ADOTS Clergy Update from Archbishop Beach
Commemoration of Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna Martyr, 156
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
I am writing today to address a letter which was put out yesterday via social media. A group led by aspirant, Pieter Valk, has put out a letter entitled, Dear Gay Anglicans, in response to the College of Bishops’ pastoral letter on identity. If you have not seen the letter, you can find it HERE.
While it says they are not undermining our Pastoral Statement, they actually are. Replacing “gay Christian” with “gay Anglican” is pretty much in your face. My immediate reaction to the letter was that it was pretty benign and wasn’t going to change anything about what we teach.
However, it has already had international ramifications. I have had to deal with two provinces already (actually now three as of a few minutes ago) — and this is just the first day. In many of our partner provinces, the practice of homosexuality is against the law, and to make matters more difficult, they usually don’t understand the nuances of the word “gay” or “homosexual attraction” — they just hear the practice of same-sex immorality.
In the province, the expected hard rhetoric is coming from both sides in reaction to this. I find our lack of charity in the province a serious blind spot we need to address. Many of our bishops, and rightly so, feel this is an attempt to undermine our roles as guardians of the Faith and teachers of the doctrine of the Church. Some individuals have expressed that we are now TEC 2.0. Some think this is going to break the ACNA apart — one quote I received tonight: “If I had to guess what might fracture the ACNA I would’ve said women’s ordination. I never would have thought it would be homosexuality. We gave up everything to take a clear stand on this. It is disheartening to have it being taken away.” I could go on, but you get the point.
This is serious enough, however, that I am writing this at 1:15 am.
So this is what I as your bishop would like to say to you as the clergy of the Anglican Diocese of the South.
1. Pray and lift this up to the Lord. This is His Church and we are His servants.
2. Some of our clergy signed onto this letter, and I do not want you to ostracize them or condemn them. They have signed this in good faith, and you and I need to listen to them. You do not have to agree, but as Christians, we need to learn again how to discuss issues with those we disagree with — and then be able to continue to love and care for them. However, if you are one of the clergy who signed on to this, I expect you to send me an email explaining why you signed a letter and beginning a private, non-punitive, conversation with me about your concerns.
3. The bishops are not going to back down on our conclusions which we worked on, received input from all over the province, edited, reviewed, edited, reviewed, and edited. We literally spent over a year wrestling with this in response to questions and concerns we have been receiving from all over the province. It is an excellent document expressing theologically a biblical, historical, and pastoral response to a complicated and enculturated issue. We were not telling people how to refer to themselves, but rather explaining theologically who we are in Christ regardless of our sexual identity.
4. A number of clergy signed onto this not really realizing the “in your face” attitude of some of the authors. They saw it as a way to say to the same-sex attracted persons in the ACNA that we love them. Others signed out of angry disagreement with our discouraging the use of any pronoun before Christian, specifically “Gay Christian.” Some were misinformed thinking the authors had been in discussions with Provincial leadership; they were not.
5. Let’s remember that we have a large number of same-sex attracted individuals who have come to the ACNA specifically because of our stand for Biblical morality. They need our love, encouragement, and support. Personally, I do not believe signing this letter does that.
Lastly, may I suggest for those who are really invested in these issues, to meet and actually study the bishop’s statement, unpack it, and seek to really understand what we are saying to the Church.
It is Lent — Time for prayer, repentance, a dose of humility, study of Holy Scripture, and sacrificial giving of ourselves and possessions.
In Christ Jesus, +foley
A very candid and no nonsense letter.
Agreed. He’s clear and pretty unequivocal. Those who felt the original statement was too wordy or soft will likely be especially appreciative.
Honestly, I find it rather equivocal. For all of the talk about love, encouragement, and support, it seems to treat gay people as some how worse and dirtier than the rest of us. Even their testimony of what God has done in their life is less valuable than straight people, as it may somehow be contaminated by their gayness, so we have to be extra careful about what words they can use.
Robert, it seems like this is a matter close to your heart and about which you are deeply concerned. No doubt the conversation can seem calloused in its focus on one particular temptation/sin. But I believe you are reading into the actual words of the Archbishop sentiments which are not there. Though I know that some Christians say such things and those words are hurtful and untrue.
As you probably know ACNA was formed because believers of conscience could not remain in their denomination anymore. That means there is a concentration of people in the group who know first hand that there can be dire consequences to choosing sensitivity over orthodoxy.
Even the original statement was not intending to instruct people on how to tell their own stories; but rather to offer guidance regarding the language used by churches and ministers in order to be clear and consistent as the vernacular means different things to different people. At this stage – Abp Beach’s letter – the focus has shifted to be about internal doctrine and discipline. That may be why the tone is more direct.
No doubt it is and my emotions probably color my response. I should clarify that I don’t necessarily think these implications are intentional (I sincerely hope they are not). But I do think it is important to point out that they are there and that those implications (intended or not) are hurting people.
But it is important to note that all of the people this statement should be facilitating ministry to are likely to be prone to experience a strong emotional response, too. For them it is deeply personal. I know a number of devout Christians, dedicated to the Biblical teaching and committed to chastity, who read the original statement and thought the inescapable conclusion was that this was a deliberate attempt to hurt people like them and drive them out of the church. At the very least I think we should be able to agree that a statement that evokes that kind of response from people who already fundamentally agree with your theology, has failed to meet the commitment “to great care and sensitivity for those struggling with same-sex attraction” the statement itself made. That evident contradiction between the express intent of the statement and its actual effects should be enough to for everyone involved to seriously reconsider their approach and consider revising the statement, not double down on a harmful statement because they are already invested in it.
I definitely understand the importance of orthodoxy and the concern about putting sensitivity over orthodoxy. Denying the truth is not loving at all. But orthodoxy without sensitivity can be just as bad. Jesus harshly condemned this attitude in the Pharisees. We must have both. Jesus exemplified both and that is the example we should emulate.
I think the fact that the denomination (relatively) recently split over the issue of sexuality makes this especially important. People who experience same-sex attraction but are committed to sound doctrine and chastity obviously went with the ACNA. But to then feel rejected by the very people who should be supporting them leaves them feeling homeless. And ultimately, it can hurt the very cause the ACNA took a stand for. Because if it looks like you are just suppressing and degrading same-sex attracted people in the church, it supports the narrative that there really is nothing behind the traditional sexual ethic than homophobia. We need to offer something better, something beautiful and life-giving! I think the letter did that in a way the original statement did not.
Some really clear statements of what the original statement is *not* meant to imply might be helpful, such as a statement about the value of Christians who experience same-sex attraction in the church and of their ministries and testimonies. If it is not intended to tell people how to tell their stories or how to refer to themselves, a clarification of when it is (or is not?) appropriate to use other language based on their own wisdom, discernment, and personal experienced for a particular context, audience, etc. I feel like the statement here in response to the letter fails to acknowledge some very legitimate concerns.
Also, I saw Archbishop Foley Beach liked the Tweet, “lol let’s cast out all the gays from our midst shall we? the acna is a denomination for straight people sealed by the blood of the lamb”. I really hope that was just a mistake and he just clicked something he didn’t mean to. I mean, that is easy enough to do and we have probably all done it at some point, so obviously I want to give the benefit of a doubt that perhaps that is what happened here. But if that is the case, I sure wish he would say so!
Not really. He’s trying to have it both ways.
At least with the late Fred Phelps, I had some grudging respect for letting people know where he stood (though I hated his beliefs and behavior). This archbishop’s views are slippery and dishonest.
I think you might be helped by printing out the original statement from the College of Bishops and reading it slowly and carefully. I think you are completely misunderstanding “this archbishop’s views.”
Thank you Archbishop for your excellent pastoral guidance.
Just a note….there is no such thing as a “gay” Christian, or “homosexual” Christian. I like that they have been referred to as same sex attracted as when we are born again, the old has gone and the new has come and we are no longer sinners to be identified as such
2 Corinthians 5:17 – Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
What exactly do you think that means? What happens when a gay person gets saved? Do they become straight? Do they cease to experience attraction to the same sex? Does being a new creation mean that we no longer experience temptation? And what does it mean when we are told in 1 John 3:2 that we are already sons and daughters, but not yet what we will be?
Christ taught, “….and such were some of you” so deliverance from homosexuality is possible, as thousands of ex-homosexuals will testify.
Being a new creation means we quit identifying with the sin.
A homosexual is not a Christian. Christians have renounced their sin. They no longer identify with their sin, but with Christ.
I would think 1 John 3:2 would be referring to people who have renounced their sin, not embracing it having it more important than Christ’s name defining them.
Yes, that is a beautiful verse, for all of us (because we can probably all find some sin of our own among the list of those who will not inherit the Kingdom of God). But the relevant word here, ἀρσενοκοῖται, means “men who have sex with men” (whether they experience homosexual orientation or not), not homosexuals (people who experience dominantly same-sex attraction, regardless of whether they engage in same-sex acts). So, yes, this verse says that gay people who have engaged in sinful sexual acts can be washed, sanctified, and justified and that their former actions no longer characterize their lives as believers. But it does not say that their orientation will be changed. They do not cease to be homosexual.
Homosexual orientation is not a sin, nor does describing something that is true about a person necessarily imply they are “identifying” with it. If I tell you I am a diabetic, I am not identifying with my diabetes, but if you find me passed out one day, you might need to know to check my blood sugar.
I have a dear friend who spent years in an ex-gay ministry seeking to have God change his sexual orientation. Eventually he realized that God had answered him as he answered the apostle Paul, “My grace is sufficient for you” and he has learned to boast in his weakness so that the power of Christ might be revealed. He readily acknowledges that God could change his orientation, because God can do anything. Yet God, in His sovereignty, has chosen not to.
However, a friend of his never came to that realization. He desperately continued to seek orientation change and when nothing else worked, he married a woman in the hopes that this would finally make him straight. When this failed, he committed suicide.
Nearly everyone I have talked to who identifies as ex-homosexual acknowledges that they still experience same-sex attraction. In other words, they are still what most people call homosexual, they have just been taught to use different words. But this perpetuates the dangerous and unBiblical idea that God promises orientation change and/or that it is the measure of sanctification or even salvation.
Thank you for sharing about some of the specific experiences you and those close to you have had. I disagree with you about the use of labels and what they mean, but I respect the conclusion you’ve arrived at and how you’ve gotten there. We all know what it is to struggle and to need to hold onto the promises of God in the midst of challenges that do not fade over time. God bless and keep you and those you love and minister to.
Homosexuality is a sin.
You are viewing homosexuality as a personality trait when Christ taught that it is unnatural, a shameful act and “error” – thus indicating that it is a choice of sin.
Christians do not identify themselves by filthy sins.(edited)
Please consider this: homosexual actions are sinful, but the temptations to them are not inherently sinful. Most of us are assaulted by the same kinds of temptations today as we faced yesterday, and tomorrow is likely to offer the same. Just because we can identify the species of birds persistently flying over our heads does not mean that we are guilty of letting them build their particular nests in our hair.
Like a person on a diet who wants to lose weight is wiser to stay out of a candy shop – if that is their “vice” – temptations are our responsibility.
Satan tempted Christ with food because Christ had not eaten.
In no other sin (and homosexual acts AND homosexual lust are both sins…dividing between temptation and sin, is not easy…) do Christians identify. No one calls themselves “Thief-Christian” or “Adulterer-Christian” or “Pedophile-Christian”…so much so, that the very terms are absurd to us. The very idea of naming temptations to sin, next to Christ, is ridiculous. Society tells us we have a predominate orientation…and as Christians we know we all do, toward sin–with different patterns of sin for every individual. However if we resist the temptations of the devil (and our interior “orientation”, and the world….) and cling to Christ, we are merely Christians…and all alike. Persons who endure SSA temptation are not special…as everyone experiences temptation. They should not be singled out–either by the Church or themselves.
Very true. As I implied in another comment, if we call Anglicans who are tempted to sin in a homosexual way “gay Anglicans” we should call Anglicans who are tempted to be unfaithful in marriage “adulterous Anglicans”. The possibilities are as many as there are different kinds of sin.
I was going to say “the A-word” about your first friend’s story, but it is Lent, so instead I will say, Praise the Lord, or maybe better because quieter, Thanks Be to God.
I had a fraternity brother accept and endorse his own homosexuality after graduation. He was one of the 6-8 men listed in People’s magazine struck down with AIDS all associated with the Canadian Olympic Ice Skating program. Nice guy. Wished he had lived. He and his skating partner were world class at one time.
I don’t want to put words in Sandi’s mouth, but as someone who left the Episcopal Church and who broadly supports gay rights but also broadly supports the church’s (lower case c) right to minister to gays up to and including equating homosexuality with sin, I think she’s saying that anyone who identifies as “homosexual” is allowing this scientific term for their sexuality–a worldly thing–to supersede the relation with God, and that in itself abnegates the capacity for a true relationship with Christ that is essential for being a Christian. If one identifies as a Christian, that supersedes and even nullifies any earthly identity as a homosexual. The very act of identifying with it has allowed a person to elevate sin to at least the same degree as divine authority.
This is why many prefer “have same sex attraction” because it is a condition and not an identity. I used to see this as newspeak on par with leftist political correctness, and I suppose to some extent it’s governed by the same principles, but at least here there’s a divine basis for this choice in words. You can be Christian and have same sex attraction, which, in being Christian you aim to transcend at all times just as Christians resist any and other sinful temptations. But if you call yourself gay you have already capitulated. Just my take on things based on the dialogue I’ve seen here and elsewhere.
I think that’s helpful, Lauren. Thank you.
And why does Paul, after his conversion, call himself the chief of sinners? And why is Rahab described as “the harlot Rahab” in the same sentence that her faith is being praised and commended to us?
Paul does not refer to himself as a Sinner Christian. There is no such thing. He identifies himself as a Christian who sins.
Paul does refer to Christians as Saints though.
Romans 1:7 English Standard Version 7 To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:
Paul could refer to himself as anything he wanted, it would not make homosexuals Christians
I think if you are going to be that pedantic about language, you should probably insist that we not refer to ourselves with English words, like “saint” or “Christian” because Paul spoke Greek, not English, and the peculiarities of sentence structure are specific to a given language. He did acknowledge that he was simultaneously a Christian and a sinner.
What makes a homosexual a Christian is when they accept the lordship of Jesus Christ. They don’t cease to be homosexual and they are Christians. In plain English, they are a homosexual Christian. Now, if someone asked, “What is your religion?” would they say, “I’m a homosexual Christian”? Of course not, because homosexual is not an aspect of their religious belief or practice. But if someone said, “I heard Christians believe homosexuals are going to hell and they can’t be saved. Why do you think God hates me? Why would He be willing to forgive and save anybody but me?” they might well say, “Well, I am a homosexual Christian. Trust me when I say that God knows every intimate detail about you and He loves you more deeply than you can imagine. Let me tell you what Jesus has done in my life…”
Why would they speak like that? There is no special connection between being homosexual and being Christian, it doesn’t modify the type of Christian they are, etc. Merely both things are true of them and both are relevant to the conversation at hand. And speaking plainly may literally save a soul from hell.
Robert, I’m in sympathy with what you say. In the context of a testimony, where a full explanation of meaning is possible, it makes perfect sense for someone to speak in this way. But I still believe that ACNA has made the right decision about the language used ‘officially’ by the church and its ministers because we live in a world of sound bites and ambiguity and it’s so important to communicate clearly when the stakes are so high.
As I believe I have explained before……the old has gone and the new has come. We are no longer our favourite sin, we belong to Christ. Identifying oneself with sin expresses a continued allegiance with satan. Homosexuality is a choice of sin.
Homosexuals will go to Hell for their sin, as with every other unrepentant sinner.
Homosexuality, in the common sense of sexual orientation, is not a choice. There are homosexuals who are virgins, having never engaged in sexual acts with anyone of either sex, who are dedicated to Christian celibacy. And there are homosexuals who have repented of sexual sin, but still experience homosexual orientation. Scripture assures us that they are washed, sanctified, and justified. They are hidden in Christ and their eternal destiny is secure.
The new creation does not imply orientation change, just as it does not imply that you will never face temptation again, or that you will never stumble again. But we are also assured that the process is not complete, that when Christ appears, we shall be like Him (1 John 3:2) and that the One who began a good work in us will complete it (Philippians 1:6).
There is no such thing as “orientation”, Robert. God does not make someone to teach against how He made them. Homosexuality is a chosen sin, as evidenced by the Romans scripture that was referenced (Romans 1). In Romans 1 He explains that homosexuality is “unnatural” and “error” showing how it is a chosen behaviour.
James one teaches that we are responsible for our temptations.
Homosexuality is simply a choice and we cannot blame God for causing us to sin, as He does not cause us to sin. That is blasphemy to suggest that Christ causes us to sin. James 1:13 – Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.
With that explained, it shows that homosexuality is not innate nor immutable. (edited)
If they are same-sex attracted then they are homosexual, because that is what the word homosexual means, just as heterosexual mean other-sex attracted. Your assertion that ‘there is no such thing as a “gay” Christian, or “homosexual” Christian’ is thus reduced to nonsense.
Guglielmo, I take your point. This is a debate that I have regularly with believing friends.
As Christians, we *do* say, “I am a sinner, Lord, forgive me, and help me to walk in newness of life.” But then we fail because we are fallen and we have to say it again. As Christians we don’t claim that we have ceased to be sinners. In many recovery programs (like AA), participants are led to identify themselves with the behavior that they seek to overcome as a first step in the process. (“I’m an alcoholic”).
But this issue is unique in that the cultural narrative is pervasive – and contrary to the Christian one. The language we’re talking about is not generally used to identify a sinful inclination of the heart, but instead to celebrate an identity marker which must be expressed in a person to be fulfilled. That’s the cultural narrative and what these terms are generally taken to mean. For this reason, there is a need to use language in a way that makes a clear break from the cultural narrative of celebration and identity and to reposition the matter as one of fallen creation seeking forgiveness and transformation.
I’m not concerned here with cultural narratives or with the celebration of identity markers, but solely with objective facts. Homosexual means sexually attracted to people of the same sex, and just as the great majority of people, including Christians, are heterosexual (sexually attracted to people of the other sex), so a small minority, including Christians, are homosexual. Theories about sinful inclinations of the heart and fallen creation are a different matter altogether.
That may be, but this isn’t a blog devoted to biology, anthropology, etc. So you’ll find that most who read and post here are specifically concerned with the theology and practice of the Church – including ‘theories’ about sin, the heart, and redemption! 🙂
I’ll reconsider the “Gay Anglican” complaint the day I see clergy marching in the Alcholic Pride Parade, or governments mandating that adultery “must” be taught to school children as a normal alternative lifestyle, or the network studios start insisting every single program must have a significant pedophilic character, or that calling an embezeler a “thief” is a bigoted and insensitive trigger word.
So far, it’s not happening,
but we can all hope and work for tolerance and dignity if we care enough. We obviously just don’t love people the way Jesus loved the people he met. There is so much work to be done
Eric, your argument is a mishmash of very dissimilar things. I don’t know what it would even mean to experience alcoholism without ever tasting alcohol. But I know many gay people who have never had sex, yet their orientation profoundly affects their experience in ways that require them to be able to speak openly and honestly about it. I know many gay Christians who would not consider marching in a gay pride parade, and who would vigorously oppose teaching either adultery or homosexual behavior as a normal alternative lifestyle. Obviously, our society recognizes that harm that pedophilic acts cause, and this is further complicated by the fact that children can not consent so a pedophilic act is always exploitative in way that consensual same-sex acts are not. I think networks would be hesitant to portray a character who experiences pedophilic urges, yet refuses to act on them, for much the same reason they would be hesitant to portray a celibate gay Christian, which highlights that a celibate Christian acknowledging their orientation with ordinary language is quite opposite in nature to these other things you object to. Embezeling is again an action, and we would not call someone an embezeler if they never embezeled. So this doesn’t speak to the gay Anglican issue it all. Rather, it speaks to the issue of whether we should oppose calling same-sex sexual acts sin. And on this point again, those who wrote and signed the letter all agree that same-sex sexual acts are sin and say so plainly. I don’t think a single one of your objections actually applies, so you probably have not understood our gay brothers and sisters in Christ well. I think it would be good to listen carefully and consider what they have to say.
Robert
I understand your logic.
I understand your objection that my examples are a mishmash.
I understand, and mildly resent, the implication that I “have not listened” to voices that, in fact, have been shoved down my throat at church indoctrination sessions every time the gathered church has met for the last 40 years, or more.
I understand, and mildly resent, the assumption that I do not love my family members, schoolmates, friends, and clergy colleagues who self identify as “Gay”
My point, which seems to elude you, is that, unlike my counterexamples, the term “Gay” has two inescapable cultural conotations:
1. It is a fundamental identity
2. It is the positive word that has replaced all negative or neutral words to describe the concept.
These two cultural concepts,
Without which you CAN NOT use the word meaningfully in modern society,
are errors incompatible with life and identity in Christ.
We have no fundamental “identity” apart from Christ
And we have no fundamental “good” apart from Christ
This is basic Christianity.
It is not available for negotiation on the altar of “pastoral care.”
I don’t think your cultural connotations are inescapable at all. Unfortunately, any language that you use will have cultural connotations that are contrary to the truth revealed in Scripture. Gay does and so does ex-gay. Homosexual does, and so does ex-homosexual. Same-sex attracted, or person who experiences same-sex attraction does too. Any language you use will require an explanation. Otherwise, you will simply have to reject the English language altogether. Faithful Christians who have experience same-sex attraction have solid, Biblical arguments for why a Christian can, and sometimes should describe themselves as gay. If you have heard indoctrination being shoved down your throat, but have not heard the heart cry of faithful same-sex attracted Christians, then no matter how much you have heard, I am afraid that you have not listened well. I don’t mean that as a jab or insult, but as a plea for compassion and understanding, even when sincere brothers and sisters in Christ see things differently.
I think the problem with this approach is that it hinders and skews our ability to communicate to and in our culture. When you say there is no such thing as a gay or homosexual Christian, you may mean that you think it is unwise to use the expression gay or homosexual Christian because it is associated with a cultural narrative that is wrong and harmful, but that is not what people will hear. Instead, they hear one of two things. Either gay people are irredeemable and unwelcome in your church, or their salvation requires orientation change. And when gay people come into the church with an unreasonable expectation of orientation change, they are likely to become discouraged and leave the faith or even commit suicide (I don’t say this to be dramatic, but because I have several friends who have lost people close to them for this very reason).
The apostle Paul took the opposite approach. In the midst of a culture consumed by pagan idolatry, he deliberately used the language of the culture to point people to Christ in terms they understood.
So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you…
And from there he preached the gospel. He speaks the truth plainly and unequivocally, but he starts by finding common ground and relating to the people he is speaking to.
Gug…just because one is a sinner does not necessitate that they refer to themselves as such – for instance, there is no Murderer Christian, nor Pedophile Christian. As Christians we identify with Christ, not sin.
Also, with the thought of “homosexual christian”, they are placing their sin before Christ in trying to identify themselves, which, I’m sure, you don’t need that explained to you.
How can one expect deliverance from such a sin, when one clings so tightly to the sin that they place it before their identity with Christ?
“Homosexual Christian” has nothing to do with identifying with sin – that’s just a silly straw man of Sandi’s. It means simply a Christian who happens to be homosexual (same-sex attracted), just “heterosexual Christian” means simply a Christian who happens to be heterosexual (other-sex attracted), which of course most Christians (and non-Christians) are. Sandi shouldn’t need that explaining to her by now.
It is simply someone who thinks they are a Christian identifying more with their sin, then they do of the name of Christ being on them Gug. They put their sin before that of Christ to identify themselves
Romans 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.”
No one that I have ever know of has identified themselves as a “heterosexual Christian”. Heterosexuality is what is expected of us. It is natural. Christ termed homosexuality to be unnatural Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Homosexuality is a sinful choice and Christians don’t identify themselves by the sin they choose.
Certainly no-one gives their religion as “heterosexual Christian”, although countless Christians, if asked what their sexuality was, would truthfully reply “heterosexual”, and there is nothing wrong with that. I’ve never known anyone to give their religion as “homosexual Christian” either, but there is equally nothing wrong with Christians who are homosexual saying so. There is no record of Christ terming homosexuality “unnatural” – or anything else. Sandi needs to stop making things up; it’s a very bad habit of hers.
People choose their behaviour, including their sexual behaviour, but people don’t choose to be homosexual, just as people don’t choose to be heterosexual either: they just are. If sexuality (as distinct from sexual behaviour) were a choice, we wouldn’t have people who are homosexual, but who don’t want to be, wasting precious years of their lives – and often also their hard-earned money – on such cons as “conversion therapy” (or whatever its practitioners are choosing to call it this year) and “ex-gay ministry”. They would never have been homosexual in the first place, since people don’t choose things that they don’t want.
Gug, to become a Christian, one needs to renounce their sin. If they are referring to themselves as a homosexual (gay) Christian, they have not renounced their sin. Pretty simple
I suggest you read romans 1 – I’ve posted it somewhere on this thread – where Christ terms homosexuality to be “Unnatural”, “shameful act”, “error”
Being homosexual (sexually attracted to people of the same sex) is not a sin, any more than being heterosexual (sexually attracted to people of the other sex) is. Pretty simple.
Romans was not written by Christ but by Paul, as you know perfectly well: he tells us so in the very first sentence of his epistle. In the first chapter he speaks of people who have abandoned their former heterosexual “lifestyle” and have taken up a homosexual one, as the result of their having ceased to worship God and started worshipping images of mortal man, birds, quadrupeds and reptiles instead. I do not know of anyone whose sexual history that describes. If – and I do stress if – that was Paul’s theory about homosexuality generally, then it is simply incorrect.
Homosexuality is a sin Gug.
You forget, Paul was taught by Christ for 3 years while in Arabia – via revelation. Gal 1:11-18
Also, Christ taught all of the condemnation of homosexuality. I found an interesting scripture in Hebrews where Moses knew Christ. I had never seen the names together like this before (Hebrews 11:24) But, we all know that Christ is God and He told Moses what to write.
If we go with your theory about Romans, which there is no scripture to maintain – but, if we go with it, the manner of which is could be true is that no one is born homosexual and it is all a choice – which I don’t disagree with. I’ve maintained that through every conversation we’ve had, Gug. Good to see you understanding that it is a choice now.
But, Paul was referring to all who commit homosexuality, so the point is moot. He was teaching against homosexuality, as did the disciples after him.
(edit) Gug, show us scripture where Christ affirms homosexuality. Thanks
No, Sandi, you’re wrong – and as I’ve told you before, you need to stop making things up: it’s dishonest.
No dishonesty, Gug. Homosexuality is a sin. It is not innate. The only person you are fooling is yourself, and those who cannot deal with the truth.
(edit) Show us the scripture where Christ affirms sin.
The made-up stuff that you keep writing isn’t the truth, Sandi.
Show us the scripture where Christ affirms the sin.
I never suggested that Christ affirmed any sin, Sandi. Stop being so daft.
Good to see you acknowledge that is a sin. Put that together with your realization that it is a choice, and we’re on the same page.
Well, if you think that Christ affirms homosexuality, where does He say so?
(edit) I’ve asked the same of you all day, Gug….where’s your scripture refuting what I’m saying? Thanks
That what is a sin? Homosexuality certainly isn’t, any more than heterosexuality is. (Stop misrepresenting what I have written; it’s dishonest of you.) And neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality is a choice. Those who keep asserting otherwise are either lying – which is a sin – or simply ignorant.
There is no record of Christ even mentioning homosexuality, as you know full well, Sandi. I bid you good night.
Can’t supply the scripture, eh Gug? Thanks.
Christ condemned homosexuality from Genesis to the Book of Revelation. Blessings
As much as I’d like to disagree with you here in the part of me that encourages Christian charity, I think you do make a point that is difficult to reconcile. Many people do identify as “gay Christian” because the church has tolerated (or encouraged) a gray area that neither nullifies homosexuality’s sinful essence nor fully relegates it to the “sin box” along with thievery, murder. Perhaps it is a less grievous sin than murder or thievery by not being specifically referenced in the ten commandments, but that does not make it a partial sin any more than a person can be “somewhat pregnant”. As soon as an act begins to stray from righteous territory, it is a sin, even if is strays less far from righteousness than other acts.
I guess the one part where I can disagree with you (but only partly) is the sinfulness of the thought versus the act. One can contemplate stealing or even murdering, both of which are undeniably sinful, but that would not make these people murderers or thieves if they do not act. Yet, a celibate person can contemplate homosexual acts–or perhaps (more tamely) simply feel attraction for a person of the same sex–and, if this happens routinely at the exclusion of hetero attractions–they will probably identify as “gay” while remaining celibate. This ideation may exist completely independent from religion.
Again, I’m not sure I disagree with you. I just haven’t been able to come to terms with this, and I feel that nothing in your debate has either. I think there should be room for celibate gays in the church, and if they remain Christian, they should invariably be able to remain celibate. In fact, one could see it as a prerequisite. They have repudiated or even forfeited their orientation. As soon as they allow their ideation to succumb to sinful acts (perhaps not sex but mere carnal same-sex attraction–such as a kiss of sexual attraction), they are as much a fallen Christian as he or she who is unfaithful to his/her spouse. I’d love your thoughts on this.
Lauren, I’ve always had the utmost respect for you, even when we haven’t agreed because I think you put a lot of thought into your comments.
As far as homosexuality being a “lesser sin”. 1 Corinthians 6:18 – Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.” Kind of puts it into it’s own category, but in reality, it is just another form of idolatry which Romans 1 explains..
You wrote: “I guess the one part where I can disagree with you (but only partly) is the sinfulness of the thought versus the act.” I submit the following scripture: Matthew 5:28 – But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” I would say, it is the thought and the act and that we are responsible for our temptations.
That said, to think the thought and dismiss it, as we do so many things, I don’t believe is a sin. Christ was tempted in many ways but did not sin. It is getting caught up in the temptation that is the difficulty as we are responsible for our temptations. James 1:14-15 – if on a diet, don’t visit a candy store. If you choose that you want to have sex with someone, avoid them and take the temptation away. We are not slaves to our libido although this culture tries to suggest otherwise..
No one is born a homosexual. Romans 1 makes clear that it is “unnatural”, a “shameful act”, “error”, “dishonourable passions”, “men gave up natural relations”….”women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; ” so at some point, the person is coerced to attempting to sexualize the affection. Lots of people love people of the same sex without it being sexual, it crosses the line when taken one step further, if I may. David and Jonathan loved one another emotionally. Jonathan was saving David’s life. That did not make them homosexual.
As I don’t believe that anyone is “gay”, although someone who steals may start referring to themselves as a thief, but I’ve never heard of a Thieving Christian – trying to justify the sin by adding “Christian” to it. So, as far as a “celibate homosexual” no. All single people in the church are required to adhere to celibacy. There is no prize for that.
The late 1300 Wycliffe Bible refers to what we call “homosexuals” as “letchers with men.” 1 Corinthians 6:9 – 9 Whether ye know not, that wicked men shall not wield the kingdom of God? Do not ye err; neither lechers, neither men that serve maumets [neither men serving to idols], neither adulterers, neither lechers against kind, neither they that do lechery with men…..” So, “homosexual” has changed from an act – lechery – , to a “trait” – “homosexual” – in many minds.
(Sometimes it is easier to refer to them as “homosexuals” rather than extend the explanation every time. I believe the same thought is given to where the sinner is referred to as a “lecher”).
You wrote: “They have repudiated or even forfeited their orientation.” There is no such thing as “orientation” as I explained when I discussed no one being born a “homosexual”. It is a concept developed by the world to attempt to legitimize the sin.
Little girls kiss each other all the time as they love their friend. That is not a sin. It becomes a sin for a person who would be considered “of age”, whatever that is, on the thought of the act of homosexuality being considered.
Gosh, I feel like I’ve just written a legal document…..lol……one needs to be careful because there are many who would not agree, but I’ve done my best to answer your questions and comments, after prayer.
Now I’ll read this afterward and wish I had added, or said something different, as I do with my comments before they are responded to, so don’t be surprised to see some (edit)s.
Blessings to you.
Just one more thing before signing off on this, homosexuality is a sin. If the person who has committed the sin turns to Christ, repents of their sin, and follows Christ, they have a very good eternity to look forward to as it is with any other sin.
2nd comment:
How can one expect deliverance from such a sin, when one clings so tightly to the sin that they place it before their identity with Christ?
If someone tells me “I am homosexual” I assume–unless they say otherwise–they approve of and/or practice, sodomy. That is the ordinary meaning of the word. No one says, “I am an adulterer” just because they struggle with the temptation (“orientation?”) toward adultery. This is not how sinful temptations are dealt with by Christians–as we identify with Christ, and Christ is never identified with sin. To say, “I am a Christian who struggles with homosexual temptation” is worlds away from saying, “I am a gay Christian.”
If someone tells me “I am heterosexual”, I assume – unless they say otherwise – that they mean that their sexual attractions are to (some) people of the other sex, which is the ordinary meaning of the word. Likewise, if someone tells me “I am homosexual”, I assume – unless they say otherwise – that they mean that their sexual attractions are to (some) people of the same sex, which is the ordinary meaning of the word.
In neither instance do I start making assumptions concerning what sexual behaviour – if any – they may be engaged in, nor is it my place to interrogate them on the matter. And in neither instance do I regard their sexual orientation, i.e. their ongoing pattern of sexual attraction, per se as a “sinful temptation” which needs to be struggled with. They, of course, may choose to do so; that is up to them.
That is NOT the meaning of the word so your whole argument falls apart.
Honestly, I thought the letter was beautiful. Finally, someone taking a stand on Biblical truth, not cultural homophobia. Someone truly sharing the love of Christ. Someone showing compassion. Someone showing the world the Christ who would not break a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick.
I honestly don’t see how same-sex attracted people can read asking for it to be withdrawn or speaking against it as anything less than disgust and disdain for people like themselves.
And the thing is, I know so many devout Christians who are gay and that isn’t changing but they want with all their heart to serve God and they are determined to live according to what God has revealed in His word about His plan and design for human sexuality and marriage in the midst of a culture that calls them crazy, self-loathing twits for doing it. And nearly all of them are deeply wounded by statements like this. And so they feel homeless, attacked from both sides. They are looking for a home were they can be supported in their convictions, but also speak freely and honestly and be loved and cherished anyway. And yet, it certainly doesn’t sound like they are very welcome here. A stumbling block before those for whom Christ died.
And when those people are driven out, what is the good of preaching to the straight people to abstain from homosexual sin? What is the point of making a stand for Biblical truth, if you drive away those who would actually benefit from it, even those who already agree with you?
Robert, you have posted five times within a short period of time saying basically the same thing. You have read an awful lot into Archbishop Foley’s letter, and the College of Bishops statement that just is not there.
The original statement was simply giving guidance on how to address an issue that is culturally sensitive and on which the Bible is crystal clear. The part that drew the most comment was the discussion over what term best to use, ‘gay Christian’ or ‘Christians who experience same-sex attraction’, deciding on the latter. They gave a very clear rationale for their recommendation, if anything too long, and it had nothing to do with the prejudices you accused them of.
I think this letter of Archbishop Foley’s is refreshingly frank. The letter in question was “in your face”, it was nitpicking and decisive where no offense was meant. The issue is a simple and obvious one, how do you compassionately communicate and live toward a Biblical truth that is at the same time spectacularly clearly communicated in the Bible and diametrically opposed to the prevailing culture’s narrative on it. The open letter in question was not helpful, rather just the opposite.
You clearly are emotionally invested in this issue. Let me humbly suggest that your strong feelings on the matter have distorted your understanding of the CoB’s statement and Archbishop Foley’s response to the open letter.
You wrote: “…they want with all their heart to serve God,” if that were so, then why do they define themselves by their sin, and not Christ?
Sandi, I think it would be fair to say that some of the people we’re speaking about are on a journey in the right direction, but perhaps there are a few areas of understanding that need work. I know that twenty years ago I was a very different person from who I am now. God has been at work in my life and I know he will continue to sand off the rough edges. That’s the testimony of pretty much every Christian, isn’t it? It stands to reason then that there may also be believers, struggling with SSA, who are still growing in their understanding of what it all means…
But, calling oneself by a favourite sin is saying to others that Christ overlooks that sin, and He doesn’t.
Yes, but Sandi, the point I was trying (badly) to make is that it’s perfectly possible for a believer to experience SSA, to want to serve God with a whole heart, and to not have (yet?) arrived at the realization/conclusion that some of these things may need to change.
As long as they are believer first, w nicholas. If they are a homosexual first, then they are unrepentant and not Christian.
I too was a much different person 30 years ago. But I thank God every day for the redeeming work of Jesus Christ that allowed me to die to the person that I was, that I could become a new creation in Christ. I think part of the dialog in these posts are conflating two things related to the homosexual person. As so many have pointed out here, there is the real same-sex attracted person who has had the conversion experience and is faithfully living into the fruit of that experience. These may be the folks who don’t run around calling themselves “Gay Anglicans”.
There are also the activists, who are not interested so much in being a new creation in Christ as much as they want to create a new community for themselves. These are the ones attracted by the Gospel of Affirmation, who will let you know night and day that they ARE “Gay Anglicans” and have little interest in the Gospel of Redemption. And these activists are the ones who will continue to drive this issue and keep it front and center so that bit by bit they take over the dialog of the Church and make it almost exclusively about them. That is the playbook they ran in TEC and unless the ABp and the CoB take a strong stand for the true Gospel, it is the playbook the activists will hang around their necks.
Warren, I absolutely agree that we’ve got these two very different groups, exactly as you’ve identified them.
But what concerns me the most is a third group of people who are deeply confused. The number of young people belonging to this group is alarming and growing. These aren’t seasoned campaigners in a activist-led coup, nor are they theologically-grounded holy-living Christians. They are sincere seekers or baby Christians utterly adrift between the many voices pulling them in different directions, and though they want to pursue God, they are struggling to make sense of all the noise. I think it’s important for those of us who champion orthodoxy to do our best to be gentle with these children so that they recognize we genuinely want what is best for them; willing to cheer them on in their faith, help them when they fall and point them in the right direction with all the kindness we can muster.
Bingo! And why are they confused? Radio, TV, Online Media, schools, parental neglect, and dare I say it? Mixed messages from the Churches.
This is a singular opportunity for the Bishops of the ACNA to issue a REAL statement of faith [hopefully in far less than 3700 words] planting CLEARLY AND IN UNCOMPLICATED PROSE the flag of the real Gospel message of redemption based on the 2,000 year Holy Spirit inspired witness of Scripture. They will get tons of incoming, but that just means you’re over the target and you are being effective.
And some of the confusion will be dissipated by the Light of that message.
There is a place to be gentle. But also a place of counseling that one does not have to wear one’s sin as a badge of honor and one does not have to constantly alert everyone to one’s sinful tendencies. One rather false sense of victimhood of the same-sex attracted is that “I am treated so badly be everyone”. Well, if you didn’t tell everyone you are same-sex attracted, 99% of them probably would not know it.
I do not believe that this letter from ++Beach, nor the [paper? statement? guidance?] from the College of Bishops, would be enough to drive away the people you are so concerned for (and rightly so), unless they are already in parishes in which the majority of members have personally rejected them. But if they have been accepted as fellow believers, then I would think that this letter will not be enough to drive them away from the love and mutual support that they receive within the Body of Christ. If you think I’m mistaken, then please join me in praying that this current situation will be an opportunity for God’s power and grace to overflow and defeat the enemy, who prowls about seeking whom he may destroy.
A bigger issue here is where homosexual and transgender sexual deviancy is pushing the ACNA. Homosexuals, Transgender, gender seeking, all amount to what? One to two to three percent of the population? Alcoholism is estimated to affect about 6% of the population and drug addiction is probably in the same neighborhood. Divorce of heterosexual couples affect roughly 50% of marriages with lifelong consequences.
But the vast majority of ink spilled over the last 30 years in the Church Universal seems to have been spent on accommodating the 1-3 percent and turning itself into a pretzel not to offend by not being up front and straightforward about what Holy Scripture says.
ABp Beaches statement was pretty clear and pretty strong. But unless the ACNA stops playing the activist’s game, this rock is going to be hung around their neck just like it was at TEC. I suggest listening to Kevin & Georges latest video about the AMEN group and what a mess that is.
Jesus leaves the 100 to save the one.
I’m sympathetic to Warren’s point, but it makes me uncomfortable because Jesus didn’t pay attention to demographics or analytics. Whether you belonged to the majority group, the insiders, or one of a number of different ostracized groups, he cared – as you’ve succinctly pointed out, elcalebo. That said, it seems to me that Warren’s point is still relevant to the conversation because churches are at a risk of losing sight of other needs as we shift focus to either debate or accommodate this one group – and there are so many more sheep in need of care.
But Jesus returns to his mission to save the world and doesn’t drop everything else to forever focus on the one.
I’m not sure the spiritual solutions to drug and alcohol addiction are facing a great deal of dispute. Meanwhile, the number of comments to this post is evidence of why sexuality remains and will remain a preoccupation, no matter how few people it involves.
That it remains a preoccupation because of even one person, I could care less.
That it remains the front and center preoccupation and issue of the Church, which is the earthly real presence of Christ, is the fault of the leadership of the Church, trying to put worldly concerns ahead of the celestial concerns the Church is ordained to be focused on.
The buck stops with Foley Beach and the CoB. They have allowed, and funded, the AMEN group to bring Social Justice activism to the forefront of the ACNA. ABp Beach personally brought racial justice to the absolute forefront of the ACNA. They allowed other groups to bring Immigration to the forefront of the ACNA. And then kept reminding folks in the midst of all the growing activist activity……”oh, don’t forget about the Gospel of Redemption……”
You either preach and live out the true Holy Scripture based Gospel of Redemption for all, or you allow the world to drag you off in the direction IT wants to take you. Perfect example: TEC
Next possible example: ACNA
Now is the absolute essential time to decide which path it will be.
I don’t really disagree with you. I do not believe anything about the current discourse on racial justice has a remotely religious bend to it, whereas I think it clearly did in the 1950s and 60s. The modern discourse is born out of academia; the mid 20th century one largely came from the church. And I think this despite the fact that figures like MLK most certainly did dabble in and at times empathize with socialism. By that same token, religious Southern Americans absolutely used the Bible to deny fellow Americans of rights that they had been promised (but denied) through the Declaration of Independence and eventually were granted through the Constitution.
If the ACNA continues to embrace these very worldly doctrines, you’re right that it is merely TECUSA minus about 25 years.
Thank you Archbishop Foley. We rejoice in the charity and clarity put forth in the Bishop’s statement on sexual identity. Now may we make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. That means, among other things, that we must all learn to submit to godly, episcopal authority, under the authority of Scripture. May the solas come to bear on our identity in Christ ALONE.
As a lay Anglican I haven’t any idea how to submit to episcopal authority. It is different for clergy.
Thank you, your Grace. You are in my family’s prayers.
[…] Read it all. […]
Honestly, what did you expect when you formed a breakaway church?
With regard to “gay Christians” and “gay Anglicans”, as some commenting have said, sin is what we do, including sinful thoughts, not what we are. Homosexuals are people who commit that kind of sin, just as adulterers are people who commit that kind of sin. Most of us are tempted towards at least one variety of sexual sin and if we give in we are sinners of that kind. One reason why homosexual sin is worse than, say, heterosexual fornication (and that is a sin despite modern societal values) is that the act itself is not of its nature sinful, while the context is. Homosexual acts are always sinful. There seems to be far too litlle acknowledgement that sin is what we DO.
It is saddening that even referring to people, respectfully, as a gay Christian or a gay Anglican is met with exclusion from the ACNA. They have every right to organize their church and doctrine as they see necessary. That does not mean that it is the right thing to do. This rejection of gay people, not as clergy or even as lay members, but this rejection of gay people even in name is going to hurt. I pray that the Anglican Communion will one day see healing even as we continue to disagree with one another. I pray that disagreement does not need to become the ‘cancellation’ of the other. Certainly, I think there is room in the Communion for gay Christians and for conservative Christians.
RIP ACNA. Death by PC and identity politics. TEC will dance at the funeral.
I pray this not be so. Please, defend us Archbishop Foley. Remove the wolves from those that teach us. By-laws are not enough. We need truth from the pulpit often.
In the meantime, label us according to our sins. We are:
Porn Addict Anglicans
Obese Anglicans
Alcoholic Anglicans
Greedy Anglicans
Wrathful Anglicans
This is not an all-inclusive list and please do not be offended if I have left you out due to the sake of brevity. I joke here. But we could actually do this grouping by sin. If we MUST call them Gay Christians / Anglicans then we should all pick our sin group. It could be a type of outward and public confession by group. But, maybe that is a bad idea.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f29cb116408e3ce6dcf9535da62178cb6a953cd8ca8074593f42c24639c44133.jpg
And here, https://anglican.ink/2021/02/26/church-of-nigeria-criticizes-acna-over-dear-gay-anglicans-letter/ the Church of Nigeria demonstrates how one takes a Social Justice activist issue head on.
You may not agree with their position, but you have no doubt where they stand, where the battle lines are drawn, and what their end game is.
I pray the ACNA will find the backbone to be so clear.
[…] On 22 February there was a response from some individuals within ACNA in the form of a public letter addressed to “Dear Gay Anglicans”. Although this has been withdrawn by the originator as discussed here , you can read a copy of it here. This prompted a response on 23 February: Archbishop Beach writes to the Diocese of the South about the “Dear Gay Anglicans” open …. […]
[…] gay Christians there followed the doubling down on this reaction with the publication of a letter from ACNA Presiding Bishop Foley Beach. A letter he felt it necessary to write and send […]
[…] orthodox gay Christians there followed the doubling down on this reaction with the publication of a letter from ACNA Presiding Bishop Foley Beach. A letter he felt it necessary to write and send to his […]
[…] next day, February 23rd, ACNA Archbishop Foley Beach issued an open letter—at 1:15 a.m.—to his own Diocese of the South. He came out swinging. While the “Dear Gay […]
[…] On 22 February there was a response from some individuals within ACNA in the form of a public letter addressed to “Dear Gay Anglicans”. Although this has been withdrawn by the originator as discussed here , you can read a copy of it here. This prompted a response on 23 February: Archbishop Beach writes to the Diocese of the South about the “Dear Gay Anglicans” open letter. […]