Focus

[longhair75]

Friend DominusIesus,

Let's be honest though, you are not exactly in the conservative camp though are you? The Church is to rebuke sin wherever it is found. Ministers of the gospel are to be of good behaviour, blameless, further he must have a good report of them which are outside of the Church. They must hold fast the faithful word as they hath been taught. Those who are not sound in the faith are to be rebuked.

True enough, but I am also not exactly in the liberal camp either. The thing that I find to be inconsistent in the conservative position here is related to what you said in your post:

The Church is to rebuke sin wherever it is found

It sure seems a reasonable statement. However, in practice, there is only one target for this rebuke: Homosexuality.

I never see the same attention paid to

Lust (homosexuality might be classifies as Lust), Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy and Pride. (There is plenty of Pride to go around here.)

Where is the discussion of Abortion? Capital Punishment? Transgressions against the Ten Commandments? Injustice against and exploitation of the Poor? Divorce? Adultery?

If you want credibility in your campaign to rebuke sin wherever it is found, I would suggest you widen your search some to avoid the appearance that you are just targeting Homosexuals.

You, and anyone here, may make whatever assumptions you like about my place along the line between conservative and liberal.

 

[DominusIesus]

It sure seems a reasonable statement. However, in practice, there is only one target for this rebuke: Homosexuality.

I never see the same attention paid to

Lust (homosexuality might be classifies as Lust), Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy and Pride. (There is plenty of Pride to go around here.)

Where is the discussion of Abortion? Capital Punishment? Transgressions against the Ten Commandments? Injustice against and exploitation of the Poor? Divorce? Adultery?

If you want credibility in your campaign to rebuke sin wherever it is found, I would suggest you widen your search some to avoid the appearance that you are just targeting Homosexuals.

This is where you are simply wrong. Whilst in the popular press the focus is indeed upon homosexuality and there have been major discussions over this issue. But then ask why? The reason is that this is the issue of the moment, the presenting issue. Gene Robinson is not the first openly pro-abortion bishop advocating abortion, he is an openly homosexual bishop who seeks to have those who ignore the Bible's explicit teachings on this issue ordained. This is the major issue of the day.

In a sex-crazed culture we should not be surprised that the Church speaks more frequently about sexual ethics.

As I said above, the Church is to rebuke sin wherever it is found. In the current climate the big issue is homosexuality. The Anglican Comminion has pressure groups who are actively campaigning in favour of homosexual ordination. This is the battle ground of the day. You may not like it, I do not, but that is where we are at.

FWIW: The preaching from the pulpit of the churches I have attended in the past have all dealt with the sins you list above and members have been disciplined over them.

We need to draw the distinction between what is occurring in local congregations and the issues discussed at Synod etc.

 

[ebia]

We should pay attention to both, and both are being looked at and acted upon but of course what sells more newspapers "Church helps the poor!" or "Church to split over homosexual issue"?

and, since that's entirely predictable, we must take that into account in what we say and do.

Bishop Wright noted that "GAFCON was a great celebration of the gospel of the love and transforming power of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The church needs this energy and vision." He himself actively seeks a (conservative) solution to the homosexual issue as well as champions the cancelling of third world debt.

I have every respect for +Tom's approach to the issue.

Both issues are being dealt with, the Liberals however attempt to paint conservatives as those who would rather fight over homosexuality than help the poor. It is a biased, inaccurate and polemical tactic with no truth or substance behind it.

I haven't said that, and I don't think the "conservatives" are any more to blame than the "liberals" for putting this issue at the top of the agenda, neither do I think all conservatives (or all liberals) do so. But the sad fact is that it is taking an enormous amount of time and effort at the top - to the detriment of the church's mission. We (all of us) need to find better ways to deal with difference of opinion and contraversial issues than this.

 

[DominusIesus]

But the sad fact is that it is taking an enormous amount of time and effort at the top - to the detriment of the church's mission. We (all of us) need to find better ways to deal with difference of opinion and contraversial issues than this.

The solution is really quite simple. Those who have been ordained and are openly homosexual and advocate it should be removed from office. Homosexuality is sinful and must be repented of.

We need to heed the words of St. Paul to the Galatian Christians:

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.
​

And his letter to the Corinthians

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now 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."
​

 

[ebia]

Dear ebia,
I fully agree with DominusIesus, if the liberals don’t like distraction from the mission they can repent.

It's up to all who are followers of Christ to be part of the solution. Anybody simply demanding that the solution come from elsewhere isn't going to work. If the "liberals" really are effectively outside the church (as some seem to claim) then expecting the solution to come from there would be ridiculous - if anyone claims to be the only ones true to Christ then they (whoever they may be) then carry the burden.

Yes I agree but those in control of the Temple disagreed with Jesus teaching much like the liberals do,

The funny thing is that Christians of all persuasions think they are the ones following Jesus' teaching. All of us need the humility to realise sometimes it will be someone else who has it right - however sure we are of our position. In none of us comes close to Jesus teaching - on some issue some liberals tend to get closer, on others some conservatives, on others moderates. Likewise across the catholic/evangelical spectrum, and similarly across any other spectrum in the church. Any group that is really certain that it has everything right and therefore anyone who disagrees is certainly wrong has lost any chance of the Holy Spirit's guidance and correction.

Yes I agree, disgraceful isnt it.

So what can we (not somebody else) do about it? It's a problem for all of us, simply demanding the other side repent won't do.

 

[ebia]

This is where you are simply wrong. Whilst in the popular press the focus is indeed upon homosexuality and there have been major discussions over this issue. But then ask why? The reason is that this is the issue of the moment, the presenting issue. Gene Robinson is not the first openly pro-abortion bishop advocating abortion, he is an openly homosexual bishop who seeks to have those who ignore the Bible's explicit teachings on this issue ordained. This is the major issue of the day.

Doesn't that amount to "we've largely ignored pro-abortion bishops, pro-divorce bishops, pro-anything else bishops, but we are are going to step in over a pro-homosexual bishop and make it the major issue of the day". Yes, +Gene and those who elected and consecrated him took some part in making it the major issue, but those who chose this to be the issue to make the really big fuss over (having ignored all those others) also take a part in it.

In a sex-crazed culture we should not be surprised that the Church speaks more frequently about sexual ethics.

On the big scale it doesn't though. Many Anglican provinces remarry after divorce, stay very quite about sex before marriage, in some parts of the world turn a blind eye to polygamy, etc. Can we really say that, on our diocesan and larger scale agendas we give anything like the attention to all the rest of sexual ethics put together that we give to this one thing that affects only something like 1 in 10 people - far less than (say) divorce and remarrage.

As I said above, the Church is to rebuke sin wherever it is found. In the current climate the big issue is homosexuality.

Partly because we have conceeded the ground on so many others?

The Anglican Comminion has pressure groups who are actively campaigning in favour of homosexual ordination. This is the battle ground of the day. You may not like it, I do not, but that is where we are at.

We are all capable of deciding which issues we address, when, and how. Simply blaming someone else owes more to school-yard tactics than being the light of the world.

FWIW: The preaching from the pulpit of the churches I have attended in the past have all dealt with the sins you list above and members have been disciplined over them.

We need to draw the distinction between what is occurring in local congregations and the issues discussed at Synod etc.

Absolutely - as already acknowledged.

 

[DominusIesus]

Partly because we have conceeded the ground on so many others?

The logic is then (following the example of St. Paul), that we should start disciplining pro-abortion bishops, pro-divorce bishops, as well as pro-homosexual bishops.

 

[ebia]

The logic is then (following the example of St. Paul), that we should start disciplining pro-abortion bishops, pro-divorce bishops, as well as pro-homosexual bishops.

Depending how you define "pro-divorce" you might have your work cut out on that one. Anyway, the point is that the failure to make a fuss about any of those makes it very easy for those inside and outside the church to draw certain conclusions about the reasons some people are making so much fuss about this issue. At best it's leaving a hostage to fortune, at worst....

And above all we all need to stop constantly picking at the wound and concentrate on the real mission of the church. If we can do that at a local level - and we seem agreed that we are - then surely we should be able to do so at other levels as well.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear ebia,

It's up to all who are followers of Christ to be part of the solution. Anybody simply demanding that the solution come from elsewhere isn't going to work. If the "liberals" really are effectively outside the church (as some seem to claim) then expecting the solution to come from there would be ridiculous - if anyone claims to be the only ones true to Christ then they (whoever they may be) then carry the burden.

That’s true, so those who seek to help widows and orphans and keep themselves from being polluted by the world don’t need to take any notice of those criticising them who are being polluted by the world.

The funny thing is that Christians of all persuasions think they are the ones following Jesus' teaching.

The funny thing is that the Pharisees thought they were following God’s teaching as well. But we don’t take peoples word for it we test against God’s word what other and what we ourselves are saying.

All of us need the humility to realise sometimes it will be someone else who has it right - however sure we are of our position.

We need the humility to know God is right and we and others may be wrong.
Deuteronomy 8:2 “Remember how the LORD your God led you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and to test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands.”
1 Peter 5:6 “Humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time “

 

[ebia]

Dear ebia,
That’s true, so those who seek to help widows and orphans and keep themselves from being polluted by the world don’t need to take any notice of those criticising them who are being polluted by the world.

Sure, you don't need to take any notice of anyone who you think is "polluted by the world" (thought it might be a good idea to at least listen to such a person, as God has the funny habit of speaking through the most unlikely people), but I meant something rather more specific and I'm sure you know it.

The funny thing is that the Pharisees thought they were following God’s teaching as well. But we don’t take peoples word for it we test against God’s word what other and what we ourselves are saying.

And the Pharisees thought they were doing that as well. The surest way of being deluded about God's will is lacking the humility to realise that it might be us who are wrong.

We need the humility to know God is right and we and others may be wrong.

Absolutely. The trouble is I see a dreadful lack of humility in a lot of what is going on on both sides of the current issue.

Deuteronomy 8:2 “Remember how the LORD your God led you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and to test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands.”

1 Peter 5:6 “Humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time “

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear ebia,

Sure, you don't need to take any notice of anyone who you think is "polluted by the world"

Ok so how do you tell who can be part of the solution you referred to?

thought it might be a good idea to at least listen to such a person, as God has the funny habit of speaking through the most unlikely people

yes of course but I am not talking about testing people to see if God is speaking through them, but to test what the speak to see if it is of God. That’s what I said we don’t just take peoples word for it, we test against God’s word what other and what we ourselves are saying.

And the Pharisees thought they were doing that as well. The surest way of being deluded about God's will is lacking the humility to realise that it might be us who are wrong.

That’s the only way to be deluded is to think we know better than God.

Absolutely. The trouble is I see a dreadful lack of humility in a lot of what is going on on both sides of the current issue.

Then they must all be wrong. I basically only see a major and basic lack of humility from one side of the current debate which is in denial and disbelief of what God’s word says.
Which is what the majority at GAFCON met about.

 

[Timothy]

The Church is to rebuke sin wherever it is found.

I'm fairly clearly a conservative evangelical and I take serious umbrage at that statement. When they bring a woman who has been caught in deep sin to Jesus to rebuke her, he sends them away and tells her: "You're forgiven. Now go, live a forgiven life." Rebuking sin wasn't what Jesus was about. He called sin for what it was and told them that God had come to deal with it in a very special, very new, very all encompassing way. He told people that God could and DOES change real people then and there, just as he does here and now. But he didn't rebuke sinners publicly. Nor can I find any indication of that being done in the Acts nor the Epistles, since they are primarily writing to deal with Doctrinal Issues, not calling out people who are sinners.

Tim

 

[Timothy]

FWIW: The preaching from the pulpit of the churches I have attended in the past have all dealt with the sins you list above and members have been disciplined over them.

Disciplined? I'd run a thousand miles before I'd attend a church where they want to DISCIPLINE me because of sin. Discipline shouldn't happen--DEFINITELY not from the pulpit. If you have to discipline, there's been a collapse of effective discipleship.

 

[norbie]

Social justice is indeed important but so is living a holy life. I would point out that I would dearly love to spend all my hours calling upon people to help the poor, but when people start saying that a sinful life style is not actually sinful then we need to respond. If those who championed homosexuality within the Church repent of their errors then we can all go and help the poor.

And you know what Jesus said about this hypocrates? My few is this that anybody who support GAFCON haven't found God jet. Jesus forgives - Gafcon don't. There are more important issues as just ONE homosexual Bishop in our church to solve, so Aikona and Co have to be strongly condemned.
repent of their errors then we can all go and help the poor.
and in the meantime we let the poor die - my dear friend, find the way back to God

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Sir Timothy,

I'm fairly clearly a conservative evangelical and I take serious umbrage at that statement.

Yet I support it and I would say it is the conservative evangelical view.

When they bring a woman who has been caught in deep sin to Jesus to rebuke her, he sends them away and tells her: "You're forgiven. Now go, live a forgiven life." Rebuking sin wasn't what Jesus was about.

Not quite. Rebuke is not the same as condemn, there is no mention of rebuke from the Pharisees and scribes, Jesus indicated they wanted to condemn her.
Stoning her is condemning her to her punishment, rebuking her would be more like warning her from sin. So I would say Jesus did rebuke her sin.

He told people that God could and DOES change real people then and there, just as he does here and now.

Yes that’s correct.

But he didn't rebuke sinners publicly.

Yes He did, see for example Mark 8:33 “But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.”
And remember He told people to repent.

Luke 17 “Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. So watch yourselves.
"If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, 'I repent,' forgive him."

Nor can I find any indication of that being done in the Acts nor the Epistles, since they are primarily writing to deal with Doctrinal Issues, not calling out people who are sinners.

Not surprisingly of you cant find it in the gospels there is no reason why you can find it in ACTS onwards.

1 Timothy 5:20 “Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning”

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear norbie,

And you know what Jesus said about this hypocrates?

Yes, I think that’s what we are saying
Matthew 23:27 “"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.”

My few is this that anybody who support GAFCON haven't found God jet. Jesus forgives - Gafcon don't.

In what way can you demonstrate that GAFCON doesn’t forgive?

and in the meantime we let the poor die - my dear friend, find the way back to God

No my dear friend you haven’t been listening we don’t let the poor die we do what we can to help the poor as well as restoring brothers from sin (Galatians 6) if they repent. One should look beautiful on the outside helping the poor but be like whitewashed tombs and unclean on the inside.