Sexual Sin

[mark46]

As Church, we know the danger of sexual sin. We know that dangers of sex outside of a committed relationship. We know the dangers of inappropriate contentography, of hooking up, of adultery, and of other types of infidelity between committed partners. We know the dangers to children brought up with only one adult role model in the home. We know the importance of having a friend and partner. We ignore the effects of contraception and the morning after pill on society.

And yet, we in the Church speak out almost not at all about these, except to schism when two of the same sex with decades long committed relationships want rights in the secular world.

This makes little sense to me.

I agree that sex between two of the same gender is sin and that the Church should not have SSB's. However, we should supports secular rights for such folks, who are very possibly married in a Christian Church.
=====================================
For me, there are a dozen sexual issues more important than SSB's. When we all have solid holy marriages, our children stop hooking up, and abuse of children and spouses has been eliminated, perhaps we can worry about such things.

Even then, there are much more important for us as Church, and as ANglicans to worry about. We might worry about whether our children will have any clue about the meaning of the faith and of the Church.

 

[MKJ]

Well, as far as being a big controversy, I haven't heard anyone yet officially trying to change Anglican teaching on those issues. I think if someone suggested that, it would be a big controversy.

Of course those things are not being taught in many parishes, and not just by ignoring them but in the sense of condoning many of them. Which is perhaps more worrying IMO. At least if people are trying to do something official it has to be talked about.

 

[meanderer]

I have come across one point of view which points out that the word in the original documents which translates into English as 'homosexual offences' actually refers to the act being used as a way to control and demean others (such as soldiers who raped civilian men in the countries they conquered), rather than in the context of a long-term, loving relationship. So this argument goes, the type of relationship that many same-sex couples have today didn't really exist (or was little known about) in Biblical times, and so it does not come under the same rule.

I am very new to the faith and haven't read nearly enough scripture to know what to make of it either way. However I have always tended more towards a liberal view of things, and at the stage I'm at in my thinking now it seems counterintuitive to condemn same-sex relationships that obey most of the same rules as for a scriptural marriage (fidelity, respect, raising a family etc) except for the genders of the individuals concerned.

Just my (as yet ill-informed from the Biblical perspective) tuppence-worth!

 

[Look Homeward Anglican]

As Church, we know the danger of sexual sin. We know that dangers of sex outside of a committed relationship. We know the dangers of inappropriate contentography, of hooking up, of adultery, and of other types of infidelity between committed partners. We know the dangers to children brought up with only one adult role model in the home. We know the importance of having a friend and partner. We ignore the effects of contraception and the morning after pill on society.

I don't believe the use of artificial contraception is even part of the teaching of the Anglican Church. But the other things you've mentioned are, yes, harmful societal issues.

That said, I believe it is less about homosexual or heterosexual and more about committed, responsible, lifelong relationships.

 

[ebia]

http://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/medical-ethics-health-social-care-policy/contraception.aspx

 

[mark46]

CONTRACEPTION
The order of events is interesting. The Church continued to declare artificial contraception sinful for decades after most married couples had accepted it as part of their lives. Then the Church changed its official position.

Does the Communion as a whole have a position or are such matters for provinces to deal with?

Are there provinces which consider artificial contraception sinful?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would note that the Experience of the faithful is, and has been, important in appropriately determining the Church's positions on sexual and social issues.

The Church of England view on contraception

 

[brevis]

I have been reading the translation of an interesting report on the subject of Homosexuality done by the Church of Sweden (Lutheran) and while they do not take an official position, they present a few guidelines

a) The Bible does in fact condemn homosexual actions; clearly so in the books of Roman

b) However, shortening it a lot (and with some risk of misunderstanding) they seem to say that in this case the Bible writer, (St. Paul) was making an example of a more general rule, that is faithful, ordered love and that when he condemned homosexual acts, he meant the homosexual acts of his time that he was familiar with, and not homosexual acts per se.

 

[mark46]

I understand why folks want to believe that Saint Paul didn't know about long-term loving homosexual relationships. However, it seems very unreasonable. There were many very public Roman examples. Paul knew what he was saying.
He knew what he was prohibiting.

Perhaps male temple prostitution and Greek sex between an older man and a young boy came to mind when Romans was being read. These practices certainly needed rebuking. However, I think Paul and his Roman audience knew all about same sex relationships, perhaps knowing more than 21st century audiences in the developing world.

I have been reading the translation of an interesting report on the subject of Homosexuality done by the Church of Sweden (Lutheran) and while they do not take an official position, they present a few guidelines

a) The Bible does in fact condemn homosexual actions; clearly so in the books of Roman

b) However, shortening it a lot (and with some risk of misunderstanding) they seem to say that in this case the Bible writer, (St. Paul) was making an example of a more general rule, that is faithful, ordered love and that when he condemned homosexual acts, he meant the homosexual acts of his time that he was familiar with, and not homosexual acts per se.

 

[higgs2]

So inappropriate contentography and birth control is wrong? huh?

 

[ebia]

So inappropriate contentography and birth control is wrong? huh?

Who are you talking to?

 

[MichaelNZ]

With regards to birth control, all Christian denominations believed it was sinful until the Lambeth Conference of 1930 when the Anglican Church allowed it under certain circumstances.

The Bible clearly states that homosexual sex is a sin. It's disgusting how people will try and twist the words of Scripture to support such perversions, all in the name of "political correctness".

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Lev 18:22)
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Lev 20:13)

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind*, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God" (1Co 6:9-10)

*Note: the Greek word used here is arsenokoites and is translated "buggerers" in the Geneva Bible.

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient" (Rom 1:26-29)

It is clearly stated that homosexuality is an abomination and that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God. To say that the Bible does not condemn a loving relationship between two men or two women is adding to God's Word and is condemned (Proverbs 30:6).

This is one of the reasons that I no longer consider myself to be Anglican. What is the point in having a Bible if you don't follow it?

 

[brevis]

I understand why folks want to believe that Saint Paul didn't know about long-term loving homosexual relationships. However, it seems very unreasonable. There were many very public Roman examples.

Including emperors

 

[brevis]

With regards to birth control, all Christian denominations believed it was sinful until the Lambeth Conference of 1930 when the Anglican Church allowed it under certain circumstances.

The Bible clearly states that homosexual sex is a sin. It's disgusting how people will try and twist the words of Scripture to support such perversions, all in the name of "political correctness".

How do you know it's all done in the of political correctness?

 

[MichaelNZ]

How do you know it's all done in the of political correctness?

Why else would such a blatant contradiction of Scripture take place?

 

[Unshaven]

Why else would such a blatant contradiction of Scripture take place?

Perhaps because when they encounter flesh and blood gay people, and even more pressingly, faithful and sincere gay christians, labelling them as polluting sinners choosing this life out of a perverse idolatory (Rom 1.23) doesn't actually speak accurately or helpfully to the context they find themselves in. It demands a more studied and prayerful approach...and perhaps acceptance becomes the fruit of that? Maybe.

I think you are right to note that at heart, it's a question of how we read our bibles, but we should be careful, for I know of no christian, church or denomination that can honestly say it keeps all the commands nor thinks that we should for that matter. The church in her wisdom, sometimes finds that some things aren't as essential as they once thought they were, doctrine and worship develop and grow, and it's simply part of the continuing activity of the Spirit in unfolding the revelation of God through history- always active ever speaking from generation to generation to suit their circumstances.

 

[Cjwinnit]

..I know of no christian, church or denomination that can honestly say it keeps all the commands..

Forgivable.

...nor thinks that we should for that matter. The church in her wisdom, sometimes finds that some things aren't as essential as they once thought they were, doctrine and worship develop and grow, and it's simply part of the continuing activity of the Spirit in unfolding the revelation of God through history- always active ever speaking from generation to generation to suit their circumstances.

God doesn't repent.

 

[MKJ]

I don't believe the use of artificial contraception is even part of the teaching of the Anglican Church. But the other things you've mentioned are, yes, harmful societal issues.

That said, I believe it is less about homosexual or heterosexual and more about committed, responsible, lifelong relationships.

As far as I know, the last pan-Anglican statement on the topic was the Lambeth one alluded to above, which essentially said that under certain difficult circumstances, it could be permitted for some couples to use artificial birth control. That was around 1930, and was pretty much the first official Christian acceptance of birth control.

 

[Adam Warlock]

.

 

[quanix]

What is the point in having a Bible if you don't follow it?[/quote]


Has anyone really tried to 'follow' the Bible? I challenge anyone to do so and see how far it gets them. You'd be locked up.

 

[higgs2]

Who are you talking to?

whoever said that or wants to answer I guess.