issue of homosexuality as an opportunity to have our cake and eat it too. And then, if we renew our vows of fidelity, we can learn to argue while still holding hands" (Church Herald, February 2005, 14). This was the message we frequently heard from our former General Secretary. Are we to suppose that if Peter started a church and ordained a gay couple as co-pastors that Paul would have thought, "Well, Jesus said we should be one. Over and over it's been suggested-usually implicitly, sometimes explicitly-that the problem is not with the existence of two positions on this issue; the problem with those who distract us from more important work by insisting that there is only one faithful position. We can realize that the church's mission is never strengthened and blessed by God through doctrinal and ethical compromise.
Share your interests and hobbies and Gaydar will match you.
Join now for free, browse and message.
New design, chat rooms and travel plans.
Share photos with public, private or discreet options.
It will mean strained relationships. But if the integrity of our denomination, the glory of the gospel, the truthfulness of the Bible, and the spiritual well-being of homosexual persons (and heterosexual for that matter) are at stake, then we cannot afford to take the easy path. Tons of public and private photos. And on the other hand, we can easily compile a growing number of incidents where our official statements are being disregarded with apparent immunity. The General Synod has never come close to affirming the legitimacy of homosexuality in its official statements. I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but I do want to provoke you to think this through. So changing our position and coming out as an aggressively pro- gay denomination is, thankfully, not a realistic possibility.
We have been told that "mission comes first but we have not stopped to think whether our mission is helped by undermining the gospel. Option one is to do nothing. Sometimes it's best to look at both sides of a controversy and conclude that there is a third way in between them. Completely ad free experience, incognito mode to browse undetected. But what I don't understand is why those differences should rupture fellowship between brothers and sisters in the body of Christ. It seems completely mistaken that this narrow ethical difference become a church-dividing matter in the Anglican communion, or should alter how Rome has fellowship with historic Protestants, or should cause Lutherans to break their bonds of communion with one another, or should cause anyone. We can do all the mental gymnastics we want with word studies and the dialectics of trajectory hermeneutics, but at the end of the day it takes an extraordinary degree of historical re-invention to imagine the Apostles or the Church Fathers or the Reformers. We can turn from the convenient approach that says, "As long as I can do my ministry, why should I bother with all this controversy." If we do something-be it church discipline or some kind of amicable separation-it will come with a cost. We have a position that says one thing and a practice that allows for another. The other option is to do something.
We can do all the mental gymnastics we want with word studies and the dialectics of trajectory hermeneutics, but at the end of the day it takes an extraordinary degree of historical re-invention to imagine the Apostles or the Church Fathers or the Reformers. Raalte or Samuel Zwemer marching in gay parades and promoting homosexuality. Deze verrukkelijke escort komt met een waarschuwing; zij is zo bijzonder dat. Zoek naar spannende advertenties om een afspraak te maken in je regio. (Branch of business: Gay Guides Directories).