The Anglican Counter Reformation Began This Week

[La Bonita Zorilla]

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"?

You're right on one of your three examples, divorce. However, Christ addresses neither abortion nor sexual orientation.

And then you have the phenomenon of preachers in conservative churches decrying the Robinson imbroligio and being cheered and "Amen!"-ed by parishioners in the front rows who have been divorced and remarried, insome cases having been to the altar promising to stay together till death with three or more spouses. The irony is staggering.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

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.​

That is truly outstanding. Thank you for this post. Would you happen to have the citation or a link for the full article?

 

[FreeinChrist]

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?

You make a good point! Divorce was directly addressed by Jesus, and homosexuality directly addressed by God (via Moses) in the OT, and is referred to by Paul in the NT. As for abortion, was it in anyway common then? Babies frequently died at birth. Murder is addressed, though.
God doesn't change. If homosexuality was an abomination to Him in the OT, it is an abomination to Him today.

 

[FreeinChrist]

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.

The full quote was interesting, but this part raised a flag with me.

Ordinary mortals CAN be certain of Truth - specifically, those who are born again, spirit-filled Christians who read scripture. God does not lead a democracy and has already determined what is sin and what is not sin.
Our role as believing Christians is to do God's will, not try to change what God has already decided. It is not our job to redefine sin, to decide as a group that something is really okay after all. Some churches, or some folks in churches, have lost sight of this.

 

[VigoMedic]

The full quote was interesting, but this part raised a flag with me.

Ordinary mortals CAN be certain of Truth - specifically, those who are born again, spirit-filled Christians who read scripture. God does not lead a democracy and has already determined what is sin and what is not sin.
Our role as believing Christians is to do God's will, not try to change what God has already decided. It is not our job to redefine sin, to decide as a group that something is really okay after all. Some churches, or some folks in churches, have lost sight of this.

Thank you for your reply... and I appreciate your point of view. I do not disagree with you, per se. However, I believe that two spirit-filled Christians can read scripture and arrive at two different "truths" (within reason, of course). It happens quite often. (I will not name specific passages because I do not want to debate those matters in this thread.) So, in that case, who is right?

My main frustration with some of my fellow Christians is that they believe "their way" is right and there can be no other way, period. How do they know that the truth that someone else has discovered through much prayer and with the unmistakable guidance of the Holy Spirit is any less accurate than your conclusion? There really are times when it is okay for us to admit that we don't know everything.

As always, peace be unto you.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Thank you for your reply... and I appreciate your point of view. I do not disagree with you, per se. However, I believe that two spirit-filled Christians can read scripture and arrive at two different "truths" (within reason, of course). It happens quite often. (I will not name specific passages because I do not want to debate those matters in this thread.) So, in that case, who is right?
My main frustration with some of my fellow Christians is that they believe "their way" is right and there can be no other way, period. How do they know that the truth that someone else has discovered through much prayer and with the unmistakable guidance of the Holy Spirit is any less accurate than your conclusion? There really are times when it is okay for us to admit that we don't know everything.

As always, peace be unto you.

There are some rather clearly stated 'truths' in the Bible in regards to Jesus as Saviour, that God is soverign, God wins, man falls short, etc. The Law was given as a tutor, to show us our sin. Some of the laws was ceremonial, as a picture of what God would do. Some of the law were civil laws, teaching government, working together. And there was moral law. That God sees homosexuality as an abomination is quite clear.

Robinson not only divorced a wife with whom he had children, but is in a sexual relationship with another man, while claiming to be a Christian, leading a church group, and promoting acceptance of homosexuality in doing this. Unless he repents and turns from sin, he will be one who who one day says, "But Lord, didn't I do _____and ____in your name? And Jesus will say, "I never knew you."

 

[VigoMedic]

There are some rather clearly stated 'truths' in the Bible in regards to Jesus as Saviour, that God is soverign, God wins, man falls short, etc. The Law was given as a tutor, to show us our sin. Some of the laws was ceremonial, as a picture of what God would do. Some of the law were civil laws, teaching government, working together. And there was moral law. That God sees homosexuality as an abomination is quite clear.

Robinson not only divorced a wife with whom he had children, but is in a sexual relationship with another man, while claiming to be a Christian, leading a church group, and promoting acceptance of homosexuality in doing this. Unless he repents and turns from sin, he will be one who who one day says, "But Lord, didn't I do _____and ____in your name? And Jesus will say, "I never knew you."

As I said in my post, I am not necessarily making reference to any certain scriptures. This is not the thread to debate a certain scripture. I just wanted to pose to you the question of what your feelings were on two spirit-filled, prayerful Christians coming up with two different "truths" from the same set of scriptures. I am interested in hearing what you think about my original question.

I agree that there are cerain scriptures and "laws" that the Lord makes perfectly clear - regardless of the translation; the way to attain salvation being one of them, in my opinion. However, there are those that aren't so clear to us humans, and "the church" would say that the truth is evident to a spirit-filled Christian reading the scripture (your words), therefore I pose to you my above question.

Thanks again, and peace.

 

[Jacob4Jesus]

There are some rather clearly stated 'truths' in the Bible in regards to Jesus as Saviour, that God is soverign, God wins, man falls short, etc. The Law was given as a tutor, to show us our sin. Some of the laws was ceremonial, as a picture of what God would do. Some of the law were civil laws, teaching government, working together. And there was moral law. That God sees homosexuality as an abomination is quite clear.

Robinson not only divorced a wife with whom he had children, but is in a sexual relationship with another man, while claiming to be a Christian, leading a church group, and promoting acceptance of homosexuality in doing this. Unless he repents and turns from sin, he will be one who who one day says, "But Lord, didn't I do _____and ____in your name? And Jesus will say, "I never knew you."

This is a very odd view of Jesus. I guess I can't see him in such a petty and unloving light. I prefer to see him as loving, forgiving and understanding.
As far as the episcopal church splitting, that's pretty much what churches have been doing forever. The Anglicans did it, the lutheras did it, the puritans did it... this has been going on forever, and you know why? Because the splitting parties did not agree with what the church as a whole was doing or believing in. All that we are seeing now is the exact same thing. I attend an Episcopalian church and I can honestly say the split doesn't make me happy. But it's a part of history, and things happen.
I know a lot of people with disagree, but I don't think Jesus is going to love anyone involved any less.
Prayers,
Jacob

 

[FreeinChrist]

This is a very odd view of Jesus. I guess I can't see him in such a petty and unloving light. I prefer to see him as loving, forgiving and understanding.

Jesus is loving, forgiving, and understanding. He loved us enough to die for us while we were yet sinners. We recieve not only forgiveness, but grace and mercy thanks to Jesus. And He can understand our temptations and trials.

However, He never denied the certainty of judgment or the need to do God's will. And what I wrote was taken from the words of Christ Himself:

Mat 7:15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
Mat 7:16 "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn {bushes} nor figs from thistles, are they?
Mat 7:17 "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
Mat 7:18 "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
Mat 7:19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Mat 7:20 "So then, you will know them by their fruits.
Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven {will enter.}
Mat 7:22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
Mat 7:23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

 

[FreeinChrist]

As I said in my post, I am not necessarily making reference to any certain scriptures. This is not the thread to debate a certain scripture. I just wanted to pose to you the question of what your feelings were on two spirit-filled, prayerful Christians coming up with two different "truths" from the same set of scriptures. I am interested in hearing what you think about my original question.

I agree that there are cerain scriptures and "laws" that the Lord makes perfectly clear - regardless of the translation; the way to attain salvation being one of them, in my opinion. However, there are those that aren't so clear to us humans, and "the church" would say that the truth is evident to a spirit-filled Christian reading the scripture (your words), therefore I pose to you my above question.

Thanks again, and peace.

Well, the thread is in regards to the Anglican split. I commented on your quote and what my concern with it was, thinking in terms of the reason behind the split.

Two can disagree on the same scripture. They can both be wrong if they are ignoring context, and not looking at the whole scripture, or the whole of the individual book, or the whole of the particular passage. Other folks work very hard to justify scripture to say what they want, because they have already preset views they were told by another, or a lifestyle they want to maintain. They may even change scripture, like the Jehovah Witnesses did. If they are listening to dogma and fitting scripture to dogma - there is a problem. The fault of course is with humans, not scripture.

Now the situation with the Anglican church is a good example. Some are buying into the idea that condoning active homosexuals is okay and christian, that it is a necessary change of church. They are listening to opinions of nonChristians and American culture over scripture. A group of 'gay christians' even have a new Bible out that makes the sin of Sodom one of 'inhospitality' rather sexual misbehaviour. They read the Bible in terms of their desired dogma. They want scripture to say what they want it to say, rather than what it does say. But God hasn't changed. That there are those within the international Anglicans willing to disagree with this group is admirable.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

They want scripture to say what they want it to say, rather than what it does say.

A perfect description of those who use scripture to foment hatred.

 

[kiwimac]

So,

Was it easy to ignore the posts which indicated that according to both Scripture and the Talmud the sin of Sodom & Gomorrah was economic?

Of course, that would mean that we couldn't feel that +Gene Robinson was a terrible sinner and thus feel smug in our own, "you-don't know what I've done ", righteousness!

Kiwimac

 

[Jacob4Jesus]

Jesus is loving, forgiving, and understanding. He loved us enough to die for us while we were yet sinners. We recieve not only forgiveness, but grace and mercy thanks to Jesus. And He can understand our temptations and trials.

However, He never denied the certainty of judgment or the need to do God's will. And what I wrote was taken from the words of Christ Himself:

Mat 7:15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
Mat 7:16 "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn {bushes} nor figs from thistles, are they?
Mat 7:17 "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
Mat 7:18 "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
Mat 7:19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Mat 7:20 "So then, you will know them by their fruits.
Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven {will enter.}
Mat 7:22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
Mat 7:23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

What I meant was, he is not going to just overlook the rules you break in Leviticus everyday (which EVERYONE does) and says he knows you, and then deny someone else. Jesus loves us all the same. I would think this refers a lot more to people who knowingly do bad things (Such as those who who use Jesus to preach hatred and prejudice) and hide behind the name of Jesus to defend it.

 

[Jacob4Jesus]

A perfect description of those who use scripture to foment hatred.

AMEN SISTER!

 

[Foundthelight]

So,

Was it easy to ignore the posts which indicated that according to both Scripture and the Talmud the sin of Sodom & Gomorrah was economic?

Of course, that would mean that we couldn't feel that +Gene Robinson was a terrible sinner and thus feel smug in our own, "you-don't know what I've done ", righteousness!

Kiwimac

The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah are not really pertinent to this discussion. That is why I did not respond.

1Ti 3:2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

Is Mr. Robinson the husband of but one wife?

Mt 19:8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
Mt 19:9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Is Mr. Robinson living in an adulterous relationship? Is he above reproach?

By the standards that Paul set forth for Timothy and the Church, Mr. Robinson should not be in a leadership position. It does not matter if his lover is male or female. It would not matter if he re-married. He does not appear to meet this test.

 

[Foundthelight]

So,

Was it easy to ignore the posts which indicated that according to both Scripture and the Talmud the sin of Sodom & Gomorrah was economic?

Of course, that would mean that we couldn't feel that +Gene Robinson was a terrible sinner and thus feel smug in our own, "you-don't know what I've done ", righteousness!

Kiwimac

My mind is feeble, can you please remind me where else in the Bible God took such strong action where the sin was purely economic?

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Is Mr. Robinson living in an adulterous relationship? Is he above reproach?

By the standards that Paul set forth for Timothy and the Church, Mr. Robinson should not be in a leadership position. It does not matter if his lover is male or female. It would not matter if he re-married. He does not appear to meet this test.

As happens often, supporters of oppression often reveal in their comments justifying same how things others are unaware of will facilitate oppression, and you came through for everyone here with flying colors. Your comments reveal in an excellent manner how attempts to judge others are so misguided. It is common when preachers get on the stump about this they'll get "Amen!"-ed by the divorced and remarried. All this shows is how irrelevant discussion of forms of social organization employed by Paul's followers are to the entire discussion. We have far too few options as it is. I don't know if Robinson and partner have had a Holy Union Ceremony but I suspect they have. And the misguided prejudicial protestations indicate a need for legal marriage or civil union to be available for such as them.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

My mind is feeble, can you please remind me where else in the Bible God took such strong action where the sin was purely economic?

Of course, nothing is ever "purely" anything. But the sin for which Israel and Judah suffered the Babylonian Exile was primarily oppression of the poor. The Book of Amos has much to say on this.

Also see Deuteronomy 15:8.

Your mind might not be so feeble if you choose to open it up a little bit. As the slogan goes "minds only function when open". Try it!

 

[FreeinChrist]

I wrote: They want scripture to say what they want it to say, rather than what it does say.

A perfect description of those who use scripture to foment hatred.

It is a way for some to "foment" complacency to sin, or to 'foment' apostasy within the church.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

I wrote: They want scripture to say what they want it to say, rather than what it does say.

It is a way for some to "foment" complacency to sin, or to 'foment' apostasy within the church.

Don't really get your meaning. Apostasy has nothing to do with doctrinal differences, and no one is advocating 'complacency' toward sin.