A response from Rev’d Dr. Leander Harding

Source

A response to The Constitutional Crisis, 2007: A Statement to the House of Bishops, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Honored Visitors

Six retired bishops of the house of bishops of the Episcopal Church have produced a lengthy document for the crucial upcoming meeting in New Orleans where the Archbishop of Canterbury and other international representatives will meet with the American house of bishops to hear their response to challenges presented to the American church by the Anglican Primates meeting in Tanzania.

The paper is presented in the form of a legal brief. I have read to date the summary and offer these initial reactions. The premise of the paper is that persons with legal training are practiced in identifying correctly according to a proven methodology the active issues in a dispute. The argument is that if the issues are incorrectly identified then it is not possible to arrive at a fair and just adjudication of issues. The six present themselves as uniquely trained to identify “the most important factor in any scrutiny. . .together with. . . the elimination of wrong, irrelevant, or improperly formulated issues. If the issues are identified correctly, then all else can and should follow to the proper result” (page 3). The authors identify the issue as the issue of the violation of “an unwritten and unenforceable but clearly recognized anciently respected Anglican Constitution.” (page 8). They propose that the acceptance of an Anglican Covenant would be an unwarranted constitutional revolution.

The authors are proposing the methodology of advocates in the Anglo-Saxon tradition of jurisprudence as the preferred means for adjudicating the disputes in the Anglican Communion. I will be interested to hear what other lawyers who are churchman make of this assertion. I believe that this methodology is a method which has been developed with the assumption that the primary business of the courts is to apply existing statues in a way that is fair and equitable. In other words, to try the case in terms of the laws that apply. It must be said here that aims of such a method are very limited. This is a system and methodology that is designed to restrain crime and punish wrong doing. Reconciliation and healing are not in view here and certainly not in view is a vision of building up the one body of Christ. In response to the assertion that the authors are uniquely equipped to address the crisis in the Anglican world because of their training, I ask “but does this method really fit and does the method invoked have among its aims properly theological and properly ecclesiological aims?” Can the method of the civil law developed to work within a well-defined system of statues and precedents really be the answer to a profound theological and ecclesiological crisis? Is not a more likely analogy the analogy of ecumenical negotiation around agreed statements of faith, order and mission such as the National Council of Churches document on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry which the authors oddly invoke to bolster their case. I say oddly because the whole purpose of this ecumenical document was to be a prelude to growing ecumenical covenant.

The premise of the brief by these lawyers is that the method of legal argument which is appropriate to a system of settled statutes and case law is the best method to adjudicate what they identify as a constitutional crisis over a constitution that is unwritten and unenforceable. It appears to this non-lawyer that their method has quickly led them to a problem for which their method is in the nature of the case inadequate. The phrase “an unwritten and unenforceable but clearly recognized and anciently respected Anglican Constitution” seems on first reading an oxymoron. It is an enforceable constitution in the American case and an unwritten but enforceable constitution in the British case (nevertheless discernable through the tradition of common law) that makes the jurisprudential method the six bishops propose workable in its normal context. That the Anglican Communion is not able to enforce the most minimal communal discipline is exactly the crisis in front of us. To propose as a solution something that is unenforceable does not appear as a positive contribution to the crisis. Would not a status quo which enables radical and communion-breaking provincial autonomy be a kind of enforcement? The conclusion of the paper seems to contradict the method that is being invoked.

As the six bishops proceed with their argument they become more and more Orwellian. Traditionalists are “constitutional revolutionaries” and those who propose radical innovations in faith and morals and are breaking with the witness of the majority of the world’s Christians are somehow in the tradition of Vatican II and part of a coming “Ecumenical Reformation” and wish “to leave Anglicanism the way it is.” The tone of the paper is high-handed in the extreme and the actors are identified in a stereotypical way as conservatives who “unapologetically seek the utter defeat of the other” and want to “undo the use of reason in the interpretation of scripture” and who are part of a growing “fundamentalism” as opposed to those who “have rediscovered the church’s ancient baptismal theology” and seek to reform the church according to this theology and in a way that will finally make the church relevant to the society and culture it serves. This kind of rhetoric is very disappointing. One discipline that ought to prevail in these attempts at dialogue is the discipline to describe the position of the other side in terms that they can accept. To accuse your opponent of rejecting the role of reason in biblical interpretation while all the while you refuse to engage his careful exegetical arguments (for example N.T. Wright or Robert Gagnon or on the purely scientific front the NARTH researchers) is simply false witness.

The bishops propose as ingredients in the unwritten Anglican Constitution seven “interlocking traditions concerning Anglican Comprehensiveness, the Via Media and Lex Orandi Lex Credendi.” (page 11-12) They are listed below with my comments.

(1) The interlocking traditions concerning Anglican Comprehensiveness, the Via Media, and Lex Orandi Lex Credendi.

If the Anglican Communion reduces its comprehensiveness to a conforming set of confessional doctrines, and discounts the uniting force of worship, it will be a different church.

My comment: Posing the issue in this way represents a simplistic and reductionistic understanding of the relationship between doctrine and worship. The esteemed liturgist Geoffrey Wainwright has documented the complex relationship between the development of doctrine and the development of liturgy in his book Doxology. Sometimes liturgy governs the development of doctrine and sometimes doctrine liturgy. The original BCP is a revision of the received tradition along doctrinal lines. Famously Urban Holmes the former dean at Sewanee confessed that in his role in liturgical revision in the work on the 1979 American BCP his aim was to replace the “Tudor God.” This history of a church that has been held together by worship and not doctrine is an invented history that opposes doctrine and worship in ways that are not supportable either theologically or in terms of the explicit and documented aims of the Episcopal Church’s own councils.

(2) The authority of Scripture, Reason, and Tradition. If the Anglican Communion decides to read scripture literally or impose conformity to a single interpretation without attempting objective regard for critical scholarship, it will be a different church.

My comment: The charge of having no objective regard for critical scholarship fits far better the revisors in this dispute. There is very little dispute about what the texts in question say even using the best historical and critical tools. The dispute is over application not interpretation. The idea that Anglicans have been free to read the Bible in the way that for instance Southern Baptists do with the “soul sufficiency” of the individual reader being the trump in all disputes is pure invention. The quoting of Lambeth statements on biblical interpretation is simply bizarre.

(3) Episcopal Oversight. If bishops are increasingly used in the church as a sign of division, or of conformity, rather than a sign of unity, it will be a different church.

My comment: How can meaningful unity be divorced from agreement in the faith? Is not the mission of the bishops to steward the apostolic doctrine, to keep us united to the rest of the Christian world and to the tradition? The bishop is the one who says, “ That is not what old Polycarp told me that St. John said.” Gene Robinson is exactly a sign both of division and enforced conformity for by his office he excommunicates those who in conscience cannot sign-on to the new theology.

(4) Baptismal Bonds and Community as Communion. If the Anglican Communion decides to allow Christians to refuse to worship and share communion with fellow baptized Christians, including collegial bishops, it will be a different church.

My comment: This begs the question of what it means to be baptized and to be in communion. It presents a rather magical view of the sacrament. The water and the ceremony appear enough without any regard to the confession of faith that should attend membership in the body of Christ. The idea that Anglicanism is doctrinally indifferent is gross revisionist history. An Anglican Church which viewed the sacraments as proposed here would be a different church.

(5) Jurisdiction and the Diocese as the basic and local unit of the Church in relation to congregations, the Province, and the Anglican Communion. If the Anglican Communion creates jurisdictions that cross provincial and diocesan boundaries in order to satisfy those within a given jurisdiction who disagree with the episcopal authority and the majority decisions of the duly constituted decision-making bodies of that jurisdiction,

or if it allows extra-jurisdictional episcopal authority to be exercised at personal whim, it will be a different church.

My comment: This is a pertinent observation. It begs the question of how theological lawlessness and whimsical exercise of episcopal authority by sitting bishops of TEC have provoked the mess we find ourselves in. However, bishops are bishops of the whole church with inter-Anglican and ecumenical responsibilities. The ethos of provincial autonomy on basic issues of faith and morals of TEC is not according to Anglican ethos. If the set up of competing jurisdictions in response to the current pastoral emergency cannot be resolved into a coherent Anglican Communion structure, the agents of reform will have likewise abandoned something crucial to Anglican identity.

(6) Provincial Autonomy. If the Anglican Communion creates a Communion-wide teaching office (magisterium) requiring and perhaps enforcing doctrinal conformity without regard to cultural and experiential differences among provinces, enabling it to overrule decisions duly made by a province, it will be a different church.

My comment: The lack of recognized magisterial structures is one of the main ingredients in the continuing fracture of the Reformation Churches. Anglicanism has had a workable magesterium in its prayer books. As the prayer books of the member churches have begun to diverge the need for a more well-defined teaching office has emerged. The proposed Anglican Covenant includes a vision of a synodical teaching office with checks and balances between the provinces and the instruments of communion. There is always some sort of magesterium at work. General Convention makes unapologetic claims for itself as the ultimate source of teaching. If we want to be truly members of a world wide church this is not enough. It is really the vision of extreme provincial authority in fundamental matters of faith and doctrine that is the innovation.

(7) The Mission of the Church, especially in terms of justice. If Anglicanism separates love of God from love of neighbor, separates spirituality, religious observance, and doctrinal adherence from the mission for justice, and separates vocation to creation from vocation to kingdom, it will be a different church.

My comment: There is an awful lot of code here for a revisionist theological agenda but at the least this argument goes in both directions. Understanding the mission of the church as primarily a search for justice separated from questions of doctrinal truth, spirituality and religious observation would clearly be the invention of a new religion that could claim no Anglican provenance.

    Comments & Responses

  1. Church ‘storm’ of mass defections brews
    Flight from biblical orthodoxy triggers exodus of ‘faithful’

    http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57655

    Posted by  on  09/16  at  10:42 AM

  2. ‘Groundbreaking’ study shows ‘gays’ can change
    Contradicts belief altering orientation causes depression, self-destructive behavior:
    http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57658

    Posted by  on  09/16  at  10:45 AM

  3. If one hasd expected to read a learned appraisal of the declaration of the Six Retired Bishops of ECUSA in this article, I suspect they would have been somewhat disappointed.

    Words such as ‘statue’ (for statute) and ‘magesterium’ (for magisterium) appearing in this opus from Doctor Leander Harding might lead one to question the credentials of the writer as any sort of theological or literary magister.

    The good doctor’s opinion of the suggested remedy for the profound deficiencies of the proposed ‘Anglican Covenant’ are so obviously partisan to the agenda of the Global South - which is to scuttle any real effort at meaningful dialogue on the issue of sexuality - that his remarks are hardly helpful to the real needs of our beloved Anglican Communion.

    The fact that certain of the African Provinces have already taken the situation into their own hands - by the ordination of missionary clergy and bishops to serve in other Provinces of our Church - is evidence enough of their unwillingness to listen to any sort of reason which might lead to a break-through in a mutual understanding of the true mission of our world-wide Communion in the light of modern scholarship in a most important area of human development.

    Posted by  on  09/16  at  01:26 PM

  4. Thank you Gary Morrow Dahlonega for calling our attention to the “Groundbraking” study, but a careful read of Mr. Stanton Jones study (assuming a valid sampling and methodology)indicates that after 3 years, 62% of the group’s sexual orientation remains homosexual. Without identifying whether they remain homosexual 23% have chosen chasity, and 15% claim to have changed their orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Mr. Jones description of those 15% that now consider themselves heterosexual,"some have complications- - -some have residuals of homosexxual attraction.”
    From these results and from many more is it any wonder that even the Roman Church no longer considers homosexuality an “acquired syndrome”?
    Quoting the words of Rownan Williams,"the strength of the Anglican tradition is in maintaining a balance between the absolute authority of the Bible, a catholic loyalty to the sacraments, and a habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility.”
    Much of what was once considered orthodox,is now heterodox. The Holy Spirit continues to challenge us with new truths.
    Peace to you.

    Posted by  on  09/18  at  05:18 AM

  5. Yes, Mr. Brennan. One of many studies. The crux of the article was one of--change. Change is possible is one really desires change=repentance.

    Rowan Williams,"the strength of the Anglican tradition is sic in maintaining a balance between the authority of the Bible...and habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility.” [in other words, the Bible is not the authority unless..., or if...]. Yep, he would make a great politician--gee, which way is the wind blowing, is the Church in favor of Perverted marriage? The Queen Bee and Tony Blair thinks so.

    God be with you always.

    Posted by  on  09/18  at  05:40 PM

  6. Archbishop to lead secretive communion for homosexuals:
    http://www.evangelicals.org/news.asp?id=730

    Rowan Williams,"the strength of the Anglican tradition is sic in maintaining a balance between the authority of the Bible...and habit of cultural sensitivity…

    Maybe he can remember the Authority of the Bible and remind the people at this secretive communion of Romans and Leviticus? No, there would be no “balance”.

    Posted by  on  09/18  at  05:57 PM

  7. Remind Socialist Liberal Rowan Williams to read aloud 1 & 2 Timothy to the Clergy.
    http://aacblog.classicalanglican.net/archives/003431.html#more

    Posted by  on  09/18  at  06:30 PM

  8. Mr Gary Morrow is, once again, spitting out his patent URLs and political inuendo. He needs reminding that the historical polar opposite to the Socialists he so despises are the Fascists.

    Polemics are never an adequate substitute for the Gospel of Christ, who said: “I, when I be lifted up, will draw ALL PEOPLE to myself” - Jesus and South Africa’s godly Archbishop Tutu.

    Our Blessed Lord’s love of the marginalised and the outcast is, indeed, the polar opposite of the Fascist inclinations of Mr. Morrow.

    Posted by  on  09/18  at  06:56 PM

  9. Ron Smith:
    I only need to remind you once again of the simple statement that Jesus Christ made to the prostitute “GO AND SIN NO MORE”. 

    Gary Morrow has gone to great lengths to show you the URL’s that can usually get a normal human being who claims the Christian Faith to understand.....But...You, do not seem to desire to understand.

    I think Ron that you are attempting to get a following for the new church of smith..... Hey,
    others named Smith have done it so why not you.  The best advice I could have for you is this: why not leave the Christian Church and Go, go, go…

    We are reminded to love the sinner and to hate the sin, so, Ron, I must love you as a human being, but you must continue to be rebuked for your attack on the Holy Bible through your channel of perversion.

    Posted by  on  09/18  at  09:34 PM

  10. Ron Smith splitting hairs-NAZI-National “""Socialist""" German Workers’ party.

    Posted by  on  09/18  at  10:31 PM

  11. Ron Smith’s love of Socialism. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez threatened on Monday to close or take over any private school that refuses to submit to the oversight of his socialist government…

    Posted by  on  09/18  at  11:18 PM

  12. Ron Smith’s love of Socialism. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez threatened on Monday to close or take over any private school that refuses to submit to the oversight of his socialist government…

    http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=D8RNCP8O0&show_article=1

    Chavez says, “Society cannot allow the private sector to do whatever it wants.” By “whatever it wants” he means that his government just cannot allow for parents to seize control of their children’s education.

    Chavez and his education secretary – who happens to be his brother – are developing a new curriculum with new textbooks, to be ready by next year. They are being developed to help educate “the new citizen.”

    In case you’ve forgotten, education of the children in government controlled schools was number 10 in the Communist Manifesto. Hugo understands why. Do you?

    1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

    2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

    3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

    4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

    5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

    6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

    7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

    8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

    9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

    10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc

    Noticed that Communism and Socialism are related.

    Further:

    24) Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

    25) Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography, and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.

    26) Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as “normal, natural, and healthy.”

    27) Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”

    28) Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

    29) Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

    26) Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as “normal, natural, and healthy.”

    Number 26 had to be presented again.

    Posted by  on  09/18  at  11:26 PM

  13. 27) Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”

    Sounds like Ron Smith!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by  on  09/18  at  11:29 PM

  14. “The WORD was made flesh and dwelt among us” - from St. John’s Gospel.

    Note, Mr Morrow, Jesus did not remain enclosed in a Book; he came and lived among us - as a fully human being, fully cognisant of our human ways. As Son of God, the only Righteous One worthy of that title.

    All the requirements of the Law and the Prophets was fulfilled in him alone - no-one else could do this.

    At his Incarnation, Jesus became, not just representative male, but ‘fully human’ - that includes the feminine as well as the masculine characteristics of our common humanity.

    Why is it that that some modern exegetes of the Bible still insist on the patriarchal view of humanity - where macho men are the rulers, and everyone else their subjects?

    No, Gary, the world has moved on since the Advent of the Light, Who has enlightened the world - with his acceptance of all people wherever they are - without exclusion!

    Jesus said: “I, when I be lifted up, will draw all people to myself”. Note, ‘ALL’, not just the Scribes and Pharisees - the self-righteous who believe they have a monopoly on God’s loving concern and forgiveness.

    On one occasion in the Gospel, when one of his listeners addressed Jesus as ‘good Master’, Jesus rebuked him saying: “Who are you calling good? There is one alone who is good!” - obviously referring to his Father in Heaven. If Jesus could say this of himself, how could any of us claim the High Moral Ground - like you try to, Gary?

    Perhaps a little more prayer and meditation on the Scriptures,that you so passionately espouse on this web-site; maybe even the more prayerful partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist; might open your heart and mind to the Gospel - the GOOD NEWS of Christ’s love - yes, even for you, Gary, and for ALL people.

    Holy, Mighty, Holy and Immortal, have mercy on us!

    Posted by  on  09/19  at  07:57 AM

  15. Ron Smith states in post 14, “Why is it that that some modern exegetes of the Bible still insist on the patriarchal view of humanity - where macho men are the rulers, and everyone else their subjects?”

    NO Buddy-roll, it is the non-macho men that think they can rule over Global South, and reinvent the Bible in their image. You will find these perverted elites in a secret meeting with Canterbury as he explains to these Elites why he has failed them…

    “Dr Williams will celebrate the eucharist at St Peter’s, Eaton Square – the Church of England parish that is known as the spiritual home to some of the country’s most liberal and wealthy Anglican elite.”
    http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/6013/

    Canterbury knows where he gets his marching orders. Follow the money.

    Posted by  on  09/19  at  05:10 PM

  16. Once again, Morrow spits forth his denigration of perhaps the most honourable person in the Church of England. This rhetoric might well disclose a streak of priest-envy in the writer, which could only be fixed by making him a bishop of the newly-emerging Bible Church of the Global South.

    Perhaps Archbishop Ekinola might engage Morrow as his personal Chaplain? He could then be free to travel the world as a purveyor of vitriol against anyone who does not fit in with his prescription of piety and holiness. (But who would pay for it?)

    Then, together with other dissidents from ECUSA, he could return to the USA as an underground missionary - with Orders obtained from one of those bishops, but not, one suspects, to celebrate the Sacred Mystery of Christ’s Love in the Mass.

    Our well-beloved brother in Christ, Rowan, Archbishop of Canterbury, is only doing what any pastoral Bishop could do in the circumstances. He is humbly offering to minister to the pastoral needs of a specific congregation, which has invited him to do so - and without prejudice.
    In very much in the way that Christ might have done. (Remember, Jesus not only dined with the Scribes and Pharisees, but also with publicans and sinners). But are we not all ‘sinners?’

    The word of Jesus: “A New Commandment I give to you - that you love one another as I have loved you...THEN you will be my disciples.”

    The Eucharist is Jesus’ way of bringing peace to a world acknowledging its need of him. For the Archbishop of Canterbury to preside at this holiest of worship activities - for whomever, in the Liturgy - is his way of being what has been described as: “One poor man showing another poor man where to find Bread” - a pastoral and life-giving act that only Jesus could have brought into being.

    ‘O Saving victim, opening wide the gate of heaven to us below; Our foes press hard on every side, thine aid supply, thy strength bestow. Amen’

    Posted by  on  09/20  at  06:27 AM

  17. Soooo, when are these secret meeting Elites going to “go and sin no more”.

    You see Ron, they think that sodomy is not a sin.

    It is one thing to be a sinner, and another to ignore the sin, and the word of God, and to keep living in sin all the while thumbing your nose up at the Holy Scripture.

    You keep pounding the all have sinned to justify people that “"continue"” to ignore God’s Laws and Commandments, and refuse to repent.

    It is kind of like fornicating with your neighbors wife-you go to see her every Saturday night, then you awake on Sunday, go to Church and ask God to forgive you of that Sin. But, you continue the same pattern over and over again-asking for forgiveness each and every Sunday for the same Sin-you go and sin “"some"” more. This is not a childish game that you can play with the Lord. God clearly said, “go and sin “""""""NO""""""" more”.

    You, Smith are playing a deadly game with the Lord by playing a childish game with the excuse every one is a sinner to excuse the (continued)perverted lifestyles of many. These clergy, Lay, Bishops, etc, know exactly what the Word of God Commands, but purposefully play with God’s Words, and you are right there backing up the Sins.

    Posted by  on  09/20  at  06:27 PM

  18. Gary, Ron “et al”

    I think that in the following scripture, things are made abundantly clear that even a little child can understand them.

    Ephesians 5:3-7

    3But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. 4Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.[a] 6Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7Therefore do not be partners with them.

    I’m finished on this one, Mr. Smith appears to be a waste of time to talk to.  If the Event at Eaton Square is the truth, then it would appear that the ArchBishop of Canterbury is treading on exceptionally thin ice and his dark side may be becoming visible.  In the meantime, we must continue to pray for Smith, Morrow, +Rowan and all others through this process.

    Christ commands us to love but he does not command us to love Sin, on the contrary, we are to love the Sinner, but this does not mean we must partner with him unless he is repentant and turning from the sin and only then.

    Posted by  on  09/20  at  07:54 PM

  19. Written on the Feastday of Saint Matthew:
    (excerpt from today’s Gospel; Matt9: 9-13)

    “Jesus saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax office; and he said to him, ‘Follow me.’ And he rose and followed him
    And as he sat at table in his house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, ‘Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?’
    But when he heard it, he (Jesus) said, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means;
    “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.” For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.’”

    V. This is the Gospel of the Lord!
    R. Praise to Christ, the Word!

    Do you understand that, Gerry and Gary?

    Jesus came:
    ‘NOT TO CALL THE RIGHTEOUS’ - (yourselves)
    ‘BUT SINNERS - (the rest of us).

    Thanks be to God.

    Nuff said!!

    Posted by  on  09/21  at  02:13 PM

  20. Ron:

    I have not pretended to be n’or do I pretend at this time to be anything other than a sinner BUT, in saying that I am a sinner I also try daily to confess, repent and TURN AWAY FROM SAID SINS 180 degrees. 

    Jesus said “Go and sin no more”, He didn’t say, that’s OK Ron, go back to what you are doing that is against my word and I’ll just keep on keeping you no matter what you do”...Ron, Have you read Revelations, II Peter, Jude, Ephesians, etc.  Are these not books in the New Testament that you profess to follow.  You cannot take part of it that you like and throw away that which you don’t like.

    Definitely Ron, this is the one thing that you and I have in common...We are both sinners. 

    The thing we do NOT HAVE IN COMMON is trying to reword, twist and delude the Word of God (The Holy Scriptures) into something that they are not.

    I do not hate those who are involved in sin, I just hate the sin Ron.  Can you not understand that?  When we enter into sin, we put a distance between ourselves and God and that distance cannot be resolved until such time as we confess, repent, and Turn away from that sin.  Then and only then will we attain God’s Forgiveness.  YES, our sins were conquered with the Blood at Calvary, and that is for all mankind if we show that we truly want to follow Him.  We cannot say today “I’m sorry Lord, forgive me” and then go right back out and enter into the same sin over and over and over.

    Yes, you are supposedly a Minister in a church somewhere.....Are you being the Shepherd that Jesus asked you to be or are you leading a flock that either want your lifestyle or the lifestyle you stand for?  Are you fighting against evil Ron?  Are you standing on God’s Word 100% or are you just using that which you think releases you to do other things against the same Word?

    Posted by  on  09/21  at  08:43 PM
    21. Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Next entry: Church of Uganda Supports Anglican District of Virginia

Previous entry: TEC Updates: Full Bishops' Report

<< Back to main