But if this isn’t all about sex - why did the beginning arguments for the CANA churches this week state that it was the consecration of an openly gay man as bishop that has led them to break away? 
Why did the article you posted here yesterday about the settlement with the church in Florida include their own mention that it was the ordination of an openly gay man as bishop in the Episcopal Church that led them to break away?  The response that it is the “tip of the iceberg” or “the latest in a long line of ignoring scripture by the leaders of the Episcopal Church” are nothing but a smoke screen.

I do agree with you to a point though - it’s not about sex. It’s about people - homosexuals.  It’s much easier to argue to about an “issue” than it is to acknoweldge that it’s about “people”—people created by a loving God.

In response to Mark Johnson in #2, apparently he didn’t watch the video since Dr. Harmon acknowledhes it is about sex, just that there is so much more to it than that.

Mark writes:

“...it’s not about sex. It’s about people - homosexuals…” Ah, yes, so it is not about sex but it is about defining people exclusively based on their perceived sexual identity. Mark has a big problem there.

Good stuff!

Kendall,

Please make this available to burn and distribute.

Kendall,
I second Augustine’s suggestion. At Alpha the other night, we still had people saying “I still don’t see why we had to split because a gay man was made bishop!”

Someone in another thread suggested that the present Anglican controversy is about sex in the same way that the Civil War was about slavery, and I think it’s a good analogy.  Sex/slavery is/was the presenting issue, and it’s what everyone argues about and if you read all the position papers it’s invariably cited as the proximate cause of separation; but there are a whole slough of underlying issues and long-standing tensions that are brought to the surface by the presenting issue and get inextricably wrapped up in it.

I’m inclined to see the fundamental issue as being one of hermeneutics, having to do with the basic question:  “What is Scripture?  Is it the revealed and inerrant word of God?  Or is it the words of fallible humans writing down the best they knew about God?”

This is why so many of our arguments end up simply talking past each other.  I’ve heard several reasserters say that they want to hear a Scripturally-based argument in favor of the non-sinfulness of homosexuality; but when an argument is proffered—say, To Set Our Hope on Christ—they reject it out of hand because they disagree with its basic hermeneutic.  Contrariwise, when reappraisers ask to know the argument that homosexuality is sinful, and reasserters respond by citing the usual Scriptural passages, we consider the argument insufficient because we disagree with your underlying hermeneutic.

That is a constructive contribution Ross in #7, thanks.  I have consistently maintained that this is about the authority and interpretation of Holy Scripture, the two are inextricably intertwined.

Why doesn’t this link to the story work on my Mac?

Beautifully succinct.  Hit the nail on the head.  I couldn’t agree more.

#9: It is in Windows Media format. Search the net for a Windows Media player for Mac, there’s bound to be one.

Ross; The arguments in “To Set Our Hope on Christ” partook of the very error Kendall pointed out in his example about the woman taken in adultery. Sin is discounted and Divine forgiveness deemed unnecessary. The post-modern church, not just PECUSA, constantly discounts or dismisses the existence of sin in broad categories, including, but not limited to, sexual intimacy. No sound argument for this has ever been offered.

Ross, you are absolutely right.  We disagree on Scripture, but you are ABSOLUTELY right on the nature of the issue.

When I click on the link, I get a warning pop up that says that an external application is attempting to access my computer, and that it might me malicious….

Thank you for that, Kendall. For my money, its about scriptural authority. Scripture is quite clear throughout (regardless of the clever attempts to twist scripture put forth by revisionists) that homosexuality is a sin in Gods eyes. Most reasserters dont “hate” homosexuals. Its not a matter of anyones FEELINGS to begin with. Paul writes..“yea, let God be true, but every man a liar..” (Romans 3:4). Thats what it boils down to.

Mrs. Falstaff; you may be using Vista, and it is overly protective.  Just click ahead.  Kendall won’t pillage your hard drive!
It is alerting you that an external source is about to open Windows Media player; nothing too serious.  Click away!

Rats - my soundcard is still out & I can’t get into it.  Any hope of getting it transcribed?  Pretty please with sugar on top?

For everyone who can’t view the video, click here to see it on the American Anglican Council’s website. 
http://www.americananglican.org/site/c.ikLUK3MJIpG/b.3590377/

I watched the tape and it was wonderful. Yes the presenting issue is sex. But the crisis (as Kendall alluded to) involves an attempt to redefine sin and redefine sacraments to accommodate the innovations. And there is more than new teachings going on here. There are actions in the Church based on these innovations. These actions (same-sex blessings, ordination of people having sex outside of marriage, etc.) take the debate outside the realm of debate amd “graceful conversation” and into the world of creating various kinds of idol that must either be worshipped by the orthodox or shunned. People are conscience-stricken because they are forced to decide which they love more, God or their Church! Thus I think it was these actions that came to constitute the shots at Fort Sumpter that triggered this “Civil War.”