From here:
I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. (Eph. 4:1,3)
We have been on this journey for ten long years. It has been costly and debilitating for all concerned as most recently demonstrated by the tepid response to the invitations to the proposed Lambeth Conference 2008. At a time when we should be able to gather together and celebrate remarkable stories of growth and the many wonderful ways in which our God has been at work in our beloved Communion as lives are transformed new churches built and new dioceses established there is little enthusiasm to even meet.
There are continual cries for patience, listening and understanding. And yet the record shows that those who hold to the “faith once and for all delivered to the saints” have shown remarkable forbearance while their pleas have been ignored, their leaders have been demonized, and their advocates marginalized. We made a deliberate, prayerful decision in 1998 with regard to matters of Human Sexuality. It was supported by an overwhelming majority of the bishops of the Communion. It reflected traditional teaching interpreted with pastoral sensitivity. And yet it has been ignored and those who uphold it derided for their stubbornness. However, we have continued to meet and pray and struggle to find ways to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
The journey started in February 1997 in Kuala Lumpur. It was here, during the 2nd Encounter of the Global South Anglican Communion that a statement was issued in which concern was expressed about the apparent setting aside of biblical teaching by some provinces and dioceses. The statement pleaded for dialogue in ‘a spirit of true unity’ before any part of the Communion embarks on radical changes to Church discipline and moral teaching.
Sadly, this plea, and several similar warnings, have been ignored and ten years later, in February 2007, the Primates of the Anglican Communion met in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and experienced an agonizing time trying to repair the Communion that has been so badly broken. Their earlier prediction at the Primates Meeting at Lambeth Palace In 2003, that rejection of the faith committed to us would tear “the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level,” has proven to be accurate. In Dar es Salaam the Primates proposed, as one last attempt to restore unity, a period of seven months for those who have brought our Communion to the brink of destruction to reconsider their actions and put a stop to the harmful actions that have so polarized our beloved church.
With about seven weeks to go, hope for a unified Communion is not any brighter than it was seven months or ten years ago. Rather, the intransigence of those who reject Biblical authority continues to obstruct our mission and it now seems that the Communion is being forced to choose between following their innovations or continuing on the path that the church has followed since the time of the Apostles.
We have made enormous efforts since 1997 in seeking to avoid this crisis, but without success. Now we confront a moment of decision. If we fail to act we risk leading millions of people away from the faith revealed in the Holy Scriptures and also, even more seriously, we face the real possibility of denying our Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.
The leadership of The Episcopal Church USA (TECUSA) and the Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC) seem to have concluded that the Bible is no longer authoritative in many areas of human experience especially in salvation and sexuality. They claim to have ‘progressed’ beyond the clear teaching of the Scriptures and they have not hidden their intention to lead others to these same conclusions. They have even boasted that they are years ahead of others in fully understanding the truth of the Holy Scriptures and the nature of God’s love.
Both TECUSA and ACoC have been given several opportunities to consult, discuss and prayerfully respond through their recognized structures. While they produced carefully nuanced, deliberately ambiguous statements, their actions have betrayed them. Their intention is clear; they have chosen to walk away from the Biblically based path we once all walked together. The unrelenting persecution of the remaining faithful among them shows how they have used these past few years to isolate and destroy any and all opposition.
We now confront the seriousness of their actions as the year for the Lambeth Conference draws near. Sadly, this Conference is no longer designed as an opportunity for serious theological engagement and heartfelt reconciliation but we are told will be a time of prayer, fellowship and communion. These are commendable activities, but this very Communion, however, has been broken by the actions of the American and Canadian churches. The consequence is most serious because, even if only one province chooses not to attend, the Lambeth Conference effectively ceases to be an Instrument of Unity. The convener’s status as an instrument or focus of unity also becomes highly questionable. Repentance and reversal by these provinces may yet save our Communion. Failure to recognize the gravity of this moment will have a devastating impact.
Scorned Opportunities
Following the 1997 warning, the 1998 Lambeth Conference issued Resolution 1.10 that affirmed the teaching of the Holy Scriptures with regard to faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union and declared that homosexual practice was incompatible with Biblical teaching. At their meeting in Porto, Portugal, in March 2000 the Primates reaffirmed the supremacy of Scripture as the “decisive authority in the life of our Communion.”
The General Convention of the Episcopal Church USA responded in July 2000 by approving Resolution D039 acknowledging relationships other than marriage “in the Body of Christ and in this Church” and that those “who disagree with the traditional teaching of the Church on human sexuality, will act in contradiction to that position!”
The Convention only narrowly avoided directing the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to begin preparation of official rites for the blessing of “these relationships … other than marriage.”
In 2001, the Primates’ meeting in Kanuga, North Carolina issued a pastoral letter acknowledging estrangement in the Church due to changes in theology and practice regarding human sexuality, and calling on all provinces of the Communion to avoid actions that might damage the “credibility of mission in the world.” In April, 2002 meeting at Canterbury the Primates further issued a pastoral letter recognizing responsibility of all bishops to articulate the fundamentals of faith and maintain the Church truth.
In what appeared to be deliberate defiance the Diocese of New Westminster in Canada voted in June 2002 to approve the blessings of same-sex unions with the enthusiastic support of their Bishop Michael Ingham. Later that year ACC-12 meeting in Hong Kong in October 2002 approved a resolution [34] urging dioceses and bishops to refrain from unilateral actions and policies that would strain communion.
The following year ECUSA met in General Convention in Minneapolis in July/August 2003. Among their many actions they chose to reject a Resolution [B001] affirming the authority of Scripture and other basic elements of Christian faith [ ] while approving the election as bishop [C045] someone living in an unashamedly sexual relationship outside marriage.
The Primates’ meeting specially convened at Lambeth Palace in October 2003 issued a pastoral statement condemning ECUSA’s decisions at General Convention describing them as actions that “threaten the unity of our own Communion as well as our relationships with other parts of Christ’s Church, our mission and witness, and our relations with other faiths, in a world already confused in areas of sexuality, morality and theology and polarized Christian opinion.” They also declared that if the consecration proceeds “the future of the Communion itself will be put in jeopardy” and that the action will “tear the fabric of our communion at its deepest level, and may lead to further division on this and further issues as provinces have to decide in consequence whether they can remain in communion with provinces that choose not to break communion with the Episcopal Church (USA).” They also called on “the provinces concerned to make adequate provision for Episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates.” ECUSA responded the following month by proceeding with the consecration of Gene Robinson thereby tearing the fabric of our Communion and forcing Nigeria along with many other provinces to sever communion with ECUSA.
Earlier, in June 2003, we in the Church of Nigeria had cut our links with the diocese of New Westminster and sent a clear warning of reconsidering our relationship with ECUSA should Gene Robinson be consecrated. As always, we were ignored.
During 2004 there was a growing number of so-called ‘blessings’ of same-sex unions by American and Canadian priests even though the Windsor Report released in September 2004 reaffirmed Lambeth 1.10 and the authority of Scripture as central to Anglican Common Life. The Windsor Report also called for moratoria on public rites of same-sex blessings and on the election and consent of any candidate to the episcopate living in a same-sex union.
One consequence of this continuing intransigence by ECUSA was the alienation of thousands of faithful Anglicans who make their home in the USA. The attempts by the Primates to provide for their protection through the Panel of Reference proved fruitless. So the desire of these faithful Anglicans for alternatives for their spiritual home led to many impassioned requests to the Church of Nigeria and a number of other provinces within the Global South. The Standing Committee of the Church of Nigeria (CofN) recognizing this urgent need during their meeting in Ilesa in March 2004 and as a result initiated a process for the provision of pastoral care through the formation of a Convocation within the USA.
The Province of Nigeria made the conscious decision to initiate CANA in the light of the following: –
The undisputed alienation among Anglicans in North America created by the actions of TEC despite warnings from the Instruments of Communion.
The need for pastoral care and oversight for alienated Anglicans in North America in the light of the Primates Communiqué October 2003. “The provinces concerned to make adequate provision for Episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates.”
TEC’s establishment of churches in the diocese of Europe.
The consecration and appointment of Bishop Sandy Miller as a Bishop of the Province of Uganda called to serve in the United Kingdom.
As a matter of courtesy +Cantuar was duly informed of our intentions.
During the African Anglican Bishops Conference (AABC) in October 2004 the Primates present released a statement that among other things urged the Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada to take seriously the need for “repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation enjoined on all Christians by Christ.’’ It called on Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada to move beyond informal expressions of regret for the effect of their actions to a genuine change of heart and mind.
Although the Primates in February 2005 at their meeting in Dromantine, Northern Ireland, advised the withdrawal of both ECUSA and the ACoC from the ACC the continued influence of these churches on the Communion and their renewed efforts to make others adopt their intransigent line frustrated any genuine reconciliation attempts. The agonizing journey towards unity and faith seemed unending.
The obvious reluctance of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the unwillingness of the other Instruments of Unity to effect discipline on those who had rejected the mind of the Communion prompted the Church of Nigeria to effect a change in her constitution during a General Synod held in Onitsha in September 2005. This constitutional change not only protects the Church of Nigeria from being led into error by any Church in the Communion but also makes full constitutional provision for the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA).
The Third Anglican South-to-South Encounter in Egypt October 2005 issued a very strong indictment of ECUSA and the ACoC and called for a common “Anglican Covenant” among churches remaining true to Biblical Christianity and historic Anglicanism.
Ignoring all the calls for repentance, homosexual unions and nominations for episcopacy continued in the USA with the Archbishop of Canterbury expressing “deep unease” with such nominations in California in February 2006. (Article describing reaction by Archbishop Rowan to California election is found in Church of England Newspaper, February 24th, 2006.)
A much-awaited ECUSA General Convention in 2006 proved to be a disappointment as resolutions expressing regret for the harm done to the communion were rejected as well as one that tried to emphasize the necessity of Christ for salvation. Approved were resolutions promoting homosexual relationships as well one apologizing to homosexuals for the Anglican Communion following Biblical principles. A pledge to include openly homosexual persons was requested “of our sister churches in the Anglican Communion and Anglican Communion bodies as evidence of the apology”. Finally someone who does not regard homosexual behaviour a sin, and does not consider Jesus the One way to the Father, was elected as Presiding Bishop. The agony of a frustrated communion was visible worldwide except among those already prepared to embrace this dangerous path departing from the faith.
Nigeria needed no further prodding to proceed with the election in June 2006 and the August 2006 consecration of the Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns to give Episcopal oversight to CANA. The Nigerian House of Bishops also declared a reluctance to participate in the 2008 Lambeth Conference with an unrepentant ECUSA and Canada. (see Minutes of the Church of Nigeria House of Bishops meeting June 2006.)
The Global South Anglican Primates meeting in Kigali, September 2006 recognizing that ECUSA appears to have no intention of changing direction and once again embracing the ‘faith once delivered’ said in their communiqué: “We are convinced that the time has now come to take initial steps towards the formation of what will be recognized as a separate ecclesiastical structure of the Anglican Communion in the USA . . . . . . . We believe that we would be failing in our apostolic witness if we do not make this provision for those who hold firmly to a commitment to historic Anglican faith.”
The Anglican Communion Primates meeting in Dar es Salaam in February 2007 reaffirmed the 1998 Lambeth resolution and called on ECUSA (now TEC) to consider definite actions, which could heal the communion as well as reassure those who have been alienated of adequate pastoral care. By June 2007, both the ACoC and TEC indicated unwillingness to comply but a desire to remain part of the Communion they have hurt so much. As the deadline approaches, we fail to see how these positions can be reconciled. The situation has been made even more incoherent by the decision, made earlier this year, to extend an invitation to the Lambeth Conference of those responsible for this crisis with no call to repentance, whilst rejecting bishops who have stood firm for the Faith.
All journeys must end someday
“We are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.” (Hebrews 12:1)
These past ten years of distraction have been agonizing and the cost has been enormous. The time and financial resources spent on endless meetings whose statements and warnings have been consistently ignored is a tragic loss of resources that should have been used otherwise. It now appears, however, that the journey is coming to an end and the moment of decision is almost upon us. But this is not a time to lose heart or fail to maintain vigilance. It would be an even greater tragedy if while trying to bring others back to the Godly path, we should miss the way or lose the race.
We want unity but not at the cost of relegating Christ to the position of another ‘wise teacher’ who can be obeyed or disobeyed.
We earnestly desire the healing of our beloved Communion but not at the cost of re-writing the Bible to accommodate the latest cultural trend.
As stated in “The Road to Lambeth”: “We Anglicans stand at a crossroads. One road, the road of compromise of biblical truth, leads to destruction and disunity. The other road has its own obstacles [faithfulness is never an easy way] because it requires changes in the way the Communion has been governed and it challenges [all] our churches to live up to and into their full maturity in Christ.”
The first road, the one that follows the current path of The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada, is one that we simply cannot take because the cost is too high. We dare not sacrifice eternal truth for mere appeasement; we cannot turn away from the source of life and love for a temporary truce.
The other road is the only one that we can embrace. It is not an easy road because it demands obedience and faithfulness from each one of us. It requires an unequivocal acceptance and commitment to:
The Authority and Supremacy of Scripture.
The Doctrine of the Trinity
The person, work and resurrection of Jesus the Christ
The acknowledgement of Jesus as Divine and the One and only means of salvation
The Biblical teaching on sin, forgiveness, reconciliation, and transformation by the Holy Spirit through Christ.
The sanctity of marriage.
Teaching about morality that is rooted and grounded in Biblical Revelation.
Apostolic Ministry.
These are not onerous burdens or tiresome restrictions but rather they are God’s gift, designed to set us free from the bondage of sin and give us the assurance of life eternal.
It is our hope and fervent prayer that in the coming months, all those in leadership will be directed towards the restoration of true unity in the Body of Christ by an unconditional embrace of the One who says to all who will listen, “If you love me, you will obey what I command.”
John Bunyan, author of Pilgrim’s Progress, describes the Christian life as a journey from the City of Destruction to the Celestial City. On his journey, numerous decisions and many crossroads confront Pilgrim. The easy road was never the right road. This is our moment of truth.
This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. (Deuteronomy 30:19,20a)
+ Peter Abuja
A powerful and inspiring statement from an acknowledged Anglican leader. But now liberals are speculating crazily, on the basis of scanty and ambiguous “evidence”, about who wrote it. And they wonder why orthodox Anglicans find it increasingly difficult to take them seriously.
“All journeys must end someday”. The cost of staying on the narrow road is very hard, but I have learnt so much about my faith. I am so much more reliant on Jesus, my prayer time is incredible and the friendships I have made on the journey have been so worthwhile. Even so I do hope for an end to the journey at this time.
the teaching that is being referred to has to do with the interpretation of law.
paul says that we SERVE the spirit in a new way not in the old way to the written code.
1john1 says if we walk in the light like he is in the light we have fellowship with one another.
if fellowship is the the mutual giving permission and support in the trusting of ones life experiences.
and romans one says we are givng the capacity to know god’s divine presence and eternal power thru our experiencal witnessing of what is created. in witness to the creation……………….
WHAT IS THE ESSENCE OF THE SPIRIT OF HOMOSEXUALITY THAT IT WOULD POSSIBLY COME AGAINST THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT,THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST, AND LOVING ONE’S NEIGHBOR AS ONESELF?
we know that belief does not exist in a vacuum but receives sustenance and support from our daily interaction and experiencing of the created. before we condemn our brothers in christ over an interruptation of the law, thru following we receive no salvation, arent we first obligated by our fellowship in christ to first witness his life experiences, “that which we have looked at, which we have heard, which our hands have touched”
john,
What do you make of Christ’s words at the Last Supper: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” and “Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me”? (St John 14:15,21)
Doesn’t St Paul say in Romans 1 that those who engage in homosexual behaviour are not loving one’s neighbour as oneself, but rather indulging “dishonourable passions” (Romans 1:18-32)?
scott,
its interesting that i have yet heard one person answer the question about the essence of homosexuality.
i only know of one commandment….. (commandment……an order to be proactive , as opposed to the law …..an order to desist doing something) to love one another as i have loved you.
romans 1: 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
“25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator”…………this passage automatically excludes our gay brothers in christ who worship and serve christ and share in our same inheritance.
…it further says that they abandoned given relationships of the spirit motivated by shame based lust.
shame based lust has no interest with sharing a life with another, but instead is obsessed with sexual pleasure and sexual obsession.
how is it, that with heterosexuals, we call it commendable when two of the opposite sex bond out mutual respect, love, trust,and attraction for having a committed sharing of a life with another.
but when two of the same sex do the same thing, it is called unacceptable.
if we say this because of the law, then we are serving the law. but paul says we serve the spirit in a new and not in the old way to the written code.
so if the spirit of the human bonding between two of the same sex is equally to or even greater in virtue to the bonding relationship two of the opposite sex how can ie be against christ, the fruit of the spirit, loving your neighbor and resemble romans1.
the bible speaks of many sins committed in opposite gender sex acts, but does not use this as a basis to malign the orientation. why should it be any different for homosexuality.
again if you say it is because of the law, then you are serving the law.
according to romans, the way you can serve the spirit, and say that homosexuality is against christ……………….. is by first identifying the opposing spirit in its essence.
The Bible does not speak of the “essence” of human actions or dispositions, so it would appear that you are importing philosophical concepts into biblical discussions. Nevertheless, I will take a stab at your question: The essence of homosexual activity is the same as that of all sinful behaviours and attitudes: disobedience to God’s revealed moral teaching and will.
You say you “only know of one commandment”, yet in the verses I cited from St John’s Gospel, Christ speaks of “commandments”—plural. (That can be verified by reading the word in the Greek.) It seems that you’re overlooking some commandments.
As far as I am aware, your idiosyncratic definitions of “law” and “commandment” are not supported by Scripture. If you know of a passage that defines “law” and “commandment” as you do, I’d be interested in hearing about that.
John:
You are putting forth similar interpretations as a man who calls himself Father Ron Smith has done on the Global South Website from whence the article by ArchBishop Akinola comes.
Arguments such as yours are futile and since people like yourself and Ron Smith are obviously involved in such perverted activities, one would only expect such petty and useless arguments. I have observed on several websites the blindness and deafness of those who refuse to understand what the word “Commandments” means and I accept the fact that people who are twisted will never be able to see the “Light” until such time as they come to accept the Supremacy of Scripture, the fact that the Old Testament Truths are as powerful as the New Testament Truths and learn that until such time as they listen to the Word of God with open ears and have the blinders of perversion removed from their eyes, they will not understand.
Jesus summed it all up with these words: “Go and sin no more”.
Go and sin no more…….what is so difficult about understanding those words. The prostitute knew exactly what He meant and she followed His advice.
John, you work constantly at trying to get Orthodox persons to accept your hollywood syndrome teachings of perversion and such. Why not just try accepting the Truth and repent and turn away from the sins of perversion.
I left one Anglican Parish because the Rector (wrecktor) decided that he should let the world know that he is gay. He also felt that he should leave his wife and three children for the sake of his idea of the truth. Tell me, did he do the right thing? Of course he didn’t. He took the job as Parish Priest after he had said he was a happily married man. He lied. He lied about his marriage, he lied about many things and then used the parish computer for perverted enlightenment for himself. Yet, he remains as the Parish Priest of that Church, and there are people there who remain blind to the truth and think that it is alright.
If only we would turn from the wicked ways, fall down on our knees, repent of our sins, ask for forgiveness and mean it and then turn from the sins totally then and only then will God hear our prayers and heal our Country.
John, look for and see the Light.
Oh yes, I have seen where some think the article was written by Bishop Martin Mynns (sp). Who cares? Whether it was written by ArchBishop Akinola or Martin Mynns doesn’t really matter (although I doubt that it would be on the Global South Website under ArchBishop Akinola’s name if he didn’t write it). The fact of the matter is this: The article speaks the truth.
Weak-kneed attempts to belittle the article mean nothing when the article speaks the truth. The same applies to the Holy Bible. We now see weak-kneed attempts to twist words, leave words out, take different meanings from and change the Scriptures to fit the lifestyles of perversion. It just won’t work. Not one jot is to be changed. Not one word is to be changed. It is written.
scot
i believe that jesus was including the other 2 commandments ….. love the lord your god with all your mind etc….. and love your neighbor etc. these were all that jesus had to mention because as paul wrote in romans……………. “The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”……………..paul is able to transform a restriction to desist into a proactive understanding into loving. in other words if you love your neighbor as yourself you wont steal from him( the essence taking what you have no claim to, causing a loss to another, taking from another something that is rightfully his without his permission, possibly surrepticiously. this requires no teaching, the essence of the act speaks for itself. the same could be said of murder.) paul’s transformation shows us how we serve the the spirit in a new way…………….from rules of desisting to a proactive way of being.
essence is all thru jesus’s teachings.
matthew 5:27″You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’[a] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
jesus is saying that adultery is more than intercourse. there is a line between fantasy and lust.
romans 1 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
the sin is already committed in the heart………………..an act of intercourse becomes merely an indication of the state of the heart. one has transposed his love for his neighbor, for instead indulging in his sexual passions. and this has been done without intercourse.
paul shows us the essence of a proactive state of being in christ.
gal 5: 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25 SINCE WE LIVE BY THE SPIRIT, LET US KEEP IN STEP WITH THE SPIRIT.
how is homosexuality against kindness, patience, love,joy……….?
how is it against loving your neighbor…………………?
gerry you have so much anger and accusation in your words. but you have not answered one of my questions or confronted one of my points of discussion.
are you saying that love can be a bad thing?
have you forgotten 1 cor 13 or romans 13:10 “Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law”.
john,
It’s revealing that you do not respond to my request that you offer a biblical defence of your use of the philosophical concept of “essence”, nor do you comment on my understanding of the essence of homosexuality.
Likewise, you have not supported from Scripture your idiosyncratic definitions of law and commandment. Without that support, I don’t know what you’re talking about. I hope you’ll understand if I begin to suspect that you don’t know either.
As St Paul said, love is the fulfillment of the law, but he did not suggest that love countenances disobedience to the law, including those commandments of the law that restrict sexual activity to a man and a woman married to each other.
scripture says fulfillement of the law is love and that all the laws can be summed up with “love your neighbor as yourself”. is that not saying that the spirit of the law is loving ones neighbor as one loves himself?
is not christ words on adultery about the essence of that sin?
i thought it was obvious, that that whether something support or did not support a teaching had nothing to do with essence.
essence: something that is, or exists. that which makes something that it is , intrinsic(intrinsic:belonging to the real nature of the thing, not dependent on external circumstances, inherent)
john says, “The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”…
and, “scripture says fulfillement of the law is love and that all the laws can be summed up with “love your neighbor as yourself”. is that not saying that the spirit of the law is loving ones neighbor as one loves himself?”
But love would say, to a neighbour who is stealing, “Do not steal.” And to a neighbour who is about to commit murder, “Do not do it.” and to someone committing, or about to commit adultery, “You shouldn’t do that.”
And love should say to someone engaged in homosexual sexual activity, “That is wrong. It is against God’s will. You should stop.”
Take Care
john k
the essence of adultery, is the violation of trust and vows(against faithfulness to another), stealing is the commandeering another man’s property against his consent(against kindness to another), murder is the premeditated taking of another’s life against their consent for personal benefit(against love of another). what is the essence of homosexuality so that love would say dont do it, and how would it be against the fruit of the spirit.
What is it to covet, but to sin against God? What is idolatry, but a sin against God? All sin, even sin against another person, is a sin against God. When David confessed his adultery, he did not say, “Against Bathsheba have I sinned,” or. “Against Uriah have I sinned.” He said, “Against you, you only ,have I sinned… (Psalm 51:4)
If one loves God, (the first and most important commandment, even before love your neighbour) one should want to do what pleases Him, not what He tells us is an abomination to Him.
Take Care
By the way, you ask about the ‘essence’ of homosexuality, then use the phrase, “don’t do it.” Here is the key, in my opinion. There may be nothing wrong with homosexuality as an orientation. It may even be, although I don’t think it is a cut-and-dried as some would like to assert, that certain genetic and envrionmental factors cause a person to have that orientation. The sin is in “doing it.” What fruit of the Spirit is it against? The last one: self control.
Take Care
It seems strange to me that in this whole discussion nothing is ever said about the medical ramifications of homosexual activity. Is it really “loving” or “goodness” to put the life of a homosexual partner in jeopardy through such physically dangerous activity? Is such “love” really doing no “harm”? “Essence” sounds to me to be a little philisophical when a life is at stake, and pain, suffering and shortened lifespan the reality for many — where the rubber hits the road.
essence:
idolatry: worshipping and serving the created, against goodness enmeshed with a negative spirit, with something that of itself has no life
coveting: desiring to the point of lusting, or obsessing about having that which is your neighbors, against goodness assumes completeness by obtaining something, reviles thankfulness.
how can you say the essence is any less sinful than the act it motivates.
any diseases can be dealt with thru same sex practices, no less than couples where one is hiv positive.
excuse me ……..”safe sex practices”
john said,
“essence:
idolatry: worshipping and serving the created, against goodness enmeshed with a negative spirit, with something that of itself has no life
coveting: desiring to the point of lusting, or obsessing about having that which is your neighbors, against goodness assumes completeness by obtaining something, reviles thankfulness.
how can you say the essence is any less sinful than the act it motivates.”
Sorry john, you’ve lost me, if indeed you were replying to me.
All sin is sin against God, even if it is not against another person. Homosexual sexual activity, even if you want to try to argue that is not a sin against one’s partner, is still a sin against God. He says so Himself. And I don’t think God even talks about your red herring of “essence.”
Take Care
John K,
Well said. The much-belaboured notion of “essence” turns out to consist of mere definitions of the respective sins. The “essence” of idolatry is nothing more than a definition of idolatry, etc. Red herring, indeed.
romans1:24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
how can romans 24-27 apply to our homosexual brothers in christ who believe in the father and worship and serve his son, sharing in our inheritance,
if those who believe are not given over to shamebased lusts, then how can their orientation which is not motivated by shame based lusts be a sin.
.
`
“how can romans 24-27 apply to our homosexual brothers in christ who believe in the father and worship and serve his son, sharing in our inheritance,”
Paul is not talking about believers in these verses, perhaps because it was inconceivable to him that believers would behave in this way. But the acts he is referring to are despicable, whoever participates in them- JK
“if those who believe are not given over to shamebased lusts, then how can their orientation which is not motivated by shame based lusts be a sin.”
john, you keep raising that strawman of orientation. It is not the orientation that is the sin, it is the activity – JK
Take Care
I understood things much better after reading Mario Bergner’s testimony. There are only two groups of people in the world, male and female. There are however different sexual preferences. Orientation is just another directional metaphor replacing other words which have been used in the past to explain these preferences. Preferences can change as experienced by thousands of people, both ways. They are not cast in stone. When people say God has given them their orientation the question I ask is “Why?”. Why would a good God deliberately give desires to people for which their body is not designed. I could not worship such a God. Fortunately he is also a God who restores us to what we are meant to be. Praise Him!
“gerry you have so much anger and accusation in your words. but you have not answered one of my questions or confronted one of my points of discussion.
are you saying that love can be a bad thing?
have you forgotten 1 cor 13 or romans 13:10 “Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law”.”
John ~ John, you are wrong, I am not angry. I am at time disgusted however with the accusations that those who KNOW that they are going against Scripture make towards those who desire to follow both the Old and New Testament teachings. It disturbs me greatly that when someone speaks out against what the perverted Western World is trying to force on such followers and then blame us for not being nice good people. I am a nice person, however, I will continue to speak out on behalf of the Supremacy of Scripture and on behalf of those who wish to believe in the Full Holy Bible. What part of DO NOT is it that you cannot understand.
I am a sinner, likely I have sinned as much as any, however, I have repented and I continue daily to try to keep turned 180 degrees from those sins and to try with God’s Grace to live my life according to Scripture. I refuse to think that I can sin today and then get forgiven tomorrow so that I can go out the next day and do it all over again (on purpose).
I will not address this to you or to anyone else again. Open your ears and hear.
i greeted you in the name of our lord jesus christ , may God continue to strenghting your power [amen]