The first thing I noticed: there is no section on "Approach to Scripture". This section appears to be subsumed into the section "The need for a shared universal doctrine". Methinks they are not the same thing. And, as most keep pointing out, approach to Scripture is the issue at the heart of the 'rift', and not sexuality.
But the other thing that astounded me was the very slippery description on the"Liberal" position on "Active Homosexuality":
LIBERAL: When we talk about human sexuality we are actually talking about questions of the goodness of the body, and the goodness of creation. Sexuality is part of a person's being. People are called to be in relationships, sometimes sexual relationships, and that's how we understand the goodness of creation. We are emerging from 1700 years in the West of a deeply distrustful stance toward creation and everything that creation contains, including the human body and sexual relationships (even those traditionally called "marriage"). A dominant view of the Church in that time period has been that a celibate life is closer to the angelic life than the married life, and that marriage was for those who could not successfully aspire to the celibate life. Such an attitude is based on a profound unease, or dis-ease, about creation. So ideas about "active homosexuality" - even framing the question that way - betray a view that is still being shaped by an uncertainty about whether the creation and the body are in fact good or not.My response is:
Isn't this the bedrock conservative position? But with a sneaky Bait'n'Switch twist at the end? Isn't the conservative position that the Bible teaches in "the goodness of the body" and "the goodness of creation"? Isn't the conservative position that sex is good and healthy and to be expressed regularly in marriage? (A point made in the conservative entry). Don't the conservatives also distrust (and even 'condemn') historical positions that are distrustful of the goodness of creation?
We believe all that.
But we don't believe that a person in Christ then has a blank check on sexuality. By no means.
Have I misread this?
Pic on Flickr by Yley Coyote.