+Connecticut tears up Lambeth ’98 and Windsor

Bless him. Bishop Smith of Connecticut has done it again, this time deciding that his diocese can go ahead and perform same-sex blessings.

Again, at the heart of the matter is whether we as a Church will welcome and embrace and serve with and care for and bless persons who are homosexual and partnered as cherished and fully accepted members of the Body of Christ. I believe it is right to change our current policy which prohibits our clergy from blessing same-sex relationships.

Listen to how the debate is set – “Again, at the heart of the matter is whether we as a Church will welcome and embrace and serve with and care for and bless persons who are homosexual and partnered as cherished and fully accepted members of the Body of Christ.” – Do you see how the question is phrased to already have within it the answer he wants?

If we say “no” then apparently we aren’t welcoming, whereas we actually are welcoming if we say “no”, but welcoming alongside other welcomed christians to a lifestyle of repentance and sanctification (as I believe ++Canterbury has recently affirmed). But of course that kind of welcome isn’t acceptable in Connecticut.

If we say “no” then apparently we aren’t embracing, but we are embracing if we say “no” because we are embracing the life of true discipleship that looks to the clear teaching of scripture, not the dictates of an immoral world, for a sure and steady guide to eternal life. But of course that kind of embracing isn’t acceptable in Connecticut.

If we say “no” then apparently we are rejecting service, whereas in reality we welcome the service of any repentant sinner; men and women who realise they stand in front of God the same as us, to serve the one who’s death has served us and done away with the sin that Connecticut seems too eager to deny even exists. But of course that kind of sevice isn’t acceptable in Connecticut.

If we say “no” then apparently we aren’t blessing, whereas in reality we are blessing by saying “no” because we then guide people away from the wide, wide path that leads to hell. We take their hand in ours and we say “come to the holy place”. But of course that kind of blessing isn’t acceptable in Connecticut.

+Connecticut is right when he says “Within The Episcopal Church as a whole we have responded to these events more with strong conclusions than with open dialogue.” His conclusions are strong but they aren’t listening to Scripture, to the Communion or to the Holy Spirit.

2 Comments on “+Connecticut tears up Lambeth ’98 and Windsor

  1. It’s interesting how you, quite appropriately, tie your comments in to the wider and more important issue of calling sin, sin. It sometimes concerns me that the whole issue of sexuality and what is defined as sexual sin becomes rather narrow and so risks getting caught up in itself and losing sight of necessarily clear definitions of sin and salvation. Reading your posting here got me to thinking that perhaps the reason why there tends to be this narrowness as we grapple with discussions around sexuality and sexual sin is the absence of clarity and a clear witness about sin generally.

    I lead a small group as part of the Alpha course at our church and there’s a recurring discussion over what constitutes sin. I don’t believe that it’s the job of the Church to make pronouncements over every last action of every human being, but I do believe that we should give a clear and consistent definition of sin – which we don’t. Maybe if we did, it wouldn’t be so controversial (in the eyes of the secular media) when we comment on issues of sexual sin and there would be less need to anyway as people would already be clear as to our position.

Leave a Reply to TimButt Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.