I suppose the crux of the disagreement is that one side (my side) contends that the OT scriptures were delivered for to a specific people within a specific cultural context, and that we must employ reason to interpret God's message as a whole and apply it to modern contexts. The conclusion that my side has reached is that homosexuality in the modern context of a monogamous and commited relationship is neither a perversion nor sinful, due to our interpretation of God's message and our perception of its relevance to this particular modern context.
THis is not what the Church has ever taught about the OT and the Bible, however. It has certainly taught that we look at what was said in context so that we can discern what it actually meant. But this is the case for all of Scripture, Tradition, etc, not just the OT.
The Church has taught that
portions of the OT Law were meant specifically for Jews, and were not meant to be applied to all Christians. The moral commands, however, are meant to be applied to all. In some cases, it can be unclear what might be a moral vs another type of command.
Your view that the "modern context" of same sex relationships is different seems to have no reason behind it that I can see, so I am not sure what it is supposed to mean.
And of course it is simply totally inaccurate to say that the Churches teachings on this have been based only on those parts of the OT that present Jewish Law. THey are also found in, for example, the creation account which applies to everyone, and the NT. As well, the Tradition of the Church needs to be considered - Anglicans are not people who look only to the Bible.
Obviously, you have reached a different conclusion which I assume is based on an interpretation of God's message which more fully incorporates OT law, with less regard to the context in which it was delivered. You seem to opperate under the assumption that everything in the bible applies univerally, rather than contextually. This would be our fundamental disagreement.
I suppose this would be considered more of a fundamentalist approach. My perception of your assessment is something along the lines of: 'God said it within a different cultural and historical context, but that doesn't change the fact that he said it so it still applies'.
If the above is in fact your position, we simply disagree. While I certainly respect your opinion, you and I have reached different conclusions. It happens.
This in no way represents the Churches understanding of this, and never has. THe fact that some people continue to claim that it does is bizarre, since it is quite clear historically that this is not how the Church has understood the Bible. It rather makes me wonder if they have simply been very badly educated, or are being deceptive? I can't think of any other explanation.
