There is nothing new here. The authors simply misread the Gospel to their own advantage. For them to do so with a straight face - if I may use that phrase in this context - would be infuriating if I did not know that the writers sincerely believe that they have the Truth by the right handle. Nothing anyone can say or do will convince them otherwise. They are, in short, True Believers. They’re just not Christian, that’s all.

    I suppose that when one runs into phrases like “same-sex” and
“other sex,” one is in the shadowy world of the Humpty-Dumpty semantic. Here, nothing is what it seems, and for the homolog - can there be such a word? - there is everything to be gained by dwelling therein.  Larry

Rarely have I read such a shallow document purporting any theological significance.  This was truly disappointing on so many levels.

I would just repeat and reflect on the comments Tony Clavier made on his blog the other day:

The liberal paper made me realize, or perhaps re-realize, just what a challenge the liberal view is to the finality of God’s redeeming work in Jesus. The claims made for the liberal position fall little short of proclaiming a second Pentecost. The whole scope of human history, of the biblical record, of the life and witness of the Church in history is to be interpreted or re-interpreted through the single lens of this new Pentecost.

And . . . .

It is heady business to believe that God has chosen this moment in time and this place to announce through the Spirit a new revelation to the whole Church and to the world.

Bruce Robison

Mega-dittos to Ad Orientem, I found this to be a very weak statement of position.  It seemed to me to be framed entirely with contemporary logic.  Unlike LeMarquand, I saw no citations of Scripture or references to other historic teaching or documents.  I will, revise that: there was some reference that to me implied Peter & Paul would approve of their work.

If it weren’t for the entire 3000 Judaeo-Christian tradition, both Scriptural and interpretive, both forbidding and contradicting this position, I would find it a very nice thing to advocate. Unfortunately, it is forbidden, and most explicitly. Since God has made Himself so clear on the matter, who am I to think I can rewrite it to suit myself?

Well the good news is that the two positions are—yet again—so mutually opposing and antithetical, all on display for Anglicans to see everywhere.

We all know it.  But it’s good to be reminded in stark glaring contrast that there are two mutually opposing gospels in TEC.

This is the theological equivalent of Gertrude Stein’s Oakland: There’s no “there” there.

The argument rises or falls on the analogy to Acts 15 and the inclusion of the gentiles.  One problem with the analogy is that in the OT the “nations” play a prophetic role in bringing about God’s purpose while same-sex “couples” in the OT clearly do not play a similar role.  The church reached its result in Acts 15 by carefully reading the OT.