Global South Primates response to Archbishop Rowan Williams


Archbishop Rowan Williams
Lambeth Palace
London

November 15th, 2005


Thank you, your Grace, for coming to join us at the Third South South Encounter in Egypt and sharing your thoughts on the four “marks” of the Church as “one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” Your attempt to take on this major topic in sweeping strokes was bold, and it was delivered with your usual scholarly eloquence. We agree with what you said. We were disappointed in what you left unsaid, in particular, the application of the Church’s identity to the current situation that has left the fabric of our Communion torn at its deepest level.

It should come as no surprise to you that we consider the crisis facing the whole Communion to be a crisis of Biblical authority. For that reason, one of the consistent themes of the entire South to South Encounter has been the supremacy of Scripture and the clarity of its teaching on matters of Christian faith and life.

We were pleased by your positive comments regarding the four papers that were presented to the Encounter. Although it could not be expected that you would interact in a detailed way with them, you could not have failed to have noticed that each paper strongly asserted the authority of Scripture and applied this theme to the current crisis.

They were able to do this because two features marked each paper: First, the attempt to expound biblical theology, reflecting the authority of scripture. Second, the recognition that the four marks of the Church are traditionally used to establish its calling and identity and to delineate its borders. It is for this reason the theme of “one, holy, catholic and apostolic” is particularly apt for this Encounter.

Your approach was to link the marks of the church to one another through Jesus Christ. They are his attributes before they are the attributes of the Church.  You referred in particular to Jesus’ High Priestly prayer: “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.” (John 17.17-19)

Promising though this approach is, and in many ways consonant with the gospel, it seemed to offer a way of bypassing rather than expounding the specificity of Scripture. In a sense it transcends the other approaches offered here at the Encounter, but with the danger of a lack of specific application.

Thus, for example, your account of the holiness of the Church focuses on the holiness secured by Christ at the cross and the consequent holiness as a gift to those who are in union with Christ. But you did not take the next step, so obvious in the Epistles, of showing how this holiness of union with Christ is demonstrated in the obedience to the word of God.

Even within the Johannine literature, the connection between faith in Jesus and obedience to his commandments appears repeatedly:

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John 14.15)

“If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.” (John 15.10)

“By this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments.” (I John 2.3)

“All who keep his commandments abide in him, and he in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given us.” (I John 3.24)

“For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.” (I John 5.3)

After all, this truth must lie at the heart of holiness: that we so depend on the Lord that we are obedient to his word, whatever the cost. And in the Epistles, this holiness is the holiness of the Church, the holiness of those who build each other up, and also the holiness that must be defended in controversy against false teachers, whether legalists or libertines.

This surely is the context of the Gospel of John because a line has already been drawn against those who have resisted the claims of Christ. John chapters 13-17 are addressed to those who not only have the commandments but also keep them.  John 15 warns of the pruning or cutting away of dead branches that have failed to bear fruit because of not abiding in Him and His word. The stark contrast of the language of light/darkness, seeing/blind, life/death shows clearly that there is the realization that disobedience will lead to division and exclusion.

You did offer an indication of how a Christ-centred method may be applied in controversy. You scanned the New Testament for controversies of such magnitude that the unity of the Church was threatened. You instanced two such challenges:  over the Person of Christ (I John 2.22) and over the Grace of the Gospel (Galatians 1.8 and 3.2).

By using the same method, however, we may also speedily find another challenge to the unity of the body of Christ posed by unrepented sexual immorality, an offence so flagrant that Paul insisted that the sinner be expelled from the fellowship, and one of a type of sin which he said would cut the offender off from the kingdom of heaven (I Corinthians 5 and 6). So relevant is this to the present crisis in the Communion that we regret that you did not either use it as an illustration of activities that is capable of breaking unity or explain why moral teaching and behaviour is different from other Church-dividing essentials.

Indeed, it is not hard to find in the teaching of Scripture other instances of behaviour and beliefs which require the cessation of fellowship and the breach of unity. The Second Letter of Peter, which you quoted in terms of our participation in the divine nature (1.4) describes division in the church uncannily like the false leaders in our Communion today:

“For, uttering loud boasts of folly, they entice with licentious passions of the flesh men who have barely escaped from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption; for whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved.” (II Peter 2.18-19)

During our daily Bible Studies on 1 and 2 Peter we could not miss the solemn warning about the danger of false prophets among us (note especially the series of “ifs” in 2 Peter 2.4,5). We were reminded, sadly, that there will be ‘ignorant and unstable ‘ people who, finding Paul’s sayings “hard” because of the call to holiness and godliness, will twist [them] to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3.17)

This all reminds us of the points established for us at this Encounter, that the marks of the Church summon us to vigilance concerning its faithfulness to apostolic teaching and mission, its unity in the truth of God’s word, its holy obedience to the word of the Lord, and the embrace of its catholicity in the wholeness of the authentic gospel which it offers all.

The essence of libertinism is the severing of the grace of Christ from his moral commandments. This, we believe, is at the heart of our present divisions.  Although it is right to be reminded both of the grace of God in Christ and of our own frailty and sinfulness, neither the greatness of grace nor the sinfulness of sin can be advanced as reasons for failing in our duty to guard the gospel. The church is, after all, “a pillar and buttress of truth” (I Timothy 3.15) and “Your word is truth” (John 17.17).

 

Questions and Answers

We are grateful for your willingness to answer the many questions that our members wished to ask, and we hope that you may take time to answer some of those that were not mentioned in the session. Having said this, we do feel that on a number of points your replies raised more questions.


Human Sexuality and Authority

1. We appreciated your acknowledgement of the “overwhelming consensus” of the Church in time and space in believing that sex is intended by God for married couples only and therefore that same-sex sex is unacceptable and cannot be described as “holy and blessed”. You stated that you as Archbishop must stand with this consensus. We are most grateful for your unequivocal words. We wonder, however, whether your personal dissent from this consensus prevents you from taking the necessary steps to confront those churches that have embraced teaching contrary to the overwhelming testimony of the Anglican Communion and the church catholic.  We urge you to rethink your personal view and embrace the Church’s consensus and to act on it, based as it is on the clear witness of Scripture.

2. In the matter of the Civil Partnerships Act, we appreciate the dilemma faced by bishops as members of the House of Lords of the English Government. The willingness of the Government to override clear Christian teaching in an area of life where the church has a unique role raises a serious question whether the church-state relationship is obsolete and a hindrance to the Gospel. According to your explanation, the Roman Catholic Church was able to seek a conscientious exception to the Act for the very reason that it was not part of the Establishment. Surely the Church of England should have sought a similar exception. Not doing so gives the appearance of evil with regard to its “partnered” clergy even if meaningful discipline is exercised and you failed to mention the implication of this new act with regard to the laity that will force all parish clergy to accept openly gay partners to the altar rail on penalty of church discipline.

Instruments of Unity and the Anglican Communion

3. We welcome your pastoral example of coming amongst us as presiding Primate of the Anglican Communion. We recognize the limitations on your office, as the Communion has few legal structures. We agree with you that a Communion Covenant is needed. However, we are troubled by your reluctance to use your moral authority to challenge the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada to call for the immediate cessation of any blessings of same sex unions and on any ordinations of those in such unions in every diocese in the Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada. The apostle Paul never invoked law for his churches (indeed there was no canon law at that time), but he nevertheless exhorted them to be of one mind with him and to conform their lives to apostolic tradition (II Thessalonians 2.15). We do not see why you cannot warn these churches now, based on the Windsor Report and your own convictions about unity, that they will not be invited to Lambeth 2008 unless they truly repent.

Miscellaneous Questions

4. In regard to the appointment exclusively of first-world liberals to head the Communion Secretariat and committees like the Panel of Reference, we are disappointed with your deferring to “process.” You seem to keep saying, “My hands are tied.” We urge you to untie your hands and provide the bold, inclusive leadership the Communion needs at this time of crisis and distrust. One area of particular concern is the manner in which people are appointed to the various commissions and task forces, often without the knowledge or recommendation of their Province. We are more than ready to offer you the names of gifted, and highly competent men and women who could serve to guide our Communion into the future.

5. We are glad that you are concerned about new approaches to evangelism in England.  We know that Europe has become a spiritual desert, with the European Union even proposing to drop reference to the heritage of Christianity from its Constitution. We urge that re-evangelization and mission to Europe be a top priority of the Church of England and we pledge our support.

6. We also agree with your desire to listen to Muslim views and understanding their context. We applaud the initiatives that you have taken to engage in such conversations. We were pleased to hear your conviction that in all such conversations we pray for opportunities to make a grace-filled presentation of the unique claims of Christ. However, we are troubled by your reference to “crude threatening proselytizing.” None of us would support such an approach during these critical times and we wonder to whom you were referring?

Personal

7. We appreciate your sharing the testimony of your own pilgrimage of faith, including your early encounter with Russian Orthodoxy. We agree there is much to learn from other traditions, such as the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Baptists and Pentecostals, who are equally part of the one holy, catholic and apostolic church. We are sure you must feel the shame caused by the brokenness within our own Communion when you interact with these churches ecumenically.

Once again, we wish to commend you for taking the effort to be with us in Egypt.


With gratitude and fraternal greetings

 

Your brothers in Christ,

The Most Rev’d Peter J. Akinola (Church of Nigeria)

The Most Rev’d Dr. Justice Akrofi (West Africa)

The Most Rev’d Fidele Dirokpa (Congo)

The Most Rev’d Emmanuel Kolini (Rwanda)

The Most Rev’d. Bernard Malango (Central Africa)

The Most Rev’d Dr. Joseph Marona (Sudan)

The Most Rev’d Benjamin Nzimbi (Kenya)

The Most Rev’d Henry Orombi (Uganda)

The Most Rev’d Remi J. Rabenirina (Indian Ocean)

The Most Rev’d Ignacio Soliba (Philippines)

The Most Rev’d Gregory Venables (Southern Cone)

The Most Rev’d Yong Ping Chung (SE Asia)

Present but had to leave before the final draft was circulated:

The Most Rev’d Donald Mtetemela (Tanzania)

The Most Rev’d Bernard Ntahoturi (Burundi)

The Most Rev’d Dr. Peter Sugandhar (Church of South India)




Posted by on 11/15 at 10:26 PM

  1. Hi Craig:

    First, do you really, honestly believe that the only reason for resistance to the overthrow of three thousand years of unanimous, unambiguous moral teaching is bigotry?

    Yes, I do.  For it is far from unanimous and unambiguous.  There is quite a bit of review of early Scripture that is ignored when people decide to demonize gays.  Also, our Canon Law and general precepts disallow it. So, when I see it, I often find a bigot.

    <i>Second, why is it, in your view, that proponents of the normalization of homosexual behavior, unable to respond equally theologically to theological and scriptural criticism of their arguments, invariably seem to turn to ad hominem accusations of “bigotry,” “homophobia” (whatever that may be), and the like.</i>

    Well, Craig, because it isn’t ad hominem at all.  The so-called theological objections to gay behavior are out-of-context arguments used by the ignorant to hurt those they don’t like.

    Please visit religioustolerance.org for an expalnation that maeks sense, but that you will dislike anyway.  Then ask yourself why you dislike it.

    Posted by  on  11/19  at  10:19 AM

  2. To Joseph, Nancy and Craig

    As a fellow Christian I am disapointed in each of you. In reading your responses I would call you to the injunction of Jesus about condemning one for the speck in his eye without removing the log in your own.  FOR SHAME.

    We all need to maintain civility and respect in these discussions so as to not dishonour the Lord we all claim to believe in so strongly.  There is a such thing as rightious indignation but when it divolves into name calling with the intention to hurt then we have lost sight of our Savior and need to repent. 

    That said.  As a layperson who has a strong interest and background in church History and Theology I would like to ask a similar question to Josephs but hopefully in a little more respectful way. 

    When you say that ECUSA is overthrowing unambiguous and unanimous teaching I would also have to disagree, but even supposing it was. 

    Support for slavery was pretty unambigous in the bible, but we saw fit to rightly abandon and decry that institution.  We came to understand the bible in different ways, or to simply choose to relegate some of the arguments to a specific time in history.  This is only one example of where Christianity has come to understand a prior assumption of biblical and previous generations to be flawed. This also was not a decision reached by concensus (see civil war.)

    Why is there no room in our communion for that kind of question on this issue?  I am sensitive and even sympathetic to my friends in the Episcopal Church who feel they were abused by the process.  But I am befuddled by those who claim to be appalled at the hermenutic audacity, that we might embrace those who question an old and previously unquestioned view.

    I have been curious about my co-laborers in christ’s views on this issue.  I pray you will respond with the respect and admiration I have attempted to extend to you. 

    Thanks. Peace in Christ to you.

    A Postmodern Christian (In Texas)

    Posted by  on  11/19  at  02:55 PM

  3. Mr. Postmodern:

    I do apologize if my coments gave offense.  But being that the dignity and rights of human beings are the subject of the debate at hand, I hope you will consider that I grow angry when my fellow Christians seek to deprive their friends, neighbors and family members of them.

    You ask, in the context of slavery Why is there no room in our communion for that kind of question on this issue?

    Well, it’s rather simple.  Proponents of slavery unsuccessfully made the argument that the slaves were ‘not fully human’ based on their skin color.  Proponents of making gays second-class citizens sometimes make the argument that gays are ‘less than human’ or ‘gravely disordered’ based upon their sexual behavior.  I will point out here that social science and psychiatric findings on this issue have concluded what we’ve known all along: being gay is NOT a choice.

    But they do not wish to couch the debate in these terms, because they will lose, just as proponents of slavery did.  What’s at stake here to them is their belief that they are somehow superior to gay men and women.  We all know monogamous, Christian, gay men and women in (or seeking) committed relationships.  When you look them in the eye, it’s difficult to justify denying them the basic rights and responsiblities that we all take for granted.  And for those of us who do not know such families, I suggest you acquaint yourselves with one before making blanket proclamations about their place in our Communion.

    Bigotry dies hard.  But the foot of the Episcopal Church is on its’ neck.

    I hope this clears up my position for you.


    Your brother in Christ,
    Joseph

    Posted by  on  11/19  at  06:40 PM

  4. Hi, Joe!

    Yes, I repent. I repent of not having always shouted from the rooftops, as Christ wants all Christians to do, that to follow him means saying ‘no’ to the false, inhuman values of a pagan, anti-Christian society: the society in which we live now.

    I certainly seek to love my errant neighbour, Christ commands it. But I also believe, with St Augustine of Hipo, that sometimes one must love the neighbour with tough love - with ‘benigna asperitate’, the great saint puts it.  A tough love that does not blur the crucial line between good and evil. A tough love that brings about true metanoia in the errant person.

    A priest (any Christian) is certainly bound by the Gospel to treat unequal things unequally. E.g. no Christian can serve both God and Mammon.

    God bless

    Fr Frank

    Posted by  on  11/20  at  01:10 AM

  5. i am very happy with the letter because it shows that the church is not going into schism but looking for a way forward by asking the wrongdoers to repent and turn back to scriptures

    Posted by  on  11/20  at  02:12 AM

  6. Mr. Postmodern, I have reread my 2 posts & Craig’s posts. For the life of me, I can see nothing offensive in my posts or Craig’s.  If I am being uncivil for calling ‘homo’ sin or disagree with those who want to rewrite scripture, so be it.  If I am being unfair & not inclusive for stating I’ll line up with the Global South Bishops, so be it.  If I am wrong to say that Jesus Christ is the one who saves for sin & hell and that He is the One Who sanctifies (which to my understanding is a lifelong process,thank Him for His mercy & grace), so be it.  If it is offensive to say that the Bible is TRUTH, so be it.  If it is offensive to call episc church apostate, so be it.  I am in good company with the Apostle Paul. He warns of false prophets & teachers.  Paul even calls those who teach a different gospel accursed.  Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever.  I choose to follow Jesus Christ, daily repent of my sins (so that I can see clearly & get that plank out of my own eye), recognize that I am to pray for others for healing, discernment & for the veil to removed not only from others, but myself also.  I can discern sin.  It is really very simple to do so.  Prayerfully read the Word of God.  This I have had to do; ie, to forgive someone I did not want to forgive.  As do all sinners, we justify our sin. I did.  For years, I rationalized my sin of unforgiveness because I was so wounded by that person. I gained much freedom in Christ when I repented even though that person never changed.  The point being, all sin is forgiven when one repents and quits justifying the sin.  That is my prayer for all sinners not just homos.  If there is a problem with the above, so be it.
    A forgiven sinner who walks in the JOY of the LORD JESUS CHRIST. Blessings, Nancy from TX

    Posted by  on  11/20  at  02:24 AM

  7. Praise God for the good bishops of the South! They at least keep to the word of Scripture and stand in the true Anglican tradition, embraced by such as Latimer and Tyndale. Some posts have called for others to repent. What is needed is for the Church of England (in which I grew up and sadly was forced to leave over 20 years ago) to repent for its departure from the express Word of God and to return to the ‘old paths’. May God have mercy on its present leaders and guide them into all truth.

    Posted by Michael Kemp  on  11/20  at  03:50 AM

  8. Fr. Frank says: "I certainly seek to love my errant neighbour, Christ commands it. But I also believe, with St Augustine of Hipo, that sometimes one must love the neighbour with tough love - with ‘benigna asperitate’, the great saint puts it.  A tough love that does not blur the crucial line between good and evil. A tough love that brings about true metanoia in the errant person.

    Wow! I completely agree.  I hope my tough love doesn’t burn you too badly, but your bigotry is not love.  It is evil, and I will not blur the line.

    Not only can you not serve both God and Mammon, but you can’t serve both God and Satan.  Bigotry is Satanic.  I strongly suggest you give it up.

    And, for Nancy: <i>If I am being uncivil for calling ‘homo’ sin or disagree with those who want to rewrite scripture, so be it.</I>.

    Well, if I am being uncivil for calling you a bigot, even though you are, so be it.  And if I am being rude for saying that your reading of Scripture is done to justify your pre-existing hate, so be it. If your mental problems are the source of your bigotry and I just don’t get it, so be it.  If you and your cavalier dismissal of ‘homos’ costs you dearly, so be it.

    I truly hope that God forgives your sin - the one that makes you feel that it’s okay to call decent men and women by a pejorative name (homos) and be a bigoted idiot.

    Your brother in Christ,
    Joseph

    Posted by  on  11/20  at  12:20 PM

  9. Dear Joseph, Nancy, et.al, please break off from the name calling.

    We like to remind everyone that this site remains a Christian based website that is committed to edification of humans and glorification of Christ.

    We want you to air your views but please maintain decorum.

    Subsequent postings which go to extremes will not be allowed.

    Posted by  on  11/20  at  03:16 PM

  10. Thank God for the Global South Anglican primates.  The church in the west seems to have forgotten that it is righteosness that exalts a nation, forgetting the historical basis of their own greatness.  It is, however, great that God still has a voice in His church!

    Posted by  on  11/20  at  11:18 PM

  11. Yes, thank God for the Global South African primates… for exposing their true intentions by fradulently including signatures of Bishops who do not support their views. 

    The church in the west IS exalting righteousness.  The basis for its greatness is including all of God’s children, not casting them aside based on prejudice.

    God always has a voice in our church - and he continues to speak on this issue.  It is a shame that so few listen.

    Posted by  on  11/20  at  11:45 PM

  12. The commandment that Christ gave us was simple enough: Love one another as I have loved you. John wrote that the commandment was given to us by Jesus on on the night before he was handed over to suffering and death.

    Are brothers in the global south want biblical justification as long as it is convenient to them. It seems that self love and willful pride is the only gospel preached by the global south. Coercion is not love. Pride is not service. Hate is not healing.

    I pray that they find the healing love of Christ Jesus and remember they are only servants to the servants of God. Have they forgotten that we are bound to seek and serve Christ in all people?

    Posted by  on  11/21  at  11:03 PM

  13. It is now time for Christians to take on these liberals like Williams and not back down by mincing with them on issues like homosexuality.
    The break up of the Anglican church over this issue will be a blessed time as the true Christian in it and the imposters will be identified.

    Posted by  on  11/22  at  07:31 AM

  14. The only horror that Protestanism created at the time of the reformation, was the fractioning of Christian Unity.  The Anglican Church avoided this by it’s willingness to have different opinions on any giving subject, and yet still come to the Eucharist together.  i am sympathetic to being upset at the arogance of the US Church however to split over it is just plain stupid.  These Primates wrote a strong argument to the Archbishop and I believe he is doing his best to address the situation, however i must caution taking an Evangelical stand in regards to scripture.  The Church has always helped in interpreting scripture to the people, so scripture can fall either way.  My biggest problem is why are the African primates having so much say over what is a national Churchs debate (ie. the US and Canada) this is a breach of conduct on there part.  Just my Opinion.

    Posted by  on  11/23  at  10:23 AM

  15. I think this whole matter is tragic. I can’t help but wonder why the whole World Church is allowing a few renigade American Bishops and one man illegaly ordained are allowed to destroy what has been established from the time of Henery VIII.

    I pray constantly that the Church Heads can turn the Church away from the false teachings that even Christ spoke of in the scripture.

    Not all the ECUSA is in favor of the radical Bishops. Many have left the Church because of the secular path the ECUSA has taken over the last few years. We need to return to the narrow path and ignore the politically correct way of the liberal factions.

    I like the Archbishop and can sympathise in that he has been handed what is probably one of the most critical issue the Church has ever faced.

    In closing I ask, is it worth all the trouble for a fiew misguided souls to be allowed to shake the entire Anglican Communion?

    Marlin Rice

    Posted by  on  11/24  at  10:20 PM

  16. Marlin,

    Please note that the Bishop of New Hampshire is a legally elected and consecrated Bishop in our church. If his election and consecration is not valid then no Bishop in the USA is legally elected or consecrated. The vast majority of the House of Bishops and The House of Delegates elected him as required and in conformity to our canon law.

    The church in the USA is governed by our General Convention and the canon laws passed by the majority of our members over a period of 200 years. We are a people of the law. We have no basis of existance outside of that law. We believe that it is the Holy Spirit, speaking to us in our convention, that has guided us in our long history. It is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that gave us our canon law.

    Our Bishops have wisely decided to not consecrate any newly elected Bishops in the USA until after the 2006 General Convention of our church. The Bishops (and all members of the church) will wait to see how the Holy Spirit moves his church in this time of trial under our clearly defined canon law. They understand that all Bishops are elected under the same law. They understan that all Bishpos are consecrated under the same law. They also understand that if any one Bishop is denied his office after election and consecration then all legally elected and consecrated Bishops hold office illegally. We would have no Bishops. Our church would become lawless and we would no longer be governed by the rule of canon law and all their actions would be null and void.

    Perhaps you prefer the Roman tradition of Bishops by appointment. Perhaps you prefer a state of lawlessness like the independent evangelical congregations found in the USA. Perhaps you feel the need to direct the church by personal rule and inspiration. I myself prefer our canon law and our election process. I accept the inspiration of the Holy Spirit working in council under established canon law passed in the General Convention of my church.

    You may want to see the vast majority of members in my church as some radical minority no matter how erroneous your opinion may be. I am joyful in the knowledge that the Holy Spirit governs my church and that our canon laws protects us from any tyranny of a misguided minority. The majority of my church has been guided and remains bound to the work of the Holy Spirit working in council to bring the love of Christ Jesus to all members of my church.

    Posted by  on  11/26  at  05:18 AM

  17. Terrence/Joseph

    I can only think you are not keeping up to date on occurrences. The majority of the US Bishopes voted to honor the decisions of the Lambdeth Commission and the Anglican Councel.

    As to the legality of the consecration of Robinson the I referr you to artical XX in the back of the prayer book. Mine was printed in 1945 and I haven’t seen the newest printing. I don’t think I would have faith in it with what I’ve heard about the changes. Still I’ll have to find out for my self.

    The truth exists in biblical prophesy. Jesus told of the corruption and false doctrine. Read the Gospals, read the Epistals, read Revelations. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for this kind of sin and reference to it are in the New Testament. These renagades are not only teaching false doctrine they are spliting the Church over there own petty wants.

    God willing the Church will remaine whole. But the false doctrine has to go. If that means the New Hamptshire Diocese and others of a like mind have to be rejected and cut off, so be it. As far as waiting for the next Lambeth councel.

    I don’t think Cannon Law supports going against God’s Word Written. And I believe God would not support unrepentant sin. The love of God is unending but Jesus did cast the money changers out of the temple and destroyed thir tables. Too many people look to the love and forgivness of God and forget his wrath.

    To sum up no one living in unrepentant sin can be allowed to lead the Church or be given a place of honor and respect. The Anglican Church worldwhide cannot allow this travesty to continue. If the few American Bishops that still support this don’t relent then they need to be made outcast.

    I pray that God will open the eyes of those of you who are being so mislead.

    Marlin Rice

    Posted by  on  11/26  at  09:45 AM

  18. Marlin,

    We believe that the Holy Spirit guides our church in understanding his unfolding truth of love. We believe that his inspiration works in our General Convention. The church was born in the Pentecostal Fire. The Holy Spirit did not manifest himself as a book appearing over the disciples. The Holy Spirit is a living fire in his people. The Holy Spirit is the fire that enlightens us today as he did in the past. We understand that the mystery of God’s love is never ending. We understand that the Holy Spirit speaks to people of faith in all ages.

    The Holy Spirit is as much our our guide to truth now as he was in the Apostolic Age. The Bible is not the final statement of our faith. It is the expression of faith that comes down to us from the Aposolic Age. The faith of the Apostolic Age contained beliefs that were in error. For example, Christ did not come to establish the Messianic Kingdom on earth in the Apostolic Age that was clearly believed to be imminent in that time.

    Evangelical belief if the Bible as the sole source of truth seems perilously close to idolatry to me. God is not a series of books. The Lord Christ Jesus taught the people of faith in his time that the written law was never as important as serving others by acts of kindness and love. The Lord Christ Jesus continued to unfold the truth revealed by all the latter prophets. The Lord Christ Jesus was put to death by people that believed that written rules alone contained God’s truth. Evangelical beliefs regarding the Bible reminds me of Islamic beliefs regarding the Qu’ran. Islamic thinkers believe that the Qu’ran is uncreated and has existed eternally. Clearly a misunderstand of God.

    We can not be thrown out of the Anglican church. There is no such church. Our church is just one member of a voluntary communion of churches. We our the church in the USA. We do not need or require the premission or approval of any other organization to govern ourselves.

    Perhaps it is time for my church to discipline any member that will not conform to canon law legislated by our General Convention. That would require us to remove any Bishop or priest that will not conform to the rule of law that they are bound to uphold by their oaths and vows. Perhaps it is time to our church to truelly reform ourselves. Perhaps it is time to cleanse ourselves of all oath breakers. We elect our Bishops to office by our law and we can remove our Bishops by lawful trial.

    Posted by  on  11/26  at  12:25 PM

  19. Terrence

    My point is that in artical XX of the “Articles of Religion” state that it is unlawful for the Church to ordain any thing contrary to “God’s Word Written” (Bible) or to expound one place in scripture “that it be repugnant to another”. The present situtation is covered in this artical as the Bible speaks against sexual immorality and deviations in both old and new testaments.

    You say it’s evangelical seemingly reffering to such personages as Pat Robertson. I differ in that as I’m going by what is said in the Bible and the “Articles of Religion” of the Episcopal Church set up in 1790. Some things can’t be changed or interpreted to suit ourselves. This is made most clear by the stand taken by the Global South but the majority of American Bishops and Churches. Many, instead of speaking out, have left the Church. I just hope the few who are causing these problems are proud of themselves.

    It all is in God’s hands and when the finaal Judgement come I think there will be many who will reget their choices. By then it will be to late. I myself am sure and firm in my faith and will remain so. I will stand with the Pittsburg Diocese and the Global South.

    Forgivness and the Grace of God won’t be attained by unrepentant sin. To find out what is sin, go to the Bible. You can’t make it up as you go. Otherwise you are fooling yourself and endangering your soul.

    Marlin

    Posted by  on  11/26  at  09:13 PM

  20. Marlin,

    You keep missing the point. The Holy Spirit continues to speak to us today just as he did in 1790. It was by an act of the General Convention that the Articles of Religion were accepted as part of the organization of the church. The same General Convention that can drop the statement from the Book of Common Prayer if that is the will of the Convention.

    Please read the Acts of the Apostles. The disciples in Jerusalem placed very few restrictions on gentile members of the church. In fact, no Jewish law was to be applied to us. One of the few rules given to us by the disciples was to refrain from promiscuity. That is all we are asking of our Gay brothers and sisters. Were the disciples in Jerusalem wrong in placing these rules on us? Are we wrong in expanding the call to refrain from promiscuity by our legislation?

    If you have read St. Paul’s letters carefully you would see that he said marriage is given to us to help us over come our burning passion and drive towards promiscuity. He was simply restating the rule given by the disciples in Jerusalem to the gentiles in the church. How is our legislation in violation of those principles? Are we not simply clarifying the rules given to us (the gentiles) by the Apostolic church? We have never been bound by the Law of Moses. Thanks be to God!

    Posted by  on  11/27  at  02:41 AM

  21. Marlin,
    With the Terrances & the Josephs of this world there is no reasoning.  All they wish to do is blah, blah.  The desire is to wear you ( & me!) down.  They keep twisting & reading their meaning into clearly understood Scripture, Reason & Tradition.  I’ve throughly enjoyed reading your truthful & informed posts.  The T’s & the J’s call others who have traditional views bigots & any other insulting name they can come up with.  I have learned that the spirits in these dear people identify themselves by what they call others.  We’ve been told in the Scriptures “to test the spirits to see if they are of God.” Bless their hearts.  Marlin they can’t help themselves.
    Blessings, Nancy

    Posted by  on  11/27  at  03:02 AM

  22. Nancy

    Thank you. You see the point clearly. They accept and distort the very verse they use to support their actions and ignore any that would condem them. There is no arguing with those who are blind to the truth. There are none so blind as they who will not see. We all know who the true bigots are.

    God’s grace be with you evermore.

    Marlin

    Posted by  on  11/27  at  07:58 AM

  23. Terrence

    As it is you who are missing the point I will add one last comment and then leave you to your misinterpretations. Article XX of the Articles of Religeon forbid the “General Convention” from going against scripture or twisting the meaning of it.

    I suggest you yourself realy and honestly read the Bible, all of it. You seem to be sadly missinformed.

    Even though it seems a waste of my time and effort to reply to you I’ll hopefully, with the help of God, show you the error of your ways. Tonight I’ll pray for God to send you the wisdom to see clearly and to throw of the yoke of Satans influance.

    God give you the wisdom to see the scriptures clearly.

    Marlin

    Posted by  on  11/27  at  08:35 AM

  24. Comments:

    Nancy: Please refrain from false witness against your neighbor. I have never called any person a bigot in my messages. I would also point you to you that I clearly represent a ‘traditional’ and a ‘orthodox’ view within the church. The church has always said that the Holy Spirit guides the church. We pray for his inspiration at every service.

    The first council of the church was held in Jerusalem under the direction of the disciples of Christ. In fact, I pointed to its’ judgement regarding the only rules for gentiles in the congregation. Councils are the final authority on what is orthodoxy in our church. It has been true since the Apostolic Age.

    The Feast of Pentacost is celebrated as the birthday of the church. I also agree that we should test our beliefs against scripture and I gave two examples of biblical jutification for my views. Remember it was the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that gave us the Bible. Remember it was a council of the church that determined what books would be included in that Bible. Why do you fail to see the Holy Spirit in action today? Is he dead?

    Marlin: Discussion is never a waste of time. How is it that you know what God’s plan is for me. Did you have a personal revelation of God’s plan for me? To say that I wear Satan’s yoke is certainly not a way of seeking and serving Christ in all people. Are your baptismal vows meaningless to you?

    Have I ever said that you are damned for your views? Have I ever said that you are blinded to the truth? The answer is no. I believe that civilized and intelligent people can disagree. I have always presented my views with that understanding tha you are both civilized and intelligent. Was I in correct in seeing you in that fashion?

    I pray that we always remember that each of us is a child of God. I pray that we always remember that we are all sinners forgiven by God’s grace. I pray that love never fails to be shown towards our brothers and sisters in Christ.

    Posted by  on  11/27  at  12:13 PM

  25. We have to delete a comment by “Joseph” made earlier on because of rude name-calling. Please maintain some measure of decency in your discussions

    TerryW

    Posted by  on  11/27  at  05:26 PM
    26. Page 2 of 3 pages  <  1 2 3 >

Next entry: Lecture delivered by the Archbishop of Canterbury at the Islamic University, Islamabad

Previous entry: Third Trumpet: Communique from 3rd South to South Encounter

<< Back to main