A tragedy of pride

Women preachers have featured in this blog; the scorecard is marked F. The one with the stray hermeneutics, the one who prepared a sermon in a shower the day before preaching in it, and the one who had four questions when there was to be one.

Then there was the recent sermon of Bishop Bonnie Perry.

The Bishop preached at a Dublin Pride Service as linked. A tragedy of “pride”.

 

I have summarised the sermon below. The summary – of a sermon which is absent of any direct exposition of Biblical text - concludes with: “The core message is that if it was right for Jesus's apostles to speak their truth with pride, it is equally right and necessary for the LGBTQIA+ community to do the same.”

And, it is in that summary that we see the failure of the sermon, that the apostle’s (Peter and John, [Acts 3]) were not speaking in pride, but in humility - indeed, the apostles were at threat of imprisonment [Acts 4]. They spoke filled with the Holy Spirit [Acts 2]. The apostles were not speaking in pride but instead in boldness and unapologetic first-person witness. They were humble men who had the un-measurable support and strength of Christ.

And speaking in boldness and unapologetic first-person witness, in the Spirit, and as representatives of Christ, is completely different from the LGBTQIA+ community's tendency to speak in pride. For that community's pride is regularly evidenced as arrogance, self-exaltation, and hubris.

Shalom,

Ozhamada 

-------------------------//----------------------- 

Summary of sermon

The speaker links the "pride" of Peter and John and the "pride" of the LGBTQIA+ community through the shared act of publicly speaking their truth and living authentically, even in the face of opposition from established authorities.

Here's how the link is made:

1.    Pride of Peter and John: The speaker describes Peter and John as being "too public in their preaching and healing in and around the temple," leading to a "movement fueled by love and filled with pride." When chastised by the religious authorities and told to "no longer speak their truth publicly," Peter and John refuse to be silenced. The speaker emphasizes, "But if you know who you are and how you are and you know that your life is changed that's not something you keep inside You have pride and you keep on telling your story." Their pride is their unwavering conviction and determination to share the Gospel despite threats.

 2.   Pride of the LGBTQIA+ Community: The speaker explicitly connects this to the experience of the queer community. They state that for decades, society and the church have told them "Stop speaking be silent Don't tell us Do not speak your truth." However, the speaker then directly counters this by urging, "I say to you speak your truth... as an out proud partnered lesbian I say to you speak your truth. We are made in God's image and likeness and fully embraced by Christ just as we are. We of the queer community are good enough. We are called to tell the stories of who and how we are and how God lives and moves and has God being in our lives."

The link is established by framing both instances as a courageous and divinely inspired refusal to be silent about a transformative truth. For Peter and John, it was the truth of Jesus's resurrection and love; for the LGBTQIA+ community, it is the truth of their God-given identity and the profound love they experience. Both are acts of defiant, faithful self-expression ("pride") against prevailing norms and oppressive religious or societal structures. 

The core message is that if it was right for Jesus's apostles to speak their truth with pride, it is equally right and necessary for the LGBTQIA+ community to do the same.

Four questions when there is to be one

This blog has a run of reporting bad preaching. Even the Sydney Anglicans can sadly fail (as linked). I contemplated writing a post on the Budde sermon to the newly elected President Trump yet another captured my thoughts entirely (as linked).

St John’s Anglican Cathedral in Brisbane serves up many sermons. The Rev’d Dr Ann Solari on the 5th January 2025 preached a sermon titled: “Giving the Gifts away: The Epiphany of the Lord”. As is a feature of many sermons of that church, Solari concluded the sermon with a question to her audience. Let’s examine that question from the published sermon on the church’s website:

“This story of the wise ones does however raise an interesting question.

If Jesus was given these valuable gifts as a small child how come he did he end up with nothing?

Did Jesus do what he asked the rich young man to do?

Did Jesus give all that he had to the poor?

What does this say to us?

Amen”

Screenshot from St John's Anglican Cathedral website

On 5 January 2025 many may have still been recovering from Christmas and New Year hangover. Simple mathematic calculations are often difficult with a cloudy head. Yet, the “interesting question” was not one question but instead “interesting questions”. Where the count should be one, it is four. Very Monty Pythonesque!

Putting aside the grammar of the first question one’s head spins at the connection within the sermon between that first question and the wonderful words that were included in respect to the gift of myrrh. For the preacher correctly identified the myrrh as a pointer to Christ’s early death. So, counter to the question's notion that has the listener pondering why Jesus ended up with nothing, the gifts indicated that Jesus would end up with nothing.

The second question is a puzzle in that rich young man is not previously mentioned in the sermon. Does the preacher assume her audience to be telepathic? If it is a reference to the story in Matthew 19:16-22 one wonders how Jesus is to follow himself :“If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

The sermon is a failure. It is a failure in that the preacher has asked questions that are either dubious or which will lead to ambiguous or inconsistent application by the listeners. It offers questions at a moment in the sermon where applications are expected. It is a failure of oratory form - awkward questions left hanging in the air - that cannot be concluded successfully away from the pulpit. The questions are absent solid answers and sound applications; they do not keep to the pattern of sound teaching (Paul's instruction to Timothy).

The only appropriate response of the discerning pewsitter is to robustly indicate that they had been short-changed; that they expect well-rounded sermons starting from the very next week.

Shalom,

Ozhamada

Ancient text

Many churches, with their babytalk modern services, Ladybird Bibles, trite preaching and kindergarten happy-clappy music, seem designed to drive away any thoughtful person. 

Peter Hitchens, in Daily Mail

Progressive Christians love nothing more than new exegesis and new hermeneutics. It serves them well to conclude that there have been thousands of years of penurious Biblical scholarship. “Only we can understand this ancient text” they say. It is a form of academic snobbery – that interpretations that come last, land best. As a result, none of the progressives have in recent years published anything that holds its worth against the poorest of writings of Tozer, Edwards, Spurgeon and C.S. Lewis.

Which brings us to the Perth Anglican Archbishop Kay Goldsworthy offering the novelty of interpretation of Exodus 15. Goldsworthy shared the novelty in Sydney. Goldsworthy was in Sydney to celebrate 40 years of Movement for the Ordination of Women. Where other visiting Archbishops may perhaps be given the pulpit of the Anglican Cathedral, Goldsworthy secured a spot at Christ Church St Laurence – a Anglo-Catholic parish church a cooee yell distant from the Cathedral.

Goldsworthy on Exodus 15 is proof alone of the need for continuity of male-only preaching. If Goldsworthy had introduced her Exodus 15 novelty into a formal debate on the “Worth of Women Preaching” the opposing side would rest their case. The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, who gave permission for Goldsworthy to speak at Christ Church, perhaps slyly reckoned that he need only offer enough rope.

So, to Goldsworthy on Exodus 15. Here is the part of Goldsworthy’s sermon that requires attention. It is copied from the transcript that Youtube usefully offers. I’ve emphasised the part of the text that piqued my interest. You can view the whole sermon on this link.

“Our reading stopped at the end of chapter 14, so we missed the opening verses of chapter 15 which English Bibles head the “song of Moses” after God's people land on the other side of the Red Sea. It's worth noting, and it may not be surprising, that the song of Moses is placed ahead of a more ancient text the song of Miriam. The song of Miriam is one of the very ancient texts of the Hebrew scriptures and appears a few verses on in chapter 15 at verse 20. It has Miriam taking a tambourine in her hand and all the women going out after her with tambourines and with dancing.”

The novelty is in the suggestion that the song of Miriam is “a more ancient text” than the song of Moses. That is a novelty in that Biblical scholars find both songs to be ancient text – older than the chapters either side of it – as measured of the age of the Hebraic language. Plausibly, the author of Exodus chose to deposit the songs in their original form directly into the book. Miriam’s song – which is possibly truncated – is effectively a repeat of the first stanza of the song of Moses.

A sketch that was included on Sydney Morning Herald's letter page 17 September 2023,
titled: "Arch Rivalry", by Simon Ketch

Goldsworthy assigns Miriam’s song prominence that it does not have. Putting Miriam’s song ahead of the song of Moses (the feminine voice is put ahead of the male) may have tickled the day's audience yet would not survive scrutiny of Moore Theological College.

The new exegesis, the new hermeneutic, merits no attention in Sydney.

Shalom,

Ozhamada

Failure to lament

Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside.  But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s naked body. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father naked. Genesis 9:22-23 NIV

Rachel Gilson’s wayward theology and the nod that Sydney Anglicans offer such perversion was the subject of an earlier post. In addition to presenting to many Anglicans at an Undeceptions Conference, Gilson was interviewed at an inner city Anglican church (as linked).

The Sydney Anglican Diocese Doctrine Commission report would result in Gilson lamenting her state (paragraph 7.3 of this linked document). Lament is unnecessary of those who obey God. Private lament is best done in one's private chamber with those who are closest. Private lament is not best done on a public platform.

I long that two Sydney Anglicans had acted as Shem and Japheth. To have provided for Gilson (Isaiah 51:17-18). To have acted in charity (Proverbs 17:9) to bring privacy to Gilson's state. To have taken a cloak to cover Gilson as they guided her away from the stage. To offer Gilson rest. To weep with Gilson as she weeps. To comfort her and to direct her that she may be liberated.

 "[Shem and Japheth] not only would not see [Noah's nakedness] themselves, but provided that no one else might see it; herein setting an example of charity with reference to other men’s sin and shame." Benson Commentary

Noah’s Drunkeness by James Tissot, c. 1896-1902 

from https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2015/12/02/the-curse-of-hamcanaan-a-mythological-mystery/

I long for action of the Sydney Anglicans as Shem and Japheth beget a Godly nation, but of Ham there sprung hostile nations; Babylonians, Egyptians and Canaanites.

Shalom,

Ozhamada

Word perverted via back door

"Any attempt by one or some of God’s people to speak today a word that challenges scripture and tradition—a word claiming authority in the church on the basis of the gospel—is, in effect, making a prophetic claim to speak to and for the universal church. Speakers should recognize both the possibility and audacity of their claim. The church must hear and evaluate such voices, testing the spirits, asking whether or not it finds itself addressed in such a word by the challenge and comfort of law and gospel. In other words, the church applies the test of canonicity. Will this new word be heard as word of God, or will it not?"

From this link, 'A New Word on Homosexuality? Isaiah 56:1-8 as Case Study', F J Gaiser, p290 (possibly with 1Th 5:21 in mind)

 

I read with interest that a senior Sydney Anglican cleric attended an event in Sydney. At the event a USA speaker, Rachel Gilson, was listed. Where the herald of the news was surprised of the cleric's attendance on a paid ticket,  I was surprised the cleric graced the event.

Rachel Gilson is a Side B Christian. Side B Christians are defined here. (I use the term ”Side B” reluctantly in that I hesitate to put any descriptor before the word Christian. If I need identify my Christianity with a descriptor, then both Christendom and myself suffer).

Many will be thankful that Gilson recognises God’s good order for marriage as reserved for one man and one woman. Many will be thankful that Gilson advocates that Christians either maintain celibacy or marry a member of the opposite sex. Indeed, many will take joy that Gilson is in a one-man, one-woman marriage. Some robustly support Gilson for her “Biblical sexual ethic”.

And yet, there is still a dilemma.

For Gilson, grasps Christ’s cloak with one hand and her same sex attraction with another when all the time Christ’s message is that both Gilson’s hands must grasp Christ’s cloak (Note 1). While Gilson knows that the same sex attraction will not be part of the New Jerusalem, she does not care to prepare for that time by shaping herself free of same sex attraction. Gilson instead marches forth with the attraction proudly pinned to her chest. For Gilson, the same sex attraction is not something to be repented of. It is not something to be treated in the silence of prayer. It is not open to the benefit that sanctification may bring. That which is unnatural to God's order, that which cannot be let go; is pinned to the chest, it is commercialised.

And there is more dilemma.

Gilson holds that same sex attraction is compatible with heterosexual marriage (Note 2). In this it cannot be said that Gilson has submitted to her husband, for an undesirable sexual attraction plays a part in their marriage. Her attraction, both privately and publicly, need be fully for her husband alone. While Gilson grasps to her unnatural sexual attraction a dog lurks in her marriage. Some commentators note for instance that Gilson married reluctantly. Reluctantly approaching marriage is not a sound starting block.

Gilson is perhaps simply misguided – she is perhaps yet to benefit from sound instruction. Many have sought to pervert the Gospel. Many play games with God’s Word. Gilson stands on a false dichotomy: that God states "no" to same sex attraction, yet God's grace can encompass that which God finds unnatural for mankind (both of these quotes from 'Sex: Telling a Better Story', Rachel Gilson, in "Before You Lose Your Faith" Deconstructing Doubt in the Church by The Gospel Coalition):

On "no": "When I was first feeling drawn to Jesus, I wondered if there’d be a place for someone like me in his church. Initially I was given false hope by friends who told me the Bible doesn’t actually say no to same sex sexuality. But when I read the Bible, I found it does."

On "grace": "There is a better way, a way of grace and truth. Jesus isn’t about stereotypes, prejudice, mockery, or hiding. He’s about life, forgiveness, strength, and joy. Instead of throwing everything out and walking away, take this as a call to grow in biblical discernment and sift the gold of God’s vision for our bodies from the muddy stream of how humanity has soiled sexuality."

Alternatively, it is possible to think Gilson misguided of identity politics. Identity politics tends to reduce everything to a individual-centric viewpoint. Gilson should have no priority of self but instead a priority in marriage (Genesis 2:24).

“All of us have witnessed some pretty amazingly ridiculous interpretations of Scripture, undertaken by well-meaning folk who are not much used to disciplined reading of any texts. When biblical scholars engage in the same game, of course, our tools are much more sophisticated. But make no mistake: many of us really do continue to play the game.” 

The Trials of Biblical Interpretation – Don Carson

Attendance of a senior Sydney Anglican cleric to a Gilson talk is a nod to a perversion of Biblical teaching; a perversion personified of Gilson’s twin duopoly of unnatural desires & a heterosexual marriage [that heterosexual marriage need not be comprehensively honoured] and of God saying "no" yet accepting something that is unnatural through grace. It is a further Sydney Anglican nod to homosexual perversion; the first when Ed Shaw, author of the The Living Out Church Audit, a document that welcomes homosexuals to the full life of a church, spoke at the St Andrew’s Cathedral and other Sydney Anglican venues.

While the senior cleric is of a station that would have him aware of the church’s tradition of testing New Word, perversion of the Word occurs through the back door.

 

Shalom,

Ozhamada

 

Note 1: Mark 5:21-34, the story of the afflicted woman who touched Jesus cloak indicates a distinction between Judaism – where obedience to sacrifices or rituals were necessary – to the Christianity – where faith is required. The mechanism Jesus used to draw this distinction is his insistence that the disciples identify the woman from amongst the great throng of people (verse 30). The disciples could see the woman – and recognised her as one in need – yet they were culturally blind to the woman’s plight. The disciples had not yet fully understood Christ's kingdom so they held to their past. 

Gilson, like the disciples, clutches to that which she is bound. And, to Gilson there is then also God's grace in the provision of a heterosexual marriage. Gilson thus grasps ill-fatedly to both ritual and faith.

Note 2: Lest I am criticised for idolising marriage please consider Gilson's own words on the subject: "Christians rightly celebrate marriage. God created marriage as a symbol of how he loves the church. Human marriage is supposed to be faithful for life, because God is always faithful to his people, as we should be to him. Human marriage is supposed to be the start of a new household, because God’s relationship with his people begins a new family. Human marriage is the only place for sexual intimacy and pleasure, because God’s relationship with his people is incredibly intimate and deeply pleasurable. And, if we have ears to hear, human marriage is only to be a male-female union, because the gospel is the picture of two non-interchangeable and different parties, made one by the work of Jesus Christ. Husbands represent Christ, and wives represent his church (Eph. 5:22–33). Heady stuff, no? Beautiful, too." 'Sex: Telling a Better Story', Rachel Gilson, in "Before You Lose Your Faith" Deconstructing Doubt in the Church

by The Gospel Coalition.

#inclusion #humansexuality #sin #SSM #homosexual #Sydney #livingout #samesexattraction #chastity #bible

Blasphemy when character is called for

I lodged a complaint against a member of Australian Anglican clergy.

The complaint forms as a breach of the church’s code. The code document is named Faithfulness in Service. The complaint is to the clergy’s use of offensive language. Faithfulness in Service includes a definition of offensive language. Offensive language includes blasphemy. The complaint therefore is to blasphemy.

The blasphemous words were uttered in the sermon of a June 2023 service that was readily available upon the church’s Facebook page and/or its YouTube page. I accessed the service via Facebook.

The words were:

"I shudder at his [Paul] diagnosis that suffering produces endurance. Suffering doesn't produce endurance. Suffering produces destruction....to be quite frank, it is absolute nonsense".

As I did not wish to labour the church’s complaints unit (Professional Standards Unit) of my finding in blasphemy I simply offered that I found that the words:

 

“Irreverently treat God's Holy Word (Romans 5).”

 

While I was silent in my complaint as to other utterances in the sermon, it is of note that the preacher followed the utterance with the words: “I hope that Saint Paul in heaven has gotten over it”. In the sermon of the following week another reference to Saint Paul was: “I always thought that Saint Paul needed a psychiatrist”.

The blasphemous words form a denial of God’s Holy Word. It is insufficient to see the words simply as a critique of the writings of Saint Paul as one must counter how the Holy Spirit inspire the entire canon of the Bible. Therefore, to deny any part of the Bible – to call any part of it “absolute nonsense” - is very grave indeed.

There is a wealth in Romans that lend readily to a very generous preaching of the Romans 5 text. The text is a mere clipped ticket if one tackles only the Suffering > Endurance relationship. The text calls for the whole measure to be preached: Suffering > Endurance > Character > Hope.

The complaint yielded little real benefit. It was of little benefit in the sense that I was throwing stones from afar when the congregation should have thrown stones. Congregants armoured of discernment are best addressing an errant Rector locally. 

For, it was a Sydney Anglican Rector who once told me this joke:

“In some churches the Rector can only be rid of if he:

i)                    speaks heresy,

ii)                   goes insane, or

iii)                 dies.

In some churches all three happen and still no-one notices”.

 

Shalom,

Ozhamada

#church, #anglicans, #bible, #sermon, #homiletics, #blasphemy, #character, #hope,#endurance, #complaint

Sermon launch in yesterday's shower

People of the Anglican Diocese of Perth,

Rise up in a storm of discernment and demand better preaching.

For, one of your clergy had not firmly set a sermon by 3:23pm of the prior day.

“It was precisely 3:23 yesterday afternoon when I realised that I was not the person who should be preaching to you today. 

I was in the shower. 

Which is what I do when I don’t know what to put in my sermon.” 

The Third Sunday after Epiphany by The Reverend Sarah Stapleton | 23 January 2022, accessible here.

Homiletic lecturers emphatically propose preparation of complete sermon drafts days prior to the day of delivery. 

"If you are due to preach Sunday", they say,

 "then have your first full draft done by Tuesday morn before the cock crows". 

It is impressed upon students that they must allow complete sermon drafts to go through refinement that only days of deliberations bring. There is prayer. There is the work of the Spirit.

And, if such lecturers ever consider the role of a shower in sermon preparation, they speak of how the shower moment is one that brings inspiration that finely tunes a single point (rather than as a launching moment).

A stock image, unknwon woman who is probably not a resident of Perth

(As an aside: One finds it inappropriate for a female preacher to allow male congregants, other than the preacher’s spouse, to imagine her unclad in a shower. Such is the trap of the male mind).

Shalom,

Ozhamada

#Perth, #anglican, #perthanglican, #Sermon

Note: Pastor Alistair Beggs illustrates sermon preparation by drawing to how porridge is prepared in Scotland. A good Scot soaks their oats overnight long before cooking them. Pouring a packet of instant oats immediately at the start of the cooking process does not produce anything like the desired product. See:https://youtu.be/sn07712bToU 

Skip watching

“I too have been tempted to simply skip watching.”

I’ve exchanged emails and Facebook posts with a USA based minister friend about his experience with online church. He has been very careful with his online COVID19 Sunday service as he is aware that media is not neutral. He is afraid that he is Netflixing his congregants.

The notion that the media is not neutral – that people do not adequately distinguish that they are watching church when on the same device they view a Batman movie – is a genuine threat. It was recognised by a media ecologist Neil Postman in a credible book “Amusing Ourselves to Death”. Postman predicted that television would be so persuasive that other presentation forms would gravitate towards television formats.

Postman would not have predicted that a Sydney Anglican Senior Minister Netflixed himself to the point where he was tempted to find an alternative to his own service (per the quote above, an email to parishioners: "Church COVID19 Update", 17 July 2020).

Which brings me to examine some statistics of a single church’s experience of viewer count over the COVID-19 period. LCM Churches on Sydney’s leafy North Shore established a Youtube channel and have published weekly online service offerings. The feed commences on 22 March 2020 with a Youtube recording of a livestream service and runs continuously to the Sunday prior to my writing of this post. The services are currently scheduled to continue as online services.

LCM Churches Youtube channel banner

Here is a table of Youtube views in reverse order:

And, then in graphical form through to most current date:

Now, I’ve applied a few tricks of the statistical trade in producing that table. So, 29 March and 5 April were offered as two services and I’ve added the view count of the two services together. For 12 April, which was Easter Sunday, I’ve taken Good Friday’s count which was slightly higher than Easter Sunday.

I thought of applying a factor to the view count. So, for instance, one could assume that in some households five persons (mum, dad and three children) were gathered together to watch. The problem with applying such a factor is that there needs to be allowance for multiple views and for those who click and do not watch the whole show. So, the Youtube count is probably indicative even though it is not true.

What the statistics say is this….while there has been a decline from the highpoint of 29 March [on 22 March people were watching live and their views are not counted so 29 March is the best indication of initial audience] the decline has stabilised by July 2020. Approximately 70% have abandoned their viewing.

In the first instance I’m not disturbed by the decline in viewing. I think that the decline in viewing is a secondary issue to the problem of Netflixing people and completely changing their expectation of church. Such people will return to physical attendance church with a changed view of church.

And, they are likely to be disappointed.

As Postman recognised each new media has changed consumption demands; telegraph>newspaper, newspaper>radio, radio>television, television>internet streaming. A church that does not change with its people will genuinely feel the effects of decline as people drift either away from church or to more engaging church offerings.

Shalom,
Ozhamada

[579 words]

What will we do about Kevin?

Christian legal academic Neil Foster writing for Eternity News in an article: “The prayer puzzle: will 'conversion therapy' laws ban Christian teaching?” opened the door to consideration of a possible bind that the Sydney Anglicans have waltzed into.

To consider that bind we need to understand the case study that Foster published and then consider the possible Sydney Anglican response to such a case study.

Case study

Foster’s excellent article considers whether Christian teaching and practice will fall foul of proposed legislation. Foster introduces a case study as a way of testing draft legislation. Fundamental to the study is a person approaching the church willingly and knowingly:

“Suppose there is a devout Christian person who accepts the Bible’s teaching that same-sex sexual activity is not God’s will, and yet experiences same-sex attraction. They approach their pastor or their small group leader and ask for help to overcome what they see as a sinful attraction, by reading the Bible with them, counselling and regular meetings for prayer. Is that going to be caught by legislation?”

For convenience let’s put a name to the person of the case study. His name is Kevin. What will we do about Kevin?

 

Caption: a stock photo of a man from pexels.com which is used free and unattributable.
There is no interest, nor intent, to associate anything in this post with the particular man in the image.
The man is unknown to me.

Kevin you’ll note does not split hairs as to homosexuality. Kevin does not differ same-sex attraction from homosexuality. To Kevin, same-sex attraction is “same-sex sexual activity” or homosexuality. This stems from Kevin's excellent comprehension of the Bible (with perhaps particular focus on Matthew 5:27-28).

Kevin doesn’t split-hairs when it comes to sin. Kevin is pursuing holiness, he knows his stuff about sanctification and he knows that Jesus can make him whole. Kevin does not recognise with “brokenness”, but sin.

For avoidance of doubt we at this point leave Foster’s fine article. Only the case study is relevant here.

Possible Sydney Anglican response

I have documented elsewhere that Sydney Anglicans placed visiting British minister Ed Shaw at the lectern to share his message of inclusion. That message is perhaps summarised by the title of Shaw’s Sydney youth event: "Jesus is great news for a rainbow world". By extension of how Shaw has made a ministry of same-sex attraction, as one who admits to experiencing same-sex attraction, one concludes that Shaw does not see same-sex attraction as sinful.

To which you need to understand some of the colourful mental gymnastics. Same-sex attraction is cleaved from same-sex orientation. Same-sex attraction is not said to be sin per se but the result of sin. The reformed tradition of recognising both the desire and physical action are both from the heart is dismissed. Lots is said, with much spinning of wheels, to not recognise same-sex orientation or same-sex attraction as homosexuality. The church is playing games.

For convenience, and to illuminate the bind that the Sydney Anglicans have waltzed into, let’s name the Sydney Anglicans who so warmly welcomed Shaw, and willingly put themselves under his teaching, as Shaw-ites.

The bind

So, Kevin approaches a Shaw-ite – a minister in a Sydney Anglican church. Here is how the conversation possibly runs:

Kevin: “I am as a devout Christian person who accepts the Bible’s teaching that same-sex sexual activity is not God’s will, and yet I experience same-sex attraction. Could you please assist me to overcome what I see as a sinful attraction? I would appreciate your help in reading the Bible with me, arranging counselling and meeting regularly for prayer.”

Shaw-ite: “Ha ha ha, my dear boy, you are so confused. You are not sinning. I welcomed that lovely Ed Shaw chap the other day and while he was same-sex attracted, I recognised that he was merely experiencing brokenness.”

Kevin: “So I will not be blotted out of the book of life that I cannot keep my eyes off your adult son?”

Shaw-ite: “Ha ha ha, my dear boy, in respect to the concept of sin, it is one thing to be attracted to another person, and altogether another thing to act upon that attraction. Although, please do direct your lustful eyes to someone other than a member of my household.

By-the-way Kevin please consider taking up the late-teens youth group leadership opportunity I offered you the other day (Note 1) – those boys are often very confused as to their sexuality”.

Do you get the drift here?

Are you willing to tell Kevin that he is not in sin (where there is much pastoral satisfaction that Kevin has first self-identified his sin – Luke 15:21)?

To which there is the matching question: Are you willing to place Kevin so that he is set into his sin?

So, we have a problem with Kevin. 

But is not really a problem with Kevin is it? It is a problem that has its base in not calling out sin.

Shalom,

Ozhamada

[813 words] #fallacy #ignorance #inclusion #humansexuality #sin #SSM #homosexual #Sydney #livingout 

 #samesexattraction #chastity #bible

Note 1: the notion of Kevin leading a youth group comes from the seventh statement of the Living Out audit tool (as linked).

Note 2: This wonderful article continues the theme of the troubles of brokenness theology.