However, much of the evangelical church is also already on, if not beyond that stair. Just look at any evangelical theology book for the past 100 years. Although inerrancy is supposedly one of the planks of evangelicalism, when it comes to the opening chapters of Genesis, these theologians do back flips, pirouettes, hand stands and many other contortions rather than accept that what God said is true. “It’s poetry” we’re told – well fine, but even if that were true, couldn’t our God (who we assert is truth) write a poem that was accurate? “It’s just a picture” – again, couldn’t God paint something that was correct? The same response basically goes with any such excuse. Are these theologians and their followers also not twisting the Word of God to suit their purpose? If so, are they not doing exactly the same as the liberals?

If much of the evangelical church doesn’t believe the whole Bible, why are we surprised when the liberals have gone one (or several) stairs further towards atheism? Is it because many evangelicals are still too close to them and the distance is not sufficiently great to distinguish? We need to realize that the liberals are merely reflecting the modern, humanistic, secular worldview. What is maybe not so obvious is that many parts of the evangelical church have absorbed parts of this secular worldview also, just not as much (yet!) as the liberals. To cite but one example while on the topic of homosexuality, many of those pushing same-sex registers would consider themselves evangelical.

The church has been dumbed down for years and has left itself open to massive problems in many areas, not just homosexuality. The 1924 cartoon is just as relevant today as when it was printed – but then most if not all of the New Testament epistles were written to correct error, so not much has changed!

If we are going to bring back the ‘A’ word – which I would welcome – then we need theologians and teachers who can show the implications of not just accepting the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality, but many other topics as well. Until the church preaches (and believes!) the whole of the book it asserts is from God, it will continue to have problems.

Roger Birch

… “most heterosexual Christians will know lesbian and gay people whom they like and respect. One of the consequences of the increased openness of lesbian and gay people in the past generation or so is that the discussion is no longer about a faceless and anonymous ‘them’. It concerns a person with a face, a story and perhaps a pain. The introduction of a human element into reflection about homosexuality …. makes discussion more complex. … The secular world seems to be a good deal more accepting and tolerant on this issue than parts of the Christian church, and that also is an uncomfortable feeling…Most Christian arguments in favour of recognition and celebration of same-sex unions build up to proposals which alleviate this discomfort by arguing for something reassuringly familiar, something comparable to same-sex marriage: stable monogamous unions which apparently preserve the social landscape by doing no more than to ask us to extend the existing concept of marriage to include a hitherto excluded group.”

Read the whole article: http://www.churchinwales.org.uk/resources/backissues/theology_wales/sexuality_same_sex_unions.html

For Gene Robinson, Katherine Jefferts Schori and Rowan Williams it does not matter whether the relationship is heterosexual or homosexual (or for that matter incestuous, polygamous or paedophile); the most important thing is that the partners are “imaging in their personal and sexual life the love and justice of Christ.” (‘Knowing Myself in Christ’ Rowan Williams, 1997), presumably as described in 1 Corinthians chapter 13. But this portion of scripture does not describe behaviour that is appropriate only for Christians: it is universally demanded. Even then no human being can image it perfectly this side of death. Isaiah describes our attempts as filthy rags. Also, there may well be times when “Christian love” does not appear to be something with which we can live comfortably, but is impatient and intolerant – especially with regard to sinful behaviour.

The imaging in their personal and sexual life, the love and justice of Christ as described in 1 Corinthians is not a technical, objective description of a Christian. A couple may well demonstrate unloving, bad behaviour and yet technically still be Christians – albeit backslidden ones.

In his preface to Mere Christianity C.S. Lewis says: “Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say ‘deepening’, the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men’s hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to he a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good ( or tolerant, caring and loving) man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good( tolerant ,caring and loving). Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.”

The Bible makes no mention of other configurations of marriage apart from male and female, nor is there any mention of the two waiting until their personal lives ”image the love and justice of Christ.” in order to become one flesh. There have been marriages created for all manner of reasons, apart from love, such as those of economy, politics and plain convenience, as with the case, not only of that between Ruth and Boaz, but of C.S Lewis’ marriage to Joy Davidman. Theirs was a marriage of convenience which bloomed into a loving relationship.

The campaign to normalise homosexuality is riddled with dishonesty and selectivity. On the one hand we are told that what consenting parties do is none of our business; that we must live and let live. Fine. But in the next breath we are told that we must be inclusive and affirm what they do. They want it both ways and here we have Bishop Gene Robinson and his groom/bride, Mark Andrew, doing just that: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3833364.ece

Again to loosely borrow from C.S. Lewis, Gene Robinson and his “June bride” could say to one another in an almost sacrificial spirit, “It is for love’s sake that we have led astray young people in the church and those weak in their faith.” They may even feel a particular merit in such sacrifices to the idol of such love; what costlier offering can be laid on the love’s altar than one’s conscience?

As soon as we appeal to our human experience, as opposed to scripture, we are doomed.
http://www.anglicanspread.org/xm_client/client_documents/RowanWilliamsAndRomans1.pdf

David Skinner, UK

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/23/religion

If only all church leaders in the Western World spoke something like this! (I’m not Anglican, btw)

Mark Rabich