ok, what do we do with this Nigeria thing

[trooper]

No one here is talking about it yet, but do you know that Nigeria has just deleted reference to the See of Canterbury from it's Constitution?Big things are happening. I will reference David Virtue's website, knowing that it can be deviding.. but that is where I read a lot of stuff. See: VIRTUEONLINE.COM.

Comments?

[Fish and Bread]

Unfortunately, I don't think there's anything that can be done. I pray that I'm wrong, but I really feel like Bishop Akinola simply does not want to be part of the Anglican Communion as it's currently constituted and will ultimately attempt to form a new worldwide church of conservative Anglicans. If he is truly set on that course, it may be that only God can change his mind.

John

[AveMaria]

I've been out of the loop the past few days, thanks for the heads up, I hadn't heard those references had been deleted.

I'm at a loss on what to do. There truly are so many issues on the table that it seems impossible to pinpoint only one as the problem.

As my grandmother would say, "All we can do is pray. And perhaps bake cookies, that always makes me feel better."

[ahab]

It is a concern. I am glad that the Anglican communion has Bishops like ++Akinola who can take a stand and are listening to God. I think its inevitable that the communion will split, many already are looking to place themselves under the authority they see fit.

peace

[gitlance]

I don't always trust David Virtue. He reports things that none of the other Anglican news services report. Sometimes I think he may have a tendency to exaggerate...

[Naomi4Christ]

ECUSA could make a start by following the recommendations of the Windsor Report

[Wigglesworth]

Here is a link (http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3015)to the article about the church in Nigeria. The website is actually VirtueOnline.org.

[Fish and Bread]

I don't always trust David Virtue. He reports things that none of the other Anglican news services report. Sometimes I think he may have a tendency to exaggerate...

It's true that David Virtue's website has about the same level of journalistic integrity as the National Inquirer and has strong fundamentalist leanings, but in this case he is at least correct that the Anglican province of Nigeria has amended it's governing documents. It's all over the House of Bishops/Delegates listserv. This does not remove them from the Anglican Communion as of yet, but lays the groundwork for them to leave down the road.

John

[ahab]

Hi Dogsbody,

ECUSA could make a start by following the recommendations of the Windsor Report I basically agree, but I think the majority uniting under ++Akinola are doing so because there are signifcant numbers throughout the CofE and North America who simply wont respect Lambeth 1.10 or the Windsor Report or uphold the imparied communion, or for that matter schism ad neither will they leave the communion.

peace

[holyshe]

all i can say about this matter is it is about time someone started this cycle of change which is needed!

i just hope they change along side not brake away from...
xxx

[Fish and Bread]

I basically agree, but I think the majority uniting under ++Akinola are doing so because there are signifcant numbers throughout the CofE and North America who simply wont respect Lambeth 1.10 or the Windsor Report or uphold the imparied communion, or for that matter schism ad neither will they leave the communion.

Respect is not always the same thing as obedience. I think the Church of England, the Episcopal Church USA, the Scottish Episcopal Church, and the Anglican Church of Canada all respect the Lambeth Conference and findings of the Windsor Report, they just to a certain degree may disagree with that body and that report. The Anglican Communion traditionally has been organized as an organization of fellowship and common mission between national churches in various countries, not as an authoritative structure that can make rules which must be followed. By trying to create the sort of body that can make rules and enforce dogmatic compliance, it is actually Bishop Akinola who is trying to change things from the way they've always been.

John

[john23237]

Perhaps there is nothing to be done. Besides proving they have the power and are in control, what is to be accomplished by one side forcing the other to accept what they clearly do NOT believe? If one accepts the facts of our sad situation, one side honestly believes that it is doing the right thing while the other sees such actions as an unacceptable evil with which they cannot remain in communion. How can this be resolved without being dishonest? If the progressives say that we are deeply sorry for doing that which, in point of fact, we are not sorry about but rather truly believe to be the right course, what would that be other than a lie? If conservatives agreed to remain in communion with the progressives in spite of the fact that they believe the views and actions of the progresses places them outside of communion, would this also not be dishonest? Can true communion be based upon forced dishonesty? Is there any true conversion if it is based only upon threats? What type of communion would that be other than an agreed upon lie? Sadly, the time is upon us when we must face the ugly fact that we are not going to change the beliefs of the other side and are no longer prepared to agree to disagree. There is nothing to be done IMHO but accept our fate. May God have mercy upon our all too human folly.

[PaladinValer]

ECUSA could make a start by following the recommendations of the Windsor Report

Um, we have been since 2004 when the Report was issued. So has the ACoC.

Now if certain other provinces could should such good faith...

[trooper]

My best guess is that the Communion is (or will be) officially split. So, what that means to us folks in the pew remains to be clarified. While I am on the ++Akinola side theologically, I am at a loss to imagine what this will mean in terms of defining myself as an Anglican.

[higgs2]

I think we get ready to wave goodbye to those who choose to leave and follow Bishop Akinola. I'd even be willing to help them locate high school gyms and Eagles Club lodges where they might be able to meet while they're starting up their new, non-ECUSA church. And we should put them on our prayer list.

[ahab]

Hi Fish and Bread,

I dont think many in the ECUSA, Canada or even the CofE understand Windsor enough to respect it. Windsor is a report because going against Lambeth 1.10 is seen as a schismable departure from obedience to scripture. The ECUSA and many in the CofE have no intention of abiding by the Windsor report and treating the ECUSA as impaired communion. The Bishops statement over the UK Civil partnerships bill completely undermines Lambeth 1.10.
Incredibly, the minority are about to watch the majority leave.

[ebia]

Hi Fish and Bread,

I dont think many in the ECUSA, Canada or even the CofE understand Windsor enough to respect it. Windsor is a report because going against Lambeth 1.10 is seen as a schismable departure from obedience to scripture. The ECUSA and many in the CofE have no intention of abiding by the Windsor report and treating the ECUSA as impaired communion. The Bishops statement over the UK Civil partnerships bill completely undermines Lambeth 1.10.
Incredibly, the minority are about to watch the majority leave.
If we can't agree about stuff and we can't even "agree to disagree" about it, then someone will end up leaving.

It's sad, but if neither side sees any way they can compromise sufficiently for the other side to cope with that ...

An Anglican Communion that can't cope with diversity of opinion on anything short of the Creeds isn't worth keeping.

[ahab]

Hi ebia,

I dont even agree with that I am afraid:)
My real point was that in the face of this impass, the significant majority may end up leaving.
An Anglican Communion that can't cope with diversity of opinion on anything short of the Creeds isn't worth keeping. But I think it has done and can. The only issue that it can't accept seems at present to be same-sex sex. Thats just one issue.

[Fish and Bread]

I dont think many in the ECUSA, Canada or even the CofE understand Windsor enough to respect it. Windsor is a report because going against Lambeth 1.10 is seen as a schismable departure from obedience to scripture. The ECUSA and many in the CofE have no intention of abiding by the Windsor report and treating the ECUSA as impaired communion. The Bishops statement over the UK Civil partnerships bill completely undermines Lambeth 1.10.
Incredibly, the minority are about to watch the majority leave.

I don't want to get into treating the Windsor Report as if it's a law that can be broken, because it's not -- it's simply a report put out for each of the provinces to consider. However, let's consider this. ECUSA was asked to apologize for breaking the bonds of affection within the Anglican Communion, they have. ECUSA was asked not to consecrate any bishops in same-sex bishops for a little while and has gone beyond that and decided not to consecrate any bishops at all for a little while. The African provinces were in turn asked not to plant parishes in North America, where they have no canonical juristiction, and not only refused, but actually recently announced they were expanding their efforts in that regard. So who is really failing to comply with the Windor Report here? Granted, it is just advisory and no one has to comply, but I find it ironic that the folks screaming about ECUSA's alledged non-compliance (Which isn't evident to me) are the ones who are the most blantantly flaunting this document.

John

[higgs2]

I don't want to get into treating the Windsor Report as if it's a law that can be broken, because it's not -- it's simply a report put out for each of the provinces to consider. However, let's consider this. ECUSA was asked to apologize for breaking the bonds of affection within the Anglican Communion, they have. ECUSA was asked not to consecrate any bishops in same-sex bishops for a little while and has gone beyond that and decided not to consecrate any bishops at all for a little while. The African provinces were in turn asked not to plant parishes in North America, where they have no canonical juristiction, and not only refused, but actually recently announced they were expanding their efforts in that regard. So who is really failing to comply with the Windor Report here? Granted, it is just advisory and no one has to comply, but I find it ironic that the folks screaming about ECUSA's alledged non-compliance (Which isn't evident to me) are the ones who are the most blantantly flaunting this document.

John

:clap: :clap: You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Fish and Bread again. :clap: :clap:

[Finella]

:clap: :clap: You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Fish and Bread again. :clap: :clap:
::tries to rep Fish and Bread, too::

::has done it too many times, too....:: :D

[john23237]

The only issue that it can't accept seems at present to be same-sex sex. Thats just one issue.

And that, my friend, is the point. To GLBT Anglicans worldwide that statement tells it all.

[trooper]

And that, my friend, is the point. To GLBT Anglicans worldwide that statement tells it all.

I really wish that that I didn't get from the Bible what I get: that homosexuality was a sin. I know too many gay and lesbian people/family/friends to want to have the position that I have. Frankly, most days it doesn't make sense to me. But, there you go... that's what Scripture says and I am not prepared to say otherwise. This is why Scripture and its interpretation are at issue, not GLBT issues. I know that it can seem otherwise, but really, and honestly, that's what it is all about. I would say ditto for folks who are divorced and remarried. ( though we as a Communion have managed to rather blatantly paper over that one). This all started way before the GLBT issue, for example with the divorce issue and has just gone hill since then. (In fact, as the issue that Jesus spoke to, I would venture to say that the divorce thing is considerably more obvious than the gay one. Thus, I am more sad at the ++Robinson divorce than who he lives with now.)

If you have a plan C, I would be open to it.

[AveMaria]

Has anyone heard any more news or updates on this?

[Fish and Bread]

I really wish that that I didn't get from the Bible what I get: that homosexuality was a sin. I know too many gay and lesbian people/family/friends to want to have the position that I have. Frankly, most days it doesn't make sense to me. But, there you go... that's what Scripture says and I am not prepared to say otherwise. This is why Scripture and its interpretation are at issue, not GLBT issues. I know that it can seem otherwise, but really, and honestly, that's what it is all about.

I know a lot of good people who believe the scriptures condemn homosexuality. Personally, I think they're looking at the scriptures too literally and without enough context or reference to science. As long as they treat homosexuals with love and respect, though, I can agree to disagree with them on matters of whether it's a sin or not. I want to believe most people are approaching this thing in an honest way and I think that most people are. I get upset when I hear some people say that folks who believe that monogamous homosexual relationships are part of God's plan don't believe in the bible. We believe in the bible (Or at least most of us do), we just interpret it a different way.

John

[ahab]

Hi Fish and Bread,



The perception of many in the ECUSA and Canada was already obviously not fully aware of the seriousness of the Lambeth 1.10 issue or the Windsor report would not have needed to be written.

And its no good talking about what the Communion rules are for provinces if the communion is breaking up. Many in the majority are not interested in upholding what the liberals say the rules, are if the liberals aren’t interested in upholding Lambeth 1.10.

Peace

[ahab]

And that, my friend, is the point. To GLBT Anglicans worldwide that statement tells it all.



I think GLBT Anglicans says it all. There are many celibate homosexually orientated Anglicans who just call themselves Anglicans. Why don’t the GBLT Anglicans drop the Anglican bit and just stick with the sexual identity for their faith.
The majority see it no different from saying "I am a theiving Anglican" Mark 7, Matth 15

[Fish and Bread]

The perception of many in the ECUSA and Canada was already obviously not fully aware of the seriousness of the Lambeth 1.10 issue or the Windsor report would not have needed to be written.

And its no good talking about what the Communion rules are for provinces if the communion is breaking up. Many in the majority are not interested in upholding what the liberals say the rules, are if the liberals aren’t interested in upholding Lambeth 1.10.

Lambeth 1.10 is an advisory recommendation. Lambeth also made an advisory recommendation around a century ago saying that birth control was not something Christians should be engaging in, which was never repealed, and yet I think all Anglican provinces permit people to teach that birth control is acceptable. The fact is that Lambeth is not a legal body and out of respect we should listen and consider what it says, but we are not bound for it. God's will can not be determined definitively by majority vote, especially when we're just talking about a small minority of the world's Christian bishops doing the voting (Essentially a local council).

What Bishop Akinola is flaunting with his missionary efforts in the United States, on the other hand, are not just the recommendations of the Windsor report, but the first council of Nicea, where the idea of a bishop having control over his diocese was set in stone. It's kind of an odd thing for a self-proclaimed traditionalist to be doing.

All this is a big distraction from the kingdom of heaven, though. Can't we just focus on loving God and loving one another instead of bickering over theological matters? We all have access to the biblical and scientific information that's out there on these issues, as well as detailed theological arguments on both sides. Maybe this is something we should prayerfully discern for ourselves and agree to disagree where applicable. This should not be a communion splitting issue and it wouldn't be were it not be the fact that Bishop Akinola seems determined to make it one.

John

[john23237]

I think GLBT Anglicans says it all. There are many celibate homosexually orientated Anglicans who just call themselves Anglicans. Why don’t the GBLT Anglicans drop the Anglican bit and just stick with the sexual identity for their faith.
The majority see it no different from saying "I am a theiving Anglican" Mark 7, Matth 15

If your "majority" truly see the sexual identity of GBLT Christians as "their faith" and gay Christians no differant than common theives, then, for many of us, this schism will be a gift from God. We have had more than enough of the "holier than thou " put downs and insults to last several life times. In the name of all that is holy, enough is enough. If hatred, bigotry, put downs, and insults were to chose to leave the Anglican Communion at Alexandria, then perhaps the rest of us could get on with the business of serving the Christ. Our Lord's advice to Judas Iscariot (John 13:27) "That thou doest, do quickly." somehow comes to mind.

[Inside Edge]

My real point was that in the face of this impass, the significant majority may end up leaving.
So, what was your point, then?

[Aymn27]

If your "majority" truly see the sexual identity of GBLT Christians as "their faith" and gay Christians no differant than common theives, then, for many of us, this schism will be a gift from God. We have had more than enough of the "holier than thou " put downs and insults to last several life times. In the name of all that is holy, enough is enough. If hatred, bigotry, put downs, and insults were to chose to leave the Anglican Communion at Alexandria, then perhaps the rest of us could get on with the business of serving the Christ. Our Lord's advice to Judas Iscariot (John 13:27) "That thou doest, do quickly." somehow comes to mind.
Calling sin, sin - backed by Tradition and Scripture is not bigotry/hatred, etc. Pre-martial sex is sin, so is adultry, etc. We are not bigoted nor do we hate those who participate in those sins, however, we do not/should not white wash it and act as if it is not sin when the church has plainly taught such for millenia - not even including the faith of the Isrealites. Modern acceptance of sexual perversions and permissiveness does not change what God has laid down as a foundation - no matter how much contextualization you attempt to allow it.

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I suggest, therefore, that you don't do any of those things that you consider sinful. But also, that you give others the right to also not do those things that they consider sinful, even if their list differs in one or two details from yours.

To put it another way, aren't your own sins enough for you without bothering with other peoples'?

[ahab]

Hi Fish and Bread,:wave:
thanks for your post, its prompted me with some questions I am very interested in your response to


Lambeth 1.10 is an advisory recommendation. Well yes but if a province were to start campaining for the increase of landmines opposite to Lambeth 1.12, or the increase of nuclear weapons as in Lambeth 1.11 there may or may not be the same reaction as to Lambeth 1.10.
..but we are not bound for it. God's will can not be determined definitively by majority vote, I would say God’s will can not be determined by anyone, the only thing that can be changed in teaching that people think is in accordance with God's will.


All this is a big distraction from the kingdom of heaven, though. Can't we just focus on loving God and loving one another instead of bickering over theological matters? But this issue is seen by many as quite a significant part of loving God and loving one another. Loving God is surely doing what God wants of us. Doesn't Jesus say that if we love Him we obey His commands and teaching? Doesnt He say that we are to love one another as He loved us? But We all have access to the biblical and scientific information that's out there on these issues, as well as detailed theological arguments on both sides. Maybe this is something we should prayerfully discern for ourselves and agree to disagree where applicable. This should not be a communion splitting issue and it wouldn't be were it not be the fact that Bishop Akinola seems determined to make it one. No ++Akinola is just acting on what has already been agreed, as the Windsor report indicates, teaching and promoting things opposite to Lambeth 1.10 is going to cause schism, it is a communion splitting issue whether you like it or not. The information has already been discussed.

Also in what way does the scientific information change the word of God on this issue. In what way has same-sex sex changed since creation and now?

Peace:)

[ahab]

Hi John23237,



If your "majority" truly see the sexual identity of GBLT Christians as "their faith" and gay Christians no differant than common theives, then, for many of us, this schism will be a gift from God. But 'we' (the majority) don’t believe we are any different from common thieves! When we read Mark 7 and Matthew 15 and what Jesus describes as evil thought in us, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly, we see ourselves implicated and far from perfect. Jesus even compares us with murderers. So its not so much that we are talking a ‘holier than thou’ attitude but quite the opposite.
Now we who believe (as Lambeth 1.10 states) that scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage; quite obviously believe sex should be within a marriage and all sex outside is not God’s purpose. Gen 2, Matt 19, 1 Cor 7, Heb 13, Eph 5 etc. So we don’t even need direct condemnations of same-sex sex as in 1 Cor 6, Rom 1 or 1 Tim to believe that when Jesus teaching refers to adultery and sexual immorality it includes same-sex sex as in all sex outside marriage.
In the name of all that is holy, enough is enough. If hatred, bigotry, put downs, and insults were to chose to leave the Anglican Communion at Alexandria, then perhaps the rest of us could get on with the business of serving the Christ. But it seems we don’t agree on what is Holy or what is hate. We think that scripture indictes what you are promoting is unholy. According to Rom 1 we see the practice of same-sex sex described as perversion. What good do you think it is if we go about our discussion calling each other ‘bigots’ or ‘perverts’ ? That’s hateful isn’t it?

Also in what way do you suggest that some of us aren’t serving Christ unless we agree on this issue, surely serving Christ is anything that He has shown us or has taught or commanded us?

peace

[ahab]

Hi Inside edge,

What I mean is, if for example a particular person was a member of a golf club and then suddenly refused to obey the golf club rules, would all the others members leave or would that particular member be expelled? Its not normal that the majority leave is it?

peace:)

[ahab]

Hi Karl-Liberal Backslider,

I suggest, therefore, that you don't do any of those things that you consider sinful. But also, that you give others the right to also not do those things that they consider sinful, even if their list differs in one or two details from yours.
To put it another way, aren't your own sins enough for you without bothering with other peoples'? But who says that teaching about what we think we Christ Jesus wants us to do to follow Him is worrying about other peoples sins. We can teach what we think is right to do without asking others whether they comply. However if they are in the same 'church' we may both wish to disassociate with what they other is believing if its opposite to what we are believing and serious enough. Also perhaps you would give others the right to teach what we think is sinful.?


peace

[ebia]

Hi Karl-Liberal Backslider,

But who says that teaching about what we think we Christ Jesus wants us to do to follow Him is worrying about other peoples sins. We can teach what we think is right to do without asking others whether they comply. However if they are in the same 'church' we may both wish to disassociate with what they other is believing if its opposite to what we are believing and serious enough. Also perhaps you would give others the right to teach what we think is sinful.?


peace
We will always have disagreements about whether particular things are or are not sinful. Should we disassociate and break communion from all who disagree with us? Some people believe we are still commanded to tithe - should they break communion with those who refuse to do so. Some of us believe that continuing to support an unjust world economic system is sinful - should we break communion with those who disagree? Do you really want us to all end up in churches of one instead of one church?

[ahab]

Hi ebia,

But we dont disassociate and break communion from all who disagree with us within the church do we? We only do so when we think there is a serious enough departure from our faith.

peace

[ebia]

Hi ebia,

But we dont disassociate and break communion from all who disagree with us within the church do we? We only do so when we think there is a serious enough departure from our faith.

peace
And God is more concerned with who is sleeping with whom than who is starving? From my point of view failing to address the financial injustice in the world IS a serious departure from the faith.

[karen freeinchristman]

And God is more concerned with who is sleeping with whom than who is starving? From my point of view failing to address the financial injustice in the world IS a serious departure from the faith.
and in my view, poverty is something we CAN do something about.
Sexual orientation (in most cases, I think) is not something we can do anything about. I say "in most cases", because I think it is possible that some cases of homosexual practice MAY be due to early childhood experiences. However, I am certainly not a psychiatrist.

[ahab]

Hi ebia,

And God is more concerned with who is sleeping with whom than who is starving? From my point of view failing to address the financial injustice in the world IS a serious departure from the faith. hang on, thats a different point altogether. We dont fall out over all issues but some are considered too great a departure from faith.
As to the point you have just introduced, no-one is saying we shouldn't help the poor and starving, they are just saying we dont need to worry about sin. If we look at Jesus teaching we see we are to keep ourselves from sin including sexual sin and help the poor! There is no reason we cant do both, in fact I would suggest if we concentrate on helping the poor we wont be wraped up in our sexual desires anyway.

peace

[ahab]

and in my view, poverty is something we CAN do something about.
Sexual orientation (in most cases, I think) is not something we can do anything about. I say "in most cases", because I think it is possible that some cases of homosexual practice MAY be due to early childhood experiences. However, I am certainly not a psychiatrist. There is no diffference, we can do something about both, and indeed thats what Jesus teaches and what the first Christians did and are still doing such as 1 cor 6:9-11 and Luke 12:33, Acts 6, James 1:27. The two are not mutually exclusive. Jesus did not send forth His disciples just to feed the poor, on the contrary he sent them forth to tell the gospel that God loves then but which includes helping the poor as well as repenting from sin for those who believe and follow Him. Matt 28, Luke 7:22, Matt 10 & 11. Many people who dont know Jesus or who have rejected Jesus admirably help the poor, but they dont know God through Christ Jesus.

peace

[ebia]

Hi ebia,

hang on, thats a different point altogether. We dont fall out over all issues but some are considered too great a departure from faith.
There are issues that Anglicans are in disagreement with each other about, that I feel are huge departures from the faith - from Christ's instructions to help others - but I don't insist on breaking communion with them.

As to the point you have just introduced, no-one is saying we shouldn't help the poor and starving, they are just saying we dont need to worry about sin. If we look at Jesus teaching we see we are to keep ourselves from sin including sexual sin and help the poor! There is no reason we cant do both, in fact I would suggest if we concentrate on helping the poor we wont be wraped up in our sexual desires anyway.

peace
You are missing the point. In my opinion not doing everything you can - politically and economically - to change the world's economic system to in favour of the third world and the environment - is sinful. There are people in the communion that disgree - who do not think the current system is sinful (beats me how, but they exist). That, from my point of view is a break from the faith but I don't break communion over it. There are those in the communion who think tithing is a command from God to us all and to not tithe is sinful. I disagree, but so far I've not been hounded out for it. There is no difference between the debate on this sin and those sins. Some think each is sinful. Others don't. In each case people have good reasons for believing what they believe, on both sides.

[ahab]

Hi ebia,





There are issues that Anglicans are in disagreement with each other about, that I feel are huge departures from the faith - from Christ's instructions to help others - but I don't insist on breaking communion with them.

Yes but that’s what you feel, for others there are issues that they believe are Christ’s instructions as well, specifically in this case Mark 7, 1 Cor 5. to disassociate. Note I say as well as those instructions not to quarrel and to keep unity 2 Tim 2, Col 3, Rom 15.

You are missing the point. In my opinion not doing everything you can - politically and economically - to change the world's economic system to in favour of the third world and the environment - is sinful. There are people in the communion that disgree - who do not think the current system is sinful (beats me how, but they exist). That, from my point of view is a break from the faith but I don't break communion over But what you are saying may well be a break from the faith in itself, in that it implies to me you are looking to man to solve man’s problems and looking to the world to solve the worlds problems. I am not actually in disagreement with you but neither am I aware Jesus spent any time trying to force the Roman government to change its social and economic policy, in fact He said pay taxes to Caesar. I would point out that Jesus said the poor will always be with us and we can help them anytime we want. Mark 14:7. The challenge is that we do all we can to help, the sacrifice must start with us so that the governments see what we are prepared to do. Wars, greed and corruption in the third world contribute and cause poverty as well economic and social systems wont necessarily prevent that.

I think the main problem is when issues are raised instead of looking at what God wants from us, all of us have a tendancy to make a comparison with other issues and thus a judgement to excuse ourselves

peace

[ebia]

Hi ebia,



Yes but that’s what you feel, for others there are issues that they believe are Christ’s instructions as well, specifically in this case Mark 7, 1 Cor 5. to disassociate. Note I say as well as those instructions not to quarrel and to keep unity 2 Tim 2, Col 3, Rom 15.

But what you are saying may well be a break from the faith in itself, in that it implies to me you are looking to man to solve man’s problems and looking to the world to solve the worlds problems.

We are told quite clearly to do something about the worlds' problems. And Christ himself said to those who do not he will say "I never knew you".

But this is beside the point - the point is that we disagree, in my case strongly, about what is commanded of us, but I'm not about to demand you leave the communion over it. The more you disagree with me, the more you prove the point I am trying to make here.

[ahab]

Hi ebia,

We are told quite clearly to do something about the worlds' problems. And Christ himself said to those who do not he will say "I never knew you". Absolutely but that’s what I have been saying. Christ Jesus did teach this. But in Matthew 7 and 25 Christ Jesus says how, when we produce fruit in accordance with His teaching and when we give a feed someone, when we give someone something to drink, we welcome a stranger and when we give someone clothes, not when we change the system. Changing the economic and social systems won’t necessarily eradicate poverty while there is corruption and greed and wars. We aren’t going to be able to change anything except by Jesus renewing people’s hearts and minds to the Kingdom of God and its selfless sacrificial love



But this is beside the point - the point is that we disagree, in my case strongly, about what is commanded of us, But do we disagree? If you are talking exclusively about social and political change then maybe we do disagree, if you are talking about helping the poor in conjunction with fair trade and debt cancellation and the like then we agree. And that isn’t the issue that is causing a potential split.


Peace
John 14:27 "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid."
John 16 "I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."

[ebia]

But do we disagree?
I'm sure we can find something we disagree on if we try hard enough. Actually nailing down what it is is beside the point.

And that isn’t the issue that is causing a potential split.




No, but it is equivalent. If we don't have to split over whatever it is we disagree on w.r.t. economics/politics/the environment/whatever, we don't have to split over sexuality.

[karen freeinchristman]

So, am I getting this right? Is ++akinola wanting to split solely on the issue of sexuality? Pardon my ignorance!

[ahab]

Hi ebia,



I'm sure we can find something we disagree on if we try hard enough. Actually nailing down what it is is beside the point.

How can nailing it down be beside the point? But do we disagree on both points? Let me re-emphasise what I am saying I think it is.



Christ Jesus says how, when we produce fruit in accordance with His teaching and when we feed someone, when we give someone something to drink, when we welcome a stranger and when we give someone clothes, not when we change the system. Changing the economic and social systems won’t necessarily eradicate poverty while there is corruption and greed and wars. We aren’t going to be able to change anything except by Jesus renewing people’s hearts and minds to the Kingdom of God and its selfless sacrificial love It starts with us not systems.


No, but it is equivalent. If we don't have to split over whatever it is we disagree on w.r.t. economics/politics/the environment/whatever, we don't have to split over sexuality. Sorry but I think I have made it quite clear I think both are important, and for one to be abandoned either promotion of sexual immorality or abandonment of helping the poor constitutes a serious departure from the teachings of Jesus. And I also think its legalism to pick and chose from the teachings of Jesus as more or less important and Jesus certainly had some words about that to the authorities.

peace

[Inside Edge]

What I mean is, if for example a particular person was a member of a golf club and then suddenly refused to obey the golf club rules, would all the others members leave or would that particular member be expelled? Its not normal that the majority leave is it?
Ah, I see. Yes, this would be normal and natural. So given that our situation is not - as you pointed out - following a similar process (thus far), says to me, that there must be something which makes your analogy inapplicable, in some way.

Sorry but I think I have made it quite clear I think both are important, and for one to be abandoned either promotion of sexual immorality or abandonment of helping the poor constitutes a serious departure from the teachings of Jesus. And I also think its legalism to pick and chose from the teachings of Jesus as more or less important and Jesus certainly had some words about that to the authorities.
You're still missing his point. He's not picking and choosing, so let's just get that out of the way and stop mudding the field.

What he is saying is precisely the opposite: that as you say, helping the poor and commands on sexuality are indeed equal and equally important. What is saying further is that there are those within the Communion that believe many others within the communion (including teachings within the Communion) that are departing from the faith, with regards to their views, opinions, and teachings on poverty and tithing. However, these failings of the church - departures from the faith - don't give rise to desires to leave or eject others from the Communion.

Whether he (or anyone) thinks or believes that failing to help the poor is worse than acceptance of homosexual sex is completely irrelevant, and even if he does throw those sorts of opinions into a post, they can be safely ignored for the purposes of answering his questions or commenting on his point.

[ahab]

Hi Inside edge,







Ah, I see. Yes, this would be normal and natural. So given that our situation is not - as you pointed out - following a similar process (thus far), says to me, that there must be something which makes your analogy inapplicable, in some way.

Or indeed that our situation is not normal as I said.





However, these failings of the church - departures from the faith - don't give rise to desires to leave or eject others from the Communion.

No you’ve missed the point completely I am afraid, because the issue that is causing schism is the one which is causing schism, whether you agree or not its a fact. .

Other issues, probably including women episkopos, may not break communion and aren’t breaking it like Lambeth 1.10 is. And the reason the majority think so is because these other failings are not seen as departure form faith so much as interpretation.

If issues of poverty and tithing were significant then they would cause schism

You may not think the Lambeth 1.10 issue is significant enough but they majority do.





Whether he (or anyone) thinks or believes that failing to help the poor is worse than acceptance of homosexual sex is completely irrelevant, and even if he does throw those sorts of opinions into a post, they can be safely ignored for the purposes of answering his questions or commenting on his point.

Yes I agree it is irrelevant, but I thought it polite to respond as the poster probably thought it was relevant.

The only thing I would say is that helping the poor is what we do in 'loving our neighbour' as part of Jesus commands and teachings, and not sinning is what we do in 'loving God' as part of Jesus commands and teachings.

Peace

[Fish and Bread]

Well yes but if a province were to start campaining for the increase of landmines opposite to Lambeth 1.12, or the increase of nuclear weapons as in Lambeth 1.11 there may or may not be the same reaction as to Lambeth 1.10.

I can only speak for myself, but I do not personally see either of the two issues referenced as communion splitting issues. I will grant that certainly there are things that I would favor splitting over -- for example if a province decided to start killing women and children as a form of population control. But I think we would all agree that homosexuality, whether we view it as right or wrong, is not anywhere near the level of something like that.

I would say God’s will can not be determined by anyone, the only thing that can be changed in teaching that people think is in accordance with God's will.

This is true in the sense that we can not change God's will. We can, however, discern it more fully over time, with the help of new discoveries about the nature of the universe, and with the aid and comfort of the Holy Spirit.


But this issue is seen by many as quite a significant part of loving God and loving one another. Loving God is surely doing what God wants of us. Doesn't Jesus say that if we love Him we obey His commands and teaching?

Jesus never taught anything about homosexuality that we've recorded in scripture.

it is a communion splitting issue whether you like it or not. The information has already been discussed.

It certainly does seem as though to many of the power brokers in the global south, this is a communion splitting issue, and of course ultimately whether something falls into that category is going to depend to a large extent, on what those very same people think. That said, I can still disagree with their evaluation of the situation, and ultimately, if it comes to that, I can disagree with their decision to split.

Also in what way does the scientific information change the word of God on this issue. In what way has same-sex sex changed since creation and now?

I don't think God has changed his mind on this issue or any other issue. Rather, I think we can understand the context of scripture on a whole host of issues more fully because of the greater level of information we have at our disposal and the guidance Jesus promised us would come through the Holy Spirit leading us into all truth. In compliance with Christian Forums rules, I can not specifically comment on the homosexuality issue.

John

[higgs2]

Lambeth 1.10 is an advisory recommendation. Lambeth also made an advisory recommendation around a century ago saying that birth control was not something Christians should be engaging in, which was never repealed, and yet I think all Anglican provinces permit people to teach that birth control is acceptable. The fact is that Lambeth is not a legal body and out of respect we should listen and consider what it says, but we are not bound for it. God's will can not be determined definitively by majority vote, especially when we're just talking about a small minority of the world's Christian bishops doing the voting (Essentially a local council).


John

So, I'm still waiting for someone to address this very good point.

[higgs2]

in the United States, on the other hand, are not just the recommendations of the Windsor report, but the first council of Nicea, where the idea of a bishop having control over his diocese was set in stone. It's kind of an odd thing for a self-proclaimed traditionalist to be doing.
John

And this one too.

[Inside Edge]

You may not think the Lambeth 1.10 issue is significant enough but they majority do.
So then you, on behalf of the majority, are claiming that 1.1 is split-worthy, but other departures from faith are not. Ergo, same-sex sex is "worse" than, say, failing to help the poor. Because as has been said, there are those that feel other issues are equal departures in faith, yet don't call for separation over them. Thank you for clearing that up.

Or indeed that our situation is not normal as I said.

Whatever that means. Normal or not - there is a reason your golf-club analogy isn't applicable (so far). It's clear that there's something different enough about the makeup of the Anglican Communion from a standard-issue gold club, or the process would follow suit as per your analogy.

It may well be the case that you're simply wrong about your generalizations regarding the demographics of the Communion, and as such it doesn't jive with your golf-club analogy. But it appears you don't want to even explore that possibility. Rather, just call the current situation 'abnormal,' (because your analogy must obviously be right). And yet, the situation hasn't played out as per the analogy.

Maybe the situation isn't abnormal at all. Maybe there's some things at work which don't make it analagous to the way you see it. And maybe that's why it's not so quick to conform to the same process as your golf-club example explains.

[Inside Edge]

So, I'm still waiting for someone to address this very good point.

You and me both.

Maybe we should just keep requoting Fish and Bread. :)

[ebia]

No you’ve missed the point completely I am afraid, because the issue that is causing schism is the one which is causing schism, whether you agree or not its a fact. .
And the question is, what makes this disagreement worth splitting over, when there are at least equally big differences over for example social justice issues, episcopal issues, etc?

[john23237]

And the question is, what makes this disagreement worth splitting over, when there are at least equally big differences over for example social justice issues, episcopal issues, etc?[/QUOTE]

Thank you. This was the point of post#22. When, for example, the issue of divorce and re marriage is raised and Our Lord's clear statements regarding it, we are generally told by the right something like 'well yes, we should work on that one or we have allowed it to go too far or yes, it's a sin ,but once they are already re married ... etc., etc. In short, we are told everything BUT that it is an issue worthy of schism. Indeed, there does not seem to be a single dividing issue, of which there are many, worthy of schism EXCEPT for those regarding gay Anglicans. Yet, we are told over and over this has nothing whatsoever to do with bigotry. Well boys and girls, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck and I am told "oh no, it's really a chicken, really it is", you will please forgive me if I find this somewhat difficult to believe.

[cathromang]

ah, the great Episcopal debate...so many have the answers without knowing the questions.
Let's cut through the crap shall we?
Is a church whose leaders proclaim "Gene Robinson and Jesus Christ would have made a great couple" really a Christian church?
To bring God to the level of man...hmmm, yes, this will cause a split. And it already has...there was one that put himself on a level with God, and a third of that group was kicked out.
When someone stays in a position knowing it will cause the end of the church as it is known, is that for the good of the church or is it simply ego?
A recent study was done of American churches and their memberships over the past 10 years. The top two were the Roman Catholic and the Southern Baptists, who are growing by leaps and bounds. The lowest was the Episcopal, with membership equalling Jehovah's Witnesses. The Presbyterian, whose leaders are now getting involved in politics, lost 40,000 members last year alone. The Disciples of Christ are now splintering, because they never took a stand on social issues in the church. So why would the two most dogmatic and unchanging churches be growing while the "socially acceptable" churches are dying? Any rocket scientists out there???
Homosexuality is not the reason for the split that is coming. But you are right - Jesus never mentioned homosexuality even though His Bible said they should be stoned - but He didn't mention that because He came to destroy the Old Testament prophets correct???
So we can debate over what "masculorum concubitores" really means in that group of those mentioned who will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.
And, like those others, we can continue to turn away from the 16 year old girl who asked some of the group who ordained Gene Robinson why she shouldn't have premarital sex if a man can have a homosexual affair and be a priest...
And next we can have open communion for anyone who comes in, baptized or not.
And then we can continue to take out and change parts of the scriptures that don't suit our social consciences of the week, turning away from the teachings of our forefathers, *******izing our religion - until we simply have a leather cover with one page inside that says "Do what thou wilt" - it worked for Aleister Crowley.
Or we can pray to the sun god RA, or Bhudda, or whoever, as is now being done and become part of the Unitarian church.
And yes, we should all just be about social justice - we can prove Christ wrong when He said the poor will be with us always - and we can simply serve man. We can merge into the Red Cross and the Salvation Army and Amnesty International and the ACLU and not even have to worry about this God stuff at all. Do you not know to serve man you must serve God first?
So you can sit back and say with each social change, "Did God really say this is wrong?" as it was once asked, and blow around like a fart in a wind tunnel.
In the meantime, those of us who have left the Episcopal church for some type of moral absolutes will still be standing firm and of course praying for you and repentence for all of our sins...yep, some churches still use the words "repent" and "sin".
I of course now need to spend an hour or so in prayer with my Lord asking repentence for my frustration.
Go ahead and blaze me now - you'll feel better for it.
By the way, did you know George W Bush is Anglican?

[Fish and Bread]

Is a church whose leaders proclaim "Gene Robinson and Jesus Christ would have made a great couple" really a Christian church?

Name me one leader of the Episcopal Church who ever said that. Since the charge is so serious, I'm going to ask that you please cite your source and include an Internet link. I don't think you can, because I'm almost sure you're making it up. Some news outlets "reported" that Bishop Robinson claimed that Jesus might have been a homosexual at a talk he gave, but I listened to the entire talk, which was posted in it's entirety on the Christ Church website and he didn't say anything of the kind.

So why would the two most dogmatic and unchanging churches be growing while the "socially acceptable" churches are dying? Any rocket scientists out there???

If I recall correctly, the largest most dogmatic and unchanging religious organization in Israel decided to crucify Christ. Having a lot of people on their side doesn't necessarily mean they're doing doing God's work and that the smaller "less orthodox" churches aren't. I'm not saying that these more popular churches aren't doing God's work, I think they're partners with us in building up the kingdom of heaven. Rather, I'm simply saying that their relative popularity doesn't mean that they're more favored by God. :)

who asked some of the group who ordained Gene Robinson why she shouldn't have premarital sex if a man can have a homosexual affair and be a priest...

Have you ever listened to Bishop Robinson speak? You might be surprised. I listened to an audio recording of an 1 1/2 lecture and discussion session he gave where he specifically said that he did *not* approve of sex outside of marriage and partnered relationships.

Or we can pray to the sun god RA, or Bhudda, or whoever, as is now being done

In what Episcopalian parishes are they praying to Ra? Give me a break.

By the way, did you know George W Bush is Anglican?

Actually, George W. Bush is a Methodist, though he does attend an Episcopalian parish when he's in Washington, DC. His father, George H.W. Bush (the former President), is the Episcopalian.

John

[higgs2]

Yup, still waiting...

[Inside Edge]

Yup, still waiting...
Looks like it'll be a while.

They say patience is a virtue.

[ebia]

ah, the great Episcopal debate...so many have the answers without knowing the questions.
Let's cut through the crap shall we?
Is a church whose leaders proclaim "Gene Robinson and Jesus Christ would have made a great couple" really a Christian church?
I don't know - has any chuch made such a proclaimation?

When someone stays in a position knowing it will cause the end of the church as it is known, is that for the good of the church or is it simply ego?
If the church is failing to do God's will then it has to be challenged. Bishop Robinson and his supporters believe the church has, to date, failed to fullfill God's will w.r.t. caring for a particular group of God's children. If the church can't handle that, then there was something seriously wrong with the church already.

A recent study was done of American churches and their memberships over the past 10 years. The top two were the Roman Catholic and the Southern Baptists, who are growing by leaps and bounds. The lowest was the Episcopal, with membership equalling Jehovah's Witnesses. The Presbyterian, whose leaders are now getting involved in politics, lost 40,000 members last year alone. The Disciples of Christ are now splintering, because they never took a stand on social issues in the church. So why would the two most dogmatic and unchanging churches be growing while the "socially acceptable" churches are dying? Any rocket scientists out there???
I could infer all sorts of things from those statistics, but I don't think they are the things you are hoping I will infer, and I would probably get my wrists slapped if I put them in writing.

Homosexuality is not the reason for the split that is coming. But you are right - Jesus never mentioned homosexuality even though His Bible said they should be stoned - but He didn't mention that because He came to destroy the Old Testament prophets correct???
Discussion of the rights and wrongs of homosexuality is not allowed in this forum. If you want to discuss that, take it to the appropriate forum.

And next we can have open communion for anyone who comes in, baptized or not.
Or we could go back to the 'good old days' when we only offered communion to confirmed Anglicans.


And then we can continue to take out and change parts of the scriptures that don't suit our social consciences of the week, turning away from the teachings of our forefathers, *******izing our religion - until we simply have a leather cover with one page inside that says "Do what thou wilt" - it worked for Aleister Crowley.
Or we can pray to the sun god RA, or Bhudda, or whoever, as is now being done and become part of the Unitarian church.

Ah, the slippery slope fallacy.

And yes, we should all just be about social justice - we can prove Christ wrong when He said the poor will be with us always - and we can simply serve man. We can merge into the Red Cross and the Salvation Army and Amnesty International and the ACLU and not even have to worry about this God stuff at all.
Perhaps you can point to where Bishop Robinson or the leaders of ECUSA have said anything remotely like this.


By the way, did you know George W Bush is Anglican?
So what if he was? I am led to believe he is also an American, but that does not mean all Americans are wrong.

[RobNJ]

Closed for staff review