Surely Christianity is about salvation and the promise of eternal life. Can we really love if we are not concerned with the person’s need to repent & reject sin thereby entering heaven?
Ah yes. A message from members of the propaganda department. They evidently completed the course in condescension 101. And they’ve managed to look hurt, concerned and vulnerable, all at the same time. Excellent acting. I wonder if there’ll be a mini-series…
Let us first assume that this guidance is well meant. The problem is that it points out mind-numbingly obvious ways in which all Christians should relate to other people. It’s the sort of unmemorable platitudes that are currently emptying our churches. None of the points made have any more (or less) relevance to so called ‘LGBT’ people than to anybody else who walks through a church door. There will be many people of widely differing circumstances in any church; each deserves to be treated respectfully etc, and therefore each needs to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ truthfully, irrespective of their circumstances.
And if that is so, my first assumption that this guidance is well meant is wrong. In fact there seems to be a clear intention to make a case for special treatment for a tiny minority (less than 2%) of people. Instead of honest pastoral concern for everybody, this actually gives the impression of subtly nudging opinion along the path of a dodgy agenda. The idea of sitting around discussing this sort of stuff fills me with horror.
Thanks for expressing the points so clearly. The mere fact that this guidance is designed to promote “radical inclusion” is a clear warning of its special pleading. One suspects that it is designed to send those holding to traditional views on some sort of guilt trip. I can only think this is further softening up on the way to accepting gay marriage fully in the life of the CofE.
To pretend that two people of the same sex can be truly married in the Biblical sense is to deny God’s order of life. manifestly two men or two women cannot conceive a child however hard they try. They would have to resort to a form of adultery and deprive the child of a parent/role model. Two men can be bestest friends. Two women can be bestest friends. What they might do with or to each other in private is something else that most folks don’t want to know about.
And you don’t have to be married to do that anyway.
The message is that should you find yourself opposed to gay marriages in the church, this means you are prejudiced, ignorant, afraid of gays, hypocritical and power hungry. Subtle! Unlike you, gays are humble, loving, sensitive, inclusive…. You need to change and we can help with that.
At this rate the Churches will be sold and re-opened as Mosques very soon. May The Lord Jesus Christ come to our aid.
But the blood and body parts will have to be cleared away first..
It’s the first time I’ve ever heard the church of England use the word evil and it’s used to demonise Evangelicals and stifle the truth. Cultural Marxist nonsense.
Ed Shaw’s involvement is extremely naiive at best and a capitulation at worst.
I hope that renew, church society and the like can recognise this as the appalling move it is.
The funeral march begins.
The Church of England is dead.
Some folk might be forgiven for being confused about what “love” means in the Bible, especially if they listened to the likes of Bishop Curry at Harry and Meghan’s wedding. But that so many trained clergy, who should know better, should conspire in promoting that confusion leads one to believe they are going to face the judgement of a Holy God for their wilfulness. If the Church talked less about the erotic, self-serving love of men and more about the awesome, awful Holiness of God, it might be doing its job properly.
“Clergy may fear that if their views differ from their bishop’s known views, this will affect their ministry.” Does this principle apply to the priests who may disagree with her views under the bishop in the video as well? If not I’m assuming then principle 5 doesn’t apply there as well. It usually doesn’t.
I really tried to avoid watching this bit my depravity kniws no end … I seem to really enjoy doing things that annoy and upset me … and then I have say something (usually misguided).
My understanding of grace is that the church is compelled to welcome sinners–it it did not it really would have an attendance crisis. The church (as bride of Christ) cannot be faithful if it welcomes sin of any sort. Sin is something we are to be convicted of, repentant for and commanded to avoid. The overwhelming part of grace is that it is still poured out upon us even though we fail miserably to do any of the above with any consistency.
This document, however well intended, moves directly to the point of welcoming sin. Such a move makes the church an unfaithful bride who has rejected the groom. It should be immediately repudiated as it does not even meet the standard set by the bishops in the document on Civil Partnerships.
Surely Christianity is about salvation and the promise of eternal life. Can we really love if we are not concerned with the person’s need to repent & reject sin thereby entering heaven?
Ah yes. A message from members of the propaganda department. They evidently completed the course in condescension 101. And they’ve managed to look hurt, concerned and vulnerable, all at the same time. Excellent acting. I wonder if there’ll be a mini-series…
Let us first assume that this guidance is well meant. The problem is that it points out mind-numbingly obvious ways in which all Christians should relate to other people. It’s the sort of unmemorable platitudes that are currently emptying our churches. None of the points made have any more (or less) relevance to so called ‘LGBT’ people than to anybody else who walks through a church door. There will be many people of widely differing circumstances in any church; each deserves to be treated respectfully etc, and therefore each needs to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ truthfully, irrespective of their circumstances.
And if that is so, my first assumption that this guidance is well meant is wrong. In fact there seems to be a clear intention to make a case for special treatment for a tiny minority (less than 2%) of people. Instead of honest pastoral concern for everybody, this actually gives the impression of subtly nudging opinion along the path of a dodgy agenda. The idea of sitting around discussing this sort of stuff fills me with horror.
Thanks for expressing the points so clearly. The mere fact that this guidance is designed to promote “radical inclusion” is a clear warning of its special pleading. One suspects that it is designed to send those holding to traditional views on some sort of guilt trip. I can only think this is further softening up on the way to accepting gay marriage fully in the life of the CofE.
To pretend that two people of the same sex can be truly married in the Biblical sense is to deny God’s order of life. manifestly two men or two women cannot conceive a child however hard they try. They would have to resort to a form of adultery and deprive the child of a parent/role model. Two men can be bestest friends. Two women can be bestest friends. What they might do with or to each other in private is something else that most folks don’t want to know about.
And you don’t have to be married to do that anyway.
The message is that should you find yourself opposed to gay marriages in the church, this means you are prejudiced, ignorant, afraid of gays, hypocritical and power hungry. Subtle! Unlike you, gays are humble, loving, sensitive, inclusive…. You need to change and we can help with that.
At this rate the Churches will be sold and re-opened as Mosques very soon. May The Lord Jesus Christ come to our aid.
But the blood and body parts will have to be cleared away first..
It’s the first time I’ve ever heard the church of England use the word evil and it’s used to demonise Evangelicals and stifle the truth. Cultural Marxist nonsense.
Ed Shaw’s involvement is extremely naiive at best and a capitulation at worst.
I hope that renew, church society and the like can recognise this as the appalling move it is.
The funeral march begins.
The Church of England is dead.
Some folk might be forgiven for being confused about what “love” means in the Bible, especially if they listened to the likes of Bishop Curry at Harry and Meghan’s wedding. But that so many trained clergy, who should know better, should conspire in promoting that confusion leads one to believe they are going to face the judgement of a Holy God for their wilfulness. If the Church talked less about the erotic, self-serving love of men and more about the awesome, awful Holiness of God, it might be doing its job properly.
“Clergy may fear that if their views differ from their bishop’s known views, this will affect their ministry.” Does this principle apply to the priests who may disagree with her views under the bishop in the video as well? If not I’m assuming then principle 5 doesn’t apply there as well. It usually doesn’t.
I really tried to avoid watching this bit my depravity kniws no end … I seem to really enjoy doing things that annoy and upset me … and then I have say something (usually misguided).
My understanding of grace is that the church is compelled to welcome sinners–it it did not it really would have an attendance crisis. The church (as bride of Christ) cannot be faithful if it welcomes sin of any sort. Sin is something we are to be convicted of, repentant for and commanded to avoid. The overwhelming part of grace is that it is still poured out upon us even though we fail miserably to do any of the above with any consistency.
This document, however well intended, moves directly to the point of welcoming sin. Such a move makes the church an unfaithful bride who has rejected the groom. It should be immediately repudiated as it does not even meet the standard set by the bishops in the document on Civil Partnerships.
Well, at least I think so.