Letters from the ACA protesting Bp. Gene Robinson’s preaching at St. James’ Cathedral
Feb 9th, 2010 by David
From here:
Introductory letter preceding letter to Toronto Bishops:
Dear friends,
The invitation to Bp. Robinson to preach at St. James’ Cathedral called, we believe, for a response.
The following letter was sent to the five members of the College of Bishops of the Diocese of Toronto and the Dean of the Cathedral.
As you see, it protests the invitation of Bp. Gene Robinson to preach at St. James’ Cathedral, Diocese of Toronto.
We need to protest such provocative acitons, and hope you will be encouraged to “stand firm” in the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I hope you are encouraged about the passing of the Anglican Covenant. Please pray for the Anglican Communion Alliance presence at General Synod in June.
Blessings,
The Rev. Dr. Murray Henderson
Vice-Chair, Anglican Communion Alliance.To the Bishops of Toronto and Dean of the Cathedral,
We are writing to protest the invitation extended to Gene Robinson to preach at the Cathedral on January 10, 2010, and the highlighting of his sermon on the Diocesan website
The short public notice provided for this occasion gives the impression that this was done in order to avoid public protest.
While we support freedom of speech in this matter, and an invitation to one like Mr. Robinson for a lecture at the Cathedral, the invitation to preach is of a different kind. Preaching is under authority of the Bishop. It is a place where the Gospel is proclaimed. By inviting him to preach at the Cathedral, the Cathedral and Bishop commend what he commends.
Gene Robinson:
• is at the very centre of the debate dividing the communion and the diocese;
• his consecration is not recognized around the communion and by many in this diocese, including the signators of this letter;
• this action at this time is a deliberately provocative and hostile act. It gives official sanction to the consecration of a bishop in a same sex relationship — the very question that is still at issue in this diocese.
The repeated public scorning of the church’s formal teaching does more than the Cathedral or College of Bishops can imagine to undermine the respect and loyalty of its conservative members.
Sincerely,
Dean Mercer
Murray Henderson
Catherine Sider-Hamilton
et. al.
The bishop’s of Toronto, or Dean of the Cathedral are free to invite who they wish to speak at the Cathedral. Desmond Tutu has spoken there, as have numerous Archbishop’s of Canterbury. It is customary for the seat of the bishop to invite from time to time, promiment individuals from across the country and the communion.
No apology is necessary in response to Father Henderson. The good father errs in saying that the lead time was minimal so as to avoid confrontation. In fact, the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson’s attendance was announced a full six weeks before the event.
I believe that Bishop Robinson’s sermon was a blessing. We are not called to be a quaint church, as he entoned. If we are not engaged we are not church. To be active invites the opportunity for Christ to inspire our work.
I appreciate that Gene Robinson is a potential lightening rod of controversy. But that does nothing to convince me that he ought not be their. Where would you expect him to preach? St. Bride’s? St. Paul’s? Little Trinity? For the many of admirers that Gene Robinson has, the Cathedral Church of St. James is a safe place to be in the company of friends. Afterall, a good portion of the Cathedral members are of his orientation. Why should they not hear his words of encouragement?
#1: I weep at your final words “Why should they not hear his words of encouragement?”
Can you not see the harm of inviting into a Christian Church a teacher who boldly encourages –by word and deed– rebellion against God? Do you have no compassion at all for the brethren at St. James’, most especially those who belong to Christ and are struggling with same-sex attraction?
After reading the comments of Eph 3:20 I had to sign off for fear blowing my stack . Unbelieveable !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Jesus needs disciples, not admirers”, says Bishop Robinson
Yep! and they must be obedient.
“If we are not engaged we are not church.” says Eph
Yep! and she must be obedient.
Irena,
Homosexuality is NOT a disease. You are born that way. You cannot be cured. To suggest otherwise is contemptuous. You do God’s children a tremendous disservice when you treat them like they have an affliction. They are not lepers.
# 5: We are all born sinners. It’s a serious affliction which required the death of God’s beloved Son to cure.
“Afterall, a good portion of the Cathedral members are of his orientation. Why should they not hear his words of encouragement?”
Sexual orientation is a vain thing invented by man for man. Sex between a man and a woman between themselves alone, following the clear guidance of the creator, is a Holy participation in the unfolding of His creation. Anything and I mean ANYTHING that goes beyond that, such as the commonly called “human sexuality” is disobedient, sinful, unholy, and anathema. To encourage this is outrageous.
I hope this answers your question - in any case I will be praying for you.
I appreciate your prayers, but I suspect they are offered with cynicism.
Why are you so bent out of shape over homosexuality? The ACC lifted its ban on contraceptives in 1930. It now allows the remarriage of divorced people. Anglicans are not propigating in big numbers - in fact they have among the lowest birth rates among Christians. Anglicans are contracepting themselves into oblivion. If hetersexuals aren’t bothering to have kids by should it bother you that homosexuals don’t either. Why make this you test?
…and that is a prime illustration of where compromise with secular morality leads.
I appreciate Eph 3:20 commenting here as he clearly illustrates why I hold the view that the ACoC is beyond the point of reform and that, at the end of the day, those who truly believe that the Bible is God’s Word and who wish to obediently follow the Jesus of the Bible, have no alternative but to “come out from among them.” As I have said before, those with children should be among the first to flee. Note to self: contend with those who hunger after God, not those with itching ears (2 Tim 4:3).
I do believe that the bible is the word of God. I also believethat the writers of scripture did not have the benefit of modern psychology and medicine when it came to understanding homosexuality. I profoundly believe that homosexual people are, like heterosexuals, created in the image of God and are the way they are because that is the way God made them.
What I don’t undersand is why this is the”last straw” issue for you? What is it about the church today that makes you say enough is enough when you were able to conpromise before? The church bent on contraception - you stayed; allowed women’s ordination - you stayed; changed the prayer book (heaven forbid) - you stayed; allowed no fault divorce - you stayed. I mean on any one of these issues you could have found a valid theological or scriptural reason to break with the ACoC - but you didn’t. So why homosexuality?
Is being anti-gay going to be the big common denominator that unites members of the network? And how long before something comes along that members of the ACiNA despute over and aren’t able to resolve and someone or some group splinters off?
Why wouldn’t you simply find comfort in the arms of Rome - oh I forgot, you split from them too.
My point here is to illustrate just where does it end? If being anti-gay is today’s litmus test, what will be the test in five years? If being one, holy, catholic and apostolic are the marks of your church, they why did the Anglican church split from Rome 500 years ago?
Would life be a whole lot simpler and cleaner if you deferred all matters related to faith and morals to one final arbiter instead of perpetually fighting over eveything at Synod (uniquely Anglican though it is).
And know I find that some Anglican churches actually want to bring back the Latin Mass, the rosary, monstrances, holy water, statues, benediction and Marian parades. Forgive me for asking but aren’t these things usually idenitied with Rome?
I’m perplexed!
“If being one, holy, catholic and apostolic are the marks of your church, they why did the Anglican church split from Rome 500 years ago?”
In a word, politics. Henry VIII had grounds for an annulment of his marriage to Katherine of Aragon, and there was precedent. However, the papacy at the time was in Avignon, which was controlled by Katherine of Aragon’s brother, who was not about to allow Henry to cast off his sister. The Continental reformation was about theology, the English reformation was not.
Which is why Henry and his successors ransacked and looted church properties and took them as their own, torched the monasteries, and killed off the clergy who would not swear an oath to the monarch. Fine way to start a faith community.
“Is being anti-gay going to be the big common denominator that unites members of the network?”
Not at all. Members of the network are not, in my observation, anti-gay - this dispute has nothing whatever to do with sex, and everything to do with the authority of Scripture.
There is no Scriptural condemnation of contraception: the Church’s opposition was largely based on tradition. While the Pastorals are strongly against women’s leadership, Paul appears to support it. Since there is debate in Scripture, similar to that between Paul and James on the place of works in salvation, there is room for differing views on this subject. That does not apply to homosexual acts, which are roundly and repeatedly condemned. Scripture does not have anything to say in their favour.
I can only speak for myself, but if Scripture described eating meat on a Friday as morally repugnant (which is what the Hebrew word usually translated “abomination” means), and a group of revisionists came along and said that the ancients didn’t really understand about nutrition, so we can safely disregard their views, I would oppose them as strongly as I oppose the same sex blessers, and for the same reasons.
It is frequently not true that the ancients did not really understand things the way we do: almost every alleged modern discovery can be found, at least in embryonic form, in either Plato or Aristotle.
#11 Eph. 3:20: “I do believe that the bible is the word of God. I also believethat the writers of scripture did not have the benefit of modern psychology and medicine when it came to understanding homosexuality.”
How can you say that the Bible is the Word of God (capitals mine) and then, in the next breath, suggest that its author needs to be corrected by what you suggest to be the superior findings of modern psychology and medicine? Can you not see how contradictory your statements are?
I’m more perplexed than you are!
Eph 3:20 [#13], if you already knew the answer, why ask the question?
I did make a few other observations, but they are queued for moderation, so they should appear in the morning (and possibly out of sequence).
Irena,
How can you possibly find it difficult for me to rationalize scripture on the matter of homosexuality?
The Anglican church has been able to agrue away abortion and divorce quite handsomely. Why take exception to my position?
Also, scripture long tolerated a number of practices that we now find anathema such as plural marriage and slavery. Let’s bring ‘em back why don’t we.
I strongly oppose abortion, as do most folk I know.
Scripture does not “tolerate” slavery. The majority of the population of Rome was in some sort of bonded servitude, and slaves were treated like, well, slaves. Paul taught that owners were to treat their Christian slaves like family, which was a calling to an enormous, radical change in attitude, such an attitude change presumeably would have extended to all the slaves a Christian owned. (See references to Onisimus)
There is no plural marriage in the NT, and have you noticed that all the plural marriages in the OT were troubled?
The Anglican Church of Canada is not supposed to have no fault divorce. There are interviews and counselling that priests are supposed to do before they consent to remarry a divorced person; furthermore, there are scriptural grounds for divorce.
Gordon, I really don’t know why your comment was held for moderation, there was nothing in your comment that should have triggered it. I suppose the computer hiccoughed.
One of the most outrageous statements made by Eph 3:20 is that homosexuals “are the way they are because that is the way God made them” (post 11). I’m surprised that no one has objected to it! There is absolutly no proof of this statement and if there were, there would be banner headlines to proclaim it. Simply, we are all sinners and this is a sin also. To try to explain it away in such a cavalier manner is like trying to explain away a murder or rape because someone had a deprived childhood — sin is a matter of choice. Forgiveness is a gift of God.
As to why this is a litmus test, it is not the fact of homosexuality it is the blatant disregard of God’s Holy Word. And that is why Gene Robinson is the proverbial lightening rod.
#5 Eph3;20:
Homosexuality is NOT a disease. You are born that way. You cannot be cured. To suggest otherwise is contemptuous. You do God’s children a tremendous disservice when you treat them like they have an affliction. They are not lepers.
(1) You are born that way: Oh really, is that so? Are all born that way? Not a chance. My daughter claims to be a lesbian…. Was she born that way,,,,,no, she was not….she is a rebel and this her way of rebelling. No other explanation. She does not need to be cured, she justs needs to wake up out of her rebellious state.
(2) You cannot be cured: There are many in this world who have been and will/would attest to such but unfortunately their testimony falls on the ears of the deaf like yourself Eph3:20.
To suggest that we are treating them like lepers is contemptuous, not the reverse. I love my daughter and I certainly do not hate those in the GLBT community…I just don’t agree with them and their inerrant philosophy. God loves them, absolutely, however, His word speaks against the direction they have gone.
If they wish to be the way they are, then so be it BUT don’t bring it into God’s House and try to teach Christians against His Word.
Really? You are conviently ignoring the existence of:
Peter Ould
Don Alcock
Mario Bergner
André Rocheleau
Here is a link to some other stories.
Some people were healed, some continue to struggle, and are leading godly single lives. I just finished reading a book by John Ortberg called The Me I Want to Be, and he makes a very good point about struggle and suffering. Our biggest spiritual growth often happens when we are suffering (I know that this has been true in my life). God allows it to refine us and grow us into the people he wants us to be. The way we respond to life’s challenges shapes our character. It is not loving to tell someone that wrong is right. It deprives them of the opportunity to learn and grow. I am thankful that in my times of suffering, I had people in my life who weren’t afraid to guide me onto the right paths.
When my wife and I arrived home last night from the Bible institute where we’ve been taking classes, it was a jarring contrast to read Eph 3:20’s comments (maybe I shouldn’t have turned on the computer). The staff and most of the other students at the Bible Institute are of a conservative evangelical bent - the sort of people I’ve been around much of my life (some of you would likely see them as very conservative). My spiritual journey over the past few years, however, has expanded my horizons and I am much less dogmatic in many of my beliefs. My Anglican experience was a significant factor in that change. That said, even though my view on things such as eschatology, ecclesiology, the sacraments, etc., differ substantially from the others at the Bible Institute, I still feel a strong kinship with them. They are my brothers and sisters in Christ, and I know we agree on the essentials. They are faithful servants of the Lord Jesus Christ.
On Sunday (and other times during the week), I hang out with my Presbyterian brothers and sisters (although I suspect that at least half of the 1400 people who attend my church come from backgrounds other than Presbyterian). My theology is more closely aligned with theirs, but I don’t completely agree with orthodox Presbyterian doctrine either. Regardless, they also are my brothers and sisters in Christ and I love them dearly. The fellowship we share is true. This blog is yet another community. I don’t know why people here tolerate me, and some of the things I say doubtlessly seem completely out of left field, but I know that, at the core, I am in agreement with most people who comment here. I would feel comfortable in opening God’s Word and “reasoning together” you, praying with you, and worshipping with you. Paul was right on the money when he spoke about the body being made up of many parts. I’m a very insignificant part, but I’m honoured to be included.
The Christian family I’m part of is very diverse, but it is family. Occasionally, however, someone appears in the house who doesn’t fit in. It’s like there is a blowup doll sitting on a chair in the corner with a sign hung around its neck that says, “I’m your great uncle Harry and I’ve dropped by for a visit.” The doll is wearing the kind of clothes that one might expect a family member to wear, but it has no life. It causes frustration because it gets in the way, but it doesn’t share in the vitality – the joys and sorrows – of the family. Like Pinocchio, there is hope that it can become truly alive, but, unlike Pinocchio, it doesn’t seem to have any desire to do so.
As you can tell, my ability as a metaphorical or analogical writer is suspect, so, although I am tempted to do so, I will not extend my metaphor.
Homosexuality is not a disease (you can’t catch it). I am willing to concede that there are likely gene sequences that make a person more prone to becoming homosexual, just as there are gene sequences that make a person more prone to addictive behavior (drugs, alcohol, work etc). Many of us deal day to day with issues caused by our DNA, we are flawed creatures, we are not the way God wants or intended us to be. The argument that the writers of scripture didn’t have the medical or psychological understanding that we have today might hold water, if this were strictly a medical or psychological issue. The problem is this is also a spiritual issue of which they were eminently qualified to speak about.
In an earlier post you mentioned abortion, was that an error, did you in fact mean to reference contraception?
You might find the Episcopal Diocese of San Diego’s Holiness in Relationships Report interesting. http://www.edsd.org/pages/communication/holiness-in-relationships.htm
It represents a report agreed on by people of as divergent views as represented on this thread and others such as the Perry document. It will give you some breadth of understanding on several points of view. While it is clear that they come from different places, they seem willing to do the work of journeying together
Ok, page seven and the argument falls apart already:
David was not “with” Jonathan - there is nothing in scripture to even suggest it. People can love other people without having sexual relations with them.
A report can only be understood in the context of the whole. The San Diego report will not be helpful if one picks and chooses things that one might disagree with. To me the strength of the report is the fact that people of different opinions did the hard work of journeying together through the preparation of the work and came up with a package that represents the breadth of opinion of those working together. There are many things that would bring agreement or disagreement from various places.
#8 Eph 3:20
“I appreciate your prayers, but I suspect they are offered with cynicism.” let me assure you of two things I don’t know how to pray cynically. Secondly if you suspect that I am lying, Take a look into Acts regarding Annanais and Sephira, I fear lying.
Why are you so bent out of shape over homosexuality?
I am no more bent out of shape about homosexuality than I am about any other sin. I am saddened, and hurt that unfortunate souls of the GBLT community are being led down the garden path by elements of the Anglican Communion. In doing so my ACoC is also leading many of her members down that same path.
For your information Eph, I have never met a homosexual that I didn’t find easy to love (as opposed to some Christian brothers and sisters) and relationship with them was a joyous affair even though I could not compromise my faith. Perhaps this is why I am passionately “bent out of shape” at those elements of my Communion who are “Caught in the snare” of the prince of this world and as a result have abandoned the truth that is the Lord Jesus Christ.
I don’t know the origins of Homosexuality but this I do know;
“I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.”
First of all, as has already been mentioned, this has not been proven at all. Secondly, so what. Every male on this planet has been born with a polygamous orientation, but that does not excuse adultery. Its not about orientation; it’s about actions.
Bp Robinson once declared (on a video once posted on Standfirm but now deleted) that he did not believe in a god who would have him deny who he was. He obviously didn’t remember that is exactly what Jesus told anyone who would follow him to do. (Mt 16:24; Mk 8:34; Lk 9:23)
BTW, if anyone heard Bp Robinson’s sermon in question, I thought it was quite unremarkable, as I commented Here… There you will find a link to the cathedral where you can listen to the sermon for yourself.
I note that while there are references in scripture to gay men, there is no reference to lesbian women. I guess there is no problem with a woman laying with another woman as she whould a man?
But what if it is not in your nature to lay with someone of the opposite sex? You would be untrue to your nature if you were to do so.
Read Romans chapter 1.
#30 We are supposed to be untrue to the sinfull parts of our natures. Our natures are fallen, remember.
30Eph 3:20
Here comes another “trol”, just like ‘ol randy from Newfoundland. You guys must enjoy fishing.
When are the admins going to do something about you, I wonder?
Eph3:20
You are definitely a ‘trol’. Here, in black and white is a portion of Romans, Chapter 1 for your eyes to consume. Hopefully you will be able to understand it.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
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.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Charity, please, Gerry, and do please stop trying to manipulate the mods. It isn’t going to work.
Hi Kate:
If I was trying to manipulate, I wouldn’t be so open with my statements.
I am only expressing my views, which is exactly what Eph3:20 is doing also, the only difference is that I am giving back to him/her, exactly what he/she is giving to this blog.
Yes, Gerry, but we are supposed to turn the other cheek, remember? Put downs like “hopefully you can understand it” are just uncalled for, no matter what the provocation.
Same-sex relationship is a hot topic in the Anglican Communion. The majority of the people in over 37,000 Christian denominations in the world is probably against same-sex blessings. People within so many different denominations really do not get along with one another.
Dear Eph 3:20 -
I have had my wrists slapped by our moderator, Kate for having made the following statement: Hopefully you will be able to understand it. and she was so correct. I will rephrase the statement to read: >i>I’m sure that after you read the following Scripture, it will help you to better understand God’s Word
Kate: You said that I was wrong to say what I said “no matter what the provocation”. I have difficulty with this Kate, it may sit well with most, to allow, no matter what the provocation, “trols” or what appear to be “trols” to say whatever they wish and to have their way…. It doesn’t sit well with me and I will tell them so.
If I cannot be allowed to be bold enough to stand up for the Gospel of Jesus Christ on this blog, then perhaps I will be better off going to some other blog that will be more forthright in defence of the Gospel.
Of course you can stand up for the gospel. Please do it with gentleness and humility.
Gerry, I have responded to you in one of the posts above, please read.
#39 is uncalled for, but if you notice your comment still stands, as does Eph 3:20’s.
Let’s drop this now, please.
Gentleness and humility are wonderful saintly qualities, Jesus overturned tables and threw the money changers out of the Temple. It was necessary. He also called a spade a spade, whitened sepulchers, you hypocrites etc. No simpering there.
Gentleness, humility,and meekness do not equal simpering. I’d like to quote something my priest wrote: (the whole thing is here:
http://www.stalban.ca/documents/listening_to_jesus/Quiet_Time_W1.pdf
meek–adjective, -er, -est.
1. humbly patient or docile, as under provocation from others.
2. overly submissive or compliant; spiritless; tame.
3. Obsolete. gentle; kind.
That’s not a biblical definition. Not for the first time I wish I knew Greek. Now, please read comment 41 and let’s drop this now, please.
I should elaborate. I know that Fr. George did research in the commentaries before he wrote that, so I am pretty confident that his definition is closer to what the bible means than Webster’s.
It is quite possible to call a spade a spade in a manner which is polite and charitable. Not only is it possible, on this blog it is required.
Re: #’s 40,42,43,44,45,46 all concerning the exchange between Sandra and Kate, this exchange concerning simpering, and this banter about definitions.
Is this not an exchange that totally brings into account The Apostle Paul’s words in Galations 1:8-9
but even if we or an angel should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9. As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
In my comments prior to #40 and Sandra’s standing up for what I have said, I have been constantly exhorted to be charitable and yet, here in Paul’s own writings, those writings that are God’s Word, we are being told explicitly how to deal with those who go against God’s Word in false teaching and false doctrine.
My question is this — How can it be so? How can we look at this in two seperate ways?
Over the coarse of the last few threads, I have seen Randy; Eph3:20; Malcolm and others constantly going against God’s Word, attempting to teach false doctrine OR standing up for it (one is as bad as the other) and yet little or very little done as far as telling them how it really is and when I have done that (yes, sometimes in not such a gentle or meek way as some feel I should be, I am the one that is “told”!!
I read a wonderful Devotional this morning, one which again speaks to the subject with authority.
Tolerance. a prized virtue today. The ability to be understanding of those with whom you differ is a sign of sophistication. Jesus, too, was a champion of tolerance.
Tolerant of the disciples when they doubted.
Tolerant of thethe crowds when the misunderstood.
Tolerant of us when we fall.
BUT there is one area where Jesus was intolerant. There was one area where he wasunindulgent and dogmatic….
As far as he was concerned, when it comes to salvation, there aren’t several roads…. there is only one road…There aren’t several paths… there is only on path. and that path is Jesus himself.
That is why it is so hard for people to believe in Jesus. It’s much easier to consider him one of several options rather than the option. But such a philosophy is no option.
From “A Gentle Thunder” by Max Lucado
Hopefully some of this will make some sense. It should! Most of it is either from God’s Word or from the writings of an esteemed Christian Writer. For a change you are not reading just one of my little “rants”. God Bless, Gerry
Gerry, you have proved that you are not willing to follow the blog rules, which are entirely consistent with the bible. Note, for example, James’ instructions to us:
You will be in comment moderation for a least a week. This means that a mod will have to read your posts before they appear, and edit them if necessary.
dixi
Sandra #49:
moi aussi