Kigali Communiqué, September 2006 (with updated links)
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)
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!
Posted by on 09/23 at 12:39 AM
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.
Posted by Andy Figueroa on 09/23 at 03:25 AMMy comment to no. 5
Excuse me, but for a moment I though that I’d inadvertently stumbled upon the wall of a toilet rather than a discussion forum for church issues
Posted by on 09/23 at 03:42 AM
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.Posted by on 09/23 at 04:26 AMSadly, 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!
Posted by Christopher T. Cantrell+ on 09/23 at 05:27 AM
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
Posted by cdburt on 09/23 at 07:47 AMThis 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.Posted by on 09/23 at 09:04 PM
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!
Posted by on 09/23 at 11:17 PMThis 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.
Posted by on 09/24 at 03:38 AMThe 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....
Posted by on 09/24 at 05:42 AMTo 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
Posted by on 09/24 at 08:46 AMParagraphs 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.
Posted by on 09/24 at 11:52 AMReason? 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.
Posted by Darren Moore on 09/24 at 11:56 PMGood 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”.
Posted by Darren Moore on 09/25 at 12:01 AMYes - I am aware that I can’t spell…
2nd we, last sentance refers to ECUSA’s POWERS & it should read hear not herePosted by Darren Moore on 09/25 at 12:06 AMYes - I am aware that I can’t spell…
2nd we, last sentance refers to ECUSA’s POWERS & it should read hear not herePosted by Darren Moore on 09/25 at 12:06 AMYesterday 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
Posted by on 09/25 at 07:03 AMNo 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?Posted by on 09/25 at 07:13 AMReply 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!
Posted by Tom Crowe on 09/25 at 09:24 AMRE: 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
Posted by on 09/25 at 06:55 PMSimple 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
Posted by on 09/25 at 10:10 PMI 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
Posted by on 09/25 at 10:38 PMBruce 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.
Posted by on 09/25 at 10:41 PMThe 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.
Posted by on 09/25 at 11:02 PMThe 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
Posted by on 09/25 at 11:35 PMBruce,
I know of no one who worships the Bible, but I know many people who try to ‘deify’ their actions.Posted by on 09/26 at 12:13 AMSorry 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?
Posted by Darren Moore on 09/26 at 12:41 AMThe 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, 2006Posted by on 09/26 at 12:53 AMBruce,
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?
Posted by on 09/26 at 01:38 AMI 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.
Posted by on 09/26 at 01:53 AMBruce 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
Posted by on 09/26 at 02:57 AMYou 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
Posted by on 09/26 at 02:58 AMPerhaps 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?Posted by on 09/26 at 02:58 AMBruce
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!Posted by on 09/26 at 03:12 AMYou 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
Posted by on 09/26 at 03:28 AMI 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.
Posted by on 09/26 at 03:41 AMI 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
Posted by on 09/26 at 04:10 AM“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.
Posted by on 09/26 at 04:32 AMBruce:
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.
Posted by on 09/26 at 04:34 AMAh, 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…
Posted by on 09/26 at 04:38 AMResponse 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
Posted by on 09/26 at 04:52 AM“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.
Posted by on 09/26 at 07:32 AMRe: 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.
Posted by on 09/26 at 07:43 AMIt 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.
Posted by on 09/26 at 08:34 AMYou 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
Posted by on 09/26 at 09:08 AMThank 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 ViaPosted by on 09/26 at 09:50 AMI 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.
Posted by on 09/26 at 02:59 PMPutting 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.
Posted by Darren Moore on 09/26 at 03:41 PM
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 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 faithPosted by on 09/26 at 04:55 PMBruce
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.Posted by on 09/26 at 09:19 PMBruce,
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.
Posted by on 09/26 at 09:50 PMYes, 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.
Posted by Darren Moore on 09/27 at 12:00 AMSome 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
Posted by on 09/27 at 12:39 AMI 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.
Posted by on 09/27 at 12:44 AMBruce,
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?Posted by on 09/27 at 01:15 AMI 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.
Posted by on 09/27 at 02:03 AMAs 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
Posted by on 09/27 at 02:40 AMI 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.
Posted by on 09/27 at 03:13 AMBruce,
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.
Posted by on 09/27 at 03:29 AMExodus 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
Posted by