GAFCON Blues
I’ve been trying really hard to ignore all the troubles going on in the Church of England. But the noise levels are getting to the point where it’s bloomin’ well unavoidable.
So this weekend I spent some time doing a little homework, reading both the Gafcon Final Statement on Global Anglican Future. and ++Rowan’s response.
Now this is the hard bit. I have to say I do agree with the words of the GAFCON statement. But that’s not the same as saying I support the motives and objectives of those who wrote them. I’m not sure that homosexuality in the clergy is a communion-breaker for me. But then I’m not having to address the question in my parish.
To be honest, I’m just very sad that all this is happening. I have absolutely no clue in my head or heart about where God is in all this; to work for unity at all costs or to draw the line in the sand and not cross it.
I guess this is how children feel when they see their parents heading for divorce and are powerless to do anything about it 
Greg Said,
July 10, 2008 @ 3:14 am
Just about sums up what I’ve been thinking. There are more important things to do than fall out about sexual morality and how the church is organised. Like for example telling the world about Jesus and caring for the homeless.
but then speaking as a Baptist / independent, who needs bishops anyway! So it doesn’t really matter whether they are male, female, gay, celibate or living in palaces like they used to or in Council estates as the very best might do today.
Gareth Said,
July 15, 2008 @ 2:28 am
To me, this is not a question about homosexuality and the ordination of women bishops.
It was demonstrated, for me, by the response made by the Bishop of Beverly, +Martyn Jarrett, when asked by Radio 4 what his response would be to losing the vote in Synod: “We would have to decide what God wants us to do…” How often has the stubborn impasse, “It’s not me who disagrees with you; it’s God” been used?
It’s just not a valid argument – it isn’t even a recourse to valid theology. It’s a flat claim that there is only one way to interpret text & follow teaching with an absolute rejection of evaluation, dissent or difference of opinion.
This wouldn’t be such a huge problem if it wasn’t based upon a selective interpretation of the Old Testament, cherry picking which texts to uphold at any cost while conveniently ignoring the ones that don’t suit certain agendas. At least the “liberal” arguments can claim to have hermeneutical and scholastic integrity, which these “literal” arguments cannot. At least they don’t redefine Paul’s use of the words “malachoi” and “arsenokoitai” to reject their contemporary use.
When it comes to reading & understanding the Bible, historical context, linguistic subtlety and anthropological settings are everything; an informed reading demonstrates this by showing how these scholarly methods help us to see the common truth in otherwise contradictory passages.
I have little sympathy for traditions of literalism that reject without consideration the Hebrew grammar and vocabulary of Genesis just because it undermines 7 Day Creationism; less sympathy when they reject out of hand the demonstrable pagan context of Leviticus’ objections to homosexual acts in polytheist sects; and no sympathy at all when they start to redefine Paul’s clearly understood Greek to suit their purposes.
Of course, if they wanted to talk about homosexuality and women bishops with reference to theological matters, that would be a different thing entirely. There are valid arguments against both of them (not that I agree with those arguments, but that is another thing) yet they have been rejected in favour of willfully blind & deaf dogmatism.