What is your opinion on the Gay Bishop?

[Icystwolf]

I personally think it there are deeper issues, maybe God is seperating the weeds from the harvest.

[Fiskare]

In the stream of Anglicanism I am involved with we are not recognising his episcopate.

[BarbB]

In the stream of Anglicanism I am involved with we are not recognising his episcopate.

Neither is the parish in Massachusetts where I came to love the Episcopal Church and Jesus!

[Hands&Feet]

I think we have missed the larger issue. That anyone would willingly accept that position, knowing full-well of the division and pain it would cause is NOT an indicator of someone who is going to lead in a Christ-like manner.

I firmly believe that if he wants to work toward cleaning up the ranks of the homosexual community of the "bad guys" and if he wants to work toward building better relations between straights and gays-which regardless of which side of the fence we are on is something that needs to be done--that is fine. He should have been given such a position. But it seems obvious to me that he is not following any agenda that is conducive to the unity of believers and thus he should not be in there. Those who have ordained this shall reap what they have sown. Sadly, those whoe opposed him will too.

[MarieAnn]

Sad day for the Episcopal Church. Say a prayer for them! :pray:

[Jacob4Jesus]

I don't know how I feel about this topic. I have absolutely no problem with homosexuality, but that's not really what this thread is about. As far as a homosexual bishop goes, I think that's a little odd. When I first heard about the issue, I was fine with it because I thought that he was gay but not sexually active. Now that I know differently, I am not sure how I feel about the whole thing. Although I am not bothered by the gay aspect, a non married bishop having sex doesn't seem to set the best example. I guess it's hard for me to form a solid opinion on the subject.

[Icystwolf]

his comment "wounds will heal over time"...my question to him is, why inflict wounds in the first place?

How can a person with such a bad reputation of having divorce and leading a homosexual lifestyle be told by God to continue with his sinful lifestyle. If anything, this split seems more demon orientated, where the devil likes to divide and conquer God's chosen people.

[VigoMedic]

I don't know how I feel about this topic. I have absolutely no problem with homosexuality, but that's not really what this thread is about. As far as a homosexual bishop goes, I think that's a little odd. When I first heard about the issue, I was fine with it because I thought that he was gay but not sexually active. Now that I know differently, I am not sure how I feel about the whole thing. Although I am not bothered by the gay aspect, a non married bishop having sex doesn't seem to set the best example. I guess it's hard for me to form a solid opinion on the subject..

That's exactly where much of the grief of the people opposed to his consecration lies. Most (in the church) are not opposed to the fact that Bishop Robinson has a homosexual orientation, it's that he is presently in a sexual relationship (a 14 year relationship with the same person). Now, the argument on the Bishop's side is that he can't be married, so as long as he is comitted and only with one person, it's okay. [NOTE: I am NOT starting a debate on gay marriage or homosexuality... I am just presenting the sides of the consecration argument!]

However, he is now a bishop who truely believes that God has called him to serve. The people of his diocese elected him because they love him and his teaching; as long as he remembers he has been called to serve God and the people of his diocese, I will personally consider him a proper bishop in the church. I also remember what drew me to the Episcopal Church in the first place, the fact that they mean what their sign reads: "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You."

I leave you with a very pertinent piece of scripture, from the Gospel according to Mark, Chapter 9 (with my added emphasis):

38 "Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."
39 "Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us.

Peace.

[Jacob4Jesus]

[QUOTE].However, he is now a bishop who truely believes that God has called him to serve. The people of his diocese elected him because they love him and his teaching; as long as he remembers he has been called to serve God and the people of his diocese, I will personally consider him a proper bishop in the church. I also remember what drew me to the Episcopal Church in the first place, the fact that they mean what their sign reads: "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You."[QUOTE]

All great points, Vigo. I could not have said it that well myself. And to agree with you, that is the same reason I was drawn to the Episcopal church. As a whole, and my curch in particular as well, makes me feel very welcome.

[wonder111]

i agree vigomedic, that's was a great post. I especially thought the quote was good. For me personally, i'm not God, so I'm not going to take the position and say what He is trying to do. Sometimes I have to go by faith, because my own understanding can't possibly grasp why things are changing the way they are. It's not always as it seems. What I know I'm supposed to do is love my neighbor, that's my job for now :)

[Jacob4Jesus]

i agree vigomedic, that's was a great post. I especially thought the quote was good. For me personally, i'm not God, so I'm not going to take the position and say what He is trying to do. Sometimes I have to go by faith, because my own understanding can't possibly grasp why things are changing the way they are. It's not always as it seems. What I know I'm supposed to do is love my neighbor, that's my job for now :)

Another great post. You are all making my day. It's great to see everyone acting in the true spirit of Christ.

Prayers for everyone!
Jacob

[Icystwolf]

.



However, he is now a bishop who truely believes that God has called him to serve. The people of his diocese elected him because they love him and his teaching; as long as he remembers he has been called to serve God and the people of his diocese, I will personally consider him a proper bishop in the church. I also remember what drew me to the Episcopal Church in the first place, the fact that they mean what their sign reads: "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You."


I leave you with a very pertinent piece of scripture, from the Gospel according to Mark, Chapter 9 (with my added emphasis):

38 "Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."
39 "Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us.

Peace.Love his teachings of false doctrine, how can one contradict the Bible, and yet at the same time serve God whom they do not listen to? Is it not common for cults to also claim that their teachings from the heavens were also real?

Unfortunately, doing God's will is a lot harder and challenging. Is splitting the church across the whole world for the work of Jesus?
Remember when Jesus was about to die on the cross, he called one of his disciples 'satan', therefore, it's on a spiritual account that we walk against Jesus, not on the more obvious physical force of current.

Heres a scripture you too need to understand:
Luke18:
The Pharisee and the Tax Collector

9He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: 10 "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed[1 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=LUKE+18&language=english&version=ESV&showfn=on&showxref=on#footnote_156996348_1)] thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.' 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted."

[VigoMedic]

Love his teachings of false doctrine, how can one contradict the Bible, and yet at the same time serve God whom they do not listen to? Is it not common for cults to also claim that their teachings from the heavens were also real?
I appreciate your reply, however, I am not sure that he has ever been accused of teaching false doctrines. There is much disagreement (and there always will be) within the Christian faith about the interpretation and meaning of certain areas of scripture. Some groups take every word of the scripture literally, and others prayerfully look at the totality of scripture through the lens of the gospel and Christ's life. To say that those who do not take every word of the text literally (of course, we also must determine which interpretation of the text we are going to take literally!) are teaching false doctrine is a judgement that I don't believe is fair, or for that matter, accurate.


Unfortunately, doing God's will is a lot harder and challenging. Is splitting the church across the whole world for the work of Jesus?
Remember when Jesus was about to die on the cross, he called one of his disciples 'satan', therefore, it's on a spiritual account that we walk against Jesus, not on the more obvious physical force of current.
I agree that, at times, God's Will is difficult and challenging. As I pointed out in my previous post, Bishop Robinson honestly believes he is following God's plan for his life and his parishoner's lives (and I can't say what God's plan for his life is), and I am sure that even you will admit this process has been difficult and challenging. There is no doubt that the easier road would have been to step aside.

Also, if the church is to split, it would be the action of those splitting from it... not the action of the new Bishop. (Don't get me wrong I do NOT want the church to split; but we do all posess a God-given free will, and they can do what they want).

Heres a scripture you too need to understand:
Luke18:
The Pharisee and the Tax Collector

9He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: 10 "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed[1 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=LUKE+18&language=english&version=ESV&showfn=on&showxref=on#footnote_156996348_1)] thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.' 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted."
Of course I do not disagree with the teaching of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector, however I do not believe it applies here. People outside of a faith with bishops often feel that the church, and bishops themselves, put them in a higher esteem before God. However, that is not what the church believes, nor is what MOST bishops (to include Bishop Robinson, I believe) feel. Bishops are, in fact, called to prayerfully serve through leadership; a call that is very difficult indeed.

"The Bishop belongs to all. Let no one be scandalized if I frequent those who are considered unworthy or sinful. Who is not a sinner? Let no one be alarmed if I am seen with compromised and dangerous people, on the left or the right. Let no one bind me to a group. My door, my heart must be open to everyone, absolutely everyone." -Dom Helder Camara

Thanks again.

[VigoMedic]

i agree vigomedic, that's was a great post. I especially thought the quote was good. For me personally, i'm not God, so I'm not going to take the position and say what He is trying to do. Sometimes I have to go by faith, because my own understanding can't possibly grasp why things are changing the way they are. It's not always as it seems. What I know I'm supposed to do is love my neighbor, that's my job for now :)

You are all making my day. It's great to see everyone acting in the true spirit of Christ.

Prayers for everyone!
Jacob
I couldn't have said it better, Jacob. I really do enjoy hearing from all sides, but it's always nice to hear from those with an open heart.

I hope that peace is with you all.

[MorphRC]

I think it is a sad day for that denomination of Christianity. For some reason Anglicanism has always been liberal, which is said coz liberalism will end up destroying that Church if they dont be careful.

If i was a Anglican i would boycott the whole church until that guy was gone..its a direct violation against God and His law and for a Church that supposedly claims to uphold the laws there doing a really bad job of it :(

[Serapha]

Hi there!

:wave:


I am not going to throw in a bunch of Bible verses that everyone has already seen and read,

Instead, I would just ask, what is the greater good for the church. It can't be good for the church to "grow" because of a sin nature. If the growth of the church is due, even in a small part, to the sinful nature of man, then the church is off course--"for the Lord added to the church daily".

If people are drawn to an assembly because of the acceptance of sexual sin, then it isn't "the Lord" adding to the church... but the sin adding to the church.


That "ain't" God, folks.


~malaka~

[D.C]

Hi there!

:wave:


I am not going to throw in a bunch of Bible verses that everyone has already seen and read,

Instead, I would just ask, what is the greater good for the church. It can't be good for the church to "grow" because of a sin nature. If the growth of the church is due, even in a small part, to the sinful nature of man, then the church is off course--"for the Lord added to the church daily".

If people are drawn to an assembly because of the acceptance of sexual sin, then it isn't "the Lord" adding to the church... but the sin adding to the church.


That "ain't" God, folks.


~malaka~

Very well said Malaka. I could'nt agree more. There have been some really great questions posed here, and only time will tell what God will do with this man who claims to be obeying the word of God.

[Icystwolf]

I appreciate your reply, however, I am not sure that he has ever been accused of teaching false doctrines. There is much disagreement (and there always will be) within the Christian faith about the interpretation and meaning of certain areas of scripture. Some groups take every word of the scripture literally, and others prayerfully look at the totality of scripture through the lens of the gospel and Christ's life. To say that those who do not take every word of the text literally (of course, we also must determine which interpretation of the text we are going to take literally!) are teaching false doctrine is a judgement that I don't believe is fair, or for that matter, accurate.



Also, if the church is to split, it would be the action of those splitting from it... not the action of the new Bishop. (Don't get me wrong I do NOT want the church to split; but we do all posess a God-given free will, and they can do what they want).



"The Bishop belongs to all. Let no one be scandalized if I frequent those who are considered unworthy or sinful. Who is not a sinner? Let no one be alarmed if I am seen with compromised and dangerous people, on the left or the right. Let no one bind me to a group. My door, my heart must be open to everyone, absolutely everyone." -Dom Helder Camara

Thanks again.
Ok, what does the passage mean when it talks about homosexuality? Is there some double talking going on?

Let me remind you God sent his son, to take our punishment for our sin. Thats why we don't have stoning, because our punishment has been taken up by Jesus.

Now Jesus never took up our sexuality, by going out with all the hetero people and hence remains homos.

Because thats typically how stupid some arguments are about this gay debate. The laws never changed from the old to the new. The punishment was taken up so that we may be forgiven. Thats the reason. Use the same reason for homosexuality to de-sin is just unreasonable.

Matthew 18


The Greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven

1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
2He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5"And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. 6But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
7"Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! 8If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.


The split will not be a bad split, if it means what Jesus is proclaiming about. His false doctrine comes in when he fails to recognise Homosexuality as a sin, it's as simple as that. He's teaching others that homosexuality is God's calling. Thats false doctrine because:
1. Homosexuality is condemed throughout the Bible
2. God accepting homosexuality means a contradiction to himself, a universal mistake?

One thing I'm really surprised is how much referal to unrealted topics to homosexuality when it comes to this debate.

Yes we know we have to love everyone, but the bottom line is, Christians cannot accept a sinful behaviour. I have yet to see proof from any of the gay supporters use "USEFUL" references of accepting his behaviour.

So far all i've seen is about loving and forgiving sinners, which dosen't deal with the issue, rather just covering them up further. It's not just the forums but also the gay bishop and his supporters.

[Icystwolf]

Hi there!

:wave:


I am not going to throw in a bunch of Bible verses that everyone has already seen and read,

Instead, I would just ask, what is the greater good for the church. It can't be good for the church to "grow" because of a sin nature. If the growth of the church is due, even in a small part, to the sinful nature of man, then the church is off course--"for the Lord added to the church daily".

If people are drawn to an assembly because of the acceptance of sexual sin, then it isn't "the Lord" adding to the church... but the sin adding to the church.


That "ain't" God, folks.


~malaka~
Thats so true, thanks Malaka for the wise response, apologies for making you read the bunch of Bible verses I've been piping in.

[The Midge]

I think the spit over the consecration of + Robinson is a very sad thing. It is also a very complex issue that has not been summarised very well by the Poll responses. Therefore I abstain from casting a vote.

· It is not about being gay or straight but about a life style and doctrine consistent with the bible.

· A person in true fellowship with their local church cannot simply quit their denomination because of what happens on another continent.

· The Anglican Church is not a liberal church although some parts of it undoubtedly are.

· There is no church that is free of sin any where. If you found it don’t join as you would contaminate it!



The bickering and infighting is hurtful to all concerned. Both sides of the debate share the blame for that and neither has looked good in the hostile media reporting. I believe that Once Saved Always Saved. Therefore one does not cease to be a Christian because they sin. I also believe that anyone can praise God and minister to him. No one should think they can discern whether or not praise or sacrifice in service to God is acceptable or not. The parable of the Tax Collector and the Pharisee has already been quoted, and can anyone tell for certain the difference between Cain and Able’s sacrifices? Why was one acceptable and the other not? What is the difference of praise and service offered to God by someone in a gay relationship from one in a marriage?



Our primary challenge is to find away of transcending our differences so that we can approach the Lords table together and share in that meal. For in heaven we will all share fellowship. Those who hold the Bailey*/ liberal interpretations of the homosexuality passages do so sincerely even if those of us who come from an evangelical approach (also using a variety of exegesis techniques and approaches of biblical interpretation) can not agree with their conclusions. They may be convinced that they do not sin therefore they do not see themselves in need of confession and repentance.



Whilst evangelicals are right to seek to reason and pursued, mob tactics and placards saying “God hates gays” [or words that would be censored by the board to that effect] is not the way to engage in dialogue or win hearts and minds nor is it scriptural (Whereas “God Loves Gays” is). In other words we need to think how Jesus would approach this debate.







*John Stott outlines these arguments and an evangelical response in Issues Facing Christians Today.

[Dandey]

The Midge,
You have some sensible things to say, but I think you are too hard on evangelicals.

I joined an Anglican church a year ago after over 50 years as a Baptist because it is close to my new home (the local church) and is thoroughly evangelical.

There is a case for excluding from Communion those who are continuing in sin. Discipline in today's church is woefully weak. What I have against the man is not that he is a homosexual as such but that he is indulging in sin. It would be the same if he was hating someone, jealous or failing in his Christian life in some other way.

“27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognising the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.” (1 Corinthians 11:27-29 NIV)

Is he recognising the body of the Lord? I do not think so. I think we exclude ourselves from the Body of Christ when we are in sin. Love has been used carelessly as a metaphor for indulgence. Tolerance of sin is the fashion of the day but it is never part of the Gospel

[Foundthelight]

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

Does Mr. Robinson meet all the above requirements? (I am sure he meets some.)

If he does not, he is not fit to serve in a leadership position.

To take it a little further;

Jesus came to complete the law and give us freedom from the law.
He did not come to give us freedom to sin, nor did he change the definition of sin. Paul, who received the Gospel by direct revelation from Jesus, is a reliable new testement source. He stated more than once that the homosexual act is still a sin against God.

An unrepentent sinner cannot serve in a leadership position in the chuch.

The greatest sin here is that committed by those who laid hands on him to elevate him to the position of Bishop. They have denied the headship of the Lord.

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence

[Icystwolf]

The midge,

I agree with those statements except the evangelicals hate gays. The main problem i think your seeing, which I too saw in evangelical churches is the lack of teaching about habits such as homosexuality.

The problem isn't that the heads of evangelical churches are making their Christians hate gay, but rather, the Christians within were never taught or lightly taught how to deal with the issue of homosexuality.

As far as i know, the new bishop has divorced once. That itself is a clear indication that he cannot handle his family affairs properley, and let alone handle the church. Divorces in the US are so common, that they've almost forgotten the issue that divorcing is immoral, just as much as any other sin.

[Salsa_1960]

I almost hate to get into discussions like this. I believe that it's a sin to practice homosexuality, but I feel like I'm in such a minority that my voice isn't even heard....and when it is, I am seen as a gay-basher or a homo-phobic.

I don't, though, see homosexuality as any MORE of a sin than I do adultery, gluttony, alcoholism, or any other sin that becomes a lifestyle. There is, however a big gap between having tendencies and practicing those behaviors.


~Sandy

[Fiskare]

I think it is a sad day for that denomination of Christianity. For some reason Anglicanism has always been liberal, which is said coz liberalism will end up destroying that Church if they dont be careful.
I would not agree that Anglicanism has always been liberal, because English Christianity has been around since the start, and liberalism is a modern trend, that has influenced every church on the face of the planet, but has created different reactions in various places.

The Anglican Church is not the first and only church to ordain gays. However, it is the first major denomination to openly have a gay bishop. There are lots of sinners in leadership in various denominations that are hidden from public view.

This is the point that US Anglicans are saying- they are very open about their conflicts with liberalism and conservativism and all can see what the church is going through.

In a sense, this is a warning call to all churches- don't let the liberals run the place. They have never been in the majority, yet they have a big voice. The fact that the majority of Anglicans have stood very firmly against this is a good sign.

If i was a Anglican i would boycott the whole church until that guy was gone..its a direct violation against God and His law and for a Church that supposedly claims to uphold the laws there doing a really bad job of it :(
Some people will do that, and you can't blame them. If we see something wrong we must act on our informed conscience. I have a few friends in my parish who left their former denomination over its protection of pedophile clergy. Sin is everywhere.

[The Midge]

The Midge,
You have some sensible things to say, but I think you are too hard on evangelicals.

I joined an Anglican church a year ago after over 50 years as a Baptist because it is close to my new home (the local church) and is thoroughly evangelical.

There is a case for excluding from Communion those who are continuing in sin. Discipline in today's church is woefully weak. What I have against the man is not that he is a homosexual as such but that he is indulging in sin. It would be the same if he was hating someone, jealous or failing in his Christian life in some other way.

“27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognising the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.” (1 Corinthians 11:27-29 NIV)

Is he recognising the body of the Lord? I do not think so. I think we exclude ourselves from the Body of Christ when we are in sin. Love has been used carelessly as a metaphor for indulgence. Tolerance of sin is the fashion of the day but it is never part of the Gospel
Dear Dandey
I am an Evangelical! :holy: And I'm an anglican for many of the same reasons as you iafter a time with a Baptist Church.

I think that the sin of taking communion without recognising the body of the Lord is a sin against God not fellow communicants. Therefore it is up to God to deal with it.

Toleranace of sin is wrong. But what does the passage in Mark about the woman caught in adultury teach us about it? The state of some is that they can't recognise sin or agree what a sin is. Are we failing to recognise the body of the Lord if we refuse to be in communion with others? Can we only exclude our selves from the communion and not others?

By leaving a church we cut ourselves off from all those who have not "sinned" as well. Do a few rotten apples spoil the whole barrel when all the apples have a blemish?

[The Midge]

The midge,

I agree with those statements except the evangelicals hate gays. The main problem i think your seeing, which I too saw in evangelical churches is the lack of teaching about habits such as homosexuality.

The problem isn't that the heads of evangelical churches are making their Christians hate gay, but rather, the Christians within were never taught or lightly taught how to deal with the issue of homosexuality.

As far as i know, the new bishop has divorced once. That itself is a clear indication that he cannot handle his family affairs properley, and let alone handle the church. Divorces in the US are so common, that they've almost forgotten the issue that divorcing is immoral, just as much as any other sin.
Icy
I refer to report in the press that told about protestors who turned up with placards with gay hate slogans. I don't think Evangelicals hate gays, I just think that kind of slogan is not theologicaly correct. Neither is it a way to approach this issue.

I agree that there is more than just the gay issue regarding the suitablity of this particular Bishop.

[The Midge]

I almost hate to get into discussions like this. I believe that it's a sin to practice homosexuality, but I feel like I'm in such a minority that my voice isn't even heard....and when it is, I am seen as a gay-basher or a homo-phobic.

I don't, though, see homosexuality as any MORE of a sin than I do adultery, gluttony, alcoholism, or any other sin that becomes a lifestyle. There is, however a big gap between having tendencies and practicing those behaviors.


~Sandy
True.

last night we were discussing the Bishop from Zimbabwe who has been implicated in allegations of missing funds and the land grab from white farmers. If we are being consistent and fair should we break communion with that region too? Where will we stop?

Does anyone want to join My Church? I'm the only one in it :P

[Icystwolf]

Icy
I refer to report in the press that told about protestors who turned up with placards with gay hate slogans. I don't think Evangelicals hate gays, I just think that kind of slogan is not theologicaly correct. Neither is it a way to approach this issue.

I agree that there is more than just the gay issue regarding the suitablity of this particular Bishop.
That I have to agree, the "I hate ****" or "God hates ****" is definately not on. God loves all because of Jesus and his grace.

I think the media is focusing too much on the "gay issue", when the truth is, the issue is around 70% gay and 30% other, whilst the media portrays it as 100% gay.


Hmmm,I'm interested in your church. Does this include world domination?^_^