this from the Journal slipped by unnoticed. It has taken 16 centuries, but now we are finally there: the alleged leader of a Christian church, rather than turfing out the heretics, thinks a bit more structure might be needed since some of its members are abandoning the Nicene Creed. And no-one seems terribly surprised. Which reminds me, at a local Niagara clericus meeting (when we were still in the Niagara diocese), the subject of tossing out the Creed was discussed because ‘none of us really believe it anyway – well except for you’. The ‘you’ was my informer. Wonder why we left.
He again underscored his proposal for a council saying the Communion needs “a bit more of a structure in our international affairs to be able to give clear guidance on what would and would not be a grave and lasting divisive course of action by a local church.” He said that such a body would be useful not just for addressing the issue of sexual ethics, but other differences. “It could just as well be pressure for a new baptismal formula or the abandonment of formal reference to the Nicene Creed in a local church’s formulations; it could be a degree of variance in sacramental practice – about the elements of the eucharist or lay presidency; it could be the regular incorporation into liturgy of non-scriptural or even non-Christian material,” he said.
The interesting thing about creeds is that they encapusate what we believe. When we review the statements from the liberal bishops in the ACoC, it’s obvious they don’t subscribe to all that old school nonsense in our creeds.
The surprise is that they haven’t moved sooner to lessen the lies they speak each Sunday.
Peace,
Jim
I suppose in one sense the reference of our General Synod to the creeds as “core doctrine” might prove a beneficial thing in the long run…
The appeal by the ABC is nothing more than what he has been trying to sell to the orthodox Bishops long before Lambeth. He is showing he believes his first duty is to the civil government – i.e. to the god of “political correctness” and “pluralism”. The Journal will gladly publish this to convince the average parishioner that the apostate position is correct. The Journal will NEVER publish anything that remotely resembles orthodoxy. If he were to use the correct words he would call the so-called liberal bishops “apostates” and the so-called conservative bishops “orthodox”. The issue is not human sexuality but rather the authority of Scripture. The church cannot “bless” or approve of homosexual conduct any more than it can approve of pedophilia or adultery. It is NOT a matter of discrimination. The matter of unity in the Anglican Communion must take a back seat to orthodoxy. If the Church is not true to the Scripture and our Lord it ceases to be the Church of God and becomes nothing more than a social club.
The ABC definitely knows better from his training. With this appeal he should do the honourable thing and resign from his position. Suggesting that orthodoxy and apostasy should agree to dwell together – that is agree to disagree – is an affront to our Lord and Saviour.
Frank, Thanks! You said so well what the real problem is. It’s not about “homosexuality”, it’s about the authority of Scripture. Your last sentence brings the point home. “Suggesting that orthodoxy and apostasy should agree to dwell together is an affront to our Lord and Savior.” THAT is the bottom line which Rowan Williams refuses to accept and face up to. What does that say about him? A lot for me. It clearly tells me he’s no longer a TRUE shepherd. He may have been once; God only knows that. But he’s DEFINITELY not now!
#3 Frank
“It is NOT a matter of discrimination”
In the Anglican church, a person can divorce and re-marry. I don’t see much argument from the folks in this blog about that. If it were weighted equally then I could accept that. Otherwise, I believe it is discrimination.
Just as a side note, blessing a divorced person’s remarriage is also “blessing the sin”. Why argue so much about homosexuality and not about remarried people?
#6 Because there are certain limited circumstances where divorce is biblically permissible (Paul talks about it, but the exact references escape me). In no instance can same sex marriage be supported biblically without doing violence to the text.
#7. I do see your meaning about biblical support. Christ himself made exceptions for persons whose spouse has been unfaithful.
Where I’m going from is this: when someone zeros in on one group of people, while permitting the activities of another, there is discrimination. Why crusade so harshly against homosexuals? Divorce is a choice. Homosexuality is not. I know someone will tell you otherwise, but it is not a choice.
Derek (#5 & 6), you make a valid point. Many denominations (not just Anglican) tend to be somewhat two faced when it comes to divorce and remarriage. The church I am currently attending will not allow someone to be married in the church if they are divorced, but will permit them to become members.
That said, I have yet to encounter even one divorced Christian who speaks of divorce as something honourable, in the will of God, or worthy of blessing. They all understand that divorce is an unfortunate consequence of the fall.
#11 Fair enough. To me, it’s really important to weight both equally if you’re going by the letter of the Bible. A sin is a sin, right?
Members of my own parish often criticize divorced people. Personally, I will not do such a thing. Various events happen in people’s personal lives that make their marriage impossible. It could happen to any of us. Ironically, such criticism in my parish often comes from seniors who have never been married (the forever unmarried are certainly not the best to judge the marital difficulties of others IMHO – lol).
But the point I’m really getting at is that I’d be far less critical if orthodox Christians would weight such activities equally, rather than picking on one group of people.
Derek (#12) – In my experience, it is not Christians who pick on one group of people, it is the media who points the spotlight on the conflict between orthodox Christians and gays. A truly Bible-believing, Spirit-led, God-fearing Christian picks on no one, for they know and recognize that we all flawed, imperfect, deeply sinful beings. There are many sins that may seem more “serious” to us, but in God’s eyes they are all nevertheless equal (whether one thinks about committing murder, for example, or actually follows through with it). With one exception, they are forgivable – if the sinner genuinely repents. (The one exception is the unforgivable sin (Matthew 12: 31-32) against the Holy Spirit, which is not forgiveable precisely because of the absence of repentance.)
#11 Natacha
I do hear what you’re saying. In the case of homosexuals, many people have chosen to play psychiatrist and diagnose homosexuals with a mental illness.
In rereading the blog rules section, one author stated that growing up in a broken home, schizophrenia, and bi-polar disease are the causes of homosexuality.
I am a gay man — but I had an exceptionally happy childhood and I grew up in the most stable family of anyone I knew. I am NOT schizophrenic. I am NOT bi polar. I’m as well grounded and stable a person as you’d want to meet.
When people start assigning unfounded labels and diagnoses, they show their discrimination. Orthodox Christians do not like being referred to as bigots. I can understand that. At the same time, I don’t appreciate having my mental state devalued.
My point: a lot of ridiculous comments are made about the mental capacity of homosexuals, by Orthodox Christians, but they are not made about people who engage in other “sinful practices”. Therein lies discrimination.
If I may add another thought – yes, there are groups of Christians who tend to fixate on a particular sin (divorce being the one you mentioned, but there are others) by looking at one or two verses (1 Corinthians 5: 3-5, 13 in the divorce issue), but they often do this at the risk of ignoring what the Bible actually says about treating those who sin (see 2 Corinthians 2). Yes, there are consequences to sin, which may or may not include temporary banishment from a church, but God also gives us the obligation to treat others with compassion at this point, to encourage them to pick themselves up, dust off their clothing, and support them in their return to a faithful, committed relationship with the Lord – through repentance. Abandonment of a fellow believer is never an option, and neither is giving up on a non-believer. The grace of God is extended to each and every one of us, and it behooves us to remember that.
#13 Natacha
“Abandonment of a fellow believer is never an option, and neither is giving up on a non-believer. The grace of God is extended to each and every one of us, and it behooves us to remember that.”
Okay then. I’m content to leave it at that so long as homosexuals are not treated as any less mentally stable than another.
If someone tells me “you know Derek, a person is born that way, but I still think it’s sinful” then so be it. But I don’t care to have anyone questioning my marbles.
One final thought: very often we’re faced in certain situations in which we must act on the spur of the moment (but some situations with much more time to decide what is right or wrong). I’ve run into a few of these situations — including a biggie last November. When I look back on these situations, I am proud to know that I acted in the way that Christ would have expected me to. I won’t elaborate on them, since Christ teaches us not to do that. The point is that I was able to do something that mattered. Something very Christ-like indeed. That’s why I tend to feel singled out when others pronounce me as being unChristian because of my sexuality.
Derek, I apologize, my second post was meant to be an adjunct to my first, but it didn’t publish quickly enough.
I agree with your assessment that bigotry exists in the orthodox Anglican church (#12) – people everywhere tend to spout off opinions without much thought, research or charity, because it’s easier that way, especially in this time of email, blogs, instant messaging, and live TV. My disagreement with you lies in the fact that gays are not the only isolated targets. For example, I have suffered from serious, clinical depression since early adolescence. My struggle has become slightly easier during the past five years, since I turned my life over to Him. While I am no longer constantly depressed, thanks to a combination of my faith, medications for a brief time, and cognitive therapy, I still cycle into low periods that are very difficult to come out of.
Here is the crux of my argument: I have a good friend, who is otherwise compassionate, who believes strongly, based on one experience in his immediate family, that clinical depression can be cured solely through the work of the Holy Spirit. That only has to open oneself to Him, and all will be cured forever. This is a common belief, particularly in charismatic churches, and one that places a terrible burden of guilt on those of us who do not experience this rapid cure. (And since depression is often cyclical, what happens to those of us who feel better after being filled with the Spirit, but months later become depressed again?)
This attitude of prejudice, based on limited, erroneous information, is also extended within the church to unwed mothers, those with developmental disorders, alchoholics, drug addicts, schizophrenics, and on and on. This is not God’s vision for the church, and those of us who have experienced marginalization must pray for eyes and hearts to be opened to this.
“This attitude of prejudice, based on limited, erroneous information, is also extended within the church to unwed mothers, those with developmental disorders, alchoholics, drug addicts, schizophrenics, and on and on. This is not God’s vision for the church, and those of us who have experienced marginalization must pray for eyes and hearts to be opened to this.”
I definitely see what you’re saying and I appreciate that. In fact, a situation occurred in my own parish, in which an individual who had some problems (Aspergers maybe? But I’m no doctor) was basically asked to take a hike. To me, the dude was a pain in the neck, but I really wished that some other way could’ve been tried so he could stay. Some basic reasoning with the person so they behave more appropriately. To me, he probably needed his church more than any of us. I was really disappointed.
Derek (#14), I’m no expert on biology, but accept the possibility that someone can be born with a homosexual orientation. I also believe acting upon that orientation is sinful. I may not like it either, but when someone points out the sinful inclinations that I have struggled with as long as I remember, I know they are speaking truth. When I act on those tendencies (as I too often do) I am sinning. The bottom line is that I believe in original sin, as orthodox Christians always have. Christianity and the Bible makes absolutely no sense to me otherwise.
I have often wondered why God would allow some of us to be in the difficult position of being gay (however one defines that), of being born a person of colour in a overwhelmingly white population, of having a physical or mental disability or illness, of having a sensitivity to alcohol, or having any of a million other things that cause misunderstanding and intense friction between ourselves and others.
But then I remember that Christ himself came to earth to experience temptation, marginalization, and hatred. He understands us fully, our thoughts, our hopes and dreams, our sins, our regressions into past patterns of behaviour, our frustrations, our loneliness. And as we are called to be His hands and feet here on earth, how else would WE have some measure of understanding of the struggles another person is experiencing, without that personal experience of pain and redemption?
#17 Warren
I hear what you’re saying, but that doesn’t really address what I was getting at. My point was that orthodox Christians have treated homosexuality as a mental illness (and have added that it’s the product of schizophrenia, bi-polar disease etc). It has nothing to do with any of that.
#18 Natacha
That’s precisely why I am always very careful how I approach others with difficulties i.e. alcoholism, drug addiction. Frankly, the idea of ever having that problem myself frightens me. I certainly couldn’t discredit them when I haven’t been in their shoes.
2 joseph,
I suppose in one sense the reference of our General Synod to the creeds as “core doctrine” might prove a beneficial thing in the long run…
One might be tempted to think so. I can’t help suspecting, though, that this is merely lip-service. I think the clericus anecdote represents the position of the majority of priests in the ACoC so, regardless of declarations at synod, the church is largely being led by those who believe just about anything – except the truth.
Derek (#17), I don’t know what circles you hang out in, but most Christians I know, and have known over the course of my life, view homosexual activity as a sin and no more a “mental illness” than other sins such as greed, anger, lust, envy, etc. (I believe this has also been the “orthodox” position of the church over the centuries). Where the difference arises, in my opinion, is that those most prone to greed, anger, lust, envy, etc., don’t wage a concerted and well-organized campaign to persuade everyone else, including young children, that they are virtues (or denounce those who don’t agree with them). In very simplistic terms, the options are sin, illness or virtue. You obviously reject the first two, and choose the latter.
Warren #22
“I don’t know what circles you hang out in” — It’s right here on this blog. I’ve read many posts where the authors have called homosexuality a mental illness. To be very specific, have a quick glance through the “blog rules” section. This is the only venue where I’ve heard people call it a mental illness.
Homosexuality is different than the vices you mention — because homosexuality is an orientation that one is born with. You aren’t born a theif or a murderer.
And I’m not so sure anyone is calling it a virtue. The point of homosexuals ‘waging a campaign’ is for acceptance. I spent the first 25 years of my life in the closet until I came out last September. It was the smartest thing I ever did. You no doubt would suggest otherwise — but I freed myself from a life of torment. The weight that was lifted from my shoulders the moment I accepted it from myself was enormous. Anyone who has a problem with that is someone I don’t need to know.
Derek (#23), neither of us can produce the statistics, but I am confident that most sincere followers of Christ (and I don’t believe that a lot of the people who call themselves Christians fall into this category) don’t believe that homosexuality is just another illness (although they may be willing to accept it as such if proven by science).
Have you raised children from birth? If you have, you know that murderous and thieving tendencies evidence themselves in their black little hearts at an incredibly young age (weeks or months). Check out the 10 commandments (as a starting point) for a more complete list of sins than stealing and murder. I’m sure that the most saintly person who ever lived was not free from idolatry and pride.
My daughter just graduated from teacher’s college. I have some insight into the “homosexual agenda” in terms of indoctrinating our children.
“neither of us can produce the statistics, but I am confident that most sincere followers of Christ (and I don’t believe that a lot of the people who call themselves Christians fall into this category) don’t believe that homosexuality is just another illness”
That doesn’t support your position. But we can move on to your other points.
If you’d like to tell me about the “homosexual agenda” I’m willing to listen to it.
Is it that they’re telling kids that it’s okay? That they’re educating kids on the topic? If so, they ought to. Adolescent kids have enough confusion in puberty without adding their sexuality to the mix. I wish I’d had such support as a teenager.
I do not know if you are part of the group calling itself “Integrity” but I quote my comments. There is no credible scientific or medical evidence to support the suggestion that people are born with homosexual tendencies and I consider any such argument to be without foundation. Those involved with pedophelia are trying to make the same claim. Regardless such activity is clearly contrary to Scripture:-
Calling themselves “Integrity” is a gross misuse of the word. Their sole aim is to convince members of the church that we are practising discrimination and they have no intention of listening to any other statement. God’s word is quite clear on this issue and we are definitely not called to fall in line with society. We do not practise discrimination. In fact we welcome all as we are all sinners and are called to repentance. We welcome thieves, adulterers, pedophilias, homosexuals and those involved in such activity — all who seek redemption through the blood of Christ.
This does not mean that we approve of ANY sin and it is clear from God’s word that you cannot “bless” any sin. There is a world of difference between denying attendance and/or membership in the church because of a sinful lifestyle and welcoming sinners seeking redemption. It is the latter to which we have been called. I would suggest to those who believe otherwise that they read the invitation given at the Communion service – “Ye that do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbours, and intend to lead the new life, following the commandments of God . . “(italics mine). That is not a statement of exclusion but an invitation to ALL.
We do not bless adultery or pedophilia – because both are contrary to the Word. So is homosexual conduct whether monogamous or otherwise. The really damaging aspect to this thinking is making same-sex couples believe their union is blessed. The church does indeed welcome all sinners, including homosexuals; but that does not mean the church endorses such activity.
We are all saved by grace and we are called to repent; by claiming to bless any sinful activity, a church clearly misleads its members.
The time has long since passed when clergy at all levels to realize God’s word is not subject to their approval or to the majority vote at any synod. In fact Scripture warns of the broad path as opposed to the narrow way.
[26]
Frank,
If you were any more eloquent, I’d be concerned that “Integrity” would be picketing at your front door.
Peace,
Jim
28 Frank
No, I don’t belong to Integrity — but I think I’ll go join right now. Thanks for the great idea, Frank
Derek (#25), you may hear me, but you won’t listen. You haven’t listened to anyone on this blog who has answered you from the Bible. For that I bear you no ill will. You are just like most people in our society who see Christianity and the teaching of Jesus Christ (all of His teaching, not just the “convenient” parts) as foolishness. Without the inner working of the Holy Spirit, the gospel will always be foolishness.
Derek,
I’ve been reading the litany of your posts and am puzzled. I’m trying to understand why you keep posting here.
It’s obvious that you have little in common with orthodox Christianity and although there have been many exchanges, there has been little dialogue.
Is there something that we here can do for you? If so, please ask.
Peace,
Jim