Whit Johnstone (mylifemyfaith) wrote in anglican,
Whit Johnstone

Is homosexual practice compatible with classical Anglicanism? What about the ordiation of women?

Lately, I have been re-evaluating my position on homosexual practice, based on my own experiences, the consensus of the worldwide church, and what seems to be the undivided consensus of the Fathers. In essence, it seems that most of the people who share my conviction that the Creeds and the early Fathers are central to an Anglican reading of scripture do not share my belief that committed, monogamous gay relationships can be considered Christian marriages. Furthermore, my own use of my own homosexual orientation has not been very god-honoring, to the point that I now think that at least for now, complete celibacy, even to the level of fantasies and masturbation, is the best option for me. And it seems like pro-gay societies are secular societies. So I find myself slipping unhappily to a more conservative position on same-sex relationships, just after I joined a church which takes a more liberal line on such things.

However, the Fathers are also consistently against ordaining women as priests, but world Anglicanism has accepted that this innovation is within an Anglican reading of Scripture. If we accept one innovation, why not the other. If the answer is that one innovation grosses out some people, and the other doesn't, then the innovation of same-sex unions IS compatible with classical Anglicanism, and a lot of the Anglican Communion needs to get over itself. If the ordination of women is not acceptable, than Anglicanism has failed and we all need to become RC or Orthodox, because clearly Tradition must be completely unchanging if we are to remain faithful Christians in our current culture. If the Anglican Communion is right that being a woman priest is OK but being a priest in a same sex union is not, what distinguishes the two innovations? Proponents of both have produced readings of Scripture in support of their positions, despite the traditional Scriptural prohibitions of both. What makes pro-woman-priest readings of scripture less esigetical then pro-gay ones?

Thoughts? I could really use some help with my current discernment process. I hope this post doesn't just lead to a flame war- if it does I will delete the whole thing.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic