EGN NEWS DESK
In a latest The Rest is Politics podcast, hosted by Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, knowledgeable us that he has been on a journey. From being a transparent advocate of conservative Evangelical perception, affirming intercourse solely inside conventional marriage, he tells us that, because of a lot prayer and theological reflection, he now embraces a place that sees intercourse as permissible in any steady relationship, and whether or not heterosexual or homosexual makes no distinction.
He mentioned, to cite: “all sexual exercise needs to be inside a dedicated relationship, whether or not it is straight or homosexual. In different phrases, we’re not giving up on the concept intercourse is inside marriage or civil partnership. We’ve put ahead a proposal that the place folks have been by means of a civil partnership or a same-sex marriage, equal marriage, below the 2014 Act, they need to be capable to come alongside to their native, to a church, and have a service of blessing for them of their lives collectively” (emphasis added).
In different phrases, and lest there be any doubt, what the chief of the Anglican Communion is saying is that the standard Christian view of marriage as between one man and one lady for all times is just about redundant and that each one intercourse is okay – supplied solely that it takes place inside what he defines as a steady (albeit maybe non permanent) relationship. And, as added insult to damage, he then goes on to say that this doesn’t and won’t have an effect on the Church’s stance on same-sex marriage, which presently permits a service of blessing for similar intercourse {couples} however attracts the road at marriage.
Such a place isn’t just theologically indefensible, however logically irreconcilable. For the worldwide head of the Anglican Church to say that each one intercourse is okay – whether or not inside or outdoors marriage, and whether or not homosexual or straight – is inevitably, by extension, to endorse same-sex marriage. But he would do nicely to keep in mind that in Scripture, intercourse outdoors marriage and homosexuality are each branded anathema.
So what does the Archbishop’s slightly rambling announcement say about his dedication to Christian perception? Is there any doctrine he now holds to be sacrosanct – or is the reality truly that, deep down, he now not believes? Has his ‘God’ in actual fact turn out to be not more than a type of squidgy consolation blanket and legitimisation for social motion? And was Christ’s sacrifice to redeem mankind from sin, objectively commendable although it would seem, finally pointless?
Such a place isn’t, and by no means will be, proper. Christianity isn’t based on emotions or being ‘good’ to folks, however on the revelation of God and of His Son, Jesus Christ, as set down within the Bible. No one who holds in any other case is match to carry workplace within the Church.
So what does the Bible say precisely? From Genesis onwards, Scripture is obvious that marriage is between one man and one lady for all times, a place taken over and affirmed by Jesus himself. See, for instance, Matt 15:5, “For this purpose, a person shall depart his father and mom and be joined to his spouse, and the 2 shall turn out to be one flesh.”
Similarly, although interpreted by liberal activists as a cultural and time-bound anachronism, the Bible is unequivocal in its condemnation of homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 clearly states, “Do not have sexual relations with a person as one does with a lady; that’s detestable.” While chapter 20, equally trenchant in its condemnation, says that each one folks caught in such behaviour, each female and male, shall be put to loss of life.
Strong stuff, and nobody would want to see such a sentence carried out as we speak, but it surely reveals clearly how such behaviour was regarded and the load of condemnation it attracted. Similarly within the New Testament, the apostle Paul was unequivocal in his denunciation of homosexuality and lesbianism, labelling such practices sinful and degrading, and resulting in damnation: e.g. Romans 1:26-27.
It would appear, nonetheless, that after ‘mature non secular reflection’, Archbishop Welby has determined that the Bible is unsuitable … or at the very least by no means meant what it mentioned. Perhaps he imagines that God too is on a studying curve, and has now recognised that mankind has come of age, in order that it’s now not God who teaches mankind how you can behave, however vice versa, and we want now not be certain by the ethical strictures of yesteryear. But the place, one wonders, will all this cease? If it is attainable so simply to jettison one commandment, why grasp on to the remainder?
It would appear that the Archbishop, by his personal admission, is a convert – it is only a pity that his conversion has been to a religion aside from the one he has been entrusted to steer.
