Anglican Network in Canada NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 1 April 2010
Moncton, NB – The province of New Brunswick will see its first Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC) church when Christ the Redeemer Anglican Church holds its inaugural service in Moncton on Easter Sunday, April 4. This is also the first ANiC church in the Maritime provinces.
“We are delighted to welcome Christ the Redeemer Church into our growing family of Anglican Network in Canada parishes,” said the Right Reverend Charlie Masters, ANiC’s national director and suffragan bishop for Eastern Canada. “We are excited about working with this enthusiastic congregation as they minister in New Brunswick.”
The congregation will meet each Sunday at 10:30am in the Moncton Wesleyan Church building (2nd floor, Family Centre room), 945 St George Blvd, Moncton.
“It is very exciting to be part of this Gospel movement knowing that we are not only a member of the Gospel-centred Anglican Church in North America, but also in communion with the vast majority of active Anglicans worldwide,” said the Rev Don Hamilton, pastor of Christ the Redeemer Anglican Church.
In the coming weeks, Christ the Redeemer Anglican Church plans to open satellite churches in three other New Brunswick communities. Although details are still being worked out, satellite churches are expected to be established in or near: Saint John, Sussex and Miramichi.
The Anglican Network in Canada now numbers 36 parishes and eight forming congregations in North America – primarily in Canada – with more than 3500 in church on an average Sunday. Members of the Anglican Network in Canada are committed to remaining faithful to Holy Scripture and established Anglican doctrine and to ensuring that orthodox Canadian Anglicans are able to remain in full fellowship with their Anglican brothers and sisters outside North America.
ANiC is under the Episcopal authority of Bishop Donald Harvey and is one of 28 dioceses in the Anglican Church in North America which unites 100,000 faithful Anglicans in the over 800 churches across this continent. ANiC is also affiliated with South America’s Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, one of the 38 Anglican Churches in the worldwide Anglican Communion.
The Anglican Church in North America has been growing at a rate of three churches per week since its inception and has set itself the goal of planting 1000 new churches within five years – primarily through reaching unchurched North Americans with the life-transforming good news of Jesus Christ.
Welcome to Christ the Redeemer Anglican Church. This is indeed good news from New Brunswick. Maybe some in Nova Scotia will be inclined to make the move soon….
Blessings to you all from St. John’s Newfoundland, St. Stephen the Martyr ANiC Church welcomes you.
I wish ANIC could have this empty church building in Newfoundland:
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/holy-post/archive/2010/04/01/mystery-hangs-over-toppled-church-steeple.aspx
What a heinous act of vandalism. I have seen this historic church and it is beautiful, it provides a focal point for the very lovely seaside town in which it stands and it has been painted by many a local artist. But the Anglican diocese, typically, is interested only in tearing it down. They care nothing for history or community. A sad commentary on the modern ACoC.
It seems like a great opportunity to rejoice and celebrate. However, there is more truth than what is being shared.
This new plant, is being led by someone who just retired (hardly taking a stand when your pension is secure). And I happen to have been involved with discussions on developing ANiC parishes in the provinces. Several evangelical clergy in the diocese have requested Bishop Masters and ANiC not to force their way into the province as they are trying to hold strong and continue in the Gospel mission.
However, Masters said that it mattered not to him what efforts were being made by ACC clergy and they are coming away.
The action of planting ANiC churches in NB will not further the Gospel, as mentioned in the Anglican1000 mandate, it will literally cause division in the body and quarrels among believers.
Two other parishes are being planned, one by a retired clergy and one by a lay-person – both in areas with strong evangelical parishes and clergy.
Are we really furthering the Great Commission or simply trying to flip the bird at the ACC?
This is a VERY sad day. My respect for Charlie has greatly decreased.
Thom,
force? I have no idea what your idea of “force” is, but I doubt that Bp. Charlie came charging in with armed storm-troopers.
That sounds so uncharacteristic of Bp. Charlie, I find it very difficult to believe; care to back it up with some evidence?
And while I’m at it, from the blog rules: “pointlessly negative sniping or ad-hominems will probably be deleted”. Please make sure that any further comments don’t fall into that category if you want them to remain intact.
There certainly was no forcing involved. Bishop Charlie is a godly man. We asked him for episcopal oversight and he very graciously consented. Enough said about that!
Are we trying to flip the bird at the ACoC? Hardly. I love the Anglican Church. I have been a member all of my life and she has taught me well. But there are deep theological divisions and quite simply I am tired of the effort it takes to try to fight battles which we wouldn’t even be having if people still believed in the 39 articles of religion. I have been a member of Anglican Essentials for years but have seen little fruit. However, I applaud those of you who choose to stay the course in the ACoC and work from within to bring about a turn around. My prayers are with you.
It is because I care about furthering the Great Commission that I have chosen to leave the ACoC and join the Anglican Network. I am grateful that I can still remain Anglican, yet be unencumbered by internal battles. I only hope that grace will be offered to all by all.
THOM:
Blessings to you…. It’s Easter and we are supposed to be Christ Like…….
Bearing such in mind, I cannot make the statements I would like to too you, however, one word can describe…… uninformed! On your behalf.
So the Rector in NB is retired, so what? So was Bishop Harvey..Does that make him less desirable as our Bishop? Bishop Charlie wasn’t retired….. less desirable, naw….better….naw… just two or three men who believe in The Holy Scriptures, The Faith once delivered and the Holiness of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
This will not split a church THOM, it just seperates the wheat from the chafe.
Anyone who contributes to a registered pension for more than two years has a secure pension. This is a complete red herring and seems to be an uncharitable attempt to besmirch the motives of the lead church planter.
In #3 Thom said:
I know I tend toward cynicism, but evangelical and ACoC clergy sounds a lot like an oxymoron to me.
Warren says, “I know I tend toward cynicism, but evangelical and ACoC clergy sounds a lot like an oxymoron to me”.
I belong to a church that has just left the ACoC to plant a new ANiC church in BC. Frankly however it is comments like this that has made it difficult for me to to join ANiC for a long time now. I know many godly evangelical pastors in the ACoC that are fighting tenaciously to promote the truth of the gospel within the ACoC. I suggest that you read Murray Henderson’s eloquent letter from the federation portion of this site.
http://www.anglicanfederation.ca/hope_for_an_erring_church_0709.htm
He closes the letter by quoting Radner in saying that it is the evangelical thing to do.
Now as a member of ANiC I will always hold those that have chosen to stay orthodox within the ACoC and argue for that orthodoxy in the very highest esteem. They know full well that it will be resolved in God’s time and not ours, It is the long, hard and sometimes lonely road that they have chosen and they don’t deserve to be treated in such a condescending manner.
Bless you Greg in your decision and for not putting all of us in the same category.
The reality in NB is that there a significant of evangelical leaders promoting the Gospel.
The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. We seem to be quick to forget – we are all part of the same body. In the Lord’s sight, we are one – there is no difference between ACoC and ANiC. A lot of money and energy have been spent on legal issues over sexuality and debates on doctrine. Brothers and Sisters, there is far too much that needs to be done to further the Kingdom here on earth. Imagine the example we could be setting for the unbelievers if we stopped throwing stones at one another and began feeding the hungry, clothing the naked.
Greg (#9), I read the letter and did not find it compelling. I think the analogies are flawed, the historical analysis is biased, and no mention is made of biblical injunctions against false prophets and false doctrine (or the need for church discipline). You may get a sympathetic hearing from “Stuck in Toronto”, but I’m not a unity-at-all-costs kind of guy. I also doubt that I would define terms like orthodox and evangelical in the same way as Rev. Henderson. I would be curious to know your definition of evangelical. Maybe you want to provide a definition too, Thom?
Don’t let my rantings and ravings influence you about the ANiC, though. Let God’s Word be your guide. Nothing I say alters God’s truth. Although I was part of a parish for a time that now belongs to the ANiC, and I may have opportunity to sample Anglicanism again in the future, right now I’m just an outsider. In my vanity, I sometimes fancy that it lets me see the forest a little more clearly.
Am I reading the comments on this thread correctly? Is the main thrust of these comments actually a debate as to whether or not ANIC should establish new parishes in parts of the country where there happens to be some orthodox ACoC pastors and congregations? What biblically faithful Christian could possibly argue that ANIC shouldn’t plant new parishes because there might be TOO MANY Christian churches preaching the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? Come on folks. Get a grip.
Like Warren, I too have read Rev. Henderson’s piece and have found it to be unconvincing. He seems to me to have confused “unity of the Church” with “unity of denominational institutions”.
I rejoice in the courage of Rev. Don Hamilton and his parish. I am sure that they have prayerfully considered this move and are now free to reach out. Bishop Charlie Masters is a man of God. I am sure that he was clear in the way God was directing him. Much like Peter preaching on the steps of the temple, we must be bold.
There is a place for both, those of us who cannot see staying in a church (ACoC) that has abandoned orthodoxy and those who are led to stay within the ACoC and to work on the inside.
It is important however that we bless each other rather than decide who is right.
It would be nice to see an ANiC in Fredericton.
Well….it’s important that we not bicker about it, anyway.
Church Planer (Planter?), I agree with Kate. On some things, one should not shy away from making a decision. Dithering on questions of right and wrong seems to be a particular weakness of Anglicanism. Being too quick to make such decisions is a weakness of other denominations.
Warren # 11, you said “but I’m not a unity-at-all-costs kind of guy.”
Anglicans should subscribe to the principle of, love at all cost unfortunately not all do. Do you?
“In my vanity, I sometimes fancy that it lets me see the forest a little more clearly”
In your reference to Greg about me, I lovingly wish that you could have grasped (seen the forest) in our earlier go-round about Our Lord’s (and mine) understanding of the necessity and relationship of unity and Love.
Cont’d from 18
Ephesians 4:13 (King James Version)
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
In #18 Stuck said:
No. I’m a sinner and have far to travel down the road of sanctification. If you are suggesting that agape love logically equates to “unity at all costs”, I disagree.
Dear Friends in Christ,
First and foremost a happy Easter to all.
I appreciate the debate and dialogue that seems to be going on here, but I think we are not fully aware of some of the background.
As an Anglican in the deanery where this new parish has been established perhaps I can give you some insight:
1) Fr. Don Hamilton has acted on his own and the parish that he was serving on an interim basis has not joined him in this new path.
2) Fr. Hamilton has had several run ins with the Bishop of Fredericton and even threatened to sue him. Is this a godly action?
3) In a Diocese such as Fredericton where there is a wide range of evangelicals and conservative clergy could he not have found a place within the body to continue to a dialogue.
4) Fr. Hamilton waited to the very last minute to inform his Bishop of his actions and then sprung only when his plan was in place. I question the integrity of his actions and particularly the timing.
In the end if he feels this is the best choice and this is the direction in which God is calling him to serve as a priest then may God bless him. But this is not an act of a courageous, bold, or integral person.
Just the facts (#21), Thom and Greg seem to have dropped off the scene, so maybe (since you used the word) you would be willing to define evangelical and conservative? I find that definitions can be very important when dialoging with those in the ACoC.
P.S., “Just the facts” seems like a rather dangerous handle to use.
From the blog rules:
Re #21 In light of the rules quoted above – please back up your statements with evidence if you wish your comments to remain intact. Your point one is irrelevant. Priests change parishes all the time – he is planting a new church. (And I suspect that you don’t really know how many of his former parishoners might follow him). Point two is gossip, unless you can back it up with some sort of evidence. Point three – ten years ago, maybe “dialogue” might have been helpful. Today, I find that the word “dialogue” tends to mean “we’ll talk and talk until you either change your mind, or give up and go away”. Point four – well, judging from how other priests have been treated when they decided to join ANiC, I think he can hardly be blamed for his caution. Seems to me the whole point of your comment is an attempt to discredit the man, disguised in pious language – which is a pretty typical ACoC reaction to presbyters joining ANiC, I’m sorry to say.
#20 Hi Warren, I too am a sinner and fall way way short, my comment “Anglicans should subscribe to the principle of, love at all cost”, does not read Anglicans should successfully Love at all costs, but rather subscribing to a principle means aspiring to accomplish the commandments given. as I stated in my #19, Eph 4:13 indicates clearly that “the unity of Faith” plays a far greater role in conjunction with successful obedience to the commandments and will of our Father.
Dear Friends,
In response to a few questions:
To Kate: A blog is not the place to put up facts and details. My suggestion to you is to call Fr. Hamilton or email him and ask him yourself. I do stand behind my comments because I am a part of his deanery and witnessed them first hand. All I ask you to consider is that there is a lot more behind this action then what meets the eye or what you may read on a blog or in a newspaper article.
To Warren: My point is that you can find in the Anglican Church in New Brunswick a wide range of theological stances on the issue of same sex marriages. Let us call a spade a spade and acknowledge that Don Hamilton has started this breakaway church over the issue of same sex marriages and he is clearly against it. In our Diocese there are many who support his view and I suggest that because no definite decision has been made on the issue he has acted prematurely. Essentially….why jump the gun and breakaway when the Diocese continues to dialogue about this issue and seek a way forward in a unified manner.
On another issue….
I amazed with all the press that I have read about this new church not a single article has come out and clearly said that when the word “orthodox” is used it is really a smoke screen for anti-gay. I have not seen to word same sex or homosexual or anything even close to the real reason this pastor has taken the actions that he has.
For example the article in Times and Transcripts in today’s paper states – “members of the ANIC are committed to remaining faithful to Holy Scripture and established Anglican doctrine and to ensuring that orthodox Canadian Anglicans are able to remain in full fellowship with their Anglican brothers and sisters outside North America.”
Sounds nice but it is a bit deceiving! If the issue is homosexuality then put it on the table. Personally if that is there stance then okay….but please be upfront about why they are doing what they are doing. Yes you can call it orthodoxy but that doesn’t translate to mean much to the very day Christian. The clear truth is that they have split over the issue of same sex marriages…that is the fact!
For Thom:-
I fail to understand your claim that there are many evangelical leaders in the ACoC and your stated criticism of Bishop Charlie Masters. The actions of several dioceses within the ACoC clearly demonstrate the ACoC has lost any and all claims to be Christian. This is further proven by the failure of the Primate and the House of Bishops to deal with the current reign of apostasy.
To be a Christian one must firstly accept the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and secondly the authority of Scripture. The ACoC currently does neither as proven by the failure of the leadership to deal with apostasy. Being a true Anglican requires one must be a Christian and for this reason the apostate leadership and that includes the Primate and most of the so-called bishops can no longer claim to be Anglican despite the colour of their shirt or collar. The current situation in the ACoC is NOT liberalism versus conservatism but rather apostasy versus orthodoxy. Clearly there can be no union between the two.
We are NOT in the same camp as the ACoC and the ANiC serve different masters and I do not believe this requires any further explanation.
Just the Facts (#25), I’m still interested to know how you would define evangelical and orthodox.
For some issues there can be no debate. The ACoC has already made its decision and will not turn back. Of that I have no doubt. Come out from among them.
I can’t speak for Fr. Hamilton, but, if the ACoC did a sudden about face on same sex blessings it would change nothing for me. SSBs are just the tip of the iceberg and much deeper change, in a broad range of areas, would be required before I would consider the ACoC a viable denominational option. I would far rather attend a church that welcomes gays – but makes it clear that homosexual behaviour contravenes God’s law (along with many other behviours) – than attend an ACoC parish that has no gays but waffles on what the Bible says.
From my perspective, it is those within the ACoC for which SSBs is the “big” issue. I think there are many in the ANiC for which it is just a manifestation of much deeeper, and older, problems.
Well said, Warren.
Nor is it the place to gossip. At least, this blog isn’t. If you are going to make accusations, you need to back your statements up with facts and details.
Just the Facts [#25],
Adding to Kate’s comment: for you to use the name you have chosen, then to scatter abroad unsubstantiated “facts” and then, when asked to back them up, to declare A blog is not the place to put up facts and details is a little contradictory, don’t you think?
While same-sex marriages are an issue, it seems that rather being the reason behind this split they are more like the proverbial straw that broke the camels back. For many years the orthodox have cried out about false teachings being tolerated within the Anglican Church in both the USA and Canada. The current issue has simply shown that those cries have not been heard but ignored by the large majority. Moving ahead with this, the ACoC has shown what it thinks about the Bible and its meaning and use.
In regards to faithful folks in the ACoC. I expect that there are some who fall into this category, but that doesn’t mean that this is the right thing to do. Biblical discipline requires us as Christians to have nothing to do with people who claim to be Christians and promote sin. This is not talking about people who sin, nor is it talking about those who do not claim to be Christian. It is talking about those who say they follow Christ and then say that something that God has said is an offence to His Law is really not bad at all, and perhaps it is even good. It is after other warnings have been ignored, and reason has been aplied to the Bible to show that there is error, and there is a steadfast refusal to amend ways and turn that this disasociation is required. It is not out of arrogance, but rather as a loving rebuke. The hope is not to be rid of someone, but that there would be repentance.
your fellow unworthy servant in Christ,
Brian DeVisser
Just the facts #21:
“4) Fr. Hamilton waited to the very last minute to inform his Bishop of his actions and then sprung only when his plan was in place. I question the integrity of his actions and particularly the timing.”
Dear Facts:
It seems to me that (after watching things happen over the past 3-4 years with the evolution of ANiC and the attitudes of the bishops and Primate concerning new ‘breakaway’ churches, Father Hamilton showed great wisdom in keeping his plans close to his chest.
By going to Bishops openly and lovingly to tell them “Oh, I am leaving the church in two months and starting a new ANiC Church” – would be priestly suicide. We have witnessed Priests being deposed (is that the right word kate?), doors being locked and locks being changed because Priests were totally up front.
The attitude and actions of Bishops in the ACoC have spoken well for the possibility of worldly, fleshly responses being made by them toward Priests who want to act openly and lovingly. It does not appear to be a two way street.
I think inhibited is the word you are looking for, Gerry, but close enough.
Like St. Alban’s, and (I hope) every other ANiC parish in the country. We are called to welcome everybody; that doesn’t mean praising and condoning things that are wrong.
With Anglican1000 now under way it should be well known that many more ACNA Parishes will be established in all parts of Canada (I am figuring about 100 over the next five years). It would be rediculous to think that these new Parishes will be in only the ACoC Dioceses that have ignored God in order to “accomodate” sin. The important thing is The Great Commission given to us by Jesus Christ. If the ACoC had not strayed like a lost sheep, if it had not followed too much the devises and desires of errant hearts, than it could be said that the ACoC would still be the instrument by which to work towards The Great Commission. Sadly, the ACoC is not the instrument, for it now fails to preach the Holy Word of God. In fact it seems to have become a social services club that is mostly interested in “social justice” and the environment. By its own decisions the ACoC has left a vacuum that desperately needs to be filled. We should not concern ourselves about the possibility of upsetting anyone who remains in the ACoC because we establish a new Parish. Instead we should rejoice that there are enough people hungry for the food that only God can provide that new Parishes are not just possible but wanted.
My best wishes to the people of Christ the Redeemer Church. May God Bless you and keep you.
25 Just the facts, hello brother and a belated blessed Easter to you to. you said “The clear truth is that they have split over the issue of same sex marriages…that is the fact! I did not leave the ACoC over same sex marriage (nor will I change my vote). The issue is one of love, by presenting to our homosexual brothers and sisters a blessing of their sexual proclivity the church has clearly indicated that homo-sexuality is not sin. I believe that it is, and the greater (by far) sin is to falsify the need for repentence. This was the straw that broke the camels back, …..I fear there are more camels coming.
In response to the post #34. I think I agree with your assesment, but I would like to comment on the idea that there is a ACoC diocese that has not rejected God’s Word at this time. The fact is that very few made any comment what so ever when things happend out in New Westminster. None have attempted to bring discipline to those responsible. Biblical instructions on discipline also need to be obeyed. There is a sin of commision (sactioning of sinful sexual activity) and there is a sin of ommision (not disciplining those guilty of the first sin). All ACoC dioceses fall into one of the two categories, and therefore all need to repent.
your fellow unworthy servant in Christ,
Brian DeVisser
Brian
Do individuals also fall into those categories? Does this mean that the Essentials Federation is operating in sin?
Back at you, Stuck. Do you believe that an organization can sin or does responsibility lie with those who belong to the organization?
In response to 37 – Yes I think that individuals can fall into these categories. For instance, while I was in university I had a friend who confessed to me (or informed me) that he was viewing porn on the internet. Given this, I think I would have been acting sinfully if I had not said something or tried to aid him in stopping this behaviour. Each of us does have a responsibility to those who we cross paths with. When we see someone who calls themselves a Christian engaged in sin it is our responsibility to act. Some people in the ACoC have committed sin by encouraging sin and arguing against the Word of God. Others have remained silent and have not corrected false teaching or rebuked heresy. It may be that an individual in Toronto may not have an opportunity to rebuke Ingham, but they do have an opportunity to correct and rebuke their parish priest for not rebuking their Bishop for not rebuking Ingham.
Regarding the Federation, they have not been silent, but rather have called for a change of course and repentance. I think where they have made a mistake is that their calls and rebukes have been ignored, and there is another step to loving discipline when rebuke is ignored. The Bible clearly teaches that loving discipline does at some point include turning away from someone so that they will know the gravity of their sin.
your fellow unworthy servant in Christ,
Brian DeVisser
Brian; Your “at some point”. No argument with your 39 except to say that the time for “from such turn away” can be variable. The ACNA obviously felt the time had come to prepare a new/old Anglican way….Thank God!
Members of the Federation are holding the view that there is still time (wiggle room) to bring about repentence, again, thank God! Now if the Federation was to close up shop and take no further action than I would no doubt be sitting at your camp-fire roasting marshmellows.
#38: Warren an organization can no more sin than say, the Hoover Dam. However what it does can be construed as sinful. Just ask California farmers. Or a Canadian fresh fruit and vegetable shopper.
Stuck (#41), I was just wondering since you said:
You lost me with the fruit and vegetables.
Stuck, #41. I think I disagree. An organization is made up of people who make decisions, which can be sinful. The Hover Dam is an inanimate object that is not capible of acting in any way (it can be acted upon by an outside force, but that is different). People as individuals, or as organized groups are most certainly able to sin.
your fellow unworthy servant in Christ,
Brian DeVisser
Being active in another church in the deanery, I would just like to interject that I find some of the comments here to be misleading or outright peevishly nasty. Those of us who try to understand what God is telling us aren’t really helped by being told that what we have been doing for many years (in my case, over 60 years) is simply wrong and that I can’t be a Christian just because someone has his knickers in a twist over one issue.
I cannot abandon my friends who are gay just because some Anglican somewhere lives in fear that gayness will transfer to him. Yes, I do find gayness to be a problem, but I also find sniping, backbiting and nastiness to be a problem, one that is clearly described all through the Bible as abhorrent, and one that destroys churches, as Don Hamilton’s move to the Wesleyan has already done.
You guys may be holier than holy, but you make your church look extremely unattractive.
Why would I want to join a church that operates on the basis of “we’re holy and you aren’t”?
Not that any of this matters, because the Anglican presence in Moncton will soon be reduced to irrelevance anyway.
Oh, and just to have a real fact instead of some made-up whine: The ANGLICAN Diocese of Fredericton (you know, that city whose name is used to cover the ANGLICANS of this area) voted at last synod but one to have absolutely nothing to do with same-sex blessings at all, and also voted that they would never discuss that issue again.
Exactly what is it about the ANGLICAN Diocese of Fredericton that makes all you gay-haters so upset with the ANGLICAN Diocese of Fredericton? Were you so upset that the vote wasn’t 100% absolutely your way, that there might be someone who disagreed with you somewhere in the whole province/diocese, that you had to run away and suck your thumbs in dismay?
Good grief. Why are you so threatened by ANiC? If our movement is of God, it will thrive. If not, it won’t. If the direciton the ACoC is taking is of God, it will thrive. If not, it won’t.
JW near Moncton,
Are you under the impression that homosexuality is contagious and that you are demonstrating your mettle by associating with homosexuals in spite of that – whereas we lesser mortals are afraid to?
The church I attend is filled with miserable sinners; this makes me feel right at home.
As C. S. Lewis said, ““God loves us too much to leave us as we are”. If the Bible is true, homosexual activity is wrong; to pretend that it isn’t is to be a “gay-hater”; if you love a gay person you should encourage him to change.
For JW near Moncton:-
The ANiC does not HATE homosexuals as you would like to convince others. Homosexuality is simply a sin much like the tendency to steal or to be involved in pedophilia. Many in the so-called gay community would like us to believe they are born that way but there is not a shred of scientific evidence to prove that statement. Each and every one of us has that old nature within us and our sin tendencies depend largely on our personalities and upbringing. That does not mean we are to accept our sin and worse still expect God to bless it. We are called to repentance on a daily basis as we are or should be constantly at war against that old nature.
Approving or accepting sin of any kind can only be described as deceptive and is nothing less than a denial of the benefits from our Lord’s death on the cross.
I am simply responding to the tone of the earlier postings. If gays are just sinners in need of repentance, the ANiC wouldn’t be rushing off in all directions screaming about gay cooties. Perhaps they would stay and help sinners to deal with their problems. Hiding behind a smokescreen in a rival church isn’t exactly going out into the world, is it?
And being rude to those who are on the front lines trying to help people deal with their problems doesn’t help anybody.
Begging your pardon, JW, but you complaining about people being rude is a bit rich.