RE: “The problem with that statement is that the Holy Spirit hasn’t done that for me.  . . . I have stopped trying to be heterosexual, I have stopped trying to be changed into that restrictive shape of holiness.”

Yeh . . . the Holy Spirit hasn’t yet snapped His fingers and made me perfect either. A stunning failure on His part!

Therefore I’ve asked General Convention to just go ahead and announce that the various things Holy Scripture says that I should pursue or not pursue and that I’m failing at will be changed, by edict of General Convention canon law changes and resolutions.

And further, anybody who says differently and doesn’t agree with The General Convention of Christianity must be labelled a bigot for not believing that I’m a-ok as I am.

[roll eyes]

.....“I have stopped trying to be a heterosexual”

” I have stopped trying to be sober; I have stopped trying not to cheat on my wife; I have stopped trying to not covet thy neighbor; and on and on and on

Oh my…she quotes “To Set Our Hope on Christ.” Does she really want to rehash that vacuous work of TEC theologists? That came out when I was in seminary, and even my systematic theology professor who was as liberal as the day is long was like, “If this is the best we can do, we’re in trouble.”

Problem the first : ““To Set Our Hope on Christ”, an important theological statement written for the Nottingham meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council in 2005” .
Error A) that the same is “theological” - not per the reaction of anyone else but TEc;
Error B) that it is “important” - not per the reaction of any member of the former Anglican Communion other than TEc.
Problem the second : that the Anglican Consultative Council has done anything other than ignore “To Set Our Hope on Christ” since 2005 (rather like TEc and the Windsor Moratoria).

But TEc-ites will be TEc-ites and this is the best they think they have in the face of the Faith and Tradition.  They reap what they have sown.

Blinded by sin, and thus unrepentant. It happens all the time.

An insignificant statement.

Holiness is indeed restrictive. Very, very restrictive.

I love the statement, “Harmon knows my position even better than I know his…” That’s the way it is with the liberals. They don’t care what conservatives think. Did any of the substance conservative position in the HOB theological statement make its way into the cesspool of pseudo-theology contained in the SSB resolution?

When you tolerate everything, you stand for nothing

The last paragraph says it all…Jesus demanded a holiness that represented the social norms of a bygone era…The re-imagination of Jesus and the Christian faith render Jesus’ pronouncement that “the kingdom of God is at hand…repent and believe in the gospel” to be irrelevant in the re-imagined faith. 
How can these pepole possibly perceive holiness in others when each person who acts and thinks as this one does is blinded by a self-declared sense of personal holiness, and there is no such thing as an objective standard?  Oh I forgot… everybody exudes holiness because I’m Ok and You’re Ok too.  It is all good.!

I can accept her statement that she cannot become heterosexual.  Many find they cannot heal to that extent.  What God is asking her to do is to refrain from physical sexual relations, then.  He asks the same of all unmarried Christians, whatever their inner desires might be.

I see she can’t even spell Dr. Harmon’s first name.

I can accept her statement that she cannot become heterosexual. Many find they cannot heal to that extent. What God is asking her to do is to refrain from physical sexual relations, then.

#8, that would put God into an awfully small box. However, your phrase “become heterosexual” is unclear to me.

For example, [Edited] were once in opposite-sex marriages, and had children. Presumably, each was in love with the spouse, and presumably each was sexually attracted to the spouse. Obviously, they were engaging in heterosexual practice. Then, they decided to engage in homosexual practice.

It can clearly go the other way. Many who do renounce homosexual practice and go on to opposite-sex marriage, still feel same-sex attraction. It seems to be a thorn in the flesh that God doesn’t always choose to remove.

[Edited by Elf]

This is a hot button topic but may we ask commenters please to be careful how they express themselves and to avoid personal comments but rather to engage with the issues with the aim of shedding light rather than heat - thanks - Elf

#9, since “heterosexual” and “homosexual” are feelings, she’s saying that she cannot develop a sexual desire for males.  I agree with you that in many cases it seems to have been a fluid situation.  That’s part of the problem; it’s not a purely biological matter.

I’m not familiar with the whole of Canon Harmon’s theology, but does he equate holiness with an absence of temptations and perfectly ordered appetites?  There are people who do, but that has always seemed a fringe position and Canon Harmon doesn’t seem the fringe type (forgive me if I presume).

If I’m right, then Ms. Hall is not responding to Canon Harmon at all, but conflating sexual temptations (she would not regard them as temptations, I suppose) and sexual behavior to gain an occasion for promoting her ideology. Gay rights advocates like to do that.