Well it really is only a matter of time before the CoE falls in line with the American and Canadian Church. I can’t imagine people will standard for absolutely anything connected with the government which doesn’t treat same-sex relationships as identical to heterosexual relationships.
The CoE, like all forms of Christianity in the West, seems to be in a bit of a tight spot. Given pressure from the government and the public, openly gay clergy, pressure from within the Church, a desire to be more inclusive, and a desire to attract new membership all push the CoE towards full acceptance of same-sex relationships. I doubt that this will help anything. One wonders why one should take anything in the Bible seriously if it can’t get such a straightforward issue “right”. Ultimately the probable result of such a move won’t be pretty for the CoE.
This also a matter of democracy. The 26 bishops of the Church of England have seats in the House of Lords. If a woman or gay man can’t be a bishop, then that automatically means they’re also banned from those 26 ecclesiastical seats in the House of Lords.
I am guessing that 99% of UK population is effectively banned from the House of Lords, or they have unequal opportunity to get in there. So what?
In any event, it is not a matter of whether someone is a “gay man”, but rather, their actions. If someone prior to ordination and many times since affirmed that they would uphold the Christian faith, then conceals the fact that they are engaging another person in actions that do not uphold Christian faith, then there is dishonesty problem. It is not the sexual orientation, but the actions of sexuality and (much delayed) honesty. What else is he not telling people?
I wonder if this will influence more Catholic priests who are in “gay relationships” to come out in the open about it. Tho that one priest did last year, just before the synod, and I think he resigned (or whatever the proper wording is).
And that other well known priest who loved and married a female parishioner…he remained a priest, but not Catholic.
Leviticus also says we should kill these men, do you agree with that?
And it says nothing about two women together…do you think that’s okay?
And do you agree that we should kill children who curse their parents and also, a man who has sex with his neighbor’s wife? And if a married couple have sex during the wife’s period, they should be shunned?
Leviticus also says all spiritualists should be stoned to death. And you shouldn’t wear garments containing two materials, and men shouldn’t shave, or eat or touch fish. And if you are blind, lame, or disfigured…you can’t go up to the altar of God.
And a daughter of a priest who is deemed “immoral” should be burned to death. And you shouldn’t drink alcohol in holy places (but…what about the wine during communion?).
And, of course, you shouldn’t pick up any grapes that have fallen to the ground.
And so on, and so forth.
All the above is “unacceptable behavior” in the same paragraphs as the one you quoted, and sometimes demand death.
Do you agree with these, too?
If Moses or whoever wrote/compiled Leviticus erred with Leviticus 12, 17, 18, 20, 24, etc… chances are good they erred with Leviticus 20:13, too.
I’m no Biblical scholar , I just open the bible at a random page and have a short read ,
I find my thoughts contradictory , for the reasons of stoning people to death as you stated ,
Yet we must love our enemies as ourselves ,
Those of you who have not sinned may cast the first stone etc
I Guess this is why the New Testerment was created ,
I still have much to learn about humanity - spirituality & bible teachings just like everyone else :o
I think the CoE ship sailed a while ago. This is a natural progression of choices they have been making for a while. It is their business as far as I am concerned. They have been going “new age” for a while.
What a few of us fear, I am guessing, is some sort of osmosis spread to the Catholic Church, be it SSM, female priests and the like. So far, I feel confidant that the Holy Father has no ambition to “change the rules.” He has simply embraced a marginalized segment of the population. Let them know they are loved and welcome in our church. This is as it should be.
As a Catholic, I understand that what the CoE does is really none of my business. I am concerned only with what the CC does. I also understand that I should revere the old covenant, but I am truly bound by the new covenant. Christ affirmed the ten commandments, but he didn’t say I couldn’t eat shrimp. Anyone that worries what the store across the street is doing during these “end-times” is just taking on unnecessary heartache in my opinion.
Yes, but this is a linking theme between all Christians forever. But we cannot be too anxious: we are not to believe that Christ has come or is coming automatically (Matthew 24:23, Luke 17:23, Mark 13:21). We shouldn’t even worry about tomorrow! (Matthew 6:34)
The thing is not all forms of Christianity see it as straightforward as do Catholics and some others. Some instead have come to discern that Sodom was about homosexual gang rape and inhospitality. They see other passages as condemning gay sex when performed for a pagan ritual. They see yet other passages as referring to molesters. And see Romans as referring to it being unnatural for a straight person to engage in same sex relationships and that it is just as unnatural for the gay person to engage in a heterosexual relationship.
You and other Catholics here though indeed express the Catholic belief well.
I do not think that it is possible to quote Leviticus - as Leviticus forbids many practices, these were laws for the Jewish People. How can we pick or choose which ones to follow and which ones not to follow? If we quote one, we need to follow all of them.
How does a bishop’s being gay offend little children?
I know that some - notably Matthew Vine - have some particularly clever ways of looking at scripture which circumvent biblical prohibitions on homosexuality. My concern, at least for progressive Christians, would be threefold. First, its not clear to me that their attitudes towards homosexuality flow from scripture rather than their reading of scripture flowing from their attitudes towards homosexuality. If that perception is common, then people will see a cherry picking attitude towarda scripture. Secondly, its not clear to me how many of the lay faithful in progressive congregations could explain why homosexuality is OK despite some apparently clear prohibitions against it. For these individuals they really are cherry picking and the contradiction remains. Thirdly, I think many people (myself included) would have a difficult time believing that all people for nearly all of history believed that scripture condemned homosexuality only for people to discover that really scripture was secretly neutral towards it just when there is social, political and cultural pressure to come to that conclusion.
So ultimately even if the progressive reading of scripture on sex is correct, I think you’ll still have problems with people reconciling those issues (even among LGBT allies).