Monday 5 July 2010

Gays and ecumenical stability

See how these Christians loathe one another!

See also how some posture and seek, by means of good old fashioned traducing, to take a moral high ground and, if possible, to make them and their cause the 'wounded party'. Now, this has been an effective tactic for many out there (on both sides) and has possibly been most effective in currying sympathy for the 'Gay' issue.

I have a friend is suffers from Arachnophobia. Whenever they see a spider they scream and run in the opposite direction screaming and in blind terror. So great is their fear that if they are confronted by a big enough member of the arachnid clan, they will actually pass out!

Now, I have been taught by culture and church that homosexual relationships are wrong and therefore do not choose to engage in one myself. I don't like Marmite either, but this is merely a personal choice, I find nothing in my social background or church history to support this. Does this make me marmiteophobic or homophobic? No I don't think so! I have made my choices as I am free to do so.

In response to my previous post I am told that, "I haven't said you are "for" or "against" Dr John's relationship. I don't need to - we know you believe homosexual relations are sinful."

This is an interesting assessment of Dr. John's situation because as I have said, oh so many times, I have no problems with the focus of one person's love being someone of the same sex, my problem comes when it becomes sexual. I have said this repeatedly (and consistently) and therefore, by stating as my correspondent does, he (or she - pseudonyms hide all things ;) ), apparently assumes that the relationship must be sexual. If this were not so, he would know that I don't disapprove. Always good to get clarification from someone who knows. Thanks!

I am accused of being disingenuous and of using the issue of "damaging relations" with other denominations as a cover. Actually, I am not at all. I am only too aware that members of a number of churches where I find myself are distressed, concerned and beginning to harden their view that the CofE is becoming an apostate body. the result of this is that the day will come when some will have to step back from the relationships they have with CofE churches in a bid to keep themselves untainted.

Harsh? It is when you struggle to engage with the pastoral and spiritual needs of a place. A cover - sadly not, for like the Christians in minority countries this issue is placing the work of Christ and His Church at risk. This is before we consider the response of many of the people where I live - they're not as sophisticated as some and know what they feel and and like and this is not a warm fuzzy area for them.

If people read my blog they will see that I abhor homophobia as much as I do the labelling of people as such in an attempt to make themselves right. 1 John tells us that 'we can't love God and hate our brother' - Amen to that! Galatians six tells us that when we see what we consider to be wrong, we 'restore them, gently'. Again, Amen!

The parting shot is cool for it brings in some really good 'light the touch-paper and run' issues: "There are other issues - like women priests, biblical inerrancy, and the headship of men - which damage ecumenism. Are you suggesting that Christian Unity will be achieved when everyone becomes a homophobic fundamentalist like yourself?"

See, there's the insult and the traduction in full flow as I am neither homophobic nor fundamentalist in the Phelpsian sense which our poor misguided writer appears to portray as fact. We will only find unity if we can find the areas were we can share first common areas of mutuality (shouldn't that be Christ? I hear so little mention of Him in this argument) and by discussion agree ways forward that make a path of peaceful existence. This isn't it and labelling, pointing fingers and the like do not win the day, but they do display the reasons that some are concerned.

As for me, I seek to bring the kingdom to those who are lost - and this means being obedient. It's not easy, but then again, whoever said 'denying oneself' was ever going to be.

Or you can merely label and hope others will assume that what you say is truthful. I'll continue to serve the Lord, write what I write and leave others to continue to misrepresent my views to fulfil their own desires.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

It speaks volumes that you equate being gay with a like (or dislike) of Marmite. Do you honestly believe that people choose their sexuality in the same way that people choose what to eat with their toast? Your analogy shows a total lack of understanding of human sexuality.

Vic Van Den Bergh said...

Thank you for your comments David. O can only assume you know little regarding Marmitr!

Personal choice is exactly that regardless of the area under consideration - I guess I must be genetically disinclined to Marmite.

V

John Thomas said...

"Choice / liking Marmite" - Actually, some in the leadership of the Church seem to think that truth can be made/actually is as fluid as questions of taste and fashion, rather than being 1) something given to us by an objectively-existing Creator (as opposed to something we make up for ourselves - and can therefore change, to suit the values of the times) 2) Not actually up to us (or the State, BBC, Guardian, etc.) but beyond our ideas/choices/thinking. 3) Something which we assent to or not, where no fudging is possible. Yes, many in the leadership of the Church confirm the thinking of the militant atheists: religion is a purely-human, purely-this-worldly affair.

Undergroundpewster said...

Vic,

Once they resort to name calling, their argument is lost. You have graciously turned the other cheek. Well done.