The Bishop stressed that Anglicans belong to a diocesan Church. Dioceses establish parishes””and not the other way round. There is no legal precedent which would allow members of a congregation who choose to leave the diocese and the Anglican Church of Canada to take parish lands, building, or other assets with them.
In November, the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone indicated it would accept as members Canadian Anglican churches that are in theological dispute with their bishops and dioceses.
A group of parishes forming the “Anglican Network in Canada” have indicated that if their membership agrees, they would attempt to leave the diocese and join this foreign province, based in South America. Four parishes in the Diocese of New Westminster are listed on the Anglican Network’s website as member parishes.
Bishop Ingham told the group that met at Christ Church Cathedral, where the taping took place, that there is sincere disagreement as to what the few passages in the Bible say about such things as homosexuality.
There is sincere disagreement about the theory of the church he posits. As he is and shall continue to discover.
Note that this is an article published on the diocesan webpage about a meeting the bishop had with people of the diocese and the entire article except for the excerpt I quoted was devoted to the disputes. But, in conclusion, we are not distracted.
[blockquote] Bishop Ingham told the group that met at Christ Church Cathedral, where the taping took place, that there is sincere disagreement as to what the few passages in the Bible say about such things as homosexuality. [/blockquote]
No, there isn’t. There is sincere disagreement about whether the Bible has the authority to norm faith and morals. This conflict is much deeper than conflicting exegeses of a “few passages in the Bible.” Besides, the exegesis presented to justify homosexual conduct is so transparently fraudulent, it cannot be defended. It is quickly abandoned in favor of justification by experience – the true underlying authority of liberal doctrine; the true liberal alternative to Scripture.
carl
Question: Don’t parishes come into being before a diocese is formed or if a diocese is in existence isn’t the joining of a parish done on the part of the parish – first. Comments please!
Seriously folks, I don’t think that this dispute did distract from the Diocese discussing which churches to close due to declining membership or how to deal with their shrinking budget (see previous news releases from the diocese).
Just in case one needs concrete evidence, see if you can find any discussion about The Troubles in the following news release from the Diocese:
“Bishop Ingham told the group that met at Christ Church Cathedral, where the taping took place, that there is sincere disagreement as to what the few passages in the Bible say about such things as homosexuality.”
Of course there is but one can be sincerely wrong in one’s interpretation.
[blockquote]”Bishop Ingham told the group that met at Christ Church Cathedral, where the taping took place, that there is sincere disagreement as to what the few passages in the Bible say about such things as homosexuality.†[/blockquote]
No, the passages are clear and unambiguous. All of them, and they are consistent with teachings about sexual morality and purity in the rest of the Bible. The disagreement is whether one has to pay any attention to them.
As Kendall spoke to us in his Colorado lectures, we are not talking about a few passages, but a overwhelming theme that runs from Genesis to Revelation: Sexual relations are reserved for the married state between a man and a woman.
Well, the homosexualists do have a disagreement about the “few” passages (9, if I remember correctly) that deal with same-sex matters. Without being exhaustive, let’s review:
1.)Sodom – same-sex acts wasn’t the issue, hospitality was. Probably true, though it ignores the ancillary condemnation.
2.)the Levitical prohibitions – invalid as part of a code we no longer enforce. Sea food, mixed fibers and all that. Unfortunately, the true context is a series of condemnations of sexual acts we do still condemn.
3.) Paul was a woman-hating nutjob and can be disregarded. I’ve read this claim, btw, and am not making it up – ok, they didn’t say “nutjob”, they used a more academic word.
No, we’ve all heard the shellfish and slavery arguments ad nauseum and I have finally come to the conclusion that I prefer honest pagans over the faux-christian ones. Reject it and live your life!
[blockquote]Bishop Ingham told the group that met at Christ Church Cathedral, where the taping took place, that there is sincere disagreement as to what the few passages in the Bible say about such things as homosexuality.[/blockquote]
He forgot to include [i]”the few passages in the Bible referring to Bishops.”[/i] The truth is, “if the Bible lacks authority, then Bishops lack authority as well.” +?Ingham is just another Spongian +?Bishop who, in the image of (+?)John Spong, loves dressing up for the part, all while intensely working to denigrate the very underpinnings of the Church and office which he occupies and is supposed to advance. Ecclesiastical suicide, anyone?