Info on 2011 Holy Land Pilgrimage

The Old Archives

« Thursday morning clergy conference | Main | BREAKING!!! »

June 05, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


"‘Core doctrine’ is problematic"

What? Was this not the very way the St Michael Report dealt with the question of doctrine - by creating a new category in which to file the 'really important' stuff?

One of those theologians published a criticism of a talk I gave on that question, and his answer was that the St Michael Report's mode of dealing with doctrine was fine.

I'll note that three signatories of the letter are members of the Primate's Theological Commission, all who had a hand in the creation of the idea of 'core doctrine'.

Do I sound frustrated? You had better believe it. We had better double-bolt the barn door after the last horse runs out.


i dont know how you can "agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve protection under the law in our civil society, and we support the Church’s ongoing advocacy wherever human dignity is ignored or threatened. All human beings are created in the divine image and are entitled to exercise their human rights responsibly." and not allow queers the right to the sacraments they feel god called them to...(not a rhetorical question, btw)


My suspicion would be that the sacraments are not in any way the objects of "rights" in the civil law sense of the term.


As sacraments are fundamentally a signification of God's grace, granting to us that which we do not deserve, we can in no way consider them a "right" that can be demanded.


okay, thats fair, but then if we all are recipents of Her grace, is it not that realtonship that determines where and how sacarements are given?


Would it not be God that determines where and how sacraments are given, and that the Church is to administer them as best we know?


thats the question hey, because what i get from Her, is that the sacraments are open to anyone who seeks wisdom and is worthy?


Fundamental to a sacrament of grace is that none are worthy to receive it. If it were based upon a clean conscience or a meritorious life none of us would be able to receive. Least of all, myself. What the witness of the church and the teaching of scripture is that those who have recognised their sin, asked and received forgiveness (both from God and from those who we have sinned against), and commit themselves specifically to a life of obedience to God.

"Ye who do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbors, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in his holy ways: Draw near with faith, and take this holy Sacrament to your comfort; and make your humble confession to Almighty God, devoutly kneeling."


So if we all sin and fall shot of the glory of God, then do queer folks just fall a little too much for everyone elses comfort?


Dear Anthony,

I know that these are sensitive issues, and this is not the best forum for discussing these. However, you have asked very direct questions, and I will speak directly in response.

The question is not the nature and type of sin that we fall in, but rather is there a willingness to measure our behaviour by God's standard as expressed in his Holy Word, seek forgiveness where we have fallen and a willingness commit ourselves in growing into the holiness that God calls us to, as again revealed to us by God, through scripture.

This has not been the posture of the Homosexual community within the church for the most part. The posture seems to have been an unwillingness to admit that homosexual activity is sinful in the eyes of God. And no sense that growing in the holiness of God means any refraint from this activity. So it is not that they have fallen too far, or in the wrong area, but rather an unwillingness to admit that their behaviour is indeed fallen.

Rather than coming humbly or with a sense of penitence, Integrity and groups like it use the language of "Claiming the blessing" and asserting of rights. This is simply an entirely wrong posture whether you are homosexual or not.

It is entirely likely that Integrity will win the battle within the church. And this will sadden me. But this will have little effect on the mind and will of God. And any Christian, homosexual or otherwise, who is seeking fellowship with God needs to be wary of a church that is willing to overturn the clear teaching of God through synodical means.

I hope this is clear, whether right or wrong, this I think is the representative position of conservatives in the church on this matter.


i think that queer folks need to be more humble, and they need to approach listening is something we need to do. but i also think that same gendered sexual activity i think that attitudes are more of a sin then acts are. so for example, anal isnt a sin, but being ungenorous, or dishonest or angry at yr lover is?

The comments to this entry are closed.

September 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

blank stare...

  • Copyright Rev. Joseph Walker, St Timothy's Anglican Church

Subscribe in NewsGator Online

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Add to My AOL