Why?

And they have received some complimentary comments too. Maybe the fulcrum has let the lever shift its original center point.

When I read this I immediately thought, “one could only be disappointed with Fulcrum if they believed their PR.” Since all that “evangelical centre” hogwash is simply a lie, it’s easy for me to discount Fulcrum as a source not worth paying even the slightest bit of attention to, and that has been my policy for years. It’s a bit like reading The Guardian for news: not even worth doing *cum grano salis*, or with jaundiced eye.

This article is really poorly argued - the argument can be boiled down to this - “well society thinks its okay, so let’s follow.”  There is nothing in what this article argues that would prohibit polygamy, incest or any other form of minority sexual practice as long as the participants claim “covenant love” is involved.  Well, yeah, sure, the Bible kind of says that you shouldn’t do that, but society thinks its fine and if you’ve got “covenant love”, then who cares?  Right?

Okay, how about a modest rewording of some of his arguments?

Pastorally I am acutely aware of the tenderness of this issue. I have contacts with male and female polygamous partnerships, with and without children, by adoption and by AID (Artificial Insemination by Donor). I have every confidence that we are one in Christ for we share orthodox views of the incarnation, the work of the cross and the resurrection.

and

This text and many others (1 Cor 13) invite a high view and honouring of stable loyal mutual relationships. It may be significant that it is agape ie the love which seeks the best for the other, rather than the other three Greek words which convey different emphases two of which tend towards self-centeredness (eros, philia) and the one which speaks of dependence (storge).

This is for me a compelling reason for honouring stable polygamous relationships. The alternative is not only cruel but a near-pharisaic denial of the overflowing of divine love into present reality.

and

Some scriptures prohibit polyandrous sexual activity and thus relationships which are treated as unions. (Insert appropriate Scriptures here). These prohibitive texts are weakened when one asserts the significance of stable covenant relationships. Their cultural background is one of dispute and unclear historical sociological patterns.

There is also the balancing perspective from mission: an absolute prohibition on polygamous relationships alienates many in our current society, especially Muslims, and undermines mission mission which is of course centred on the core issue of Jesus Christ and his invitations and work.

The fact that you really only need to change the odd word or two reveals that Grayshon’s argument is utterly lacking in creativity, imagination, vitality, or rigor.

Wow - so sad.

Considering that marriage is the emblem of the YHWH/Israel and Messiah/Church relationship, was founded by God in creation, and has two thousand years of Church adherence, this throws the baby out with the bath from the get-go: “whilst agreeing to differ over what we take to be secondary issues of biblical interpretation within the Church’s teaching.”

That translates to “take no account of that scripture over there” or Dominical affirmations and blessings.

Cultural dhimmitude.

I was not aware that God’s love was a sterile one.  Sterility that is an accident of nature is far different than deliberate sterility whether in heterosexual marriage or homosexual relationships.  The former presents less of a problem because it can usually be corrected so that marriage becomes a reflection of the self giving creative love of the Trinity.  This is impossible in same sex relationships.  It can never be an image of the Trinity and the completeness that is found in marriage.

I don’t doubt that gays are also made in God’s image and as such are to be accorded the dignity of the human person we all share.  But if a sexual relationship is meant to show us something of the truth about the why of the Incarnation it can not begin from the point of narcissistic nihilism.  For Christ came so that we might have life and have it abundantly.  In true marriage the assumption is that new life will come about because of the love of husband and wife.  It is this openness to life which affirms the Incarnation. 

The plain truth is that homosexual relationships are a lie.  They lie about God and they lie about who we are and our relationship with God.  For that reason alone we should make sure Christians do not fall into the trap of seeking cultural blessings for our beliefs.

My first thought on reading the linked article was, “with evangelicals like this, who needs liberals?”

But, seriously, the Pastoral Footnote: “Gay orientation: God made or God permitted” is wholly inadequate in its consideration of the effects of the Fall.  I can’t think of an orthodox theologian who would describe the effect of the Fall as merely God allowing, “human experience outside the promises of creation norms.”  We are talking about a disordering of sexual desire as a result of the Fall that, according to God’s design in Creation, simply should never be!  That is why the Old Testament and New Testament alike are very clear about condemning homosexual behavior. 

We don’t say to the person committing adultery or incest, “well you may be engaging in a relationship that is ‘outside the promises of creation norms,’ but if you want to commit to doing it long term, and especially if you want to have children in the relationship, then the Church is prepared to throw a great big, warm, fuzzy blanket of blessing over the whole thing!  GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

Twenty years ago, I would never have thought that the blessing of same sex relationships would be the issue that would separate Bible-believing Christians from their Laodicean counterparts; But, sadly, it is—and it looks as though, for those who are intent on standing firm on this issue, things are going to get worse before they get better.

Welcome to the world Anglo Catholics have enjoyed for the last 40 years. Now in addition to woman priests claiming to be “in the Anglo Catholic tradition,” but we will have “Evangelicals” who apparently think that the Bible is optional reading, and should be understood in the “context” of the sexual mores of the Brave New World of 21st Century Western Europe.

Can someone give me a current working definition of “Evangelical”? Cause if this guy is one, then I clearly don’t understand what it means.

The fools at Fulcrum are now using their lever to flip the CoE over the brink.  The only thing that will cushion the fall is that they will land on top of TEC, which went over the edge a while back.

NT Wright really should take his name off the masthead- unless he indeed has also gone completely over the edge.

Kuhrt attempts to answer Matt’s question:

“When Matthew Grayshon offered Fulcrum his reflections as an evangelical clergyman with pastoral experience we agreed to publish it as a contribution to the ongoing debate and asked Sean Doherty to respond. Sean’s response will appear on the site shortly. When some groups and websites on all sides appear only to give time to those who share their own views and to attacking their opponents we believe it important to enable serious theological and pastoral reflection and dialogue across the divides.”

Actually, StandFirm gives plenty of “time” to our opponents.  We always welcome revisionists to the comment threads and enjoy pointing out their irrationality, unprincipled inconsistency, and disinterest in Scripture, tradition and reason where we are able.

“Attacking” is an interesting word for “analytical criticism” but if that’s what is deemed an “attack” then so be it.

Amusingly, Fulcrum considers posting the effusions of a liberal about how sexual relations between same sexes should be “sealed and honoured in a blessed union” as some sort of way to “enable serious theological and pastoral reflection and dialogue”—but all it does for conservatives is demonstrate that yes, the two different groups in the Church don’t share the same faith and gospel.

But then . . . we all already knew that. Nothing new.

So we’re back to the same old issue with Fulcrum. They simply don’t grant that those people who hold antithetical views on Scripture, marriage, the sacraments, tradition, the Fall, sin, repentance, salvation, sanctification and transformation, and on and on—don’t hold a different faith and a different gospel.

Oh well . . .

God said marriage is between one man and woman, and that sex belongs in marriage only, and that homosexual behavior is wrong in Gen 2:18, Gen 2:24. Gen 19:24-28, Gen 13:13; 18:20, Gen 19:5, 2 Pet 2:6-10, Jude 7, 2 Peter 2:4-6, Jude 5-7, Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, Deut 22:5, Matt 19:6, Rom 1:26, Rom 1:27, 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10.  The Bible is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR about this behavior being sinful.

You can make all the excuses you want about where your congregation is coming from and current understanding of this sin, etc.  And I understand it would be wildly unpopular to just come out and say that homosexual behavior is wrong in the current circumstances, but….perhaps I missed something?  Aren’t priests supposed to teach God’s Holy Word straight from the Bible? 

You can certainly be “wise as serpents” (strategic) about the delivery of this message - but it is YOUR JOB to deliver it.  Period.  Otherwise, aren’t you leading your flock STRAIGHT TO HELL?

(I’ll say this - I wouldn’t stand close to Fulcrum during a lightning storm.  )