”Even at home, by pressing this debate will it enable the voice of the gospel to be heard more widely in Australian society, to be respected more intensely, to be understood more thoroughly I think not.” Bishop [George] Browning said he did not mean the matter was not important, or that people did not have the right to strongly-held views. ”But will this debate open wider the gates that lead to everlasting life. I am afraid not.” He was speaking at the Synod Eucharist service in St Saviour’s Cathedral during the annual meeting of the synod of his diocese. He said those about whom Jesus had been extremely critical had taken a passage or passages of scripture and turned them into an idol. ”They had made their interpretation of the law of the Sabbath the litmus test by which virtue and righteousness was to be judged, indeed that by which all human behaviour, however virtuous or evil, was to be judged.” There were parallels today, with religious people taking a passage or passages of scripture and turning them into a litmus test for all. ”In our beloved Anglican Communion, a litmus test has been set and whether any of us like it or not, we are apparently to be judged by it.” In coming months, there would be an increasing commentary in the press about those bishops who were or were not going to next year’s Lambeth Conference. Those who would stay away if others attended, and those who would attend if others stayed away.
”All legitimate bishops in the Communion should attend the Lambeth Conference,” Bishop Browning said. ”We need to be challenged by one another and to try to understand each other.”
In 2003, the Episcopal Church, without consulting anyone or caring what anyone thought about it, basically decided the same-sex issue for the rest of the Communion when it gave Gene Robinson a pointy hat since that meant that Robbie was an Anglican bishop whether the rest of the Communion liked it or not. So please keep this ridiculous “litmus test for all” line of argument to yourself, Your Grace. Or look in the direction of New York City when you utter it.
“All legitimate bishops in the Communion should attend the Lambeth Conference”
According to this quote, Schori and Robinson should stay at home. And yet, I got the impression that the Bishop was in support of them. Not really sure where he’s going with all that.
I just hope something is accomplished at the end of this month instead a bunch of the same old speeches we keep hearing.
I should hope the same, #3, for commenters.
#3: Or the same old refrain:
“It was a good meeting. And after the next meeting we might take some positive action towards resolving the problem!”
#3, I would assume that all these consecrations going on lately has something to do with that.
I agree with the good bishop. Let’s not focus on the blessing of same sex unions. Let’s focus, instead, on faithfulness to Holy Scripture and to the teaching of the Church catholic. Those provinces that are faithful to the teachings of Holy Scripture and the Church catholic are welcome at Lambeth. Those that aren’t, aren’t.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil – are you an Episcopalian? I ask only because if you are, do you think that your province should be invited?
Charles – yes I am an Episcopalian. No. I do not think TECUSA should be invited to Lambeth. They have done so much to destroy the communion and have so little regard for the decisions of the communion that they should have no problem not being a part of thoe deliberations that bring about those decisions.
I do think that the “Windsor Bishops” or those bishops who abide by the Windsor report should be invited because they have no part (or very little part) in TECUSA’s decisions to tell the communion to get stuffed.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil, is Bishop Minns faithful to the teachings of Holy Scripture and the Church catholic?
Don — why do you want to know this from Phil? Can’t you work it out for yourself?
Margaret, I ask my question of Phil because I seem to be misreading him. To get clarification I ask my question because its answer conflicts with Phil’s post. I try to relieve dichtomies in my mind (which might well be the only place that they exist in this case).
I also note that upon posting my question and going to bed, I didn’t see that Phil had introduced another post somewhat clarifying the issue. The reason for the 15 minutes is because I am often busy doing other things and by the time I had made my post Phil had already posted a germane response. My question is another facet of Charles’ question.
Margret and Don,
I don’t mind answering questions about my beliefs. Actually, I rather enjoy answering questions and the cut and thrust of debate. I am strongly in the reasserter camp. The point of my post “agreeing” with Bishop Browning was to show that the real issue isn’t sexuality, but authority and faithfulness to the teachings of Holy Scripture and the Church catholic. TECUSA has departed from faithfulness to Holy Scripture and has told the Church catholic to go jump in a lake. Why would they want to go to Lambeth or be a part of anything more than a group of like minded individuals?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil, I suspected as much – I just couldn’t add it up. Thank you for relieving my anxious mind as I usually identify well with your posts.
Though I wholeheartedly agree that it is Holy Scripture that is the primary focus, we might still have a bit of proccess disagreement. I think that this is an ideal time to talk about God’s purpose and plan in marriage, and, for individuals and institutions to see their need of repentance. It seems that to hold up Scripture at this time is to talk about the greatest error and sin of the day. My congregation is struggling with the women in leadership question – a very much related question to that of homosexuality, for they both are of a type that places cultural norms against Scripture. Now is the time.
But it IS about sexuality. This is the heart of the matter, for there is little as important in America as sex, what you do with it, who gets it, what’s it worth, and how to get ever more and more without real cost. Brave New World is upon us in the matter rof sex and it is, by itself, reforming what we think, read, do, and believe. See the new entry at the top of the blog. Is this about sex in all its modern ramifications, one of which is that the only standard is no standard? Or is it a matter of adherence to scripture? The latter is vital, but in the broad culture, only a small piece of the new social contract. LM