like you're saying that "This is the sacrifice you make to be a part of the faith" and claiming that it's a Christian practice that need not be a moral obligation for others, but on the other hand, the evangelical side makes it implicit that even if you aren't in the club, you're doing something wrong for not following the code.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2003-10-16 06:42 pm (UTC)I don't think you can really judge the collapse of relationships due to someone discovering their homosexuality with the same standards as for other situations, inasmuch that there aren't any accepted legal and traditional recourses and the personal risk involved is somewhat greater.
Trotting out the old Three Legged Stool for a second, this seems to be a case where Tradition is against it, Reason is for it, and Scripture is inconsistent, given that Paul's opinions an various things are frequently ignored or reinterpreted by the Communion and that Jesus fulfilled the Law by reducing to an essential point that is not at all incompatible with homosexuality.
I'm somewhat disappointed with the Archbishop of Canterbury's actions, and I'm concerned with the way this seems to reflect a larger crossraods in Christianity. It seems like communities are balancing between asserting the necessity of the evangelical mission and the universal moral authority of the faith, but are looking for a set of distinguishing practices -- ways to identify themselves in secular society as a people apart.
So when you say:
Straight people currently have an option that gay people don't, which is marriage. Jesus explicitly gave marriage as the context for sex. Ergo, only married people who aspire to leading Christian communities get to shag.
It feels like you're saying that "This is the sacrifice you make to be a part of the faith" and claiming that it's a Christian practice that need not be a moral obligation for others, but on the other hand, the evangelical side makes it implicit that even if you aren't in the club, you're doing something wrong for not following the code.