Churchly Quality Control XI: another case study
Yesterday’s post is very relevant to this screed from an Anglican gay lobby to the unfortunate Archbishop of Canterbury and how it should be handled.
Putting aside the glaring problems with this letter (A number of the comments on the link address those quite well.), this is a classic example of where church leaders should do exactly as I advised yesterday. You listen, then gently say, “We hope you stay, but we are going to do the right thing.” Trying instead to make everyone happy in situations like this just makes everyone unhappy . . . including God I suspect. A case could be made* that past accommodation of practicing gays in leadership has led to the situation we are in today where unhappiness abounds.
(*That’s a very Anglican understatement there.)
I think David Roseberry, among other Anglican conservatives, handles this issue rightly. He has made clear from the pulpit, no less, that homosexuals are welcome in his church, and they are to be treated with decency and love. But he will not pretend sin isn’t sin or in any other way willfully set aside the standards of God’s word.
And that is what the church is called to do. Truth and love – truth AND love. You don’t set aside either no matter how unhappy that makes someone.
(And, yes, I freely admit I allow some churchly and political issues to get me so worked up that I’m not exactly the most loving guy in the world. I apologize.)