Australian Bishops Synod

http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/05/1096871846301.html?oneclick=true
http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/07/1097089497934.html?oneclick=true

Here are two articles released by the Sydney Morning Herald detailing a few rulings made by the Australian Synod so far...Thoughts? Comments?

YBIC

Chris

hard to say, I'm NOT registering with ANOTHER paper....want to copy/paste?
or give a synopsis?

Oh....oops...

lol...pretty much the council took votes about whether female bishops should be allowed (females ministers where alloweed to be ordained in 1992) which was narrowly defeated...They also took a vote on whether or not the blessing of homosexual unions should be allowed as well as the ordination of practicioning homosexual ministers and bishops....which was defeated more decisively...This ruling however isn't permanent, and in my min dnext time they holkd a synod these rullings will be changed...Just keeping my fellow anlgicans informed as to whats going on down under

YBIC

Chris

I have no personal problem with either. As for "open" non-heterosexual clergy, let's remember that all people sin, and the idea that purity or personal holiness validates holy orders is Montanism (which is a condemned heresy), not Christianity.

G'day Paladin

But, theres a difference between being openly homosexual...and having a homosexual partner, which is what the ruling condemmed and outlawed...Its perfectly alright for ministers to admit they are gay, but to act on these feelings is incorrect as far as I understand the bible...

Your Brother in Christ

Chris

And that's Montanism. That's saying one cannot live in sin and be an ordained priest. Sorry to tell you, but we all live in sin, so that means none of us, by your illogic, can be ordained priests. That's a heresy; personal holiness and purity doesn't befit holy orders...never has and never will.

A Lesson from Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians.

1 I can hardly believe the report about the sexual immorality going on among you, something so evil that even the pagans don’t do it. I am told that you have a man in your church who is living in sin with his father’s wife. 2 And you are so proud of yourselves! Why aren’t you mourning in sorrow and shame? And why haven’t you removed this man from your fellowship?

3 Even though I am not there with you in person, I am with you in the Spirit. Concerning the one who has done this, I have already passed judgment 4 in the name of the Lord Jesus. You are to call a meeting of the church, and I will be there in spirit, and the power of the Lord Jesus will be with you as you meet. 5 Then you must cast this man out of the church and into Satan’s hands, so that his sinful nature will be destroyed and he himself will be saved when the Lord returns.

6 How terrible that you should boast about your spirituality, and yet you let this sort of thing go on. Don’t you realize that if even one person is allowed to go on sinning, soon all will be affected? 7 Remove this wicked person from among you so that you can stay pure. Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed for us. 8 So let us celebrate the festival, not by eating the old bread of wickedness and evil, but by eating the new bread of purity and truth.

9 When I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin. 10 But I wasn’t talking about unbelievers who indulge in sexual sin, or who are greedy or are swindlers or idol worshipers. You would have to leave this world to avoid people like that. 11 What I meant was that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a Christian yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler. Don’t even eat with such people.

12 It isn’t my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your job to judge those inside the church who are sinning in these ways. 13 God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, “You must remove the evil person from among you.”

Click to expand...

I Corinthians 5 (NLT).

The Word of the Lord. Thanks be to God.



It would seem that, even though Christians still sin, there are some instances of sin that should lead us to recognize someone is unsuitable for not only leadership but fellowship.

Let us pray.

Almighty and everlasting God, from whom cometh every good and perfect gift: Send down upon our bishops, and other clergy, and upon the congregations committed to their charge, the healthful Spirit of thy grace; and, that they may truly please thee, pour upon them the continual dew of thy blessing. Grant this, O Lord, for the honor of our Advocate and Mediator, Jesus Christ. Amen.

I do not recognize that translation which pushes one group's/man's personal interpretation as Scripture.

Please give Scripture, not interpretation.

Why do I believe in God?

I would describe it as an intuition or instinct.

Why do I think consensual behavior between adults is ok?

I would describe it as an intuition or instinct.

It does not violate the great commandment directly at least.

But, some parts of the Bible are really clear about homosexual behavior?

How do I resolve this conflict?

I can't.

It tears me up, and it should all people of conscience.

It is a mystery to me.

I am not married, so I am called to celibacy right now.

Am I supposed to some believe other folks are called to a life of celibacy?

If so, I don't at this time fully understand why God would want that.

G'day Gtsec...

Why do I think consensual behavior between adults is ok?

I would describe it as an intuition or instinct.

It does not violate the great commandment directly at least.

But, some parts of the Bible are really clear about homosexual behavior?

How do I resolve this conflict?

I can't.

It tears me up, and it should all people of conscience

Click to expand...

Im sorry to see that this issue is troubling you so much... ....Remember to pray for gods guidance through the hard times...

If I may I'd like to just explain to you my understanding of this issue...

You are right when you say the bible is obviously in opposition to the act of homosexuals having sex...It is declared wrong in the old (leviticus) and new testements...I believe that this qualifies for it being declared wrong, though there are probably others who would posses conflicting points of view in regards to this...

Why does god command that this is wrong even though it is seemingly 'abiding' by the love thou neighbour as thyself commandment?....Because there are two great commandments...Infact when jesus gives the great commandments in one of the gospels he actually gives this one first...Love the lord your god with all your heart and soul and love you neighbour as yourself...The commandment love the lord you god with all your heart and soul demands that we serve god with our entire bodies....and thats with our sexuality as well...combining this with the passages which speak against homosexual sins, I would say that a gay man by staying abstanant and avoiding lust, (just as should a heterosexual person may I reinforce) he is loving god with this particular aspect of his being...We love god by obeying his commandments...and by abstaining homosexuals are loving god...We cant listen to our consciences on this...our conscience should be moderated by the scriptures not the other way around, there are plenty of homosexuals out there in the church who live perfectly good lives as celibate people, they have troubles yes...But remember even Paul had a thorn in his side so that he may not get to full of himself and stop realising his complete dependance on the lords grace through jesus christ....I personally believe that for gay men in the church this is their thorn in the side...

Hope this helps...Though if it doesn't I wont be surprised..Prayer is more powerful than this, and I'll be praying for you...

(oh and by the way I've made referance to alot of scripture in this passage without mentioning it (ie the thron in the side) it is there but I dont know the exact verse/chapter/book)

Your Brother in Christ

Chris

And that's Montanism. That's saying one cannot live in sin and be an ordained priest. Sorry to tell you, but we all live in sin, so that means none of us, by your illogic, can be ordained priests. That's a heresy; personal holiness and purity doesn't befit holy orders...never has and never will.

Click to expand...

G'day Paladin, How are you going?

In my past post, I carelssly.. forgot to explain that I wasn't suggesting that a priest must be perfect to obtain ordination...However he must like the rest of us be repentant for his sins... Living in a homosexual relationship, no matter how commited is not showing a repentant attitude..I would not oppose his ordination if he kept on falling into homosexual sin, however because he is in a committed relationship there is no precedence for repentace...I would have no objection in the world to the ordination of a minister who had broken this relationship and become ordained...The greatest reason why I object to practicioning homosexual ordination (apart form the fact that I believe the bible tell us that homosexual sin is wrong)...is that the public attitude it will create...People will see these ministers and see that they are lving in commited homosexual relationships and judge that as being acceptable to god, and so base their thinking around this...However I believe that it isn't right and that if we allow their ordination, people are going to think that it is...That passage wigglesworth posted (thanks for that btw. ) is a perfect reinforcement of this, the people paul wanted to expel weren't repentant, they just kept on living in the sinful lifestyle....and I doubt that the meaning would change much in the KJV (is that the one you use?)...

Your Brother in Christ

Chris

RobNJ said:

hard to say, I'm NOT registering with ANOTHER paper....want to copy/paste?
or give a synopsis?

Click to expand...

this should fix any registration problems:
http://www.bugmenot.com/

Wigglesworth gave an interpretation, not Scripture. Scripture by definition is the written word, which implies a formal equivalence, not a dynamic one.

Edit: And it still doesn't negate the fact that this is still Montanism. Personal piety, morality, and holiness doesn't validate one's holy orders.

As long as we're talking a bit about the Australian Church, can someone explain to me what's going on in the Diocese of Sydney that has the Communion in a frenzy? One person told me that it was irregular ordination, priests laying hands on instead of bishops. This concerns me greatly. But then someone else said that it was lay presiding at the Eucharist, which I find less troubling though I still don't think this should be normative.

As to the earlier questions, why can't a woman be a bishop if she can be a priest? I've never understood the point of the stained glass ceiling imposed on women in the church.

If the Church is the Bride of Christ, and the Bishop his Vicar - With a female Bishop you have a lesbian wedding.

oh my

PaladinValer said:

Wigglesworth gave an interpretation, not Scripture. Scripture by definition is the written word, which implies a formal equivalence, not a dynamic one.

Click to expand...

I gave up on the "King James Only" debate and the dispute between formal and dynamic equivalency when I left my fundamentalist church. Having studied foreign languages and having traveled to foreign lands, I accept the premise that word-for-word translations (formal equivalency) often do not present the author's intended message accurately in a tongue foreign to the original writing. Also, I accept the premise that a thought-for-thought translation (dynamic equivalency) may more accurately present the intended message, taking into consideration figurative speech and colloquial sentence structure.

At any rate, this is all rather beside the point. I simply put it forth, because I do not want to seem to be rudely ignoring the post.

It seems odd to argue over formal vs. dynamic equivalency in an Anglican forum where there is such a wide array of views on whether the Bible is truly inerrant, or even literally inspired or not.

wiggles kudos

and because that was such a good post i will tell you to read

the healing gifts of the Holy Spirit by agnes sanford

one of the original mainline charismatic authors an out and out pentecostal and she was a liberal episcopalian

peace

PaladinValer said:

Edit: And it still doesn't negate the fact that this is still Montanism. Personal piety, morality, and holiness doesn't validate one's holy orders.

Click to expand...

No-one's advocating that, I don't think. Even if the devil himself were to offer the sacraments or preach the gospel, all that matters is their acceptance in faith. That doesn't mean that we should ordain the devil.

Article XXVI
Of the unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments
Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometime the evil have chief authority in the ministration of the word and sacraments; yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by His commission and authority, we may use their ministry both in hearing the word of God and in the receiving of the sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the sacraments ministered unto them, which be effectual because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.
Nevertheless it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church that inquiry be made of evil ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty by just judgement, be deposed.

1. A woman bishop isn't the Church; the Church is the Church. The idea that the Church is the "Bride of Christ" is a metaphore to describe Jesus' relation to the Church.

2. I never said anything about KJV-O, so your reply is a Straw Man

3. You must still prove the evilness of the deacon, priest, or bishop. And to borrow something by one of the great Anglican theologians, C. S. Lewis, sexual sins are perhaps the least important of any sin out there. With the raging debate that is currently going on (and I ask people not to start making blanket statements), the ruling is still out, so it is really nothing but speculative to say either way (and I admit that freely).

The result of a debate doesn't define the truth.
Lewis surely isn't saying that some sins are less sinful than others?
By evil sinful can't be meant, since that excludes everyone. I suppose what is meant by evil ministers is either:
-those whose bad works demonstrate an unredeemed nature (eg lack of forgiveness, blasphemy, unrepentance)
-those whose evil actions create indiscipline in the Church