Global South Primates Kigali Communiqué, September 2006

Global South Primates’ Meeting
The Anglican Communion
Kigali, Rwanda September 2006
Communiqué
________________________________________

1. As Primates and Leaders of the Global South Provinces of the Anglican Communion we gathered at the Hotel des Mille Collines in Kigali, Rwanda, between 19th and 22nd September 2006. We were called together by the Global South Steering Committee and its chairman, Archbishop Peter J. Akinola. Twenty provinces were represented at the meeting*. We are extremely grateful for the warm welcome shown to us by the Right Honorable Bernard Makuza, Prime Minister of the Republic of Rwanda, and the hospitality provided by Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini, members of the House of Bishops of the Church of Rwanda and all of the members of the local organizing committee.

2. We have gathered in Rwanda twelve years after the genocide that tragically engulfed this nation and even its churches. During this time Rwanda was abandoned to its fate by the world. Our first action was to visit the Kigali Genocide Museum at Gisozi for a time of prayer and reflection. We were chastened by this experience and commit ourselves not to abandon the poor or the persecuted wherever they may be and in whatever circumstances. We add our voices to theirs and we say, “Never Again!”

3. As we prayed and wept at the mass grave of 250,000 helpless victims we confronted the utter depravity and inhumanity to which we are all subject outside of the transforming grace of God. We were reminded again that faith in Jesus Christ must be an active, whole-hearted faith if we are to stand against the evil and violence that threaten to consume our world. We were sobered by the reality that several of our Provinces are presently in the middle of dangerous conflicts. We commit ourselves to intercession for them.

4. We are very aware of the agonizing situation in the Sudan. We appreciate and commend the terms of the Sudanese Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the North and the South. We dare not, however, close our eyes to the devastating situation in Darfur. We are conscious of the complexities but there must be no continuation of the slaughter. We invite people from all of the Provinces of the Anglican Communion and the entire international community to stand in solidarity with the men, women and children in Darfur, Sudan.

5. We are here as a people of hope and we have been greatly encouraged as we have witnessed the reconciling power of God’s love at work as this nation of Rwanda seeks to rebuild itself. We have been pleased to hear of positive developments in the neighboring country of Burundi as they have recently completed a cease-fire agreement between their government and the Palipehutu-FNL. We are also beginning to see an end to the conflict in Northern Uganda and we note that the Democratic Republic of the Congo is approaching a historic election that offers promise for a peaceful future. All of these developments are occasions for hope for the future.

6. We have met here as a growing fellowship of Primates and leaders of churches in the Global South representing more than 70 percent of the active membership of the worldwide Anglican Communion. We build on and reaffirm the work of our previous meetings, especially our most recent gathering in Egypt in October 2005. We are mindful of the challenges that face our Communion and recommit ourselves to the abiding truth of the Holy Scriptures and the faithful proclamation of the whole Gospel for the whole world. We recommit ourselves to the vision of our beloved Communion as part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

7. We recognize that because of the ongoing conflict in the Communion many people have lost hope that we will come to any resolution in the foreseeable future. We are grateful therefore, that one sign of promise is the widespread support for the development of an Anglican Covenant. We are delighted to affirm the extraordinary progress made by the Global South task group on developing an Anglican Covenant. For the past year they have labored on this important task and we look forward to submitting the result of their labor to the rest of the Communion. We are pleased that the Archbishop of Canterbury has recognized the exemplary scholarship and leadership of Archbishop Drexel Gomez in asking him to chair the Covenant Design Group and look forward with anticipation to the crucial next steps of this historic venture. We believe that an Anglican Covenant will demonstrate to the world that it is possible to be a truly global communion where differences are not affirmed at the expense of faith and truth but within the framework of a common confession of faith and mutual accountability.

8. We have come together as Anglicans and we celebrate the gift of Anglican identity that is ours today because of the sacrifice made by those who have gone before us. We grieve that, because of the doctrinal conflict in parts of our Communion, there is now a growing number of congregations and dioceses in the USA and Canada who believe that their Anglican identity is at risk and are appealing to us so that they might remain faithful members of the Communion. As leaders of that Communion we will work together to recognize the Anglican identity of all who receive, hold and maintain the Scriptures as the Word of God written and who seek to live in godly fellowship within our historic ordering.

9. We deeply regret that, at its most recent General Convention, The Episcopal Church gave no clear embrace of the minimal recommendations of the Windsor Report. We observe that a number of the resolutions adopted by the Convention were actually contrary to the Windsor Report. We are further dismayed to note that their newly elected Presiding Bishop also holds to a position on human sexuality – not to mention other controversial views – in direct contradiction of Lambeth 1.10 and the historic teaching of the Church. The actions and decisions of the General Convention raise profound questions on the nature of Anglican identity across the entire Communion.

10. We are, however, greatly encouraged by the continued faithfulness of the Network Dioceses and all of the other congregations and communities of faithful Anglicans in North America. In addition, we commend the members of the Anglican Network in Canada for their commitment to historic, biblical faith and practice. We value their courage and consistent witness. We are also pleased by the emergence of a wider circle of ‘Windsor Dioceses’ and urge all of them to walk more closely together and deliberately work towards the unity that Christ enjoins. We are aware that a growing number of congregations are receiving oversight from dioceses in the Global South and in recent days we have received requests to provide Alternative Primatial Oversight for a number of dioceses. This is an unprecedented situation in our Communion that has not been helped by the slow response from the Panel of Reference. After a great deal of prayer and deliberation, and in order to support these faithful Anglican dioceses and parishes, we have come to agreement on the following actions:

a. We have asked the Global South Steering Committee to meet with the leadership of the dioceses requesting Alternative Primatial Oversight, in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Network and the ‘Windsor Dioceses’, to investigate their appeal in greater detail and to develop a proposal identifying the ways by which the requested Primatial oversight can be adequately provided.

b. At the next meeting of the Primates in February 2007 some of us will not be able to recognize Katharine Jefferts Schori as a Primate at the table with us. Others will be in impaired communion with her as a representative of The Episcopal Church. Since she cannot represent those dioceses and congregations who are abiding by the teaching of the Communion we propose that another bishop, chosen by these dioceses, be present at the meeting so that we might listen to their voices during our deliberations.

c. We are convinced that the time has now come to take initial steps towards the formation of what will be recognized as a separate ecclesiastical structure of the Anglican Communion in the USA. We have asked the Global South Steering Committee to develop such a proposal in consultation with the appropriate instruments of unity of the Communion. We understand the serious implications of this determination. We believe that we would be failing in our apostolic witness if we do not make this provision for those who hold firmly to a commitment to historic Anglican faith.

11. While we are concerned about the challenges facing our Anglican structures we are also very much aware that these issues can be a distraction from the work of the Gospel. At our meeting in Kigali we invested a great deal of our time on the day-to-day challenges that confront our various Churches including poverty eradication, HIV/AIDS, peace building and church planting. We were enormously encouraged by the reports of growth and vitality in the many different settings where we live and serve.
 
12. We received a

preliminary report from the Theological Formation and Education (TFE) Task Force

. We were pleased to hear of their plans to provide opportunities for theological formation from the most basic catechism to graduate level training for new and existing Anglican leaders. We request that all Global South provinces share their existing Catechisms and other educational resources with the TFE Task Force for mutual enrichment. We were pleased by their determination to network with other theological institutions and theologians in the Global South as well as with scholars and seminaries who share a similar vision for theological education that is faithful to Scripture and tradition.

13. We were blessed by the presence of a number of Economic Officers (Advisors) from around the Communion. Their determination to find creative ways to offer means of

Economic Empowerment<

at various levels throughout the provinces of the Global South was an inspiration to all of us and resulted in the issuing of a separate summary statement. We note especially their

proposed Ethical Economic and Financial Covenant

that we adopted as Primates and commended for adoption at all levels of our Provinces. We were impressed by their vision and fully support their proposal to convene an Economic Empowerment consultation in 2007 with participation invited from every Global South Province.

14. We received ‘

The Road to Lambeth

,’ a draft report commissioned by the Primates of the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa (CAPA) which they have commended to their churches for study and response. It highlights the crisis that now confronts us as we consider the future of the Lambeth Conference. We commend this report for wider reflection.

15. We were challenged by a presentation on the interface between Christianity and Islam and the complex issues that we must now confront at every level of our societies throughout the Global South. We recognized the need for a more thorough education and explored a number of ways that allow us to be faithful disciples to Jesus Christ while respecting the beliefs of others. We condemn all acts of violence in the name of any religion.

16. Throughout our time together in Kigali we have not only shared in discussions such as these we have also spent time together in table fellowship, prayer and worship. We are grateful that because of the time that we have shared our lives have been strengthened and our love for Christ, His Church and His world confirmed. Accordingly, we pray for God’s continued blessing on all members of our beloved Communion that we might all be empowered to continue in our mission to a needy and troubled world.

To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy — to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen. (Jude 1:24-25)


* Provinces Represented:

Bangladesh**, Burundi, Central Africa, Church of South India, Congo, Indian Ocean, Jerusalem and Middle East, Kenya, Myanmar, Nigeria, Philippines**, Rwanda, Southern Africa, South East Asia, Southern Cone, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, West Africa, West Indies (** Not present but represented)

131 Responses. Comments closed for this entry.

  1. Randy Muller Says:

    This is truly a wonderful and godly statement of support and relief for those of us in “occupied territory”.

    In many ways, it makes the past three years feel like Advent!

  2. Andy Figueroa Says:

    confused
    My comment to the initial comment:

    It is sad that the first comment on this web site regarding the communique, is from Mr. Bruce Garner, a member of the ECUSA Executive Council, and one who both practices and advocates notorious sexual behavior.

  3. John Sharnik Says:

    excaim
    Speaking predominantly to points 10 a, b, and c inclusively:  I couldn’t agree more.  It should be understood that the dialogue continues at all is a matter of grace.  There will be a time when the talking will cease and the legitimacy of the remaining ECUSA structure will be totally rejected.

  4. Christopher T. Cantrell+ Says:

    Sadly, Bruce Garner has but one note to sound - “power and control”. Convenient now that he is in power.

    It is a smokescreen to keep from dealing with the substance of the problem. What affects one part of the body affects all.

    Thanks be to God for the GS Primates!

  5. cdburt Says:

    rolleyes
    The nub of this matter is that the Global South primates have called for the breakup of the Episcopal Church. What is missing, sadly, is any reaching out to the even more faithful Anglicans who became separated from the Anglican Communion after the Congress of St. Louis.

    It is possible that the Global South will cobble together a communion rejecting homosexuality in high places but accepting theological feminism and its catastrophic consequences with respect to the reception of ministers between churches. If this happens, the new communion will begin with a fatal flaw already in place.

    I challenge the Global South to include in its covenant something like this: “We receive and accept the apostolic ministry of bishops, priests, and deacons, limited to men, as it has historically been understood in the universal Church. We do not believe that any portion of our communion is competent to make a radical change in the doctrine and discipline of the Church such as is represented by the ordination of women to holy orders.”

    Failure to do this, difficult though it may be, will exclude for all time the true Anglo-Catholics from your communion. It will also mean, as it has meant in the Anglican Communion as a whole, that the obstacles to reunion with the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church are insurmountable.

    C. David Burt

  6. Peter Says:

    This letter is clear as to it’s message.  The messsage is a good one.  Thank you for such bold and compassionate care for those in the community of faith known as Anglican. 

    Bruce,
    You blind guide.  You know not of what you speak.  The body of Christ known as Anglican is ready to tear the sinning eye from itself.  Beware, for the harshest words are reserved for those who once upheld the faith and then turn on it and seek to destroy it.  Please repent.  We are a body and all are affected if one part sins.

  7. Tom Crowe Says:

    gulp I read with disbelief the statement by the Primates of the Global South.  It is a statement filled with misogynistic fear, anger, and hate.  It is very frightening.  Is Christianity no longer about including the Anawim at our tables? This statement is only about discrimination and exclusion.  I find nothing of Christ (who includes ALL at his table) in this manifesto.  Are these folks really Anglicans?  Where is the “Reason” in this two-legged statement?  All Anglican statements must be informed by the Bible, grounded in the ever-evolving and changing church Tradition, and always guided by our God-given human Reason.  Careful +Guys, if you abandon reason you will all soon be a George Bush Christians (plenty of faith, a nostalgic selective memory of tradition and with no reason what-so-ever). Beware, your stool is s(t)inking!

  8. A Religious Brother of the Church Says:

    This is so sad. 

    I pray the Global South will one day join the 21st century and the age of reason.

    May God bless the faithful Gay and Lesbian people of the Anglican Churches in Africa who have to endure such bigotry and fear as they experience a complete lack of pastoral care and listening as outlined in the Windsor Report.  Great is their reward in Heaven.

    May God have mercy on you Archbishop Akinola.  Your day will come when you have to stand before God and answer for this.

  9. John Sharnik Says:

    The question is not really about the ordination of “gays and lesbians,” no matter how much the media and many individuals try to spin it in that direction.  But, rather, the real problem for the GS is with what regard is the Word of God held, and the connective Apostolic teachings as they have been handed down to us.  Is God’s Word eternal, or is it temporal and variable?  What is your view of God?  Who do you say that “He is?”  These are the core issues. 

    For most of us, the ordination of homosexuals is merely a sidebar in this discussion. The conclusion is clear and time is running out.  Whether the Anglican Church in North America exists at all is not critical, imo. The real question is who do you call Lord.  His Church shall always exist… with or without ECUSA, hopefully with….

  10. Bruce Garner Says:

    To Andy:  Since you have never set foot in my home, much less my bedroom, it’s rather presumptuous for you to state anything about my sexual activities.  Perhaps if you were less obsessed with other folks’ sexuality and more focused on the Gospel you wouldn’t have time for such attacks.

    To Chris (Cantrell):  One of over 3 dozen is hardly “in power.”  I am only one of a group of folks who will pray and discuss and pray some more and perhaps vote and then pray again.

    To Peter (don’t think I even know you - I use full names, can’t imagine why others don’t have the same courtesy):  I know very well of what I speak.  I have been part of years of prayer and discernment in the church.  And the one drum I have literally beaten to death is that the table is large enough for all and I will always make room for anyone at the table….regardless of how much or how little we agree.  Unfortunately, the reciprical is rarely true from certain circles.  I’m often reminded of the Scriptural pasage about all the parts of the body being necessary and all important.  Some among us simply ignore that as was evidenced at this most recent and several previous General Conventions when they refused to participate in corporate worship with thousands of their duly baptized sisters and brothers in Christ.  Alternative worship is contrary to the Gospel spirit my friends and only serves to illustrate the points I have made.

    Again, I will always make room for you at the table….will you do the same for others?  If not, who has the beam in whose eye?

    Bruce Garner, Atlanta

  11. dwstroudmd Says:

    Paragraphs 8,9,10,11 and 14 certainly make clear what Table is an Anglican Table, as, opposed to an ECUSAn Table.  ECUSA/TEC has forgotten it is not the communion.  This is a good and Godly reminder of reality in the world and the Gospel.

  12. Darren Moore Says:

    Reason? We all use reason but can the Christian use reason to trump the Bible? Also the Bible talks about our sinful state, meaning that we have fallen reason, therefore need our minds renewed. I’m not sure, from experiance everything that Liberals say is all that rational/reasonable at times and proof of the pudding is that in my country at least (England) the Liberal establisment is numerically and financially on the rocks, it has nothing to offer. Liberalism mostly just agrees with what the world says + a ritual.

    Also where do people get the impression that Jesus accepts all? He offers himself to all for sure. But some turn from him when he says take up your cross.

    It is a cheap shot to say Traditionalists are unexcepting. We have all sorts in our Churches. But we try to lovingly call all to repentance, whatever that means for each of us. Repentance is tough guys.

  13. Darren Moore Says:

    Good point in contribution 13 - re: Anglican rather than ECUSA etc.

    ECUSA is just a speck in world Anglicanism and for that matter American Christianity. Here in lies the irony. The POWERS that be squash the traditionalits and accuse them of schism. When the rest of Christondom accuses them of schism we here a cry of “Oh no we haven’t”.

  14. Darren Moore Says:

    Yes - I am aware that I can’t spell…
    2nd we, last sentance refers to ECUSA’s POWERS & it should read hear not here

  15. Darren Moore Says:

    Yes - I am aware that I can’t spell…
    2nd we, last sentance refers to ECUSA’s POWERS & it should read hear not here

  16. Bruce Garner Says:

    Yesterday during a post-convention “de-briefing” for any who were interested in the diocese, our bishop reminded us of some very important information.  He pointed out all of the wonderful mission work that we saw exhibited at General Convention.  He noted our continuing commitment to mission around the world without regard to any particular theological issue.  And he noted that for a church our size, we were able to exercise for more positive influence than one might expect. 

    What wonderful Gospel-grounded news for something that is just a “speck” in world Anglicanism. 

    Bruce Garner, Atlanta

  17. dwstroudmd Says:

    No doubt we do some good accidentally as the speck, Bruce.  But how does that compare to the disaster we have made for the Anglican Communion and ourselves?  Also, I think it would apply when the Lord spoke to the canon-ists of His day, that they had done well to tithe the mint and cumin, but had missed the weightier matter of the Law: true obedience to God from forgiven hearts and behaviour consonant with that repentant status.
    But, no one denied that the canon-ists tithed the mint and cumin, did they?

  18. Tom Crowe Says:

    Reply to Darren (response # 14):

    I guess you are not an Anglican/Episcopalian, or at least you are new to our Church.  Reason does not “trump” the Bible but informs it.  We eat shrimp, we cut our hair, we wear cloth of mixed fibers - these rules had meaning in the Jewish Palestine of the 1st century – but not now. As for the New Testament we can start with the theological issue of divorce and go from there but the list of contradictions and exceptions in the NT would be too long for this posting! We Anglicans interpret the Bible according to times and places, similar to Roman Catholics.  We are not literalists in our reading of the Bible.  We read the Word (Logos = reason) of God in the Bible, not the words of God – we are not Muslims, the Bible was not dictated word for word to a prophetic scribe, but edited and re-written many times. Even today Protestants accept only 66 Books as official and Roman Catholics and Orthodox accept 73 – which church is correct in God’s eyes, which are “sinners”?

    By the way, I think your true colors are showing with your “Freudian slip”.  You said “Traditionalists are not un-excepting” Except what?  Except if you are sinful in their eyes.  We all miss the mark, but I prefer to celebrate life and grace as Christ did and not emphasis the negative all the time.  I save the negative (sin), as Christ did for the rich and powerful deceivers of truth (like George Bush, Adolph Hitler, Archbishop Akinloa).

    I consider myself a 17th century traditionalist Anglican – I accept and love the Low Church and the High Church people in my Church. The true Spirit of Anglicanism is to live together with our differences not to try to either condemn or to save those who disagree with our interpretation of God’s gift of Reason and Faith.  I consider myself a Broad Church person (Wikipedia - “those Anglicans tolerant of multiple forms of conformity to ecclesiastical authority came to be referred to as ‘Broad’).

    We are, after all, a Reformed church of the Enlightenment!  If you don’t want to live with a diversity of theological thought then join another church, but don’t try to kick me (ECUSA) out of mine! You might want to consider becoming either a Roman Catholic or a Southern Baptist. But please don’t invent a tradition that says that my tradition is “sinful” – very un-Anglican olde chap!

  19. Bruce Garner Says:

    RE:  dwstroudmd

    True obedience to the law is much more simple than we want to make it:  Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind and strength.  And love your neighbor as yourself.  Jesus quoted this and upheld it accordingly.  Rebbe Hillel said of it:  THIS is Torah…all else is commentary!

    It doesn’t take much more than a cursory read of all four Gospel accounts of Jesus’ ministry to realize that he was interested in right relationships (or righteousness), between human beings and between human beings and their Creator.  Abusive relationships and exploitive relationships were wrong (such as adultery and prostitution among others).  He said nothing about sexual relationships per se.  (Adultery is the breaking of a covenant, it’s not about sex.  Prostitution involves exploitation of others, again it’s not about sex per se.)

    We just don’t seem to be able to grasp the beautiful simplicity of Jesus’ message.  We feel we must absolutely complicate it with all sorts of other baggage, about which He never spoke.  I’m just glad God has more patience than we do.  I would have ended evolution with the lower primate species….much less of a headache!

    Bruce Garner, Atlanta

  20. prophetjck Says:

    Simple isnt it?
    Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind and strength.  And love your neighbor as yourself.

    He also said: If you love me, keep my commandments.

    Easier said than done. Isnt it?

    Simple yet….....

    You mentioned right relationships….but conviniently forgot about the man/woman relationship….the covenant relationship of marriage between the God ordained sexes!

    Have you not read, that from the beginning made then male and female.
    For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

    Adultery IS sex and more that if one should even look with lust, he has commited adultery! nothing sexual? C’mon….

    It is indeed so simple…..unless you wish to twist HIS words….then it gets complicated due to deceit

  21. Bruce Garner Says:

    I refer “prophetjck” to Jesus’ own words when he indicated that adultery could be committed in the heart even without the act.  Adultery is a legal concept that involves the violation of a contract or covenant.  The act itself is in reality the final break in the covenant or contract. 

    The fact that God created both male and female has nothing to do with the fact that some of each gender are attracted to their own gender.  That doesn’t negate the existence of homosexuality in humans or any of the other mammalian species either.  Nor does it denigrate heterosexual realtionships or homosexual relationships.  It’s a statement of fact related mostly to procreation, since at the time, there were an assortment of erroneous ideas about that topic such as the idea that a woman contributed nothing but the incubator to pregnancies.

    He made it clear that “His commandments” were indeed what we now call the Summary of the Law. 

    Yes it is simple, much more than we want to believe. 

    Do you (and others on this particular list) not have names?  Are you afraid to admit who you are?  This is so bizarre!  Perhaps you don’t have the strength of your convictions to actually own up to them??

    Bruce Garner, Atlanta

  22. mccabe Says:

    Bruce Garder - I am so happy to see and read your comments. I am generally the only person willing to take on the gang of vipers masked as the ‘true believers’.

    The Global South has every right to order its’ churches in whatever fashion pleases them. They are not free to order our church - TEC - to do anything. That is our concern alone. The Holy Spirit moves us where He wants us to be. We do not need to listen to the voices of the modern Pharisees. They preach a subtle form of idolatry and are blind to the spirit of truth. Love is not a part of their doctrine. That is far to radical, dangerous and basic of a Christian doctrine to preach in the Global South.

    The Anglican Communion is a myth. ‘Purity’ is a mask used to hide the face of those that grasp for the resources found in the Church of the West. Envy fueled by greed is the real motivation here.

    The sooner TEC is done with supporting any move to create an ‘Anglican Communion’ the better off we will all be. It is time to end the ‘feeding station’ dependency of the Global South. It is time they stand on their own two feet and do the work of God in their own unique part of the world.  TEC will do its’ work to bring Christ to our own people in our own place in the world.

  23. Joe Ajaefobi Says:

    The issue at stake is neither ‘controversies on human sexuality nor power i.e.who controls who’. What is at stake is ‘the faith once delivered to the saints’. Giving in to the libral postmodern views simple means abondoning the Christian faith as contained in the Bible. It will amount to ‘redesigning God, making him user friendly, editing his word (the Bible) to conform to our contemporary culture’ This is nothing but idolatory. The Global south primates have risen as prophetic voice to the whole Anglican communion to call the church back to the faith. I salute their courage and commend them for standing firm for the faith, while praying for those whose views are different that the Lord will grant them the eyes to see and hearts to understand, and where necessary, the humility to repent.

  24. Bruce Garner Says:

    The true idolatry is worshiping the Bible.  Anyone who has truly read the entire Bible is aware of numerous contradictions and erroneous information in it.  That does nothing to detract from its wonder and beauty as the only document we have that commits the oral history of the Hebrew people’s relationship with God and the incarnation story of the New Testament to writing.  It is the “word of God” but it is not “the words of God.”  There is a difference. 

    The ancient creeds contain our core beliefs and no one in the Episcopal Church feels differently than anyone else in the Anglican Communion about those creeds….we all recite our beliefs each Sunday at a minimum. 

    But our central point of gathering and agreement will always be the table of the Eucharist.  That is the centrality of our faith played out on an ongoing basis day by day by day all around the world.  What more do we need to profess than that?  What more do we need to share than that? 

    Some want us to be a confessional church with some flimsy purity creed or code that gets put up to make some more comfortable with their unwillingness to deal with God on a one-on-one basis about their own mortal soul.  Do’s and Don’t's lists are easier…no thought is required and what an insult to our Divine Creator!

    We still have and proclaim the faith once delivered to the saints.  Some just seem to want to hang all sorts of other baggage on it to try and secure some elusive position that they are more “orthodox” than others with whom they might disagree. 

    The real disintigration will take place when various powers that be start the process of purification within those who already claim purity.  Many apparently have tried and failed to “edit” the faith once delivered to the saints. 

    Read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the Bible my sisters and brothers, but do not worship it!  It is not your salvation.  The blood of Jesus Christ accomplished that feat!

    Bruce Garner, Atlanta

  25. John Sharnik Says:

    Bruce,
    I know of no one who worships the Bible, but I know many people who try to ‘deify’ their actions.

  26. Darren Moore Says:

    Sorry to drag this all back a few postings - thought I’d better defend myself a little.

    Re: not being Anglican or new. I have been Anglican for 33 years, working in an Anglican Church for 11 years, ordained for 5 and trained at an Anglican theological college where I studied amoung other things Anglican history and liturgy.

    Now it may be different here in England but our Canon law starts by saying that we believe in Holy Scripture, as interpreted by the 3 catholic creeds, the 39 articles, the book of common prayer and the ordinal.

    That means that Anglicanism has always been doctrinally defined 1st and foremost. True it adapts to its situation - i.e. foremat, but not in beliefs. Sure it uses reason, but not as a trump card over the Bible.

    Re: Leviticus - have Liberal Scholars really never read Calvin, Luther, Edwards or more modern works like Wenham on how Evangelicals read the Bible? The Bible itself shows us how to make sense of the law. We are free from it but it still teaches us about God.

    The Bible and contradictions? mmm name the most troubling 4? You probably will find that they aren’t at all and have been answered some years ago. But if you feel like that fine, I respect that. But I’d respect it more if you didn’t try to press this revised form into Christianity. The Bible may well be outrageous - but if it is abandon it and it’s religion.

    Someone already rightly pointed out that this is all about the faith once delivered. If you don’t like it that’s one thing. To change it? who has that authority?

    Re: Specks - specks aren’t in and of themselves bad. I can think of some great specks on English Christianity. I merely meant let’s get a perspective! - ECUSA going off doing its own thing is not tearing down Christianity.

    The resentment here from some against the global south and Akinola to be honest beggers belief - I can’t see how such hatred is Christian. Is that how you feel about the rest of us? We only interfere because we care! If you want to leave and do your own thing, fine, but can we do it in a less painful way? Also how is what the ECUSA Powers do to the traditionalists within her any different?

  27. Mark Brown Says:

    The issue is not welcoming everyone to table.

    Jesus welcomed all persons to table IN ORDER TO call them to repentance.  Luke 5:29-32 If they did not repent of their sins, however, Jesus shook the dust off his feet and moved on.  Matthew 11:20-24; 10:14-16.

    To remain welcome at table each of us must repeatedly repent of our sin.

    The question is not whether all are welcome to the table, because they are.  The pertinent question is what constitutes “sin”, so that we can know of what behavior we must repent. 

    With respect to sodomy, the question is: Is sodomy ever not sinful?  If so, when?  (And at what point may a province ignore the consensus of the rest of the Anglican Communion in changing the Church’s historic answer to this question?)


    Best wishes,

    MarkBrown
    San Angelo, Texas
    September 25, 2006

  28. Peter Says:

    Bruce,

    The metaphore of a table is wholly false.  The church is not a table/club where people come together to talk about God-stuff.  The church is a group of people who believe that Jesus saves us from sins and that in him and HIM ALONE is life and peace and joy and God himself.  We come together to WORSHIP Jesus, not discuss various theories about him.  We use God’s revealed word (the bible) to order our worship and if that book says that it is sin to have homosexual sex, then for ordered worship to happen we can’t say it’s not a sin. 

    Also, simply being born with a homosexualy desire is no excuse.  A baby may be born with a hole in it’s heart or a broken leg and we would certainly have those fixed because the fallen creation has produced a broken body. 

    Do you really not believe in original sin?

  29. Dave Says:

    I would recommend getting your attitude adjusted to the Global South.  They are calling the shots these days in the communion.  Why would Rowan Williams dump 70 million people over a bunch of whiney fems who total about 1.5mm?  What I thought!  Some of you need an attitude adjustment.

  30. David R. Wagner Says:

    Bruce Garner said, “The fact that God created both male and female has nothing to do with the fact that some of each gender are attracted to their own gender.”

    Mr. Garner, you have no grounds whatsoever for making such a claim.  How often I have heard revisionists say to the orthodox that no one has the right to speak for God and no one can possibly know the mind of God.  Yet with this remark you boldly go ahead and do both.

    The fact that God created male and female clearly shows His design for creation.  The fact that some people are attracted to their own gender only reveals that they, like everyone else are fallen.  Their sexuality has no part of God’s design.  Nothing could be more clear than that.

    For the Church to bless, encourage, and ordain what God has not is blasphemous, hellish, and totally self-absorbed.

    I would agree that the Church has failed to minister properly to those who find themselves same-gender attracted.  But to say that the thing to do in that case is to bless same-sex unions and ordain and consecrate practising GLBTs is simply false.

    I do not expect you to see my point or believe what I’m saying any more than I believe that what you’re saying is the truth as God would have it.  And that is why this church is at an impasse and that is why the Global South Primates have said what they’ve said and are making these plans, NOT because they hate anyone or want to oppress anyone in violation of some commandment that you imagine Jesus made, or some passage of the New Testament that you interpret in some unprecedented way.

    Here’s my name, address, telephone number and email address, okay, Bruce?

    David R. Wagner
    308 West Central Blvd
    Kewanee, IL 61443
    309 853 1421
    .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

  31. Bruce Garner Says:

    You know boys…and I use that term deliberately, I have been doing my best to be cordial and respectful of you on this, but some of you are the epitome of the antithesis of Christianity.  But you are the one’s who must live with that, not I.

    There is a great deal of “putting words” into Jesus mouth and interpretting His actions as well.  I try not to do that.  I take it for face value. 

    My sexual orientation is not disordered and is not subject to change….unless of course those of you who claim to be heterosexual can also have your sexual orientation changed.  Think about it…would anyone choose this?  Why would someone choose to put up with the crap some of you hurl at other duly baptized members of Christ’s Body. 

    Remember that the church (and society) once considered being left handed a disorder that bordered on sinful (the Latin word for left gives us our word sinister).  We finally gained enough enlightenment to realize that God would not create something intrinsically sinful other than the intrinsic sinfullness we all inherited. 

    Remember that women were once considered property and not fully human when compared to men.  Note that it was the woman charged with adultery who was to be stoned.  She didn’t do it by herself. Where was the man and why didn’t he get punished as well?  And remember that when a virgin was raped, her father was compensated.  She got nothing, yet she was the victim. 

    The list goes on, boys.  It’s called patriarchy and it is truly sinful in its embodiment in the church and society.  Being male doesn’t make someone inherently more or less worthy of God’s love and acceptance.  Some of us learned that long ago. Some refuse to learn.

    Being born with a hole in the heart or a malformed arm has nothing to do with a fallen creation.  Do you not recall what Jesus said when asked by the pharisees: “Who sinned, this man or his parents that he was born blind?”  Jesus’ clear response was neither sinned to cause the blindness.  And he turned it around on them and proclaimed its use to glorify God. 

    Sodomy in the Hebrew Scriptures has nothing to do with sexuality or relationships.  It was a form of domination.  The enemy was humiliated and dominated through the act of being sodomized by the conqueror.  The issue of Sodom was not homosexuality or sexuality of any form.  It was about inhospitality to strangers…a sin in the Hebrew tradition of the time.  Otherwise, why on earth would Lot have offered his daughters to appease the crowd?  Think about it boys!! Haven’t you even read your Bibles?  And remember there is a parallel story in Judges where a concubine is offered to the crowd and she is raped to death…they find her body on the doorstep the next morning.

    The issue for us all in Christ is right relationship.  That’s what it’s all about.  That’s what the Man talked about!  All the attempts to extrapolate anything further are futile, because He didn’t say it. 

    As far as contradictions:  Which creation story in Genesis is the correct one? The two versions do not match.  Which is the correct flood narrative?  The two versions do not match.

    And this mess about “whiney fems??”  Most of the gay men I know are anything but feminine and most could likely whip your butt in a heartbeat!  I am 6’1” tall and weigh about 178 lbs.  I could whip your butt too, particularly in my younger years.  I try to control my urges to strangle misinformed folks these days and just direct some pity towards them for their fear and ignorance.

    I pray for all of you daily.  May your hardened hearts and minds be opened to the glory and joy of worshiping the Risen Christ!

    Bruce Garner

  32. DaveG Says:

    Perhaps even now it is not too late for the leadership in TEC to wake up.  For several years, Alternate Episcopal Oversight was requested for conservative parishes in revisionist dioceses.  The answer was a resounding NO.  Only if the Diocesan approved it.  Only under the supervision of the Diocesan.  Only if the parish would continue to receive the Diocesan and most imnportantly, only if the parish continued to help finance the “New Thing” God was doing in TEC. 
    Unless TEC offers more than lip service, a split is coming.  A separate province is needed in which evangelical and AngloCatholics can join together in common mission.  It needs to be free from responsibility to TEC financially and canonically.  If TEC did that, the possibility of reconciliation in the future would remain and TEC might keep a place in the AC.  The only question is, is it too late?

  33. DaveG Says:

    Bruce
    I have heard/read these same arguments for years now.  They were and remain wholly unconvincing but we continue to have to listen to the same tired, twisted and tortured exegesis.  You are welcome in my church any time.  You are not welcome to teach that which is contrary to God’s word - namely that same-sex relations are life-giving and blessed by God.  You ask us to call sin a virtue and turn a holy God into an enabler of unhealthy disobedience.  Why must we remain hostage to that apostasy?  Enough is enough!

  34. Bruce Garner Says:

    You know, David, I could say that I have heard the same record from your side of the ailse rewound and replayed a thousand times.  But rather than that, let me just say (as I said to another privately) that I am blessed to know dozens of same gender couples whose relationships are firmly grounded in Christianity and for whom Jesus Christ is their center.  They are loving, caring, mutual, monogamous…all the things they should be.  These relationships are already blessed beyond measure and in reality the blessing of the church would probably be superfluous…but they do deserve to be blessed.  I’m watching many same gender couples raising very healthy and well adjusted children IN THE CHURCH with a strong faith in God and learning to build that personal relationship with Jesus Christ as they grow older.  It began with the baptism of those children and our promises to them that we made before God.  Neither you nor I have the authority or right or prerogative to trash that.

    Sometimes it’s worthwhile to recall something that we don’t hear quoted from Jesus very often:  “Judge not that ye be not judged.  For with the measure ye judge ye shall be judged.”

    Yes, enough is enough.  Do not call profane what God has created clean.

    Bruce Garner

  35. DaveG Says:

    I am not their or your judge, Bruce.  Encourage them, bless them, idolize them - whatever.  The rest of us think God calls it an an abomination and we are casting our lot with Him rather than post-modern pop psychology masking itself as the faith once delivered to the saints.  We don’t hate you.  We don’t wish you evil.  But we do pray that you will come under Godly conviction and repent.

  36. Bruce Garner Says:

    I probably came under Godly conviction and repented before you were even born DaveG.  But thanks for the invitation anyway.  I also pray and study Scripture daily and confess my sins. 

    By the way, abomination doesn’t equate to sin. It actually translates as something close to “make to want to throw up.”  There is a difference in that and sin. 

    Think of how much more productive it would be to spend time trying to see the Christ in everyone instead of trying to find ways to revile them.  Think of how much more Christ-like that would be.  I just hope and pray that the power of the Holy Spirit burns as hot in your breast as it does in mine.  It’s a wonderful feeling. 

    Perhaps someday you can name the source of your intense fear of anyone different from you.  I still wish you well.

    Bruce Garner

  37. DaveG Says:

    “Perhaps someday you can name the source of your intense fear of anyone different from you.”  So, not only do you re-write Scripture, you are expert in remote psychoanalysis and probably leap tall buildings at a single bound.  I am not afraid of you although I fear for you.  There is a difference.

  38. David R. Wagner Says:

    Bruce:

    What you are saying simply isnt’ true.  Never was, never will be.  God did not create anyone to be homosexual, lesbian or transgendered.  You are wrong when you say that homosexuality is not disordered.  It most certainly is disordered. 

    The Revisionists and the Orthodox cannot comprehend each other, do not believe each other, and cannot abide each other. What you call following Jesus Christ and obeying the Holy Spirit looks like heresy to us.  And what we call being faithful to God, appears to you as heresy.  We go round and round the same point over and over again.  Nothing changes, and it never will.

    What that means is that despite your complete misunderstanding of inclusion and who is or is not welcome at the Lord’s Table, we must go our separate ways.  That is what is happening with the Global South Primates.  Not something else that sounds good to you and reinforces your convictions.

  39. GCPK Says:

    Ah, Bruce.  On one hand you tout the love of Christ and the Holy Spirit burning in your chest.  On the other, you snipe, armchair analyze, and put down.  Yes, it WOULD me nice if everyone had the Spirit, but maybe not the fruits that you are displaying - they don’t strike me as fruits of the Spirit.  Maybe that is just me…

  40. Lee Tillman Says:

    Response to Bruce Garner - I truly hope you do not hold any position of influence in TEC.  If you do, you do not deserve the position.  Attempting to link the actions of the Global South Primates to genocide in Africa is seriously demented.  I will pray for your soul.  It is not too late to repent.  Lee Tillman, Chicago

  41. Terebinth Says:

    “The Anglican Communion is a myth. ‘Purity’ is a mask…” Well, no sir.  AC is a polity, a part (to be bold) of the Body of Christ.  TEC also is a polity, and also part of the Body.  I realize many readers here are jaundiced by their political prominence, and short term success.  Understand: you have kicked a sleeping giant.  What has for a while passed for “the orthodox” is becoming a broad group of middlers who learned from Dick Nixon what it can cost to be silent.  Make not the mistake that we need Nixonesque leadership.  You will not recognize the blows in advance.  It’s called starvation, isolation, penitence.  This is not a threat, it is reality, and it won’t need to be imported.

  42. dwstroudmd Says:

    Re: Bruce Garner #21

    Jesus said nothing about cocaine or methamphetamine either.  Nor about electricity for that matter.  Either YHWH wasted all His time and effort with Israel about obedience or Jesus was just blowing smoke when He said He and the Father were One.  Obedience to the moral law is that obedience to the revealed moral law.  One of the apodictic laws is to not lie with a man as with a woman.  I realize this is not about relationships but rather about a prohibited genital relationship of the physical realm.  Rather simple, too.  Do you find this difficult to understand or is it rather that you do not wish it to be so therefore it is not applicable?  The relationship that counts is the one with YHWH/Yeshua?Ruach HaKodesh.  Apparently, however, God (Blessed Trinity!) thinks what one does with one’s genitals does count.  He spent an awful lot of time on the male/female and multiply/reproduce stuff.  I await your explication of the explicit licitness of that which God has forbidden.

  43. Don Waddell Says:

    It takes some courage to enter such a blog with no cover of a username or any anonymity. But I was sent here by another blog to see for myself some real toxisity. I have found it. Bruce, you are toxic. It appears you have no clue that your New Age interpretation of the Gospel is absolutely rejected by any reasonable interpretation. The GS is clinging to the faith handed down, not the current garbage promoted by the revisionists. The sacrifices they have made, including rejecting the money of the gay-controlled EXCUSA funds is witness to their faith. I will not be back to this site, since it seems toxic, but you may feel free to contact me by email.

  44. Bruce Garner Says:

    You know folks if you actually followed every proscription and rule laid out in the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Testament you would have some credibility.  However, you do not.  You know you do not and I know you do not.  So let’s just leave it at that.

    As far as me not being born or created gay, I knew when I was 8 years old.  It’s as much a part of my being as my being right handed, having blue eyes and once having blond/brown hair (now rather gray).  If you doubt that, that is of course your prerogative. But I would ask you to identify when you first realized you were heterosexual. When did you first recognize an attraction to those of the opposite gender.  Just think about it for a moment.  That’s all anyone is asking of you.

    I do not question or doubt any of your commitment to or personal relationship with Jesus Christ, yet so many of you seem to have no difficulty doubting both for me, simply because we interpret Scripture differently.  I’m not sure what that says about you, perhaps you should examine that and see if you can determine your need for denigrating other folks’ faith.  And make no mistake about it, that is what you are doing.

    I have been watching a documentary entitled “When the levees broke.”  It is of course about the devastation caused along the Louisiana and Mississippi Gulf Coasts by Hurricane Katrina just over a year ago. 

    As I watched, I gained a clarity on perspective that I had lost for a while about what really matters.  And let me tell you, it is NOT the childish and petty squabbles about who is pure enough to be part of God’s community or who is of the correct gender or sexual orientation. 

    It all pales in comparison to the loss of life and property caused by Katrina. 

    Just think, if you can, how much better off the world would be if even a fraction of the energy and resources devoted to battles over who is in and who is out of the community of faith were devoted to trying to meet the needs of the hurting souls of this world. 

    This documentary brought new meaning to:  “I was hungry and you gave me no food, naked and you gave me no clothing, sick and imprisoned and you did not visit me, homeless and you did not…...”

    Bruce Garner

  45. Tom Crowe Says:

    Thank you Bruce Garner, for a little bit of sanity.  But you other guys are nuts and really scary. Quite frankly I don’t want to play any more, it’s too hazardous to my spiritual health. Thank God that She is more merciful than you guys are, or heaven would be a very empty place!
    -Semper Media Via

  46. Anglican in waiting Says:

    I stopped attending the Episcopal Church about three years ago not only because of the direction of the ‘majority’ within ECUSA and it’s leadership (that seems to be accelerating a plan for a new religion), but also because the conservatives within my Diocese and the Anglican Communion chose to battle the ‘majority’ within ECUSA rather that disassociate and work to allow both sides to move on.

    God does not need the protection of the conservatives, nor does he need a “new thing” (laughable) from ECUSA/TEC.  He desires for individuals to turn to him, accept the saving grace of Jesus Christ, repent and share new life in him with others.  He set all spiritual and natural laws at a time and in a manner that we really can not fathom, including the New Covenant.  These laws will not be mocked.  These laws will not be changed.  Unfortunately, they will somtimes be misinterpreted, ignored, denied and broken – but not without consequence.  Fortunately Christ died for our sins, known and unknown (though that does not prevent us from facing physical consequences).

    The conservatives are wasting precious time and resources trying to “protect” or enforce the orthodoxy of others and proclaiming the condemnation of others.  TEC, the Anglican Church and other denominations will survive or not based on adherence to the will of God.  He has already set the laws and settled the outcome.  We need to move on and proceed with the growing the Kingdom and bring individuals to His saving grace.

    The scriptures call on us to disassociate ourselves from sexual immorality.  So what takes so long to disassociate?  Why years and years of meetings and proclamations and newsletters and blogs, etc.?  What purpose is all of this serving?  How much time do we have left to share the gospel with a desperate world?  Is it that ECUSA will steal our land or our 401k’s?  So be it.  Where is the faith that God will provide?

    The world is facing enormous challenges from secular society and Islam.  Events seem to be accelerating.  Yet the Anglican Church is mired in politics.  This is not a scenario that serves the Kingdom, but it clearly serves the forces that want to destroy the Kingdom.

  47. Darren Moore Says:

    Putting words in Jesus mouth? mmmm
    Isn’t the point of the Gospels is that we have Jesus’ words and that the way the Evangelists write itself gives an interpretation, added to that we have the letters and the fulfilment of the OT.

    Christianity has continued to grow for 2,000 years. From time to time bonkers forms throw up & die out. Basically it shows that if it is new… it’s probably wrong.

    We have to always ask about motivation. I think everything I’ve said has been pretty general. What others has said has been mostly so. Yet the Revisionists on here always drag it back to one issue - homosexuality. Therefore there is an incentive to revise in order to appease our culture.

    Christianity was unpopular from the start. The surrounding cultures, even in the OT, practiced homosexuality, in the Roman Empire it was quite trendy. Why do you think people wanted to feed Christians to the Lions? Why are Christians still killed today? - because they agree with everyone.

    The Revisionist postings here only run against the grain of historic Christianity. Any secular humanist I know would be quite happy with it.

    Re: open table - Paul seems to think we should judge outselves… was he wrong? - Jesus said nothing about it either way - I wouldn’t want to put words in his mouth though.

  48. Robert F. Richenburg Says:

    grin 

    Hi Bruce,
        My nane is Bob Richenburg & I am the only Bob Richenburg in the Lorain county, Ohio phone book. So if you ever want me, call. My e-mail is .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) if you want to contact me. Now that we have that nonsense over with let us get to the issues. The great shame of ECUSA/TEC is their lack of change when called to the faith. Each time CHRIST forgave an individual his ending comment was ” GO & SIN NO MORE”. Our conversion to faith by grace is ment to change us not confirm the acceptance by GOD of our individual choice of “A GOOD SIN” as adverse to a bad sin. Which is always some one else’s sin. My faith was given to me by GOD & HE does not change. Nor do his commandments. The Bible condems all sexual relations outside of marriage & then only those between a man & a woman. Is a gay or lesbian relationship the worst of sexual sins? I think not, BUT if you would know the cost of the smallest sin ever committed go to the foot of the CROSS & look up @ the suffering of JESUS the CHRIST. SHOULD ONE WHO HAS BEEN TWICE DIVORCED & THRICE MARRIED BE CALLED A BISHOP IN THE LINE OF PETER & PAUL. Only if you are an apostate. ECUSA has become a cult not a member of the true, holy, catholic & apostalic faith

  49. DaveG Says:

    Bruce
    If we kept all the laws and rules of the OT, we would not need a savior.  How does that excuse us from repenting, and with God’s help, turning away from that sin and trying to lead a holy life?  Forget for the moment rules that were ritualistic and ceremonial and focusing just on moral ones, are we to accept your argument that instead of rejecting immorality, we are to embrace it?  To proclaim it from the pulpit as life-giving?  I am not obsessed with your sin.  I am obsessed with our church not being the instrumentality to encourage you (and others) to persist in an unhealthy and immoral manner of life that is an affront to the living God.  Nor do I think that sitting next to you in the pews will pollute me or the rest of the congregation.  But when we stop being the church and stop preaching God’s word to spare your feelings, we have to part company.  That is why I reject the leadership of “progressives.”  Because you lead the faithful away from God and not to Him.  Because you preach the Gospel of self-fulfilment and not discipleship.  Because in your religion, it is all about you (your needs, your orientation, your self-gratification) rather than being all about God.

  50. Peter Says:

    Bruce,

    You missed the rest of the story that you brought up.  The man born blind was healed of his blindness.  The very fact that he was healed presupposes that there was something wrong with him.  The whole point of the event, as Jesus tells it, is that God heals what is wrong in the world.  Whatever homosexuality’s origins, it is a disfunction and needs to be healed. 

    In fact the majority of the story focuses on the healing. 

    No one is attacking YOU, Bruce.  Truth must be spoken, for if we fail in that, then we really don’t love you at all.

  51. Darren Moore Says:

    Yes, I think that’s right. A bit of a cliche but it’s true, “Love the sinner, hate the sin” - whoever, whatever that may be.

    It is a shame that I keep finding, no matter how I put it, that is rarely heard and everything is made personal. Also a shame when people refer to traditionalists as being like Hitler.

    Also in truth speaking we mustn’t reduce other people’s arguements to a straw man or redicule them.

  52. Bruce Garner Says:

    Some of you will have children and grandchildren some day.  I pray that if one of them comes to you and tells you that she or he is lesbian or gay respectively that you respond with better than I read on this list.  For if you can truly look at your own child or grandchild and claim to see an abomination, you have missed the entire point of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

    You are perfectly entitled to believe that sexual orientation is a dysfunction.  When it stares you in the face in the person of someone dear to you, I just hope you remember whose you are and who you are.  There isn’t much compassion and love exhibited by very many who have posted.

    And by the way, please point out to me where in the Bible it says:  “Love the sinner, hate the sin?”  That has been used as such a lame excuse for all sorts of nastiness, but it is not found in Scripture.  The commandment was to love…period.  There was not condition, qualification, or other modification provided. 

    And to Peter, whoever he might be:  I have read the entire story and taken great comfort by it.  Jesus didn’t say a word of what you say.  He simply noted that the man had been born blind to show forth the glory of God.  And he noted it to a bunch of hypocritical pharisees for whom he had little use due to their consitency in perverting the law to their own means.  Quoting the letter of the law and understanding the spirit of the law are not equivalent.  Jesus knew that only too well among his critics as they tried time and time again to trap him.  Jesus kept it very simple…it is we who wish to complicate it all.

    Bruce Garner

  53. paddy Says:

    I find it interesting that Tom Crowe would call folks that disagree with his position nuts and then proceed to call God She.
    But then,Scipture does say that ‘just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses,so these men oppose the truth’ and while I wouldn’t go so far as to say that folks of his mindset and belief system necessarily follow other aspects described in 2 Timothy 3:8 ;such being ‘of depraved mind’ and ‘rejected as regards the faith’,I might be fairly convinced that part of their reaction to the Kigali Document by the Global South Archbishops could bear that out.
    And that their responses bear out as well their frustration at the jig being up aka ‘they will not make further ‘progress’(in the wrong direction) and that this is manifest openly for all to see through their words and behaviour ie ‘their folly will be obvious to all’(2 Tim.3:9)
    Interesting note on the term folly:comes from the Greek word anoia,describing according to Vine’s,a condition ‘without understanding,senselessness’.
    According to Thayer’s Lexicon,it is also ‘without understanding,wanting of understanding’,but the kicker is that it is ‘madness expressing itself in rage’
    Come to think of it,that DOES reflect ‘depravity of mind’ and being ‘rejected as regards the faith’after all. wink

  54. Peter (Mary's son) Says:

    Bruce,
    Did Jesus heal the man born blind? Yes or no.  Does God fix things that arn’t broke?
    The glory of God is that he will heal what needs healing.  Blindness needs healng, according to Jesus anyway.  Do you disagree?
     
    And the trinity is not expressly stated in the bible either.  Should we drop that too?

  55. DaveG Says:

    I have not said that when I see you, Bruce, I see an abomination.  I see a sinner, like me, in need of a Savior.  If I had a child or grandchild who was gay or lesbian, I hope I would love him or her the same as I would love any other of my offspring.  If my son drinks and drives drunk, I won’t stop loving him.  If my daughter gets pregnant without being married, I won’t stop loving her.  But I don’t have to (and won’t) promote drunk driving or teenage pregancy to prove my love for them and I would do all that I could do to discourage them from continuing to act in unhealthy and immoral ways.  God loves you and me despite our sins - while we were sinners he sent Jesus to die for us so that we won’t have to pay the price for our sin.  I would encourage my children and grandchildren to follow Him and His ways, not the way of the world.  And if they choose Him, He will give them the strength to change their characters and their actions.  He offers you and me no less.

  56. Bruce Garner Says:

    As I keep repeating:  I am indeed a sinner like everyone else.  I repent daily and am absolved daily.  Is that clearer now??

    What strikes me is how little most on this list really know about human sexuality and sexual orientation.  It is not a “black and white” issue.  Human sexuality and thus sexual orientation exists along a spectrum.  Different folks find themselves at different places on that spectrum.  I am on the homosexual end while most of you seem to be on the heterosexual end.  The dead center is bisexuality.  (And please note that does not mean having sex with both genders at the same time.  It simply means that the intimate response to either gender is about equal.  So get the minds back out of the gutters please and on to science rather than sex.)

    The medical community does not consider sexual orientation toward the same gender as a disorder and has not for years.  Please do not confuse sexual orientation with gender identity, they are different issues.  And that’s a completely different discussion entirely.

    Sexual orientation is not “changeable” for us.  A bisexual person is not changing from one to the other, merely responding to one or the other.  If my sexual orientation could be changed, then so could any of yours.  One doesn’t happen unless the other can happen.  I could use aversion therapy to change even the most hetero male among you so that he didn’t respond erotically to women.  That doesn’t change his orientation, just the response.  Aside from the fact that it would be cruel to do that, what is accomplished? 

    Again I refer us back some decades to a time when the church and society and to a degree the medical community considered being left handed a disorder that needed to be fixed or changed.  Some of you may even be old enough to have had the unfortunate experience of someone trying to change you in that way.  My sympathies to you and I hope the idiots who tried it have since apologized to you. 

    DaveG, I do indeed choose Jesus and follow Him daily.  And may I suggest that you not try and link human sexuality with alcohol consumption and/or teen pregnancy?  The issues are very different and must be approached from very different perspectives.  You do all a disservice when you make such incorrect connections.

    Bruce Garner

  57. DaveG Says:

    I disagree with you, Bruce.  We are talking about behavior.  Drinking and then driving is behavior.  Sex outside marriage is behavior.  Both are destructive behaviors.  Some drink because they are predisposed (the children of alcoholic parents are apparently predisposed).  Makes no difference if that is the reason they do it.  They can stop doing it.  I don’t know if there are ways to stop homosexuals from feeling attraction for members of the same sex, but as human beings, homosexuals, like heterosexuals, are free to choose whether they act on their impulses or orientation.  [Those who cannot (homosexual or heterosexual) are clearly disordered.]  Every time you (if it applies to you) act on that desire, you make a choice to disobey God and to obey the gods you have created to take His place.  Having re-created God in your own image, of course God would approve of your life-style.

  58. Peter (Mary's son) Says:

    Bruce,

    Please answer my previous question. 

    There are people who would argue about sexual orientation being changable.  I went to college with a guy who changed.  Exodus is a great program. 

    You are right that sexual expression ranges all along the spectrum from fully hetero to fully homo.  It’s existance does not make it holy, however.  Celibacy is a very godly virtue and should be practiced by all who are not in a heterosexual marriage.  This has ALWAYS been the teaching of the church. 

    As one who was abused as a child and went through years of therapy, I feel fully qualified to comment on sexuality and it’s expressions.  I know very well where people can go wrong in regards to sex. 

    Impulses and desires are nurtured by consious choice.  It’s temptation and we either give in or not, no matter how old we are when it appears.

  59. Bruce Garner Says:

    Exodus is a questionable program at best and often and out and out lie.  The two founders of Exodus fell in love with each other and subsequently denounced the ministry as a fraud.  (I heard this from their own mouths when they spoke of it.)

    There are people, however, who may not actually know what their true sexual orientation is.  They may think it one way only to learn as they grow older that it is another.  That isn’t changing sexual orientation, it is becoming aware of sexual orientation.  Some do not become aware until they are in their 30’s, 40’s, 50’s or even later.  Some suppress it because of the attitudes of many on this list.  Regardless of the reason, reaching awareness is not changing anything. 

    There is a wonderful simplistic and incorrect tendency to link all things sexual to behavior.  Sexual abuse has not inate connection to sexual orientation.  Sexual exploitation of children is almost always a heterosexual activity although gays and lesbians are blamed for it. 

    I’m sorry you were abused as a child.  I was not.  I was raised by two very loving and caring parents.  I was raised in a very traditional household.  I am not the product of the stereotypical domineering mother and absent father.  Both parents were fully part of my life.  They have been married (to each other) for 58 years now and are very supportive of their son. My mother is often referred to as the permanent senior warden of her parish. 

    Since you are so intent on telling me how I should handle my sexuality, why don’t you jsut stop having heterosexual desires?  I doubt you can.  Well neither can I.  But don’t expect that you have the right to act on those desires and I do not.  Did it ever occur to you how few actual passages in Scripture you are trying to base your premise upon?  Look at all else that is in that wonderful collection of texts and look at the inordinate amount of time that gets devoted to sexuality.  That, my friend is true idolatry.

    Remember also Jesus discussion about eunuchs, how some are born that way and others are that way by choice.  Nothing is forced upon them.  That is made very clear.  Remember also Jesus discussion about some things being too difficult to hear at the moment.  I’m inclined to think this might fall into that category.

    I presume your question I am to answer is about the Trinity.  The term isn’t used but the parts are discussed.  We have God and we have the Son and we have the Holy Spirit.  So what’s the issue here? 

    As far as blindness “needing” healing, that’s a subjective point.  There was no need for it, Jesus chose to do it.  He also chose to heal lots of folks.  Need wasn’t the issue.  Some blind folks don’t consider themselves “broke” and would actually object to the change.  Same is true for some with hearing impairments.  Some of Jesus’ encounters requested healing and others had it somewhat thrust upon them. 

    I doubt that God fixes things that aren’t broke!  What would be the point?  I’m not broke in the way you think and He hasn’t tried to fix me!  However I do get continual reinforcement from God that I am God’s child and that I am “ok” the way I am.

    Celibacy is not a requirement anywhere.  As Scripture notes, some are called to it while others are not. And if you want to be truly literal about it, St. Paul didn’t think anyone should get married.  Good thing most folks didn’t listen or there would be a lot fewer of us around.  If it caught on too well there wouldn’t be any of us!  Some things are a calling to be discerned by the individual not forced upon by others. 

    Bruce Garner

  60. Peter (Mary's son) Says:

    Bruce,

    Your conclusions about the man born blind are all wrong.  I am very glad that you and I agree that God does not fix what isn’t broken.  So why did Jesus heal him then?  If he was not broken (no sight) then why do it?  Is Jesus that ignorant?

    I highly doubt that the people Jesus healed thought it was no big deal if they were or weren’t healed of their sicknesses.  Your Jesus is a bit slow on the uptake, if he goes around healing people who don’t want it.

    And what do you say to orientation being the product of temptation?  That’s why it’s called “being lead astray.”  It starts small and gets bigger.  You are very far gone Mr. Bruce. 

    “Love the sinner and hate the sin” is just as present in the bible as the trinity is.  And your logic is quite faulty if you can’t see that.  But I think you choose not to see it.  Just as you choose much more than you think you do.  You are at fault and as the bible does make very clear that ignorance of the law (moral or ritual) is no excuse for breaking it.

    To help with your logic, try reading “The Best Things in Life” by Peter Kreeft.

  61. dwstroudmd Says:

    Bruce,  I await yet your explication of the licitness of that which God has forbidden.  And the medical community is not as monolithic as you make out in regard to same-sex issues.  It is true that homosexuality was voted out of the DSM as a diagnosis, but that ignores a large contingent of phsychiatrists and pychologists who think that an error.  So avoid the monolithic statements you are so averse to in others, please.

  62. Bruce Garner Says:

    Let me share something very personal with you.  It really is absolutely none of your business but since so many of you are truly ignorant of the realities of lesbians and gays, I’m willing to be personally vulnerable with you for the sake of your education.

    Presumably you heterosexual men have sexual feelings about females based on your sexual orientation.  Also presumably, you would have no idea what it is like to have sexual feelings about another male.

    So think about it:  I have dated some very beautiful women in my life and I do indeed have a keen eye for beauty.  However, I have never felt the slightest sexual feeling toward a female.  I am simply not “wired” that way.  It’s not part of my realm of experience, my knowledge base or any term one chooses to use.  In other words, I do not see in a woman what you guys who are heterosexual see in a woman.

    On the other hand, I am “wired” to have sexual feelings toward other men.  That is my frame of reference, my realm of experience, my knowledge base, etc.  And I know no other frame of reference.  Please get that through your heads gentlemen.  You are hammering away at something about which I have no knowledge.  And since I do not criticize you for your sexual orientation please don’t criticize me or others about ours.

    And yes, I am very well aware of what various portions of Scripture “say” about the issue.  However, if you will read those sections IN CONTEXT you will begin to understand that they refer to a situation that is not the same as those of us in today’s world know.  The references are virtually all related to some form of exploitive or abusive situation.  They do NOT refer to loving, committed, monogamous relationships.  I will always agree that exploitive or abusive relationships are wrong.  And applies to such relationships that are bound by marriage vows.  Marital vows do not trump the need to love your neighbor as yourself.  Marital vows are not license for abuse and exploitation.

    Back to the man born blind.  I never said the blindness was something that could be fixed.  What I did say, if you will read what I posted, is that Jesus did not “need” to heal the man.  Jesus really didn’t “need” to do anything He didn’t want or choose to do, now did he? 

    This “love the sinner, hate the sin” thing keeps cropping up but no one can point to where it is.  On the other hand, the Trinity is clearly mentioned and by name in its three parts. 

    Jesus tells the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more.  But he does not name her sin.  WE PRESUME that He refers to adultery, but that is speculation on our part because the text does not say.

    This has been an interesting exchange.  Yet I see no women’s voices.  Do you exclude them?  I haven’t heard anything about women clergy so I am not privy to this groups thoughts on that.

    But the impression I get of this group is that it is a very patriarchally oriented group.  Women have their “place” and it’s not likely at at altar.  Again that is my impression.  It’s based on language and tone that seems to support such a position.  If I am wrong I am absolutely certain you will tell me.  There seems to be great talent afoot for identifying other folks’ sins.

    Bruce Garner

  63. Robert F. Richenburg Says:

    Hi Folks,
        Have you noticed that this blog has become a blog about BRUCE. I think we need to discuss issues not Bruce. We have been here before, 100s of times. Let us get on with the real isssues of today by ignoring Bruce. mad

  64. Julian Liew Says:

    i may be ignorant of the realities of homosex. BUT i am not ignorant of sin and its nature. Justify yr orientations with abusive relationships vs loving, committed, monogamous relationships. The only God ordained gender relationship in a marriage(which is God ordained) is M/F relationship. It is shown in Genesis. Show me otherwise a God ordained M/M or F/F as God ordained marriage in the scriptures.

    Even Paul said it was a sin…......

    24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    Not sure if quoting simple scriptures would be of any use since it would be twisted to justify.

    Love the sinner, hate the sin.

    This is the love of God, that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.

    For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

    Truth will set you free, Deception leads to hell.No one said it would be easy, the wide gate leads to hell, narrow gate leads you to glory.

  65. Peter (Mary the priest's son) Says:

    Bruce,

    My mom is a priest under Tony Burton in Saskatchewan.  Quite the orthodox woman she is.  I am well aware that many try to use the same arguments in support of WO and in support of homosexuality.  The arguments are different though and I will not really get into that here because that’s not what we are talking about. 

    Your fast and loose readings of the bible are not very acurate.  And just because you don’t like what’s in there does not mean it’s wrong.

    I do have a new understanding of why you don’t like “love the sinner, hate the sin.”  You have combined what you do and who you are.  You are what you do.  Is that correct? 

    I, however, am not what I do.  Jesus has freed me from thinking that.  My sexual desires reveal part of who I am, but do not compose who I am.  Is sex at the center of your world?

  66. dwstroudmd Says:

    Bruce,

    This falls short of explication:
    “And yes, I am very well aware of what various portions of Scripture “say” about the issue.  However, if you will read those sections IN CONTEXT you will begin to understand that they refer to a situation that is not the same as those of us in today’s world know.”

    It does represent an aberant eisegesis of textual matters, not exegesis.  The former as you know is the imposition of the assumptions of the reader into the text.  This understanding you express reeks of eisegesis and is not even dignified by a majority support amongst exegetical scholars around the globe.  How then does it justify your errant take on the apodictic law “Thou shalt not lie with a man as a woman?”

    Thus, the true issue is revealed to be the nature of the authority of Scripture.  You clearly think it sub contemporare.  I hold that contemporary culture is under the judgment of Scripture.  Those viewpoints inherently clash.  I, however, stand in solidarity with Christians going back to the Apostles who have so understood.  Your point of view has a pedigree of less than a century.  Care to explain how the Holy Spirit “blew it” for all those years?

  67. mccabe Says:

    Bruce,

    My heart goes out to you. I was one of the earliest members of this group and am an ardent defender of TEC.

    Over time, I have attempted to reason and explain many of the same points that you are now attempting to express. You may as well have the discussion with the a tree.

    They do not see themselves as bound to an idol (The Bible). They do not understand the historical reason for its’ being written for the Roman Empire’s imperial needs to have conformity in practice. It was designed to be an administrative tool of the Imperial Roman government. These basic historical facts are ignored.

    It is a man made tradition only that turned it into ‘The Word of God’ and ‘revealed truth’. The do not understand that the Holy Spirit did not die when the last line of this imperial document was written and published.

    They do not understand that Christ Jesus alone is the Word of God (Logos) and He wrote no rules for us to follow. They seem to be blind to the obvious fact that Christ Jesus wanted His church to be governed by the unfolding guidance of the Holy Spirit. They fail to see that Christ Jesus gave us only an oral tradition. Oral teaching was obviously more valuable to Christ Jesus then the written rule. They do not pay any attention to the fact that Christ Jesus denounced the ridgity of rule based worship. They ignore the fact that misuse of ‘The Law’ was used to crucify Him.

    They are not prepared to heal the world by love as Christ Jesus commanded us to do. The idol has won them totally and seduced them into faith in a man made tradition. It is the body of the anti-christ working to distroy the Holy Spirit working in the Body of Christ that is the TEC.

  68. Julian Liew Says:

    17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

    Is that idolatory?  rolleyes

    You would wonder without the Torah, Nabihim and the Ketuvim, how would ppl like the above recognise that Jesus is the Christ?

  69. cdburt Says:

    I am wondering why almost all of the responses here have been about sex, and that nobody has responded to my post about WO at No. 7 above.

  70. Darren Moore Says:

    Love is unconditional.

    But it is unloving not to point out something that is wrong. Bruce, you right as if all our friends and family were just like us. We don’t live in a cave.

    Loving the sinner is unconditional. But so is hating the sin. Should we love murder, abortion and rape? Yet we can offer God’s grace to the people who commit these things. It is not for us to judge them but merely offer them Christ. That even goes for Paedophiles and those who committ genocide. Nobody is beyond Christ’s love. But nobody is above forgiveness either.

    Bruce, you are deliberatly misrepresenting what people are saying.

  71. Bruce Garner Says:

    I don’t know if the url I have shown will work but here it is:

    http://tinyurl.com/eohvp

    It is about a study of children who are born “intersexed” meaning not clearly male or female.  I am posting this so that those who are so wed to concept that everyone is one or the other and the only allowable couplings are between members of the opposite gender will see that there are variations and that little is truly one way or the other.

    And thanks for the support in comment number 19 above.  He makes a valid point that so many think that the work of the Holy Spirit was closed with the adoption of the canon of Scripture.  That’s difficult for me to believe for two reasons:  One, Jesus did say that there were other things He had to tell the disciples but that they couldn’t bear them at the time.  Why couldn’t now be the time when we could bear them?  And two, I have felt the work of the Holy Spirit in my life…haven’t any of you?

    Recall the Prologue to John:  The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.  We are to worship THE WORD (i.e., God).  When we worship the words of Scripture we make it an idol.  Do we really want to be doing that?  Guess some do…..

    Bruce Garner, Atlanta

  72. mccabe Says:

    These are the words of Christ Jesus concerning what mankind will be judged on at the end of times. It is the standard that The Word of God (Logos) will use to judge us. It is about actions of love not rules on sexuality. In no way does he say worship a book as your god to enter the Kingdom of God.

    Matthew 25: 31-46

    “The Sheep and the Goats

    31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

    34"Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

    37"Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

    40"The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

    41"Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

    44"They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

    45"He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

    46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

  73. Bruce Garner Says:

    RE:  Posting number 24:  And let the people say AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!

    Matthew 25: 31-46 provides our marching orders from The Boss, Himself!

    Howzabout we get on with it???

    And before anyone brings up an excuse, remember in the Letter of James that it is clear that we need to minister to the basic bodily/human needs of folks!  Ears connected to a stomach that hasn’t had food in two or three days and feet frozen from cold are not likely to hear the Good News of the Gospel!

    Bruce Garner

  74. Darren Moore Says:

    Closed Canon:
    Jesus appointed 12 Apostles - 1 betrayed him. In Acts 1 they go to some length to show that there were 12 again at Pentecost. When James dies he is not replaced.

    In the latter letters of the NT, Jude, 2 Peter, the Pastorals, the emphasis is not NEW teaching, but what you have been taught. The Apostles were given the teaching mentioned above, the promise was to them not us. John 17 Jesus said we will believe through their message. That is what is meant by “one holy catholic and apostilic church ” (or faith for that matter). A Faith built on the Apostles teaching & catholic i.e. universal, global and through time. So if a Christian or Church stray from ‘the faith once delivered to the Saints’ i.e. what has always been taught & practiced - if it strays from Apostolic teaching then you can’t say that line of the creed with integrity. You may even be right not too! - but you have straighed at that point.

    The Spirit is still at work today for sure. But in Hebrews and Ephesians his sword is the Scripture. He renews our minds, not endorses society. That is the Spirit of the age, not the Spirit of the living God!

    Before someone goes on about slavery, that is a shameful argument. Slavery died out in Christian countries for nearly 1,000 years and who effectivly ended it when it returned? Evangelicals that would nowadays be labeled fundamentalists!

  75. mccabe Says:

    Item 20:

    “17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

    Is that idolatory?”

    Christ Jesus fulfilled the Law by His passion, death and resurrection. Christ Jesus ended of rule The Law. I would have you read your Bible for the details.

    2 Corinthians 3: 1-11

    ” 1 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you? 2 You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everybody. 3 You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

    4 Such confidence as this is ours through Christ before God. 5 Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant — not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

    The Glory of the New Covenant

    7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11 And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!

    12 Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. 13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.”

  76. DaveG Says:

    For McCabe and Bruce - You seem to only want to focus on God’s love and refuse to pay even lip service to His holiness and call on us to be holy also.  You might take note of the following from the NIV:

    2 Peter 2
    False Teachers and Their Destruction
    “1But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

    4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; 5if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men 8(for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. 10This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority. “

  77. mccabe Says:

    Peter G.

    Perhaps it is because we value the commandment given to us by Christ Jesus. It was Christ Jesus Himself that said “This new commandment I give you, that you love one another as I have loved you”. He did that on the night he was handed over to suffering and death. Is His word and law of no value to you?

    And of course there is Paul:

    “1 Corinthians 13

    Love

    1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

    4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

    8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

    13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”

    If the words of Christ Jesus telling us by what rules He will use to judge us when He comes in glory are not enough for you (reference page 3).

    If His commandment to love is not enough for you.

    If Paul telling you that nothing is of value if it is not done out of love, then what can Bruce and I say that you could hear. Nothing! You have no ears to hear the Logos - Christ Jesus - The only Word of God - speaking to you.

  78. DaveG Says:

    Love = License.  When your child runs out into traffic, love means wathing him get hit by a truck.  Love allows no discipline.  Love allows no Godly instruction.  If you love me, watch me self-destruct!  That is quite a message.  Greater love hath no man than that in the name of tolerance, he should accept (no, actually encourage and embrace) any act that someone says is “loving.”  The church wants to love you to a full life, not eternal separation from the Father. It is not hatred nor homophobia from which discipline originates.  But ultimately, no one can force you to accept that but if you seek the answer from Him, you will find it.

  79. mccabe Says:

    DaveG,

    You mock the very commandment and teachings of Christ Jesus.

    Is Paul’s definition to be mocked by your twisted undestanding of love? Who is the revisionist?

    Repeated for your review: 1 Corinthians 13: 4-7

    “4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.”

    How could you possibly claim to be a christian?

    If this is what your idol (The Bible) and its’ lawless preachers have taught you then, I can only pray that you to find the saving grace of God in your life.

  80. Chip Johnson+, cj Says:

    Mccabe,

    If you will look more closely, the ones who are ‘debating’ with Bruce are NOT the same ones who have held your toes to the fire in times past.  But, as you said,‘the greatest of these is love’.  True, but, as DaveG said, love is NOT license. 

    Love is caring what happens to the other, not putting ourselves forward in their place, of loving enough to have the ‘tough love’ required for safety (pulling your child away from the stove, the threshing machice, out of the road before a speeding car, away from a mad dog, keeping them away from drugs, etc. 

    Love is making a difference in another’s life without counting the cost, or expecting the reward.

    Love is what the Christ did for you, and me, and all who will hear, and those who will not - he did it, whether we accept it or not is entirely up to us individually.

    and, Bruce,

    I’m glad you are still reading the HobDee, picking up Ann’s posting this morning on ‘intersex’, but all of this is taking us farther and farther from the original Kigali posting.

    We all are ‘sinners, saved by grace, and that not of ourselves, lest any man should boast’, so why not try to get back to the topic at hand, not BG’s sexual preference, not mccabe’s, nor Tom’s.

  81. Bruce Garner Says:

    Most interesting that someone doesn’t think this discussion has anything to do with the origin of this discussion.  If that were the case we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

    At any rate, this has to be one of the most judgmental collection of practicing pharisees I have ever encountered. 

    Yet you are still my sisters and brothers (although I have yet to hear from a sister in this group) and I am commanded to love you.

    I pray that your hearts and minds will be opened to the real joy and wonder of worshiping the Risen Christ and that your energies will be devoted to spreading the Gospel rather than trying to find ways to exclude folks from the church.

    Bruce Garner

  82. Julian Liew Says:

    Funny that when we quotes scriptures we are worshipping a book. But when they quote….....ahem…how do you deal with this?
    confused

  83. Julian Liew Says:

    Love minus the boundaries of law = Lust and lawlessness.

    Maccabe

    “17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

    Is that idolatory?”

    Christ Jesus fulfilled the Law by His passion, death and resurrection. Christ Jesus ended of rule The Law. I would have you read your Bible for the details.

    i understand that, maccabe. i am just asking if Jesus was idolatrous when HE said this since He was so bend on promoting the Torah and the Nabihim.

  84. dwstroudmd Says:

    Bruce,
    My original comment still stands:
    Paragraphs 8,9,10,11 and 14 certainly make clear what Table is an Anglican Table, as, opposed to an ECUSAn Table.  ECUSA/TEC has forgotten it is not the communion.  This is a good and Godly reminder of reality in the world and the Gospel.

    You must be an excellent dancer, Sir, because you have danced away from and around the substantive matters of explicating how you consider licit what God calls illicit, how your eisegesis replaces exegesis, and how you subordinate Scripture to contemporary standards.  I’m still waiting you to address substantively those issues.  Rather like the Anglican Communion is awaiting a substantive explanation for ECUSA/TEC’s aberrancies and actions contra Scriptura, contra ecclesia anglicana, and contra ecclesia romana, and ecclesia orthodoxia.  No amount of dancing will refute the Body of Christ and the clear teaching of the Holy Spirit.  Why persist in your error.  Repent and return to the Lord.  Even now He is waiting to forgive you and restore you and make you whole.  Why struggle longer against Him?

  85. mccabe Says:

    Liew, I quote from The Bible because many of you claim it is the only source of doctrine. It never ceases to amaze me that I rarely see the quotes to support opinions stated here by those that claim The Bible is the single source of doctrine. For example, Liew present your examples to support your assertion that: “He (Christ Jesus) was so bend on promoting the Torah and the Nabihim.”.

    I do know The Bible.  I actually listen to the readings and the Gospels. In truth, I actually study it regularly and have for many decades. I hear Christ Jesus preaching to all sinners, even pagans. He was so willing to preach to all people that He knowingly allowed Himself to become ritually unclean in direct violation of ‘The Law’. He was very direct and specific in His attacks on the established religious practices of His people. He was extremely direct in His attacks of the established authorities within His faith community.

    Luke 11:37-48 (New International Version)

    “Six Woes

    37 When Jesus had finished speaking, a Pharisee invited him to eat with him; so he went in and reclined at the table. 38 But the Pharisee, noticing that Jesus did not first wash before the meal, was surprised.

    39 Then the Lord said to him, “Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. 40 You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? 41 But give what is inside the dish to the poor, and everything will be clean for you.

    42 “Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.

    43 “Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces.

    44 “Woe to you, because you are like unmarked graves, which men walk over without knowing it.”

    45 One of the experts in the law answered him, “Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us also.”

    46 Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.

    47 “Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your forefathers who killed them. 48 So you testify that you approve of what your forefathers did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs.”

  86. Anglican in waiting Says:

    mccabe - Re post 24:

    Why would you be quoting the bible?  Based on your quote from post 19, aren’t you being hypocritcal quoting from a source for which “they do not understand the historical reason for its’ being written for the Roman Empire’s imperial needs to have conformity in practice. It was designed to be an administrative tool of the Imperial Roman government.”  Shouldn’t you stick to the oral traditions passed down over generations?  Shouldn’t you be quoting from the Holy Spirit’s latest revisions to the bible or this month’s revelation?  Please don’t use a document that really does not have relevance to today’s “new” world.  We have computers now and TV and Rock n Roll.  The bible must be absolete.  [for all you ortho’s, this is sarcasm]

    You absolutely make the case for conservatives, and Bruce’s whole hearted agreement is revealing.  The Bible is only valid when it supports your point of view.

    I earnestly hope that you and Bruce continue to seek the will of God and find comfort in the Church and your relationship with Christ.  There is no way I could sign up for your version of Christianity - as I’m sure you can’t sign up with mine.  There are many beliefs of the Catholic Church I can’t sign up to.

    My point is - there is no avoiding different denominations until Christ comes to reveal all truth.  I wish ECUSA/TEC all the best.  I miss the liturgy and sacraments.  I long for the day that conservative Episcoplians can join with like-minded Anglicans without supporting the ideology of the current “national church”.  I could not continue to worship and serve within a church affiliation that does not believe in the bible.

  87. Julian Liew Says:

    Maccabe
    Liew, I quote from The Bible because many of you claim it is the only source of doctrine. It never ceases to amaze me that I rarely see the quotes to support opinions stated here by those that claim The Bible is the single source of doctrine. For example, Liew present your examples to support your assertion that: “He (Christ Jesus) was so bend on promoting the Torah and the Nabihim.”.

    I do know The Bible.  I actually listen to the readings and the Gospels. In truth, I actually study it regularly and have for many decades. I hear Christ Jesus preaching to all sinners, even pagans. He was so willing to preach to all people that He knowingly allowed Himself to become ritually unclean in direct violation of ‘The Law’. He was very direct and specific in His attacks on the established religious practices of His people. He was extremely direct in His attacks of the established authorities within His faith community.

    Yes for me the scriptures are the only source for doctrines.i can go on presenting scriptures of you like!

    Do you realised what you just presented on the woes to the pharisees. You make it that the teachers of the law was rebuked by the Lord because of the law! Is it now….read again


    39 Then the Lord said to him, “Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. 40 You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? 41 But give what is inside the dish to the poor, and everything will be clean for you.

    it is the leaven of the hypocrites. It is not because they studied the law, otherwise Paul would not have been chosen! :o)

    And it is hypocritical to use the scriptues as and when you see fit to justify yrself when you equate studying scriptures to idolatory?

  88. Darren Moore Says:

    So Jesus commands us to love, OK, on that we are all agree.

    But he also warns of the wrath to come. Now at those moments do we say that was recorded wrongly? He also appointed Apostles. When they ‘get it wrong’ does that mean he chose badly? If so, can we take the bits we agree on as read?

    If some of the Bible is “wrong” then the whole document is floored and we should just ignore it. If the bits that are “right” are the bits we find agreeable, then we don’t need it.

    It also makes us question God himself. Isn’t he up to getting what he wants in… or out of the Bible?

  89. Bruce Garner Says:

    It’s not “dancing” to try and maintain the integrity of Scripture by keeping everything in the context of when it was written as well as within the context of the entire story that is being told in each book/chapter/etc.  And that is my response to that issue. 

    Scripture needs to be viewed, in my opinion, from two perspectives:  The Hebrew Scriptures from the perspective of it being the recordation of the oral history of the relationship of God with the people of Isreal.  The Christian Testament from the perspective of the recordation of the oral history and observations of the Incarnation.  And we need to rememeber that neither of them contains all that was written, only those portions voted in as the Canon of Scripture some centuries ago. 

    Keeping things in perspective and context is not taking bits and pieces.  However, pulling things out of context is doing just that. 

    I was taught in confirmation class over 40 years ago that the Bible was a book of myths.  That does not mean myth in the same sense as Greek and Roman mythology.  It does mean myth as the descriptive term for people describing events as they witnessed them and doing so in the terminology and concepts that they knew and understood.  That doesn’t mean parts are “wrong” or that the entire Bible is “flawed” (I presume “floored” above is a typo.)  It just means that was what they say and described.  It may or may not be accurate, but it’s what they shared orally and then decades later wrote down.

    When we keep the Scriptures in context, the inaaccuracies matter very little because the overall intent is maintained.  The substance, the cream if you will rises to the top.  When we forget or ignore the context of time and complete story, we lose out.

    But I fear that nothing I could say will matter to most of this group.  I must say that I have rarely encountered such a level of nastiness and inhospitality as among this particular group.  Disagreement is one thing and a part of who we are as various parts of the Body of Christ.  But there is a way to disagree in an agreeable fashion. 

    I suppose this will prompt another round of attacks as well.

    Bruce Garner

  90. mccabe Says:

    The above article that all this discussion is based on is a direct attack on my church. It is my duty to defend the faith as a member of the Episcopal Church. It is my church that is under attack from people that would tell us what we are to do and say.

    There is no ‘Anglican Communion’ with authority to govern us. There is only the General Convention of the Epsicopal Church with the authority to make rules for TEC. Why do any of you care about what we do in our church? Take care of your own house before you maliciously and arrogantly invade mine.

    Your leadership says we are guilty of attempting to control the Global South. However, it is not our Bishops that are going into your provinces to divide an established church. We do not ask you to share our practices, believes or form of goverance. We do not attempt to undermine your internal church governing bodies. Believe what you will and leave TEC alone. You may govern your churches in any fashion that pleases you. However, if you attack my church Bruce and I am here to defend it. As Luther said so long ago, “Here I stand. I can do no other!”

    I gave my reasons for quoting The Bible. It is there for all of us to use. I simple do not worship it as an idol.

    Bruce and I have found Christ Jesus. Bruce and I am joyful memebers of the Body of Christ that is found in our church - The Episcopal Church. I am not Anglican. I am a serious Episcopalian attempting to defend my church from external coercion and false doctrines.

    It is not Bruce and I that pick and choose what quotes are convenient to us. That game is played so well by the coercive members of the ‘Anglican Communion’. I notice that the neo-orthodox crowd is very selective in its’ use of quotes from The Bible. They prefer Old Testament and the disciples words over the Master’s own words. That is when they bother to quote at all form their the false god.

    Not one of you has had the courage to directly deal with the quote from Christ Himself on what actions He told us that He will judge us on in the Last Judgement. That alone shows the weakness of your stand. You attack me and fail to deal with the direct teachings of Christ Jesus. Who is the revisionist? Who is orthodox?

  91. DaveG Says:

    Gee McCabe - Why should we accept the Bible’s recitation of Jesus’ words?  No one had a tpae recorder.  After all, aren’t those words just myths to be understood in the context they were spoken and intended only for the audience to whom they were delivered?  Maybe only early 1st century Jews who were disciples at the time Jesus spoke the are enjoined to love one another? If the overall context of the Bible does not convey to you the message that we are to try to live holy lives and that sexual immorality (including homosexual relationships) is not holy, then you and I are not reading the same Bibles.  In our sin, we are capable of rationalizing anything.  I firmly believe that is what you and Bruce have done.  Doesn’t mean you should be abandoned by the church - but it does mean the church should call you to true repentance.

  92. paddy Says:

    McCabe,
    You and Bruce make a big deal of supposed ‘legalism’ on the part of conservative Anglicans and attempt to twist the words of Jesus to fit your presuppositions,it still rings bogus.Your compatriots deny the uniqueness and Lordship of Jesus,that NO ONE else is LORD,are you with them or us?Or are you a couple of inclusivist lapdogs who kiss up to all religions as equally valid.
    Your own words here have shown disdain for the Scripture’s teaching regarding marriage as the union of man and woman valid in the sight of God and the Church.
    You claim we’re not being faithful to the truth by challenging and rebuking the antinomian nonsense you espouse and idolatrous because we believe and demand fidelity to the truth of 1 Cor.6:9-10 as well as that of John 3:16,to 1 John 1:4-6 and Ephesians 4:17-24 as well as Ephesians 4:1-7 or Matthew 5.
    ‘Here,then,is the message which we heard from Him,and now proclaim to you:God is Light and no shadow of darkness can exist in Him.Consequently,if we were to say that we enjoyed fellowship with Him and still went on living in darkness,we should both be telling and living a lie.’ 1 John 1:5-6 Phillips NT

  93. mccabe Says:

    I must say you are very presumptive in believing that I am gay. Paddy, darling, your assumptions about me amount to false witness against me.

    You and DaveG both take refuge in the true sanctuary of ‘the father of lies and that one that was a manslayer from the beginning’ - ad hominem attacks. Any person with a rudimentary education knows that attacking the person is invalid and fails to answer the question or challenge presented in the argument given by your opponent.

    It is self evident in your responses that you both have serious problems accepting the teaching of Christ Jesus as recorded in The Bible.

    DaveG fails to directly address the question of Christ’s message in the Parable of the Sheep and Goats and turns it into an attack on me and my views on The Bible in general. Hardly the reasoning of a mature mind or trained intellect (LOL- how’s that last sentence as an pure example of ad hominem logic at work).

    I certainly do believe that Christ Jesus is the Logos and our salvation. I just don’t think that his disciples have greater voices then he did when teaching salvation to us. Your correct on one point. We do not have an Aramaic text of Christ Jesus teachings written by him (or anyone else for that matter). To me that was His obvious intent and a basic component of his teaching. No written laws are needed for true Christians. The Law of Christ is based on visible actions of love that he will use on Judgement Day to judge us. He stated as much in His Parable of the Sheep and the Goats!

    Paul in 1 Corinthians 13 restated that Love (not purity) is the required in all our actions and thoughts or they amount to nothing but vainty.

    This low level discussion has become both tiresome and meaningless. In the end, you have been given freewill by God himself to believe, think and act as you will. I have no desire to ‘convert’ you. I will, however, continue to defend The Episcopal Church in every possible way that God gives me the strength to do. I learn every day, from people like you, that I am eternally grateful to God that I am Episcopalian and not an Anglican.

  94. Julian Liew Says:

    “The Law of Christ is based on visible actions of love that he will use on Judgement Day to judge us. He stated as much in His Parable of the Sheep and the Goats! “

    This statement amounts to law of works. Meaning any buddhists, muslims and etc who carry out good works and who believe in a Jesus are to be judged as well done.

    Let me then give you another few verses which contrast what you interpreted as acceptance

    21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. 24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

    Do you really KNOW Him by saying that what you have been saying all along…..as you have said
    THESE ARE THE WORDS OF JESUS.

  95. mccabe Says:

    Julian,

    Here is a really cute story from Our Lord and Savior, Christ Jesus. You could see yourself as the person questioning Christ Jesus; I certainly do. You will love the story because the villains are not only members of the Chosen People of God (the Jews), they are ultra-orthodox, they are the elite of the elite (Levites). The villains are so very special because one is a Priest and one is a regular Levite. The are the holy tribe of the God’s holy people. The hero is a total pariah. He is unclean and beyond the contempt of Levites and Jews in general. At best, he is a heathen to the Jews.

    Christ clearly has a message to teach us with this very cute story. The villains are villains because they do not wish to be polluted. I add that information because you may not know the purity rules these people lived under; Christ’s audience certainly knew the rules.

    Luke 10: 25-37 The Parable of the Good Samaritan


    “25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

    26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

    27 He answered: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind; and, Love your neighbor as yourself.”

    28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

    29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

    30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

    36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

    37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

    You said: “This statement amounts to law of works. Meaning any buddhists, muslims and etc who carry out good works and who believe in a Jesus are to be judged as well done.” What do you think Christ Jesus would say based on His very cute story?

  96. Julian Liew Says:

    In your cute story, Jesus is clarifying what a neighbour would be. The jews and samaritan do not mix well in those times. Jesus is just illustrating that a neighbour is just anyone beyond the boundaries of race. A perfect expository of what a neighbour is.

    Now put the samaritan who does the will of God into Mat 7, you may see him in the kingdom.

    It is important to know the will of God through the whole counsel of the scriptures from Genesis to Revelations. To pick and choose verses to suite our agenda is no better than idolatory.This counsel includes the God ordained marriage of man and woman from the beginning.

  97. mccabe Says:

    Of course you miss the point that mercy, compassion and love are the elements that Christ valued. It is the actions of the Samaritan that show him to be a true child of God. The Chosen People’s holy tribe and priesthood obviously followed The Law and are condemned for their lack of loving action.

    When you reduce a direct lesson from Christ Jesus as merely equivalent to the words written by any other writer of ‘The Bible’ then, you give direct evidence that your not really a “Christian” at all. You are a simply Bibliophile.

    All that comes into my mind on analyzing your response is a line from the play Julius Caesar written by Shakespeare: ‘You blocks, you stones, you worse then senseless things!”

  98. Douglas Taylor-Weiss Says:

    McCabe and Garner are simply gnostics.  For them, Jesus reveals (or is) a new God who overthrows the mean, old God of Law and purity and holiness.  Jesus shows old God to be, in fact, the devil.  Those who have discovered a spark of the new, Jesus-God inside them don’t have to answer for anything, because they know all truth.
     
    Garner’s gnosticism is obvious way back when when he could find nothing in physical deformities (a hole in the heart was, I think, the example) that spoke of human brokenness.  A birth defect and sin were, to Garner, totally unrelated things. 

    Non-gnostic, catholic Christianity knows, on the other hand, that the brokenness that is sin and the brokenness that is defect have one and the same source, the Fall.  Since creation is God’s good gift, its breakdown signals that something is wrong.  Gnostics do not believe that the good God revealed by Jesus is also the creator.

    As Garner’s opponents here have clearly pointed out, the fact that a specific case of brokenness (born blind) cannot be attributed to a specific person’s sin still does not overthrow the fact that the blindness is evil and needs healing.  We to this day still await, as Paul says, “the redemption of our bodies.”

    One gets the feeling from reading McCabe and Garner posts, that we can right now escape this annoyingly solid world where we cannot get by without rules, judging, law, boundaries and all the rest simply by embodying the “love” of Jesus.  This is very close to the truth, but, like a barely-flat note, is the worse for that.  Because it’s not quite true, it’s dangerously untrue.

    We do enter, in some sense, the Kingdom of God when we live the love that Jesus teaches (a love which, in my experience, is no less real among those who count same-sex sensuality to be sin than among those who don’t).  However, the intersection of the Kingdom with this unredeemed world we live in—a world that God loves and intends to save—appears in the form of the cross.  We suffer precisely because, while Christ is the end (that is, the goal) of the Law, Christ is not yet all in all.  An external law still shares the stage, even in the Church, because the holiness of the law has not yet been fully inscribed on our hearts.  That law that shares the stage with Christ actually prefigures his final appearance and prefigures its own demise by bowing to the power of repentance and the forgiveness of sins.  There it figuratively comes to an end.  Nevertheless, for the sake of a still unredeemed world that God loves, not to mention our own still unredeemed flesh, we suffer, sharing in the curse of the law.

    Why? because ultimately the law and love are not two separate things from two separate Gods, but are one: The law is holy and just and good.

    Much of the NT can easily lend itself to gnostic interpretations.  In the very earliest days, remember,were those like McCabe and Garner in our day who argued that the resurrection had already occured.

  99. Tom Crowe Says:

    Well, the Truth is slowly coming out about the “Solid South” Kigali Communiqué.  A few days ago the Primate of South Africa (Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane of Cape Town) took a courageous stand against the +S.S. (Solid South) and disassociated himself from this fascist group. Now the Primate of the Philippines (the Most Rev. Ignacio C. Soliba) says that he was not there and did not even send a representative!

    God Save Us (from the S.S.)

  100. Editorial Says:

    Some comments have to be edited. Please be more careful in your choice of words. - Ed