Should the ECUSA apologise

[J-Tron]

I think that an apology for causing hurt and for leaving so much of the international bodies out of what is clearly a very sensitive decision making process is appropriate. This can be done without apologizing for the act itself.

I think that an apology from those bishops who have extended their reach into other provinces without the consent of the bishops there should also offer apologies for taking such a hurtful action. Again, not an apology for the substantive belief that alternative care is needed, but for the hurt that has been caused.

All of this "majority" versus "minority" talk is quite premature since we have no sense yet of how our decision making as a Communion is going to work. We're trying to put the wheels on the car as it rolls down the road. This is beyond daunting.

I found some parts of the report troubling, but one thing that I believe was well placed was the emphasis on our scriptural heritage (that Anglicanism has always valued the scriptural witness as our authority, understood as a vehicle by which we may interact with Christ who is our true authority). And the report's call for a theological and scriptural explanation for ECUSA and New Westminster's position on same sex relationships makes sense.

Why are we afraid to do this? I am fully in favor of Bishop Robinson's ordination and of blessing monogamous, committed unions between gay and lesbian people. I think there are good theological grounds for making such a case. But we have shrunk away from doing that in our haste to make moral hay.

These are serious matters. And I believe, as do many in my province, that we cannot just wait around indefinitely when the lives and hearts and minds of a good number of our brothers and sisters who happen to be gay or lesbian are at stake. But we do have the time to slow down and contemplate, to make a rationale appeal to scriptural and theological principles, to risk our selves in the process of appealing to the Spirit. Isn't that what being Anglican is all about? Isn't that the great theological tradition we inherited from Cranmer, Hooker, Law, Baxter, and others?

 

[ahab]

Chalice_thunder,



However what you wrote on the previous page, which has simply kicked off the debate about sexuality again, has not been addressed. The report is about the way forward for the Anglican communion not the issue of sexuality. You wrote

But the Church needs to continue to recognize the full inclusion of gays and lesbians - which includes the sacrament of ordination - not because we are gay and lesbian, but because we are BAPTIZED Christian ministers. And, by extension, that is going to hurt the communion again and again.

That’s the debate on sexuality not the Windsor report. It is also not quite true. There are celibate homosexuals in ministry already!

You may think the Anglican communion needs to recognise full inclusion of ordained gays and lesbians but others think that the church must resist this. As it stands it seems you are saying those that have breached the agreed position of the Anglican communion will continue to do so despite Lambeth 1.10.

 

[ahab]

Hi J-Tron,



I suppose that as we are already forgiven by the cross and have no condemnation in Christ Jesus (providing Paul understood) then we should applaud the Windsor Report for recognising this and not demanding apology and discipline or punishment.

However, in the light of the calls for restraint and reflection following the ordination of a practicing promoting gay bishop, and subsequent same-sex blessings and appointment of same-sex promoting deans, it is hardly surprising that bishops have extended their reach into other provinces. They have after all only disobediently extended into disobedient provinces.

All of this "majority" versus "minority" talk is quite premature..[/QUOTE]Well yes it is in the sense you say but

Bishop Eames did say in the press conference that the majority have been hurt.

And the report's call for a theological and scriptural explanation for ECUSA and New Westminster's position on same sex relationships makes sense.

That is a good point but as Bishop Griswold doubts the validity of scrioture on this issue it is difficult to see how.

Why are we afraid to do this? I am fully in favor of Bishop Robinson's ordination and of blessing monogamous, committed unions between gay and lesbian people. I think there are good theological grounds for making such a case. But we have shrunk away from doing that in our haste to make moral hay.

What scriptural grounds. We have been over this again and again. Gen 2, Gen 19, Lev 18, Matt 19, Mark 10, 1 Cor 6:9-11, 1 Tim, Romans 1, Hebrews 13:4. If Bishop Griswold doesn’t think the NT writers understood about the issue, what possible reason is there for scriptural authority, certainly nothing refering to countenance same-sex sex or sexually active monogamous homosexual relationships.

 

[julian the apostate]

ahab<<I suppose that as we are already forgiven by the cross and have no condemnation in Christ Jesus (providing Paul understood)

a ringing endorsement of grace!!

rough draft of proposed apology to anglican communion at large:

dear anglican communion,

the episcopal church of the usa would like to extend our deepest apologies for
well,
being episcopalian

sincerely,

julian the apostate
acting pontiff for the ecusa, who still in fact, welcomes you

 

[BarbB]

... Griswold believes its limited by lack of understanding.On the contrary, generally there are often different revelations from scripture, in this case however I have put the scriptures and my stance. How do you deal with these scriptures and where are those that support same-sex sex.... [/font]

I find it interesting that if Griswold believes that the NT writers had no understanding of homosexuality, does he also believe that Solomon had no wisdom when he penned the following:

ECC 1:9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

ECC 1:10 Is there anything of which one can say,
"Look! This is something new"?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.

I have yet to discover any idea/action/sin/whatever which has not been addressed in the Bible. My own, especially, which I would have said were due to "modern life".

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

At whatever level the writer of Ecclesiastes was right, there is a level at which he was wrong.

Computers were new.
The internal combustion engine was new
The printing press was new.

and so it goes on. There are new things under the sun. We can't just proof-text, when a clear reading is demonstrably wrong. We need a better engagement with the text than this.

This is my major beef with fundamentalism. It quotes the text. It doesn't engage with it. It interprets the text one way and denies that this is an interpretation.

 

[chalice_thunder]

ahab<<I suppose that as we are already forgiven by the cross and have no condemnation in Christ Jesus (providing Paul understood)

a ringing endorsement of grace!!

rough draft of proposed apology to anglican communion at large:

dear anglican communion,

the episcopal church of the usa would like to extend our deepest apologies for
well,
being episcopalian

sincerely,

julian the apostate
acting pontiff for the ecusa, who still in fact, welcomes you

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to julian the apostate again.


Oh great pontiff!

 

[chalice_thunder]

My friends, in a spirit of gentle humor, I invite you to make a quick visit to this site which is kind of a précis of the Windsor Report.

 

[TomUK]

My friends, in a spirit of gentle humor, I invite you to make a quick visit to this site which is kind of a précis of the Windsor Report.

 

[ahab]

Hi Julian the apostate,

ahab<<I suppose that as we are already forgiven by the cross and have no condemnation in Christ Jesus (providing Paul understood)

Yes I agree, I believe Jesus has died once and for all and we are forgiven. There is no condemnation in Christ Jesus. But i dont believe we receive that forgiveness for those sins if we are practicing and promoting those sins. We can only receive the grace and forgiveness by repenting with thanks and joy. We need to remain in Him John 15 and His words in us. How can His words remain in us if we don’t think they are His words but of writers who didn’t understand?

 

[ahab]

Karl -Liberal Backslider,

Sorry but whats new about same-sex sex? When did same-sex sex come about then?

 

[ahab]

So my question remains. The setting up of the report recognised that this is a schism-able issue. Bishop Griswold and liberals have demonstrated their belief that the scriptures are fallable, so its isnt any good asking these people to give scriptures, they just make things up like monogamous stable faithful, loving same-sex relationships, which is their own gospel.
There isnt much point in a monitorium in line with resolution 1.10, asits already been signed up to and breached. Unless Bishop Griswold and the like undertake to agree to preach and adhere to Lambeth 1.10?
Secondly many are now left supposedly under Bishops who dont preach and adhere to Lambeth 1.10. So what happens? Same-sex sex is considered wrong mostly by religion, the world and its atheistic and humanistic views primarily allows people to express their sexuality as they wish. It is the to the disbeliveing world that some Gay and Lesbian Christians look to for support.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Hi Julian the apostate,



Yes I agree, I believe Jesus has died once and for all and we are forgiven. There is no condemnation in Christ Jesus. But i dont believe we receive that forgiveness for those sins if we are practicing and promoting those sins. We can only receive the grace and forgiveness by repenting with thanks and joy. We need to remain in Him John 15 and His words in us. How can His words remain in us if we don’t think they are His words but of writers who didn’t understand?

Jesus never once spoke on the subject. I do not believe that Paul's words are Jesus' words.

Let's drop the pretence the objection is about the Lambeth resolution. If the Lambeth resolution had affirmed same sex relationships, the same conservative Anglicans would still be objecting to them.

You ask "what is new"? I will tell you what is new, compared with Bible times. Equal, monogamous, life-long commitment between members of the same sex. This is because we now, in the West, rightly or wrongly, base marriage upon romantic love. In NT times it was not so; it was based on social contract. The social contract did not allow for same sex marriages, so a committed "married" relationship was meaningless in that culture. Today, it is perfectly conceivable to imagine a "married" relationship between two people of the opposite sex, and this is what is new.

 

[ahab]

Karl – Liberal Backslider,

Jesus never once spoke on the subject. I do not believe that Paul's words are Jesus' words.

What subject? Also if Paul’s words are Jesus words then you disagree with Bishop Griswold about the NT writers, or are you saying Jesus didn’t speak the word of God?

Let's drop the pretence the objection is about the Lambeth resolution.

Then you cant have understood why the Eames commission was set up. The reaction is becuase of the breach of Lambeth 1.10 and the liberal reasons for its breach.

If the Lambeth resolution had affirmed same sex relationships, the same conservative Anglicans would still be objecting to them.

Yes they would, so too the evangelicals etc. However the reality is that Lambeth stated that same-sex sex was not in accordance with scripture.

You ask "what is new"? I will tell you what is new, compared with Bible times. Equal, monogamous, life-long commitment between members of the same sex.

But that is only new becuase man has decided what he wants. The Holy Bible, not only reveal that marriage is the place for sex, in a faithful man/woman relationship, and that same-sex sex is wrong, but describe what has happened in the past when man has decided man will do what man wants.The Word of God does not change because man decides to look at things his way.

 

[ahab]

However, the report requests the ECUSA to effect a moratorium on the ordination of bishops living in same-sex union and on same-sex blessings. Is this likely to happen?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Karl – Liberal Backslider,



What subject? Also if Paul’s words are Jesus words then you disagree with Bishop Griswold about the NT writers, or are you saying Jesus didn’t speak the word of God?

Please read what I said. I said that Paul's words were NOT Jesus' words.

Then you cant have understood why the Eames commission was set up.

The reaction is becuase of the breach of Lambeth 1.10 and the liberal reasons for its breach.

No, I understand that perfectly. I'm not talking about why the Eames commission was set up - I'm talking about why you've got your knickers in a twist over gay clergy.

Yes they would, so too the evangelicals etc. However the reality is that Lambeth stated that same-sex sex was not in accordance with scripture.

Indeed. But that's not the point. Using the Lambeth resolution as a reason for objecting to gay clergy is dishonest - you're really against it because you think the Bible is against it.

But that is only new becuase man has decided what he wants. The Holy Bible, not only reveal that marriage is the place for sex, in a faithful man/woman relationship,

But it doesn't define whether social contract, romantic love or any other basis is the right one for marriage

and that same-sex sex is wrong,

No, that's your interpretation. Others do not see a blanket ban in the tiny number of verses that you are alluding to.

but describe what has happened in the past when man has decided man will do what man wants.

The Word of God does not change because man decides to look at things his way.

The Word of God is Christ, not the Bible. But as a somewhat side issue, tell me - what do you think are the bases for doctrine in the Anglican church?

 

[ahab]

Karl – Liberal Backslider,

Please read what I said. I said that Paul's words were NOT Jesus' words.

Ah yes sorry, my apologies.

I wrote quoting John 15 and you said Jesus never spoke on the subject. What subject? As to the NT writers not understanding my point is how can they not understand if what they are writing is inspired by the Holy Spirit? Paul presents his case on more than one occasion in his letters that he receives his revelation directly from Jesus, and “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 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!”

Now Paul wrote Romans 1 and 1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim. Who wrote “monogamous faithful homosexual relationships”?

No, I understand that perfectly. I'm not talking about why the Eames commission was set up - I'm talking about why you've got your knickers in a twist over gay clergy.

Really, then why did you say drop the pretence that the Eames commission is about Lambeth 1.10? The Eames commission was set up because of the breach of Lambeth 1.10

I don’t disagree with any of Lambeth 1.10. Here are the points that were breached.

in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage;

cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor

ordaining those involved in same gender unions;

Indeed. But that's not the point. Using the Lambeth resolution as a reason for objecting to gay clergy is dishonest - you're really against it because you think the Bible is against it.

I don’t object to gay clergy. When did I say that? Where does Lambeth 1.10 say that?

But it doesn't define whether social contract, romantic love or any other basis is the right one for marriage

Well it describes the truth about marriage. What you mean by social contract, sounds like the man made bit. All our love, to God and to man, including in marriage should be based on agape, as the love God has shown and continues to show us, yes? Marriage requires this above all, but almost certainly should include phileo (romantic) and eros intimate.

Hebrews 13:4 “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.” 1 Cor 7:2 “But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.” "Anyone who looks at another woman lustfully commits adultery in his heart." Matt 5:28 So who are the sexually immoral that don’t keep the marriage bed pure, I pray and hope they will not be eternally condemned?

Others do not see a blanket ban in the tiny number of verses that you are alluding to.

That is my interpretation, but how can you have an interpretation on the verses that you don’t think are Holy Spirit inspired. Have you got a single verse that supports your views. The Anglican Communion interpretation is contained in Lambeth 1.10

The Word of God is Christ, not the Bible.

Where did you get that idea from, the Bible? Jesus is the word and the truth. He says His words are Spirit and they are life, those who remain in him and His words will be set free. Those who believe and repent and ask receive the Holy Spirit, thats my personal testimony and true for me as well.

But as a somewhat side issue, tell me - what do you think are the bases for doctrine in the Anglican church?

Side issue? What’s Lambeth 1.10 based on, pixie dust It was for freedom that Christ has set us free

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Ahab - it's just like the Hallowe'en thread. I could waste half an hour just addressing your misunderstandings of what I've already said, before even addressing your points.

The problem is you flalsely equivocate, all the time. I say that Paul's words are not Jesus'; you jump to "you don't believe that Paul's words are inspired". Non sequitur. That is why discussing with you is fruitless - you translate my position into a misrepresentation of it and then argue against that.

Life's too short.

 

[ahab]

Karl – Liberal Backslider,



I think you are ducking the issue. My points concern the scriptures and the Lambeth 1.10. if you cant comment on the scriptures and Lambeth 1.10, there must be something wrong.
I don’t disagree with any of Lambeth 1.10. Here are the points that were breached.

in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage;
cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor
ordaining those involved in same gender unions;
Do you disagree with these, the standard of teaching and understanding agreed by all the primates at Lambeth 1998?


The issue was that Bishop Griswold didn’t think the NT writers understood homosexuality, but if the writings are inspired by the Holy Spirit (Spirit again you notice) then they aren't the understandings of the writers anyway but of God. The Holy Spirit leads us in all truth and reminds us of all Jesus said. John 14:26. The point is that Paul is taught by Jesus so what he writes is what Jesus wishes to impart.


Also Paul wrote Romans 1 and 1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim. But who wrote “monogamous faithful homosexual relationships”? I don’t see it in my Bible, I see faithful man and woman Matt 19, Mark 10, Gen 2, Heb 13 and I see same-sex sex as condemned Lev 18, Gen 19, 1 Cor 6, 1 Tim, Rom 1. These are simple questions.

Eternal life isn't short

 

[pmcleanj]

You state

if the writings are inspired by the Holy Spirit ... then they aren't the understandings of the writers anyway but of God.

Does this sentence sum up a premise that you believe?