Thursday, July 24, 2008

GAFCON the evil dragon?

I never cease to be amazed as to how one can hold to 2000 years of Christian teaching and yet suddenly be demonized as a narrow right-wing fanatic. Watch this video by Gay and Lesbian leaders at the Lambeth conference which depicts a mock battle between the evil Dragon (GAFCON) and sir David (Rowan Williams) over the fair maiden ecclesia anglica. Words come to mind, mainly 2 Tim. 4.1-5.

5 comments:

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Doesn't the Church have to define what it is that marriage is really about? Is it only for procreation of children, such as the Roman Catholic Church has believed? Or is it for the expression of love, commitment, fidelity, monogomy, etc., i.e. the values of an exclusive relationship? If the later, then, how can the Church dismiss homosexual monogmous relationships? I recognize the family is the environment that raises children, but what values are being transmitted? Is it an absolute "value" of a literally interpreted text, or the character of a loyal and faithful relationship? Is the form of sex important?
I believe that the radicalization of the "gay community"(or any other radical fringe) has much to do with the discrimination that the group has experienced. Why can't the monogomous and stable relationships of the homosexual infect the "gay culture" with "peace-making"?
I understand that some have signified that there is no justification for gay expression, even if it is found that homosexulity is a "genetic issue". The real need for the homosexual is to practice abstinence and self-control. And those who argue this way usually use addictions, such as alcholholism to defend their position. Alcoholism is a choice that beomes a physcial problem in addiction, whereas, a homosexual, I believe, is genetically disposed without choice. Does that make a difference? I think so, for the boundaries that are maintained around relationships are important to "stand for". It is not suppression of the natural expression of sex, but the boundaries that define and maintain the integrity of the relationship.

Bob MacDonald said...

Time makes ancient good uncouth. A thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past - and a watch in the night.

There is in other words - no argument from longevity

Bob MacDonald said...

PS to support Angie's comments - if a homosexual applies Romans 8:13 - if you by the Spirit do put to death the deeds of the body, you will live - etc, that person will not be made 'normal' but will become a redeemed homosexual - you ask the Lord about this and you will find I am not deceiving you.

Dunc and Als said...

The way the church has treated people who struggle with same-sex attraction or many other sins which do not comply with acceptable social behaviour often leaves much to be desired and there is regularly a multitude of issues involved (is the person's struggle with a sin or do they struggle with what is acceptable behaviour - e.g. work-aholism is often acceptable but alcoholism is not, but I think both are sins).

In Scripture, while it is possible to question certain specific "proof texts" which are put up against homosexuality, we never see homosexuality treated positively and there are some clear passages which oppose homosexuality.

I think one of the reasons the church is struggling to answer the question of homosexuality is because it also is struggling to answer the question of gender. If men and women are the same and equal (except for a couple of minor physical differences) then what's the difference between two men or two women being in a relationship and a relationship between a man and a woman. However, if men and women are different and equal then marriage is far more than the appropriate expression of sexual union or for producing children, but marriage is an expression of the unity, complementarity, and creativity which results from two who are whole and yet different becoming one.

iconoclast said...

Not without precedent...

A while back a dude called some righteous men holding to traditional teaching 'children of the devil'. Those righteous men accused the dude of blasphemy and killed him. Blessed be they.