'Please leave': why the Sydney archbishop's same-sex marriage message has Anglicans rattled

Anthony2019 said:

I don't think Paidiske needs to have any 'brownee points'. It is clear to me she already has a very good pastoral relationship with people in her church. As she said: "They're showing up. They're listening to sermons, attending Bible studies, seeking pastoral care, engaging in conversation and the sacramental life of the parish."
And who is bringing them in?
"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:44 KJV).
"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out" (John 6:37 KJV).
"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely" (Revelation 22:17 KJV).

It doesn't sound to me that Jesus is doing the "trashing" here.

Click to expand...

But are they born again followers of Christ? Joel Osteen gets maybe 20,000 at his church. Doubt if many of those are born again Christians.

Steven Beck said:

But are they born again followers of Christ? Joel Osteen gets maybe 20,000 at his church. Doubt if many of those are born again Christians.

Click to expand...

Whether they are or are not, the point is they're in a context which affords them every opportunity to grow in faith, hope and love. (That's in regard to my parish, can't speak for Joel Osteen's church, about which I know nothing, really).

Paidiske said:

Whether they are or are not, the point is they're in a context which affords them every opportunity to grow in faith, hope and love. (That's in regard to my parish, can't speak for Joel Osteen's church, about which I know nothing, really).

Click to expand...

No they need to be saved first you know from the eternal fire. Faith, hope and love is of no use if they aren't saved. Just sayin.

Steven Beck said:

No they need to be saved first you know from the eternal fire. Faith, hope and love is of no use if they aren't saved. Just sayin.

Click to expand...

My point is, I can't know someone else's standing before God. All I can do is give them opportunities to respond to God. And that's what we should be doing.

Anthony2019 said:

I do not see anything cowardly about taking up Jesus's commandment to follow the Golden Rule.
It is very easy to argue with others and avoid those we don't agree with. It is much harder to befriend those we don't get along with with because they challenge our own prejudices and make us feel uncomfortable. It is very easy to dismiss someone on the grounds that they are mistaken, but it takes an incredible amount of grace to listen to another's story and to develop empathy with someone whose journey we have never walked. It takes a lot of courage to forgive someone who has offended us, but it takes even more work and effort to accept, love and care for someone as a brother or sister in Christ.
I seek to love Christ and to love my neighbour. It is the standard by which I live and by which I will be judged. I don't always succeed in getting it right, but living by the Golden Rule is by no means a soft option and certainly not what I would describe as being "cowardly".

Click to expand...

Actually it takes more courage to tell someone whom you love that they are doing something wrong. Especially if you fear they would be unwilling to repent.
The church at Corinth had prided herself that she tolerated fellowship with a sexually immoral member. Paul rebuked them and commanded them to exercise excommunication.
1 Corinthians 5:11-13
I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

Quartermaine said:

Is "please leave" loving? compassionate? caring?

how about the declaration that families are ungodly or not even families at all if they don't follow a rigid interpretation of the nuclear family. The picture according to the poster put it up for is not a picture of a family because of the tragedy that befell them.
Is the denial that families are actually families loving? compassionate? caring?

Please So forgive me for my skepticism towards you for ignoring the posts in this thread.

Click to expand...

If you read the article (and the posts), you would have noticed that the bishop is asking those who want to change the teaching of the church to "please leave", not gay people.

A quote from the bishop: “My own view is that if people wish to change the doctrine of our church, they should start a new church or join a church more aligned to their views,” he said. “But do not ruin the Anglican Church by abandoning the plain teaching of scripture.”

He has not told gay people to "please leave". His comment is probably more directed at clergy who are trying to change the doctrine of the Anglican church. This is a clear and reasonable distinction, and hardly unloving or uncaring.

Using that family's tragedy to prove a largely political point about 'alternative families' is insensitive and a non sequitur anyway.

HatGuy said:

If you read the article (and the posts), you would have noticed that the bishop is asking those who want to change the teaching of the church to "please leave", not gay people.

Click to expand...

I think that the timing and context of the remarks means that it is one bishop whispering to another bishop in public. I may have been better if one of them had jumped on a train or picked up the phone.

HatedByAll said:

I consider it wise to examine such scriptures closely. This requires us to examine the verses in the original language. The only way to eternally damn homosexuals is to interpret "reprobate" in a way that was not the way it was intended to be used by the writer of the Scripture.

Click to expand...

I do study scripture and compare it. If you want to go back to the original languages you are welcome to do that but I have no intention because I don't think I can do a better job at translating languages than the team of people who compiled the KJV. I don't think you can do a better job and in fact I don't think anyone can,so I would be wasting my time on that.

I can give you definition of reprobate just comparing scripture with scripture:

Jeremiah 6:30
Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the Lord hath rejected them.



We had a long thread dedicated to this very subject and much dedicated to the definition. Above is my definition worked by using Gods word so accept it or don't that would be your choice.

Philip_B said:

I think that the timing and context of the remarks means that it is one bishop whispering to another bishop in public. I may have been better if one of them had jumped on a train or picked up the phone.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but at the same time, maybe a public conversation is necessary. Everyone seems to want to be careful of stepping on everyone's toes, except LGBTQ activists - for some reason, lately, they seem to feel they have a free pass to publicaly condemn pretty much everyone who holds a different view, and everyone else must just smile and nod.

I don't usually speak like that, but from an objective point of view, we have to admit that reasonability seems to have gone out the window with this subject. I think it's perfectly reasonable for anyone to ask those who don't like something to leave it instead of change it. I mean, if the roles were reversed - say, I joined a pro-LGBTQ marriage church, but insisted on my rights and insisted they must change and conform to my beliefs, wouldn't everyone say I was crazy? Wouldn't it be perfectly reasonable to ask me to leave and start my own thing, or join something that lines up to my views? After all, if two are not agreed, how can they journey together? (Amos 3:3). I can guarantee you that everyone would think I was a nutter if I stayed, and obviously just a troublemaker. But why is it that progressives insist on staying in traditional churches and insisting they change? I just think that's disingenuous and divisional. Why not start something new and let the old die out. If the old is not where God's at, then the old will die - as history has often shown. If it doesn't die out, what's that to you? Why all the needless fighting - just go join a church you prefer.

I don't join a soccer club and insist they play rugby. If I don't like rock 'n roll singing in a church, and I'm really passionate about that, then I join a church that sings hymns. That's what reasonable people have been doing for ever, or at least since freedom of religion became a thing.

charsan said:

So you would be okay with a family with a Dad, Mom, and children standing up for the word of God? Would you?

Click to expand...

Yes. People are allowed to believe anything they want.
But how people treat other people, that is highly regulated by local law and God.
To a limited extent, people are even allowed to say what they believe.
But the right to remain silent is sacred in law. The right to spew hateful speech is not.

What Does the Bible Say About Being Silent?

What Does the Bible Say About Holding Tongue?

What Does the Bible Say About Live Quietly?

HatGuy said:

Perhaps, but at the same time, maybe a public conversation is necessary. Everyone seems to want to be careful of stepping on everyone's toes, except LGBTQ activists - for some reason, lately, they seem to feel they have a free pass to publicly condemn pretty much everyone who holds a different view, and everyone else must just smile and nod.

I don't usually speak like that, but from an objective point of view, we have to admit that reasonability seems to have gone out the window with this subject. I think it's perfectly reasonable for anyone to ask those who don't like something to leave it instead of change it. I mean, if the roles were reversed - say, I joined a pro-LGBTQ marriage church, but insisted on my rights and insisted they must change and conform to my beliefs, wouldn't everyone say I was crazy? Wouldn't it be perfectly reasonable to ask me to leave and start my own thing, or join something that lines up to my views? After all, if two are not agreed, how can they journey together? (Amos 3:3). I can guarantee you that everyone would think I was a nutter if I stayed, and obviously just a troublemaker. But why is it that progressives insist on staying in traditional churches and insisting they change? I just think that's disingenuous and divisional. Why not start something new and let the old die out. If the old is not where God's at, then the old will die - as history has often shown. If it doesn't die out, what's that to you? Why all the needless fighting - just go join a church you prefer.

I don't join a soccer club and insist they play rugby. If I don't like rock 'n roll singing in a church, and I'm really passionate about that, then I join a church that sings hymns. That's what reasonable people have been doing for ever, or at least since freedom of religion became a thing.

Click to expand...

People may speak up for themselves. What they say about others life choices is restricted.

What Does the Bible Say About Keeping Quiet?

HatGuy said:

I think it's perfectly reasonable for anyone to ask those who don't like something to leave it instead of change it.

Click to expand...

In other contexts, perhaps.

But this is not how Anglicans do things. That's why we have synodical government. So that one voice - not even an archbishop's - doesn't get to define what changes and what doesn't.

That's part of the problem here. Anglicans have ways of dealing with disputed questions. Those processes are in train in this case. And instead of participating in those processes in good faith, and allowing others to do likewise, here one person thinks he can pre-empt the outcome by telling others to leave.

HatGuy said:

If you read the article (and the posts), you would have noticed that the bishop is asking those who want to change the teaching of the church to "please leave", not gay people.

A quote from the bishop: “My own view is that if people wish to change the doctrine of our church, they should start a new church or join a church more aligned to their views,” he said. “But do not ruin the Anglican Church by abandoning the plain teaching of scripture.”

He has not told gay people to "please leave". His comment is probably more directed at clergy who are trying to change the doctrine of the Anglican church. This is a clear and reasonable distinction, and hardly unloving or uncaring.

Using that family's tragedy to prove a largely political point about 'alternative families' is insensitive and a non sequitur anyway.

Click to expand...

They believe in advancing the church so that people are treated with respect, which a good churchy thing to do and a good thing.

Mark 12:31
The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Romans 13
8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Matthew 22
39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Galatians 5
14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Matthew 19
18 He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Matthew 7
12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

1 Corinthians 13
4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.

Luke 10
27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”

Leviticus 19
18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.

1 John 4
21 And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.

James 2
8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty.

SkyWriting said:

People may speak up for themselves. What they say about others life choices is restricted.

What Does the Bible Say About Keeping Quiet?

Click to expand...

Not completely restricted. See 1 Corinthians 5, for example.

SkyWriting said:

They believe in advancing the church so that people are treated with respect, which a good churchy thing to do and a good thing.

Click to expand...

I disagree that treating people with respect is actually and usually the main agenda of progressive movements in traditional churches. If that's the case, they often fail to live up to this stated mission.

There's nothing wrong with going a different way, which is also a sign of respect. Paul and Barnabas had a dispute in Acts 15 and separated. This is often the best way to show respect, in fact. But to bicker and complain and politicise and demonise others to get your way is disrespectful, harmful, and quite frankly childish.

Paidiske said:

In other contexts, perhaps.

But this is not how Anglicans do things. That's why we have synodical government. So that one voice - not even an archbishop's - doesn't get to define what changes and what doesn't.

That's part of the problem here. Anglicans have ways of dealing with disputed questions. Those processes are in train in this case. And instead of participating in those processes in good faith, and allowing others to do likewise, here one person thinks he can pre-empt the outcome by telling others to leave.

Click to expand...

I've always enjoyed and respected the Anglican way of discussion and working things out. Kudos to you guys. I suspect, though, that there's a great deal of pressure on someone like this dude to say something about LGBTQ marriage - whether it's to give the thumbs up or the thumbs down to it. Can't be an easy job. His point is perhaps quite evangelical in its approach, but it's not an unfair point from an objective point of view, but I get that it might not be the Anglican way and can respect that.

Daniel C said:

No they are not. The Bible talks about widows and this woman unfortunately is widowed whilst still raising a child but that doesn't take away her Godly motives and vows and her deceased husbands Godly motives and vows.

I will tell you something that is ungodly: A man pumping another man with AIDS and disease. That's sin and filthy hence why God never designed sodomites to bear children.

Click to expand...

Does having a disease justify hate and discrimination?

section9+1 said:

'Please leave' is loving, compassionate and caring. It is loving toward the rest of the congregation that does not want its church taken down the road of deviation and illegitimacy. I assume the majority of Anglican lay people are still concerned with truth and righteousness. And if so their church has a great responsibility toward them to avoid aligning itself with unscriptural perversions. The bible is the judge of what's right and there's no commands to embrace sin in the name of love. There's no love in that for anyone. The sinners or the rest of the congregations. It's like someone with a burst appendix and people say: Don't worry, we all love you. Come here and have some cookies and we will teach you about the love of Jesus and about how happy we all can be.
Instead of saying: For God's sake, you have a major problem going on! Get down to the hospital right now and get yourself into surgery where you can be cut open and fixed! Doesn't sound too loving, but it will give you life instead of death. That's real love.

Click to expand...

would you be saying this if you were the one being shown the door?

Paidiske said:

Now same-sex marriage is legal in Australia and we need to work out how we will deal with the fact that some people in our churches will take up the option to marry; some people coming to faith will be in same-sex marriages; and many of our members will be trying to work out how their faith affects their relationships with friends and family members in or aspiring to same-sex marriages.

Click to expand...

Daniel 3 is an example of true faith

apply it to this thread


10 Thou, O king, hast made a decree, that every man that shall hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, shall fall down and worship the golden image:

11 And whoso falleth not down and worshippeth, that he should be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.

12 There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; these men, O king, have not regarded thee: they serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.

Quartermaine said:

Does having a disease justify hate and discrimination?

Click to expand...

I agree with this. But that's not the major problem with the obscene comment you're responding to. Most gays don't have AIDS. (This is particularly true in Australia, which has done a much better job of dealing with AIDS than the US.) It's a greater risk for them than the rest of us, but there are ways to deal with that risk, and most manage to do so. Gays who are faithful in marriage would, of course, be protected completely (assuming neither partner had it to begin with). This is one reason that the commitments implied in Christian marriage are something we should encourage.

Quartermaine said:

Does having a disease justify hate and discrimination?

Click to expand...

God is love. God desires our faith on Christ to mediate with him.If you don't have God you don't have love.

Homosexuality as a rule is not love it's lust. Giving Aids to someone and taking 20 years off their life expectancy is not love-that's hating the person. You're not loving the person you're not loving God by rebelling against his will.

Romans 1
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

A follower of Christ who see's these things must love the God who loves them and rebuke the sin. That's not hate that is love for his master and overseer.


And when my God has rejected sodomites, who am I to attempt to override his authority and invite the reprobate back into the church/community?

Romans 1
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient


Some (self professing) Christians defy God and create their own Gospel but I don't think I have the authority to let back in what has been cast out by the creator. So i'm obliged to take the position of my God and insist the rejected be kept out.