For Hiltz, whether the church should marry or not marry same-sex couples all comes down to inclusion. Not, I hasten to add, the inclusion in the church of the just the person but also the inclusion of what the person does. In Hitz’s mind Christianity must affirm, accept, condone and, naturally, include not only the person – his essence – but the expression of his essence, how, in the vain little pantomime of his three score and ten years he acts out his essential nature. At least, when it comes to sex; in particular, homoerotic sex.
That is because the Anglican Church of Canada has largely abandoned the idea that, because of the Fall, man is inherently sinful and all creation is subject to the bondage of corruption under the weight of that sin. Thus, we are led to the inescapable conclusion that the urges of the church’s homosexual clergy are there because God put them there.
A lusty young heterosexual could make use of the same principle to explain his unfettered promiscuity, too, of course. But, then, there aren’t many lusty young heterosexual clergy in the ACoC.
From here:
This is the body that through its history has also wrestled with numerous issues within the Church and in the world at large over which we have often found ourselves in deep disagreement. Many of the issues have centred around inclusion—the place of women in the councils of the Church, the place of women as priests and bishops, the place of young people and their voice and vote, the place of children at the Eucharistic table, the place of those married and divorced and wanting to marry again, the place of religious communities whose life transcends diocesan boundaries, the place of Indigenous Peoples from status as observers, to guests, to partners, to members in Synod, and the place of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and questioning people within the Church and their equality of access to all the ministrations of the Church including the solemnizing of their marriages.
I’m all for EXCLUDING English such as this: Thus, we are lead to the inescapable conclusion …
This is one of those phonetic things akin to ‘loose’ for ‘lose’. Evil communications (in the modern sense) corrupt good manners.
More seriously, I’m always so charmed as a woman to find myself bracketed like that with open and notorious evil livers.
That was corrected shortly after posting.
I’m all for excluding capitalisation for emphasis.
Ah, the dilemma of progressive revelation, sans The Light of Holy Scripture, whereby one sin in particular is less equal than others;actually is excluded!
Lots of mention of the Holy Spirit, but no mention of Scripture in the sermon. I guess they think their chances of success improve with an untethered, free-floating Spirit.
Much talk of the Holy Spirit, but none of holiness.
Grace, as usual, is invoked. However, this is not the grace of Scripture which “teaches us to deny ungodly lusts and live soberly and righteously in this world”. This is the grace which means getting along, making nice, and avoiding sharp words.
One thinks of the apostle Paul, and what he might have to say. And of Luther’s “one little word shall fell him”.
All is well, until the Lion roars…
…the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. (Gal. 5:22-23). Unfortunately, I see very little of those on this blog. But I do see many of the arguments of Paul’s unnamed opponent(s) in Galatia.
Presenting the truth matters. But tone matters too. When we’re right on message but the tone sounds ‘hateful’ it is a net loss. Progressives in the Church are aided by a larger cultural narrative that brands conservatives as cruel and anti-intellectual. If we say nothing, we lose. But if we speak carelessly, we lose then too.
How can we find a way to speak truth that is also loving? How can we reclaim words like “grace” and “integrity” and “love” in a conversation where slogans have removed the possibility of a thoughtful response; where accusations have prevented real dialogue?
I find myself wondering what made some of these priests and bishops choose to seek ordination. Do they really believe? If they don’t now, was there a time when they did? What happened? Is there a road back to orthodoxy for them? Is there a role for us in facilitating a way back?
The seminaries don’t help. I know a number of priests who entered seminary as Christians and emerged as something else.
Those who do manage to hold on to their faith demonstrate that God’s grace can overcome any obstacle – even an Anglican seminary.
True. I know several stories that follow that pattern as well. It’s discouraging to see institutions that were founded on such strong principles become the very places where such harm can be done. But this is one of those traps where I know my opponents will point and cry, “Anti-intellectual!” So I keep wondering how we can rebuild this and so many other institutions.