From a NT scholar / friend:

I had deliberately started with the pastoral question at the retreat when asked to address the topic of 'homosexuality' (and with the analogies to the way we have reinterpreted the slavery and divorce texts, and also Sabbath and food laws and Paul's 'liberal' position in Rom 14) rather than with the usual texts in Leviticus 17, Rom 1, etc. This was because I wanted people to see that we shouldn't just use the Bible to block debate about these issues, just as Southern Baptists once used to quote 'Slaves obey your Masters, especially those who mistreat you . . .' in order to shut down discussion of slavery in their churches; and still quote 'I do not allow a woman to speak in the church . . . Let the women be silent' to prevent the issue of ordaining women emerging. So too, many today quote Lev 17 or Rom 1 as if it ends any discussion about homosexuals -- just as some Jewish Christians quoted the Law at Paul (about Sabbath observance, meat offered to idols, and circumcision), laws which Paul sidesteps (relativises?) in Romans 14 because of his pastoral concern for both Jews and Gentiles. I wanted to establish that even if we accept that the Jews (OT) and Paul opposed any form of homosexuality (Jesus doesn't mention it), we STILL have the responsibility before God in our worshipping communities to sort through this issue and its pastoral implications, and we have the freedom, like Paul and Jesus, to re-interpret the Law! ''Whatever sins we bind on earth, will be bound, whatever sins we forgive, will be forgiven', etc (Jn 20). All laws and traditions must be continually reinterpreted in the light of the love command (and the example of LOVE incarnate) of Jesus Christ. We can never ignore the Law (or the Bible that speaks of it), or trash it, but we do move beyond it (or transcend it, or fulfill it) in the name of the transforming initiatives of Jesus. We have eventually done so (God be praised) on issues like slavery, women in ministry, divorce and remarriage, Sabbath, food laws and circumcision: the question is if there is any room to move in the area of sexuality, whilst still upholding and affirming the sacredness of marriage and the importance of the (extended) family for the bringing up of children.

I'm happy that Rowland made these resources available for people to sort through the issues in their own contexts so they can discern what the 'living word of God' is for them and their communities. Like so many other issues, this is not one that will be solved by people handing down decisions from above. If the Spirit of God can convince us that homosexual people can live ethically in committed relationships and continue to minister within our churches, then so be it -- 'there is yet more light and truth . . .'