"I don't advocate religion as a solely personal relationship. Christianity explicitly defines faith as a communal activity."
Sure, but the catholic (small "c" here, obviously) tradition also demands that we exercise reason to determine the validity of doctrine. This is something that requires that educated people basically argue about it a lot.
"This is largely true, and it is very much the case that the church does not have a head as such. It works via consensus. The major problem with 50 men in frocks in Lambeth Palace is that the secular world does not understand that these are not the bosses of the church, and they do not have the authority to tell other Christians what to do."
That's true enough, but they are an integral part of what binds many Anglican communities into a larger body. If faith equals community, the people who are integral to the forging of a larger Anglican community are important. I do agree, though, that the media doesn't seem to understand that the A of C isn't a kind of junior Pope.
"That logic brings us to this: 'I'm not sure it's right to condemn a straight man for sleeping around just because he hasn't found a woman who'll marry him', which I cannot accept."
I don't agree that this is the inevityable logical conclusion. A heterosexual man is capable of sanctifying these relationships within the church. A homosexual is not. It isn't the same situation.
"If a person claims to follow a set of teachings, he should live by those teachings even if they inconvenience him. That applies in both cases."
On the contrary, I believe that there's little sense in obeying a doctrine that appears to contradict Jesus' essential teachings or is otherwise irrational when compared to the larger corpus of Anglican doctrine. The church appears to believe this as well, given its history. There are few Christians who wholly obey Pauline scripture; this certainly indicates to me that people can apply reason to church teachings without being harmful.
"If those teachings do not allow him to do certain things, then he should accept that. The problem I have with so many of the pro-homosexual marriage arguments is that they treat sexuality as the single most important aspect of a person's existence, which is not and never will be the case."
On the contrary, it appears to be the church's historical position that sexuality and gender are of preeminent importance. Getting back to Paul, it looks like his opinions to do with these topics are the ones that the church has been most reluctant to rethink. I think the movement twoard accepting homosexual marriage and participation in all aspects of the Chrstian community is a sign that sexuality is being deemphasized as a factor in one's relationship with God.
On the other hand, sexuality *is* important -- often called a "gift from God" in theological discussions -- and the notion that God prefers homosexuals to remain celibate while simultaneously providing this gift strikes me as inconsistent with church teachings about God's goodness.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2003-10-17 06:56 pm (UTC)Sure, but the catholic (small "c" here, obviously) tradition also demands that we exercise reason to determine the validity of doctrine. This is something that requires that educated people basically argue about it a lot.
"This is largely true, and it is very much the case that the church does not have a head as such. It works via consensus. The major problem with 50 men in frocks in Lambeth Palace is that the secular world does not understand that these are not the bosses of the church, and they do not have the authority to tell other Christians what to do."
That's true enough, but they are an integral part of what binds many Anglican communities into a larger body. If faith equals community, the people who are integral to the forging of a larger Anglican community are important. I do agree, though, that the media doesn't seem to understand that the A of C isn't a kind of junior Pope.
"That logic brings us to this: 'I'm not sure it's right to condemn a straight man for sleeping around just because he hasn't found a woman who'll marry him', which I cannot accept."
I don't agree that this is the inevityable logical conclusion. A heterosexual man is capable of sanctifying these relationships within the church. A homosexual is not. It isn't the same situation.
"If a person claims to follow a set of teachings, he should live by those teachings even if they inconvenience him. That applies in both cases."
On the contrary, I believe that there's little sense in obeying a doctrine that appears to contradict Jesus' essential teachings or is otherwise irrational when compared to the larger corpus of Anglican doctrine. The church appears to believe this as well, given its history. There are few Christians who wholly obey Pauline scripture; this certainly indicates to me that people can apply reason to church teachings without being harmful.
"If those teachings do not allow him to do certain things, then he should accept that. The problem I have with so many of the pro-homosexual marriage arguments is that they treat sexuality as the single most important aspect of a person's existence, which is not and never will be the case."
On the contrary, it appears to be the church's historical position that sexuality and gender are of preeminent importance. Getting back to Paul, it looks like his opinions to do with these topics are the ones that the church has been most reluctant to rethink. I think the movement twoard accepting homosexual marriage and participation in all aspects of the Chrstian community is a sign that sexuality is being deemphasized as a factor in one's relationship with God.
On the other hand, sexuality *is* important -- often called a "gift from God" in theological discussions -- and the notion that God prefers homosexuals to remain celibate while simultaneously providing this gift strikes me as inconsistent with church teachings about God's goodness.