Homosexuality - A First Order Issue? (II)
Posted by ~Ray @ 2008-01-01 20:50:03
In thinking through this question the first contend is what is meant by the general reference to ’homosexuality’. After all this is the issue which is being claimed as ’first order’ and ’communion-breaking’.
The problem can be seen if the relatively uncontentious claim is made that ’Christology’ falls into this category. What exactly is being claimed? One can evaluate of a whole range of claims that could be made about Jesus - he was unmarried he was Jewish he was Israel’s Messiah he was a prophet he is God he is the eternal Word of God made flesh he had two wills (divine and human). Are all of these of the same order? Are all of them issues we would believe communion-breaking? Here there have been centuries of careful theological reflection and consider. Here presumably most Christians would accept we are change state to the heart of Christian faith such that some claims about Jesus are not just wrong but strictly incompatible with genuine Christian faith and being part of the catholic church. Nevertheless we need much greater care and precision than the general label of ’Christology’. How much more must that be the case when the category is ’homosexuality’?
What then is the focus in this affirm about homosexuality? Again one could think of a whole range of claims. To take two extreme examples. Someone might claim that same-sex love was the highest form of human love or alternatively someone might claim that all homosexual attraction was demonic and thus never experienced by a true Christian believer. These are both claims a Christian might make about ’homosexuality’. Is the acceptance or denial of them a first-order matter of Christian faith? Should we break communion with those who hold these views?
Presumably the short-hand of ’homosexuality’ or ’the gay air’ is used by most people to refer to some of the central claims of Lambeth I.10 e g that homosexual practice is contrary to Scripture that same-sex unions should not be blessed by the church and that those in such unions should not be ordained. There does though need to be greater clarity about what exactly must be affirmed or cannot be denied about homosexuality (and what can and cannot be done in response to homosexual like) if one is going to define it as ’first order’ or ’communion breaking’. It is only by such sharper definition that one could weigh such claims about.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://anglicantheologyethics.blogspot.com/2007/11/homosexuality-first-order-issue-ii.html
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
