Im not against much of this statement. I would however drop the "Scripture must be read in its plain and canonical sense” bit. I think that many Christians are in fact afraid to admit to themselves (and each other) that the scriptures, (both old and new testaments) are no where near as plain as we like to claim. eg: we have talking snakes, more than a little devinely ordained genocide, and, of course, the bizzare imagery of the book of revelation. God could have made it more plain, but, alas, he didnt. Thats ok that he didnt. We should still seek and journey towards God, humbly and prayerfully, but, lets not make claims that ultimately make church devision and deconstruction more likely.
Chris, but the “plain and canonical sense” serves as justification for not recognising as Christian anyone who disagrees with you - whether on the divinity of Christ or the wrongness of homosexuality.
Hi Cameron, I think the the core bits of Christian orthodoxy ie; incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection- all need to exist and be affirmed across time and place.
I would therefore support that in whatever statements or creeds are made.
In regard to the Jerusalem statements references to sex and sexuality, I am less comfortable supporting those, and therefore I don't. I feel much empathy for the LGBT community, both within and outside of the faith and I think that GAFCON could be labelled as being pastorally irresponsible. But, it should also be said that the whole mess within the Anglican communion is due to liberal and conservative reactionaries fighting each other for control, which means the center cannot hold. It is my view, that In all things to do with church and politics we need a sensible moderate center.
I agree with much of this. In short it is unorthodox and to unilaterally, radically and selectively elevate sexuality to a matter of orthodoxy.
Yes, liberals bear much responsibility for their unilateralism and revisionism out of a sense of pastoral urgency and responsibility. However, it is entirely disingenuous for the traditionalist reactionaries to portray themselves as maintaining orthodoxy by altering it even more radically than the liberals they oppose.
In a more practical sense The Jerusalem Declaration does not recognise the humanity of intersex persons. Nor does it affirm the personhood and dignity of LGBT+ persons, divorced or remarried persons or any who exist outside their prescribed orthodoxy. It also notably includes signatories who lobbied for the death penalty for homosexuals and support Russian-style state repression of those who seek civil rights for LGBT people.
The implication from the commentary on article 2 here is that conformity on issues of human sexuality is non-negotiable because it fits into the category of having a singular permissible “plain and canonical” reading (a “plain and canonical” reading which leads ineluctably to advocating for the death penalty for homosexuals!) and is therefore necessary for salvation.
Whether this claim is valid or not, it clearly is novel, just as the demands of the original fundamentalists were for novelty rather than retrieval. The insistence on a singular flat reading of scripture (in the former case around the Genesis narratives) driven by cultural anxiety and political grasping is echoed here.
The disingenuous thing is to try to dress up radically revisionist positions (adding to what is essential for salvation) as a return to orthodoxy.
I read the whole piece and kept waiting for at least a small mention of the resurrection of the dead 😅
I know it’s in Scripture, but here in much of Latin American preaching it’s almost never emphasized — and that really shapes our theology. 😞
I once mentioned it briefly in a "homily" about God’s future redemption of all things, and the pastor later told me it was “too detailed.” 😞😢
But while I was speaking, some kids were drawing Jesus with animals. One of them even wrote, “Jesus loves.” And one father thanked me — he said he had never heard that before, and that it was the first time his kids were really paying attention.🥺
I read the whole piece and kept waiting for at least a small mention of the resurrection of the dead 😅
I know it’s in Scripture, but here in much of Latin American preaching it’s almost never emphasized — and that really shapes our theology. 😞
I once mentioned it briefly in a "homily" about God’s future redemption of all things, and the pastor later told me it was “too detailed.” 😞😢
But while I was speaking, some kids were drawing Jesus with animals. One of them even wrote, “Jesus loves.” And one father thanked me — he said he had never heard that before, and that it was the first time his kids were really paying attention.🥺
Im not against much of this statement. I would however drop the "Scripture must be read in its plain and canonical sense” bit. I think that many Christians are in fact afraid to admit to themselves (and each other) that the scriptures, (both old and new testaments) are no where near as plain as we like to claim. eg: we have talking snakes, more than a little devinely ordained genocide, and, of course, the bizzare imagery of the book of revelation. God could have made it more plain, but, alas, he didnt. Thats ok that he didnt. We should still seek and journey towards God, humbly and prayerfully, but, lets not make claims that ultimately make church devision and deconstruction more likely.
Chris, but the “plain and canonical sense” serves as justification for not recognising as Christian anyone who disagrees with you - whether on the divinity of Christ or the wrongness of homosexuality.
Hi Cameron, I think the the core bits of Christian orthodoxy ie; incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection- all need to exist and be affirmed across time and place.
I would therefore support that in whatever statements or creeds are made.
In regard to the Jerusalem statements references to sex and sexuality, I am less comfortable supporting those, and therefore I don't. I feel much empathy for the LGBT community, both within and outside of the faith and I think that GAFCON could be labelled as being pastorally irresponsible. But, it should also be said that the whole mess within the Anglican communion is due to liberal and conservative reactionaries fighting each other for control, which means the center cannot hold. It is my view, that In all things to do with church and politics we need a sensible moderate center.
I agree with much of this. In short it is unorthodox and to unilaterally, radically and selectively elevate sexuality to a matter of orthodoxy.
Yes, liberals bear much responsibility for their unilateralism and revisionism out of a sense of pastoral urgency and responsibility. However, it is entirely disingenuous for the traditionalist reactionaries to portray themselves as maintaining orthodoxy by altering it even more radically than the liberals they oppose.
In a more practical sense The Jerusalem Declaration does not recognise the humanity of intersex persons. Nor does it affirm the personhood and dignity of LGBT+ persons, divorced or remarried persons or any who exist outside their prescribed orthodoxy. It also notably includes signatories who lobbied for the death penalty for homosexuals and support Russian-style state repression of those who seek civil rights for LGBT people.
The implication from the commentary on article 2 here is that conformity on issues of human sexuality is non-negotiable because it fits into the category of having a singular permissible “plain and canonical” reading (a “plain and canonical” reading which leads ineluctably to advocating for the death penalty for homosexuals!) and is therefore necessary for salvation.
Whether this claim is valid or not, it clearly is novel, just as the demands of the original fundamentalists were for novelty rather than retrieval. The insistence on a singular flat reading of scripture (in the former case around the Genesis narratives) driven by cultural anxiety and political grasping is echoed here.
The disingenuous thing is to try to dress up radically revisionist positions (adding to what is essential for salvation) as a return to orthodoxy.
I read the whole piece and kept waiting for at least a small mention of the resurrection of the dead 😅
I know it’s in Scripture, but here in much of Latin American preaching it’s almost never emphasized — and that really shapes our theology. 😞
I once mentioned it briefly in a "homily" about God’s future redemption of all things, and the pastor later told me it was “too detailed.” 😞😢
But while I was speaking, some kids were drawing Jesus with animals. One of them even wrote, “Jesus loves.” And one father thanked me — he said he had never heard that before, and that it was the first time his kids were really paying attention.🥺
I read the whole piece and kept waiting for at least a small mention of the resurrection of the dead 😅
I know it’s in Scripture, but here in much of Latin American preaching it’s almost never emphasized — and that really shapes our theology. 😞
I once mentioned it briefly in a "homily" about God’s future redemption of all things, and the pastor later told me it was “too detailed.” 😞😢
But while I was speaking, some kids were drawing Jesus with animals. One of them even wrote, “Jesus loves.” And one father thanked me — he said he had never heard that before, and that it was the first time his kids were really paying attention.🥺