Here is part of one entry from Bishop Hilary Garang of the Diocese of Malakal, the Upper Nile, Sudan:
“To be honest, we are in a bad stage. We are sharing a deep concern about the faith of our communion which is taking our human energy, and time. There is a politically motivated agenda: it is as if the Church is not owned by all of us. It is a tragedy to see this before our eyes. We, as a generation, have an opportunity to witness for Christ, and it is hampered by this. We live in a multifaith society. The Anglican Church has had a big role in our country and has united the smaller churches for protection.For the last decade, we have looked towards the EU and the US as a source of light for the Gospel. Now they are telling us something which we do not understand. The Jerusalem Declaration made by Anglicans who attended GAFCON has wakened the concern of every region. It seems in deliberating we are doing something others have evaluated that it is not going to work
.
The Franciscan’s are sharing the simplicity of food and fellowship with Bishop Robinson. Yet the Lambeth doors are closed to him. What is Lambeth afraid of, seeing the light of Christ in his eyes?
Robby Giunta , St. Louis, United States
This is a quote from the actial site. I find it very interesting that the VAST MAJORITY of consecrated, vowed members or religious orders in TEC and in the CofE fully support both women’s ordination and the full inclusion of glbt Christians. These are folk who have totally given their lives to Christ and the Church to live counter culturaly. If these dedicated folk are not up in arms (there are a very few who do not support these issues) and are even embracing and supportive of these “new things” even as they walk in the old ways, perhaps we need not believe the sky is falling.
The presenting questions to both sides at Lambeth seems to be, “What if your wrong?”
At me very coservative, ultra traditional RC alma mater (preferred Latin Mass, college chapel had weekly benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, May crownings etc) one of my Profs. shared with me behind closed doors that he thought there was a very good chance that Rome would one day ordain women at least to the diaconate. He said “but Romes way is to wait and watch for a hundred years or so whilst the rest of Christendom dukes it out before it plays it’s final hand.” He said that he was glad he would be dead before this came to be.
We have heard this dithering and qualifications before, over and over. As to homosexual acts, scripture, and the refusal to sanction those acts, here this message: We are right because scripture is absolutely clear. It does NOT dither and vacillate. Can you understand this? You cannot, and that leaves you precisely here: If “What if you’re wrong” is your governing rubric, then you will never be able to believe anything, Christian or otherwise, because you are asking for proof, final and conclusive, that cannot be delivered in scientific terms. But the issue here is not whether two and two make four. Now grasp this: Homosexual acts are forbidden if you are a Christian.
And don’t try to tie wo with homosexuality in the hopes that floating one will of necessity make the other float too. They are unrelated issues, and falsely connected as the fraudulant connection between the acceptance of homosexuality and the acceptance of blacks. Larry
Archangelica,
Not sure who your audience is and you seem to make a couple of unfounded assumptions:
You say “What is Lambeth afraid of?” What fear are you referring to?
“The sky is falling”?
I have a some questions for you:
What is your understanding of God’s hope for us? Or what is the point of life?
What is our job and what is God’s job?
#3
“What is Lambeth afraid of”
this was quoted by me in someone elses comment from the original posting’s somment site which I understand the author to mean: “What would happen if those against Gene Ronibson (for theological reasons) were to meet, spend time with and come to know something of his true self and if in that encounter they found an imperfect, sinful but holy lover and follower of Jesus Christ as Lord?”
“The sky is falling”
Is about homosexuality is a dealbreaker and an end to the communion as we know it becuase of the full inclusion of glbt Christians.
“What is your understanding Of God’s hope for us?
To know Him, to love Him, to glorify Him and to enjoy Him forever.
“What is our job and what is God’s job”
Our job is to love God with all our heart, soul and mind and our neighbors as ourselves. We do this by cooperating with God’s grace.
God’s job is to call , to seal and to save us and to live in and with our being, calling us to holiness, charity and divine union. Theosis.
#2 Larry Morse
“And don’t try to tie wo with homosexuality in the hopes that floating one will of necessity make the other float too. They are unrelated issues, and falsely connected as the fraudulant connection between the acceptance of homosexuality and the acceptance of blacks. ” Larry
I totally agree with this. I have liked the two together because my experience at this blog is that the vast majority of reasserters do i.e. FiF, etc.
It’s hardly surprising that many men’s orders in Anglicanism are on board with the pan-sexual empowerment agenda. Many of them were long ago hijacked by homosexual activists and have been at the forefront of undermining traditional teaching. As have the Jesuits over the last 40 years in the Roman Catholic church. I don’t see the argument that, because people live “counter culturally,” they have more credibility. If that were so, hippy communes, street people, and radical Mormons would be dictating social policy.
And Larry Morse is entirely wrong about WO and homosexuality. It’s As a matter of fact and history, changes in our understanding of sexual roles (that allowed contraception, divorce, and WO) were the wedge that opened the door to homosexual affirmation.
[i] This is not a thread on WO. Please do not take this off topic. [/i]
-Elf Lady
Archangelica,
Do not assume that Franciscans have given their lives to Christ. They are no more immune to distorting their religion than anyone else in the church. Asceticism and philanthropy are good, but they not the same as true devotion to Christ, just as conservative morality is not the same thing. One can have all of these things and still not be following God, or be doing them from godly motives.
People can change and even entire organizations can change and lose their original spirit and integrity. Remember Christ’s words to the church of Ephesus? “You have forsaken your first love”. The Jesuits used to be known for devotion to the Pope and defenders of the doctrine of the church. In the last 40 years they have become known here for being intellectual leaders against the church’s teachings. Just because the Franciscans are living “counterculturally” does not mean that they are opposing a certain culture with Christ. They could simply be substituting their own culturally captivated Christianity for the older culturally captivated Christianity. Counterculturalism can so easily become its own culture.
As for what one might see in Gene Robinson if we got to know him: Can’t you see well enough from what is on the surface? Sure, he is a sinner like the rest of us. But he is an unrepentant sinner, and in a position of spiritual authority and leadership. What could we possibly find in him that would diminish the importance of that fact? Seriously, what?
The premise of so much stupidity in this Lambeth conference is that we can’t be sure what is true and that we must humbly seek for it together. That is truly the threshold of apostacy. We have been given the Truth, and now some are doubting, denying and rejecting it. The responce of the orthodox cannot be to seek middle ground but to stand their ground and reafirm the faith. We know what God has said about sexual behavior, what is permitted and what is forbidden. One can only find grey area here in one rejects what has been revealed.
There is no middle ground when it comes to revealed truth which has been believed by all the church for centuries. If we buckle on this there is nothing that we will not buckle on.
Oh, and your Prof is smoking some very strange stuff. Rome has all but buried any chance for a change on WO. An overwhelming argument that it has been grossly mistaken would have to be made for it to change its mind, and no such argument has ever been made. Are there any new arguments that haven’t been tried and found wanting? As for waiting and watching: Ha! That would only confirm Rome’s judgment. Look at all the churches that have followed the path of ordaining women and see if they have become stronger as a result. Accross the board they have become more vulnerable to doctrinal drift and moral decay. And they have shrunk.
[blockquote]In my Bible study group I apologised for the behaviour of our province that has brought us to the brink of schism. Two hundred and seventy bishops are not here because they refuse to sit down with people who refuse to repent. [/blockquote]
[blockquote]Gene Robinson is a nice guy, but his lifestyle is not appropriate for a leader of the Church. Sure he’s a bishop, we ordained him. But that says something about our integrity. [/blockquote]
[blockquote]On the second day of our retreat, I had the feeling we were on the edge of a 10-storey building and the Archbishop of Canterbury was trying to talk us down without a safety net. He’s a wonderful guy, with a lot of integrity but he assumes everyone else has integrity too. [/blockquote]
[blockquote]The Episcopal Church is not representing the scriptural authority of Christ. In the Episcopal Church, the biggest lie of all is that sexual morality doesn’t matter, or that it’s changing, that God is doing a new thing.[/blockquote]
Christ’s leadership during his earthly ministry of the seeds of his Church was distinctly male. It was loving, caring, tender, but was also forceful and uncompromising, and, again, distinctly male. It is well understood that we are to model him in our work for the kingdom to come, just as he modeled his Father’s role of parental love toward creation. I’m not sure why those who favor WO can’t grasp this, that the leadership of the head is to be distinctly male. Undoubtedly, this is why “Mother Jesus” continues to be such a favorite (purely heretical) view.
If one doesn’t see the direct and unbreakable linkage between WO and the subsequent invitation to non-celebate homosexual leadership in ordained ministry, that person is historically blind. The two are inexorably tied together in historical cause and effect, the second following directly on the heels of the first. To paraphrase Babbage, I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could lead to such a lack of comprehension.
There *is* a crucial role for women in the church, one that men cannot rightly supply. They are to nurture, feed, and grow the church, which includes much teaching. This is a *different* kind of leadership, neither superior nor inferior, to the role of male leadership in the church.
However, having a woman serve a parish as her ordained sacramental minister is akin to marrying the Church, the bride of Christ, to a woman head. It is unavoidably a same-sex union. And now all is made plain! The affirmation of women ordained sacramental ministers *NECESSITATES* the affirmation of (practicing, non-celibate) homosexual ordained sacramental ministers, because an ordained woman sacramental minister is in an intimate, practicing homosexual relationship with Mother Church, the bride of Christ. Voila!
Oops, I apologize to Elf Lady. It took me a long time to compose my previous posting. Please remove it as appropriate. Thanks :^)
#10
However, having a woman serve a parish as her ordained sacramental minister is akin to marrying the Church, the bride of Christ, to a woman head. It is unavoidably a same-sex union. And now all is made plain! The affirmation of women ordained sacramental ministers *NECESSITATES* the affirmation of (practicing, non-celibate) homosexual ordained sacramental ministers, because an ordained woman sacramental minister is in an intimate, practicing homosexual relationship with Mother Church, the bride of Christ. Voila
So how is it then that if the Church is the Bride of Christ and Christ is the Head of the Church than an all male priesthood reflects a same sex union between all male priests and Jesus?
#12 archangelica:
The ordained sacramental minister walks in the shoes of Jesus. He follows his command in baptism, and breaks bread and blesses the cup as he broke and blessed at the Last Supper. He is the student and pupil, the servant and follower of Jesus. Some may say he is Jesus’ brother or son as well. But he is not Jesus’ “lover.” He is not in an intimate, practicing relationship with him.
(Just in case it matters, I’d like it to be noted that I held the opposite viewpoint on WO a decade past, and have over time read and argued myself into the truth of the distinctly male character of the ordained sacramental ministry.)
The reformed church’s failing, and one of the biggest screw-ups of the Reformation, IMHO, is the removal of women’s orders as an aberration and excess of the Roman church. This left women with no outlet to follow God’s genuine call in their lives through orders in the church.
#13. The entry above is well said. The contemporary American notion that to say that men and women are equal is the same thing as saying that they are wholly alike – well, this is so silly, a sensible being would have to laugh, except that the left, working from an agenda, cannot start with observation, precisely because it would damage the agenda. It is the AGENDA that is sacred, nothing else. LM
And so I offer this world shaking epiphany; Men and women are fundamentally different, and this difference is reflected in what each is best fitted to do. Humans are so malleable, that we can teach a human to be virtually anything at all, so in America women have become men and men women – but there is a human nature in each that will not be denied nor alienated. (It’s sort of funny how the rules are made AROUND the agenda. IN Maine, girls can play any sport that guys play in public schools, but guys cannot play field hockey because a male would have too big an advantage on the field and would drive girls out. This is the principals’ ruling. This makes one to larf.) Larry