"Sure, but the catholic (small "c" here, obviously) tradition also demands that we exercise reason to determine the validity of doctrine."
True. The ABofC has done a series on conversation pieces on Channel 4 in recent weeks, the last of which was last night. He pointed out that the development of the faith is a three cornered thing, with the tension between scripture, reason and tradition (ie, the accumulated thinking of centuries of Christians) giving theological progress. He also explained very clearly that the Anglican communion moves forward by consensus, rather than dictat, and the current issue is one element of the church trying to move everyone else forward whether they like it or not. In essence, once reason and scripture have reached an agreement, it enters tradition and the whole body of Christ moves forwards.
This is an interesting position, and one I tend to agree with. It's well known that the ABofC is privately in favour of gay marriage, but has similar concerns to me: the manner in which this cause is being pushed forwards in New Hampshire, and the nature of the man being used as the standard bearer.
"A heterosexual man is capable of sanctifying these relationships within the church. A homosexual is not. It isn't the same situation."
Ah, but I think it is. You see, no-one is guaranteed the right to express their sexuality through action. They may only do so if someone is prepared to commit their life to a joining with the other person. So, in essence, a single straight Christian and a single gay Christian can be in exactly the same position (and I know some single straight Christians for whom this is a great and difficult struggle). I agree that currently there is some hope for the straight Christian and very little for the homosexual Christian, but I also think that this should not be the case (and increasingly isn't, actually. Many Christians explicitly accept committed gay relationships, even if formal blessings are only available in a few places).
"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."
There's still significant debate on the matter though, and many Christians would feel it meet to wait until that debate is largely resolved before committing themselves to what could be considered a sinful act. Remember, to a Christian a right relationship with God through Jesus should be the most important thing in their lives, and all else should flow from it.
"On the contrary, it appears to be the church's historical position that sexuality and gender are of preeminent importance. "
Well, that's because the church is full of people and people get hung up on sex. :-)
I won't deny that for various reasons of prejudice, fear and ignorance the church's teachings on sexuality have been all out of whack for a very long time. Finally, some proportion is being placed on the issue.
"On the other hand, sexuality *is* important -- often called a "gift from God" in theological discussions"
Yes, but that's sexuality as in the ability to enjoy sex, to be a sexual beings, as opposed to sexuality as in sexual orientation. For instance, no-one would try to argue that an inborn sexual desire for children or corpses was a "gift from God". However, as you know I do agree that sex is a gift from God, but purely as a binding factor in an exclusive, life-long relationship between two adults. And I see no good reason why extending that sacrament to same sex couple, with all the same provisos as apply to heterosexual couples, shouldn't be done. However, I also accept that the wider Anglican communion does not entirely hold with my views on this. Indeed, my wife doesn't. She doesn't even believe that we should have women priests. :-)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2003-10-18 02:56 am (UTC)True. The ABofC has done a series on conversation pieces on Channel 4 in recent weeks, the last of which was last night. He pointed out that the development of the faith is a three cornered thing, with the tension between scripture, reason and tradition (ie, the accumulated thinking of centuries of Christians) giving theological progress. He also explained very clearly that the Anglican communion moves forward by consensus, rather than dictat, and the current issue is one element of the church trying to move everyone else forward whether they like it or not. In essence, once reason and scripture have reached an agreement, it enters tradition and the whole body of Christ moves forwards.
This is an interesting position, and one I tend to agree with. It's well known that the ABofC is privately in favour of gay marriage, but has similar concerns to me: the manner in which this cause is being pushed forwards in New Hampshire, and the nature of the man being used as the standard bearer.
"A heterosexual man is capable of sanctifying these relationships within the church. A homosexual is not. It isn't the same situation."
Ah, but I think it is. You see, no-one is guaranteed the right to express their sexuality through action. They may only do so if someone is prepared to commit their life to a joining with the other person. So, in essence, a single straight Christian and a single gay Christian can be in exactly the same position (and I know some single straight Christians for whom this is a great and difficult struggle). I agree that currently there is some hope for the straight Christian and very little for the homosexual Christian, but I also think that this should not be the case (and increasingly isn't, actually. Many Christians explicitly accept committed gay relationships, even if formal blessings are only available in a few places).
"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."
There's still significant debate on the matter though, and many Christians would feel it meet to wait until that debate is largely resolved before committing themselves to what could be considered a sinful act. Remember, to a Christian a right relationship with God through Jesus should be the most important thing in their lives, and all else should flow from it.
"On the contrary, it appears to be the church's historical position that sexuality and gender are of preeminent importance. "
Well, that's because the church is full of people and people get hung up on sex. :-)
I won't deny that for various reasons of prejudice, fear and ignorance the church's teachings on sexuality have been all out of whack for a very long time. Finally, some proportion is being placed on the issue.
"On the other hand, sexuality *is* important -- often called a "gift from God" in theological discussions"
Yes, but that's sexuality as in the ability to enjoy sex, to be a sexual beings, as opposed to sexuality as in sexual orientation. For instance, no-one would try to argue that an inborn sexual desire for children or corpses was a "gift from God". However, as you know I do agree that sex is a gift from God, but purely as a binding factor in an exclusive, life-long relationship between two adults. And I see no good reason why extending that sacrament to same sex couple, with all the same provisos as apply to heterosexual couples, shouldn't be done. However, I also accept that the wider Anglican communion does not entirely hold with my views on this. Indeed, my wife doesn't. She doesn't even believe that we should have women priests. :-)