Comments

This reminds me of the learned and professional-religious condescending blather that was going on in my youth about "mixed race" marriages. And, it was all just silly, in an evil way, as all the learned and professional blather about "homosexuality" is today. Moral people just didn't care if a couple was of two different "races," whatever "race" even means.

And, moral people today just don't care if a couple is Gay. 60 years of research says that same sex sexual orientation just happens, and it's nothing but a minor variation on the them of humanity, like being left handed. Maye a little awkward at times, but, who really cares? It's just mildly interesting. Awkward at times is the human condition in a nutshell...lol.

The Bible has seldom said what white conservative evangelicals have said about "the other" anyway. God didn't lay waste to the land when slavery was abolished, as was predicted...the Civil War ended instead. God didn't destroy America when Jim Crow was killed off, America just kept going, instead. It's safe to say that God didn't hate abolitionism, or "miscegenation," or that God hates "homosexuality" today. People hate in the name of God. God is as God is, which is quite beyond my understanding.

If the law forbids a Gay couple from marrying, one simple ignores that they aren't legally married in one's organizations and personal dealings with them, as much as humanly possible. Of course, that's much, much easier said that done, but...one should try. Williams isn't trying, but appeasing. (Not that appeasing is always wrong, it's not always wrong. It's sometimes quite the right thing to do.)

A Gay person who is part of a couple are, after all, adults who are consensually married within their understanding of "family," and that's enough for any moral person and organization to treat them as so as much as humanly possible...and to support making it so legally as well.

There are compromises as a necessary component of life, and then there are compromises that shouldn't have to be made. There is appeasement that is moral, or at least pragmatic and not excessively immoral, then there is appeasement that goes too far. Dr. Williams, who is not American, wouldn't have my experience of living American history to teach him lessons about that sort of thing...still, you don't compromise with other people's dignity in such a smarmy and duplicitous way as he has done, and expect to be respected by anyone. One can just logically expect to be used and abused by all sides.

However, at least Williams uses "Gay" and GLBT, instead of "homosexuals," which indicates that he may be able to learn something, I hope some day soon.

Christianity in America schismed over slavery in my Great Grandfather's day, and exploded into a religious led Civil War, largely of conservative Protestant vs. very conservative Protestant, just before my grandfather was born. In my youth, the Civil Rights movement was opposed, or carefully ignored as much as possible, more than supported. "Mixed race" marriages were only nationwide legalized when I was in high school! This despite the obvious, unutterable silliness of opposing them in the first place.

If Christianity, in America and worldwide, schisms over something as silly as same-sex sexual orientation...maybe it's Christianity that should be walked away from instead, at least Christianity as currently understood. Why bother with Christianity, when Christianity can't learn lessons about equality and the Golden Rule without major, major drama; endless foolish, silly, smarmy, hateful and duplicitous blather; traumatic sibling vs. sibling schisms and dangerous, maybe even violent backlash by Christians?

One can have that without Christianity, after all, but without the hypocritical self-righteousness of the 'God like us best and we're so very humble about that' people, and without the offensive clobber verses ripped out of Biblical/historical context and fashioned into slimy word-weapons against the people who disagree with them.

That's how more an more people I know are thinking...who needs Christianity? (Of course, personal experience is quite untrustworthy from which to generalize, but might be illustrative of a general trend, or not.)

Well, Christianity is my inheritance, and I'll do with it as such...moral people just don't care about some things, but care a great deal about justice and the Golden Rule...he writes with smarmy, condescending self righteousness. lol.

I suspect the reason Gregory Peterson threw so much garbage at people who try to follow the teachings of the Bible is that he hopes some of it sticks or that people will be intimidated by the sheer bulk of the landfill. I will not even attempt to dispute any of his points since they are all incoherent but it will suffice to refer him to Romans 1:18-32 for the impeccable logic of Paul. And Gregory, please don't accept Christianity as your inheritance. We have plenty of fake Christians already. Real Christians have always been a small minority and have always been persecuted when people like you are in control. Try thinking for once and label yourself as you are and quit posing as someone who cares.

What is really sad about this, is that it will be interpreted in terms of homophobia, bigortry or hate which it is not, rather it is about church discipline. We can call "foul" all we want, or "bigotry" when in truth their are, at least in the Christian, Islam and Jewish faith traditions, consequences of choosing certain lifestyles, as far as those faith traditions are concerned.

Christianity needs to define itself according to the scriptures and apostolic tradition, even if it means shrinking the numbers in the church. It is better to have a few worshipers who worship in spirit and in truth than have a vast futile Christendom. Anglicanism is a catch-all which has become unstuck because of sin. No amount of glue can hold a sinful family together. When David sinned sexually and by murder God summonsed him to court and declared that his household would be at odds with itself. So it is with Anglicanism: Sexual sin has split it.

The LGBT bloc has cleverly trivialized the "tear in the fabric" of Anglicanism as caused by perversion in sexual practice. They can then move the discuaaion to whether God "made" them that way or not. Then the Commands do NOT apply to them or rather, specifically
permit them to flaunt their perversion as less than 5% of a normal population in the US
It is ACTUALLY about authneticity and validity of Holy Scripture in applying its content of black and white unmisinterpretable Commands of God to moral Chriatian life. For some this even means rejectiom of divorce under most circumstances. For others, it questions female appropriateness in Holy Orders. The Episcopal Church borders on Apostasy in all three. Will the Bible, the Whole Bible and Nothing but the Bible be accepted or rejected? Juat that SIMPLE
Gregory had also trivialized and made light and funny of a serious matter at least most of the 77 million members of the Anglican Communion. Any time the Church must split when the Lord prayed that we "all might be One" is agonizing. Gregory may win an Award for comedic relief but gets an F in in Christian Theology. The content is possibly a Pass as New Age "Faith" but not Christianity
Trevor is correct as usual. It IS the REMNANT Congregation of believers that God has always used to follow His Commands and thus receive His Blessing, Favor and Loving Kindness. His Merciful Grace.
Through His Prophets and Son He has given us Covenants, an Old and a New, and has required that we adhere to our side of the bargain as He has commanded. Break one of His Commands or those of His Only Son and there IS NO DEAL. Thus by pruning off the distorted alien
lying branches of the vine God has purified His Church when it strays under false leaders spreading a false gospel.
Thank God there is a way for sinners to repent and return to His loving embrace. The Sacrament of Reconcilliation is available to sinners that "we might all be(come)One" (My parentheses.) BE with the Lord
Tillman

"Real Christians?" I think that's a quite arrogant and foolish claim to make, that one even knows what "real Christians" are. I mean, I've read or personally heard, that real Christians are pro-slavery, white supremacists, sexists, anti-evolutionists, hates "homosexuality" like God does, have an extensive execution wish list etc.. I don't want to be a "real Christian" then, and I don't know why anyone would...actually, I do vaguely know why...that's why I have a degree in sociology.

Romans 1:18-32 is clearly about idolatry. "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.” After all, that's what idolaters do, make graven images to worship.

The religious right claims to be wise about the sexual orientation of the "other," but they are willful fools, deliberately ignorant, and exchange the glory of God for images of their own debased, imagined sexual fantasies (if not hypocritically practiced) projected upon the "other." Fantasies that are deliberately perverse; perverse in the cold blooded stripping of humanity from Gay people, in a very racist like way. Sexual immorality which they have immorally projected upon the "other." Sexual perversity that they claim Gay people today do, and which Black people allegedly did, when I was young. This is sexual exploitation by gossip and ill will, sexual exploitation to legitimate scapegoating, every other kind of exploitation, pathetic delusions of God ordained superiority, and sheer naked greed. Somebody wants Gay jobs and Gay businesses as their divine "right,"

That the verses are about idolatry are not even controversial. They have nothing to do with sexual orientation as understood today, but with the idolatry of sexual exploitation, of the sexual manipulation of others against their better selves.

As idolatry doesn't cause "homosexuality,' an obsolete social construct anyway, the verses are not about the sin of "homosexuality," but of false and coercive manipulation of religion that does not love one's neighbor. The verses condemn people who practices sex as a religious rite, practice idolatry against the better judgment and best interests of those who could do differently, but are afraid to say no to the idolatrous leaders, lest the gods go frown upon them.

In any case, Paul isn't God, but Paul, a brilliant man who lived a very long time ago...except maybe in geologic terms.

One pays close attention to Paul. Paul is authoritative. Paul is the earliest writings about Jesus, about what became Christianity. But, Paul is not authoritarian. We do not worship him as the inerrant Word, as that would be idolatry...foolish and dangerous idolatry, right? I wonder how many ex-slaves ripped Paul out of their Bibles because of the self-serving Pauline idolatry practiced by slaveholders.

This is exactly how many Gay people think of the religious right and their "spiritual" war against the GLBT community:

God gave them (the religious-right movement activists) over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper (to their neighbor), being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God (God's Golden Rule), insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, (urging children to be) disobedient to (Gay) parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful...

Sure, Paul had an antipathy towards homoeroticism, which has fueled much titillating speculation about his erotic dream life and likely unrequited sexual desires...but so what? That was then, this is now. And that is exactly the advice Paul was giving about such things as circumcision and the dietary purity laws in his own time, I think. It's not the letter of the law, but the spirit of love that illuminates justice.

The Golden Rule lives in the "now." God may not change, though I wouldn't want to put limits on God, myself, but human knowledge, societies, governments, family structures, social constructs and technologies sure do change, and have change a lot since even when my Grandfather was born in 1862.

The Golden Rule lives in the "now," as the Samaritan lived in his "now," as opposed to all the careful idolaters of the "Law" who passed by the injured man, lest they break the fine points of the Law as they worshiped it, the Law...instead of God.

It's people shamelessly and mindlessly addicted to clobber verses that need to go to theological rehab.

My Christian friends tell me there is more at stake than sexual stances. There is also questions of the nature of scripture and the need to confess in the reality of the resurrection. Truth inevitably splits communities.

The ABC speaks out of both sides of his mouth. It's outragous for someone in his position to state that:

"No Anglican has any business reinforcing prejudice against LGBT people, questioning their human dignity and civil liberties or their place within the Body of Christ. Our overall record as a Communion has not been consistent in this respect and this needs to be acknowledged with penitence."

Reinforcing prejudice! It is important to know that God will judge sinners. Christians teach repentance.
Human dignity! Who is humble enough?
Civil liberties! Who cares? I thought Anglicans were part of Christ's church, submitting to the ultimate authority. When the civil authority grants liberties that counter God's word, Christians have at least the responsibility to refuse it.

I am curious... why is it that our religion focuses on spirituality rather than physicality, and yet we constantly fall into the trap of following physicality rather than spirituality?

Regarding same-sex couples, which is more important: their physical nature or spiritual nature?

I would venture to say that the spirituality of same-sex couples is the key to understanding their physical nature, and what is spiritual we have no right to judge -- the spirit is of God, not man.

Doesn't this Rowan Williams guy have any male balls. He seems to be gutless and should not be in charge of such a large, or any church, now that I think of it if he can't make a decision. He can't tell a minority of people who have infiltrated his church that they are wrong and that they are out of the church. Didn't he take a oath to stand up for the beliefs of his church or did he secretly work his way to the top so he could let happen what is happening because he isn't a true Episcopalian, he is a true secularist or humanist which says no to God and yes, man can do it himself because he does'nt need God in his life to be a man or to build a community. Williams needs to be replaced with a man with guts and who has loyalty to his church and to God.