The Anglican Counter Reformation Began This Week

[Foundthelight]

You wrote:

We have been unable to find any logical explanation that would justify conservative Christians concentrating so much on these two laws against homosexuality while abandoning most of the rest.

This is a common misconception propogated by many who wish to twist the argument.

This is not a case of homosexuality alone being a sin, but rather all sexual sin being sin. When you separate homosexuality from all other sexual sin you then make it sound like we are saying that homosexuals are bad people and that we are singling them out. This could not be farther from the truth.


Read what Paul said.
1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

1Co 6:10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1Co 6:11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Sexual Immorality

1Co 6:12 "Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything.

1Co 6:13 "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"—but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.

1Co 6:14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also.

1Co 6:15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never!

1Co 6:16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."

1Co 6:17 But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

1Co 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

1Co 6:19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;

1Co 6:20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

To say that this only applies to sex with temple prostitutes denies the whole context of Paul's preaching against sexual sin.

 

[Icystwolf]

Ah geez, I thought the main issue in here is that Gene is divorced with two daughters. You can't have a divorced man who can't hold a family together, let alone hold a church together, become bishop.

So in his marriage, he has broken a vow to God the "..death do us part.." and gone off into a sinful relationship which yes, it is unrepenting, because he still practises it.

Jesus calls it "Adultery", so does the whole Bible. If he were to be bishop again, he should at least return to his wife.

 

[Bruce S]

In you eyes, he is an unrepentent sinner. In the eyes of others, he is a man called to lead the church by God and his relationship is not a sin. I'm sure everyone does something that by another would be considered a sin that they don't repent for. Calling Robinson an unrepentent sinner is calling us all unrepentent sinners (and in most cases, we probably are).

I am a sinner. I know that, I AM NOT THEREFORE, qualified to lead a church, my SINS disqualify me, they are of "that nature."

So are Robinson's ... of a disqualifying nature. Only HE, thinks HE is a SAVIOUR, sent forth as a beacon of light, to lead his church to a NEW UNDERSTANING....

Eve thought the same thing too, and over the intervening milleniums, that has been the MAIN sin of man, thinking we KNOW better, we are able to INTERPRET the instruction book in a new, more understanding way.

We all know where Eve took us....

 

[Icystwolf]

I disagree. Churches that ordain women are doing the right thing. You are of course free to belong to one which doesn't; but don't whine when you face collective disapproval for an atavistic stance like that.

Oh Zorilla, you seriously hate men. It's so evident in all the posts you've made. You hate every fundamental yet you still call yourself a Christian...

And I can see your not anglican either, so all this insults should be left else where because they're just not constructive.

 

[Icystwolf]

Robinson is a repentent sinner so I guess there is no problem there. Your issue is with definitions and listings of sin, not one of repentence.

In the eyes of someone, we are all unrepentent sinners. We all commit sins that are by our definition not sinful but by someone elses definition and interpretation are sins.

No no, Robinson is making "homosexuality" that is a sin, into not a sin. It contradicts the doctrines and hence he's practise of "homosexuality" which he thinks is not a sin actually is a sin, hence he's not repenting the sin of "homosexuality" because he dosen't think it is, but in actual fact it is a sin.

Thus makes him an unrepentent sinner.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

I have posted this personal statement of faith before on this board.


2000 years ago our Lord walked the earth as a man. There were many who walked with Him and wrote down His Gospel. Paul received the Gospel directly by revelation from the Lord. This revelation was accepted as true by those who witnessed it and the other Apostles. The Gospel has been handed down to us in the New Testament.

Am I to listen to those who walked and talked with the Lord, or those today that would bend the Gospel to fit their own perception of how the world should work?

Sin against God is still sin against God. Our freedom is from the Mosaic law, in Christ. It is not a freedom to sin.

Unrepentent sinners are not fit to serve in leadership positions in a Christian Church.

Many today say that the Bible is not truly the inspired word of God, that we are free to re-interpret it in light of today's society and what we feel "comfortable" with. Who decides what should be changed? What do we ignore? Where do we draw the line?

I do not say that we should be Legalists. Indeed, Paul's letters leave much room for differences in individual and church practice. His letters do not leave room for Sin against God.

This is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

In you eyes, he is an unrepentent sinner. In the eyes of others, he is a man called to lead the church by God and his relationship is not a sin. I'm sure everyone does something that by another would be considered a sin that they don't repent for. Calling Robinson an unrepentent sinner is calling us all unrepentent sinners (and in most cases, we probably are).

Notto: excellent posts. Your logical and loving perspective is most welcome.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

You wrote:




This is a common misconception propogated by many who wish to twist the argument.

Whenever a fundamentalist accuses someone else of "twisting" you can bet a weak and ineffectual argument will follow. Apparently that verb is in the dog-eared copy of the playbook in a central place and its use reveals that one might as well disregard what follows because there will be no logic or reason to it and yours was no exception.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

I am a sinner. I know that, I AM NOT THEREFORE, qualified to lead a church, my SINS disqualify me, they are of "that nature."

So are Robinson's ... of a disqualifying nature.

This is your opinion, based on your own prejudices and misconceptions.

Only HE, thinks HE is a SAVIOUR, sent forth as a beacon of light, to lead his church to a NEW UNDERSTANING....

I doubt he has used that term, so this is your interpretation but you have no way of knowing what is in his heart.

Eve thought the same thing too, and over the intervening milleniums, that has been the MAIN sin of man, thinking we KNOW better, we are able to INTERPRET the instruction book in a new, more understanding way.

We all know where Eve took us....

In the Eden myth Eve was a patsy of Snake Dude and blamed by the wimpy Adam for his own shortcoming. She was hardly presented as an arrogant pretender to the throne. If there is an Old testament metaphor to Robinson's situation he is closer to David smiting a fundamentalist Goliath than to Eve.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Whenever a fundamentalist accuses someone else of "twisting" you can bet a weak and ineffectual argument will follow. Apparently that verb is in the dog-eared copy of the playbook in a central place and its use reveals that one might as well disregard what follows because there will be no logic or reason to it and yours was no exception.

Rule No. 1 - No "Flaming"

1) You will not post any messages that harass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest. This will include misquoting another member out of context. You may discuss another member's beliefs but there will be no personal attacks on the member himself or herself. This includes implied accusations that another member is not a Christian.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

No no, Robinson is making "homosexuality" that is a sin, into not a sin. It contradicts the doctrines and hence he's practise of "homosexuality" which he thinks is not a sin actually is a sin, hence he's not repenting the sin of "homosexuality" because he dosen't think it is, but in actual fact it is a sin.

Thus makes him an unrepentent sinner.

Your attempt at showing a logical progression might have done the Inquisition proud (Not to accuse you of being an Inquisitor of course and certainly in this instance you aren't acting as such at all). This is exactly the type of logic they employed to justify their atrocities.


The fact is we as human beings have no authority over another human being given to us by God to serve as his "deputy". Robinson's humility and patience is truly inspiring.

 

[Icystwolf]

Your attempt at showing a logical progression might have done the Inquisition proud (Not to accuse you of being an Inquisitor of course and certainly in this instance you aren't acting as such at all). This is exactly the type of logic they employed to justify their atrocities.


The fact is we as human beings have no authority over another human being given to us by God to serve as his "deputy". Robinson's humility and patience in the face of this sort of arrogance is truly inspiring.

Logic, hmm...lets see, being an engineer I can tell you without logic the internet wouldn't exist. It's a protocol that is based on logic so that it's functional in society. I used logic just then to prove that Robinson is unrepenting.

If logic was not employed in this world, would it not crumble? Listen Zorilla, you know jack about logic, theres people here who are more "Logical" than you, to realise that in Logics, theres only one logic standard. Theres no different type of logics...I've been using maths and logic to prove heaps of systems and circuits and believe me, if there were different types of logic I'd be overwhelmed.

I can see where you've gone wrong, we can't judge another person nor can we do any physical harm, but we can give them influences in what we think is right provided we have a good proof which is what we've seen in this forum....unlike your proof which is no proof except critisms that everyone that does not follow you is arrogant.

If your logic serves me correctly, then it's not wrong for me to send a sniper over to whereever you are and assasinate you, without myself committing a sin, because I don't think it's a sin. And that you have no authority over me, so it shouldn't matter...

Thats sounds "Christian" dosen't it...

 

[Icystwolf]

[noflame]​

 

[twex]

I disagree. Churches that ordain women are doing the right thing. You are of course free to belong to one which doesn't; but don't whine when you face collective disapproval for an atavistic stance like that.

Which collective disapproval are you speaking of? The overwhelming majority of Christians don't allow women's ordination. Or were you bringing unbelievers into the equation?

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Insult counter from Zorilla :​

Keep them coming Zorilla...they're all your words. It's amazing how you got so much blessings, and you haven't been banned yet.....

Sorry you feel that way. Sounds like you're a little emotional over disagreements on this issue. To point out errors and prejudices is hardly an insult.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Logic, hmm...lets see, being an engineer I can tell you without logic the internet wouldn't exist. It's a protocol that is based on logic so that it's functional in society. I used logic just then to prove that Robinson is unrepenting.

If logic was not employed in this world, would it not crumble? Listen Zorilla, you know jack about logic, theres people here who are more "Logical" than you, to realise that in Logics, theres only one logic standard. Theres no different type of logics...I've been using maths and logic to prove heaps of systems and circuits and believe me, if there were different types of logic I'd be overwhelmed.

I can see where you've gone wrong, we can't judge another person nor can we do any physical harm, but we can give them influences in what we think is right provided we have a good proof which is what we've seen in this forum....unlike your proof which is no proof except critisms that everyone that does not follow you is arrogant.

If your logic serves me correctly, then it's not wrong for me to send a sniper over to whereever you are and assasinate you, without myself committing a sin, because I don't think it's a sin. And that you have no authority over me, so it shouldn't matter...

Thats sounds "Christian" dosen't it...

The difference is contract murder violates another.

 

[Foundthelight]

As I have said elswhere:

2000 years ago a group of men and women walked with and received the Good News from our Lord. Saul of Tarsus received the Good News by way of a Revelation from the Lord. Those who walked with the Lord accepted the fact of this Revelation to the one re-named Paul.

Are we to listen to those who would say, "times have changed, we have modern science, we understand things better today, He couldn't really have meant that, abortion and divorce are O.K., sexual preference is not a choice"?

Or are we to listen to those who walked with the Lord?

This statement of faith was mocked in a earlier post. So be it. I stand by it and my Lord.

Can you who mocks find scripture to support your position? Or, will you continue to use humanistic arguments?

This is what the Lord had to say through Paul:

Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

Gal 5:23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

Gal 5:24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires

Gal 6:1 Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently.

Perhaps I have not been gentle enough.

Eph 4:18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts.

Eph 4:19 Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.

Eph 4:20 You, however, did not come to know Christ that way.

 

[VigoMedic]

This is CHURCH politics, not a sexual issues thread:


This is a CLEAN BREAK with the mainstream, National Episcopal denomination, essentially, they are starting a new denomination here, they have STARTED the Anglican/CounterREFORMATION.

Good for them!

First off, it seems to me that this has gone beyond a "church politics" thread and into a thread for Zorilla and Icystwolf to bicker.

I would hope that the dioceses in the EPUSA that have problems with what happened do break communion with the EPUSA. The Episcopal Church has lost almost 1.5 million members in the last 35 years when it began its course of self-destruction. It is very sad.
Jeff the Finn, a former Episcopalian

Let those who disagree with the ECUSA split from the church. It is their choice, and while I think the main body of the church should do what they can to reach out to the "alienated" conservatives, they should realize it's the conservative's ulitmate decision to split, and they can do what they want.

Just because a church has lost "almost 1.5 million members" (by the way, I would like to know the source on that number) doesn't necessarily make it "wrong." Cynthia McFarland and Brian Reid accurately capture my thoughts on that subject:


Often we intrinsically assume that the definition of success in the ecclesiastical world is the number of [people] in the pews. This gives us pause. Having more members makes a church more viable as a social institution, but cannot possibly make it nearer to Truth, Goodness, and Beauty or necessarily more capable of advancing the kingdom of heaven. The balance between consensus and truth is a tricky one, since ordinary mortals can never be certain of Truth. Consensus is a tool to help people determine if they are more or less likely to be headed in the general direction of Truth. There is a disturbingly fine line between democracy and mob rule; an angry mob comprising three quarters of the population of a village has no more right or truth on its side than a thug with a gun, but the latter historically has been easier to police.

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Why this is all so worrisome is rooted in Andrew Brown's observation that inclusive and tolerant churches are less successful than exclusive and rigid churches. In other words, in order for a church to 'succeed', it must find someone to exclude, someone to call sinful, someone to rail against. It's almost as though it's been said in the context of a Powerpoint presentation: 'Modern marketing studies have determined that for your church to be successful, you must find something or someone to condemn, because inclusive churches don't attract big numbers'. It's a formula for Hollywood movies, dividing the world into 'good guys' and 'bad guys', but is it a formula for a faithful Christian life? Surely not. Alas, the inability to tell real life from the movies seems to be a growing social problem in western culture.[/font]​

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We've always paid special attention to 1 Corinthians 10:17 and its message of unity. But there is an enormous difference between unity and homogeneity. We can be one with you while not being identical to you. We adhere to the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed, and that makes us one body. But large numbers in any part of that body do not make it more or less Christ-like. The Truth was found in one person and carried out to the world by a few bedraggled followers. [/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]'The logical end of cross-carrying is crucifixion', Dorothy Sayers once wrote. That will never bring in the numbers.[/font]​

Peace.​

 

[Foundthelight]

Thank you Vigo. I am sorry that I got carried away.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Which collective disapproval are you speaking of? The overwhelming majority of Christians don't allow women's ordination. Or were you bringing unbelievers into the equation?

I'm not exactly sure what is threshhold for something to be 'overwhelming' but I would imagine an 'overwhelming' majority on an issue would be something like 90 percent to 10 percent. The number of churches, both by church and by membership that refuse to ordain women is certainly not of that magnitude. Moreover, as the number of female clergy in churches that do ordain them has increased exponentially. Women are going into the ministry in droves and it is becoming rare for any member of the clergy to have not attended a meeting of his local Ministerial Alliance where he did not have at least one female colleague. The issue is hardly uncomplicated as you might imagine. Increasing numbers of married couples are jointly pastoring in the style of Mom and Pop small businesses.

Concerning resistance to this phenomenon, as long as the Catholics hold out, and they will certainly be among the last to, there will remain significant opposition to female ordination. Southern Baptists as a body have taken a stance against it which is non-binding on the individual churches though in some cases they've used other tactics against their more liberal congregations. Of course it cannot be all characterized as male sexism as a good number of women describe themselves as being against having a female pastor for themselves though they might not object if other churches do. That will certainly change; a couple of generations ago a majority of women and men would've said "I'd feel more comfortable with a man as my doctor than a woman" (or lawyer, college dean, mayor, etc.) but today gender is hardly a factor in people's impressions of professional competence, if not in some cases where people rightly note a female doctor etc. just might ought to inspire MORE confidence than a male, as it's obvious she had to work harder and smarter to get where she is in the face of institutional sexism.

Obviously I don't know the percentages favoring or disfavoring female clergy either within Christendom or in the general society. Perhaps there is a Barna Poll someone could post. But just as we need clergy of all races and ethnic groups to reach those individuals--just as we have cowboy churches and biker churches and military chaplains and truck stop chaplains--we need female clergy just as badly. To ignore that in favor of institutional discrimination is not a service to Christ and his people.