Response to the Theological Forum
Covenant
Fellowship Scotland have produced an excellent response to the Report of the
Theological Forum on Human Sexuality, which will be discussed next week at the
Church of Scotland General Assembly:
Here
is a response that is scriptural, logical and reasonable. However, the problem
may be that it presupposes that theological and ethical disputes are to be
settled in the church by an appeal to Scripture, and the use of reason. If this was accepted, their case would be
unanswerable.
But
that is the very heart of the problem.
The Church of Scotland no longer wishes to listen to Scripture; it is governed
by sentiment and emotion and not by reason.
Without a common basis, Scripture, there can be no consensus on either
theological or ethical issues.
I
will watch with interest the debate at G.A. My prayers are with those who will
argue a biblical basis for marriage as between one man and one woman. But, I will also watch with interest to see
their response if the G.A. extends its recognition of homosexual marriage. Will they be willing to embrace the doctrine
of “constrained difference” and continue to recognise those who embrace,
encourage and promote homosexual marriage?
It
is worth considering the argument of Dr. Denny Burk, who in essence is
commenting on the “reconciled diversity” or “ constrained differences” approach:
“[This] approach is functionally no different from an
“affirming” approach. Here’s the bottom line. A church either will or will not
accept members who are practicing homosexual immorality. A church either will
or will not discipline members for homosexual immorality. A church either will
or will not ordain clergy who are practicing homosexuals. There is no middle
ground between these practical polarities. If you are in a church that allows
both points of view (Side A/Side B), then functionally your church is no
different from a fully “affirming” congregation. You accept members and clergy
who are practicing homosexual immorality. Again, there is no middle ground
between the polarities of these two positions. Those who attempt middle ground
will eventually have to move to one side or the other.”
See
his excellent article at:
No comments:
Post a Comment