HOME | CONTRIBUTE A STORY! | ABOUT MMI | CATEGORIES OF INTEREST | CONTACT ME


image

Here’s a novel way to look at Church Conlict…

Orginally published on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 at 9:06 AM
by Todd Rhoades


From the New York Times: The Most Rev. Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, said profound differences among the world’s 77 million Anglicans over gay clergy and same-sex unions could divide their church into a “two-track model” yielding “two styles of being Anglican.”

The formula could avert a formal breach between liberals and conservatives but bring new strains in the relationship between the global Anglican Communion and American Episcopalians who resolved this month to open the door to ordaining openly gay bishops and to start the process of developing rites for same-sex marriages...

So what exactly does this mean?  Gay anglicans and non-gay anglicans?  How exactly could this EVER work?

Your thoughts?

Todd

More here...


This post has been viewed 337 times so far.


  There are 10 Comments:

  • Posted by

    Sounds more like a two-track system of, “People Who Encourage Sin,” and, “People Who Don’t Want to Be Heretics.”

    --
    CS

  • Posted by Peter Hamm

    No, CS,

    It’s even better than that.

    People who think the Bible is a rule of life, and people who think they can make any rule of life they want to.

    Check out this EXACT quote from V. Gene Robinson, the openly-gay bishop of New Hampshire who’s election to Bishop started all this nonsense.

    “Just simply to say that it goes against tradition and the teaching of the church and Scripture does not necessarily make it wrong,” he said. “We worship a living God, and that living God leads us into truth.”

    As I’ve said before.  Gene, exactly what DOES make something wrong?

  • Posted by

    Peter:

    You’re absolutely right.  Robinson amazes me with his actions and statements.  Did you ever see the video where someone stands up in church in England and calls him out as a heretic and commands him to repent?  Quite amazing.

    --
    CS

  • Posted by Henry Jansma

    If you want to get a full understanding of the comments the ABC made and the implications for the Anglican Communion, check out “Rowan’s Reflections: Unpacking the Archbishop’s Statement” by the Bishop of Durham, Dr N.T. Wright (in collaboration with ACI and Fulcrum), it’s very good.
    http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=453

  • Posted by

    Those who bend, twist and mold God’s Word to say what they want it to say create a god of their liking and worship the false god they have created. God doesn’t like that. How can they not understand? Because their minds have been clouded with their own selfish desires and through their own manufactured concepts of God, introduce confusion into the clarity of His Word. God is not the author of confusion, so who would be behind such a thing?

  • Posted by

    First, to address Mr. Rhoades’ question, as an Anglican, of what exactly this would mean, I don’t believe the Archbishop meant “gay and not gay” as the determining traits of the various “tracks” in the church.  Rather, the division—in this case in particular—is between those who will tolerate, without reservation, any Christian in the church life (including those who are called to serve in the clergy) and those who will not.  “Any Christian,” of course, includes homosexuals as well as women, former alcoholics and drug abusers who have recovered, etc.  As for whether the idea of a separate but whole communion will work, I must agree that it will not; some consensus—even if it is to agree to disagree—must be reached.
    Second, for those who believe we are disregarding scripture as God’s ultimate word and guide for correct living, we are not.  We are not saying, “let us ignore God’s command,” but rather, “let us—together—explore whether the long-standing interpretation of certain phrases, which have been translated and re-translated countless times, might have be incorrect.” Not “let’s stop following it,” but, “let’s try to follow it most correctly.”
    This is obviously an issue that is very sensitive for many, many people, whether gay or straight, whether Anglican or not.  My personal take is this: who am I to judge one man’s sins against another’s, or whether one man’s “sins” are even sins at all.  I have plenty of my own to deal with.

    God bless,

    John

  • Posted by Peter Hamm

    John,

    Thanks for engaging… At what point does this quote from you ["let us—together—explore whether the long-standing interpretation of certain phrases, which have been translated and re-translated countless times, might have be incorrect.” Not “let’s stop following it,” but, “let’s try to follow it most correctly.” ] become an excuse to allow people to make their own decisions about what things mean.

    Perhaps at the point where I can quote an Episcopal bishop as saying this? [Just simply to say that it goes against tradition and the teaching of the church and Scripture does not necessarily make it wrong, We worship a living God, and that living God leads us into truth.]?

    There is only debate about what “homosexual offenders” might mean among what appears to be revisionist thinkers. The idea that the Bible might not condemn all homosexual behavior is a very new one. Beware of new theological ideas in a two-thousand-year-old faith.

    And for the record, I don’t condemn the words and actions of Robinson because of his sexual orientation, I condemn his rejection of Scripture as our rule of life and his subsequent (in my view) disdain for the very Articles of Religion he supposedly stands for.

  • Posted by ugg

    Free Shipping And Customs,Super Sale Off Retailing,With 1Week Delivery to your door—— [url=http://www.100mfugg.com]http://www.100mfugg.com [/url].
    UGG Classic Cardy
    tall ugg boots / Sundance II boots
    classic tall 5815
    ugg Amelie sandal

  • Posted by John DeLancey

    Peter,
    Thanks for your welcome and your follow up, and apologies for not responding sooner, but I certainly would rather not speak in haste on such sensitive topics.

    I cannot empirically affirm that the Bible does not condemn homosexual behavior (nor can I empirically affirm that it does condemn it), so I will not go down that road.  The Bible condemns or “calls sin” many things, but the most important truth of our faith is that, through Christ, we are forgiven for every sin committed and every sin we have yet to commit.

    I have begun to study the various theories and interpretations of what various phrases mean or might have meant or should have meant, and I can find no real answer.  The fact is that we worship according to a very old document that has been translated multiple times, even in the last centuries, and with known imperfections (on the part of the human translators, not by God in His giving us the Word).  This is not to mention how certain denominations may or may not have controlled what made it to the “final copy” that we have today.

    I suspect, on our day of reckoning, we will discover that all of us were misinformed, misguided, misled, or otherwise in some way wrong in the way we, as fallible humans, built our system of worship, starting with the Apostles themselves.  We have each attempted to live our lives the way Jesus taught us to, and it is fact that we will fail to live up to His example, because He was the only man who could.

    It is distressing that such enormous attention has been given to a subject that, in reality, is moot.  Whether all homosexuals are offenders or not, whether only some are, any of it—it makes no difference.  We are ALL sinners—knowingly and willingly—but what separates us from the unsaved is that we work, every day, to improve on this fatal error in our natures, the error that we chose.  I will not exclude from my church—whether to worship or to lead worship—any man (or woman) who is called to serve God alongside me and who seeks to live better with each day that passes.

    As for the point at which reinterpretation of the Word becomes an excuse to live in the way we would rather, I cannot say—this is an entirely personal circumstance.  As a denomination, we are saying that allowing homosexuals to partake of our entire Church life and system is not that point—they will not be excluded. 

    For those that don’t agree, well, that’s why there exist many denominations to explore and worship within.  In the end, “None may come to the Father,” except through Christ Himself—the rest, to me, is about finding the best way of expressing and exploring one’s own heart and faith in God and His Son.  And again, I don’t think ANYONE on this Earth has it exactly right. smile

    God bless us all,
    John

  • Posted by Peter Hamm

    John,

    Thanks for taking time for a thoughtful response. This might not b the best forum for a lengthy discussion on this, but I’m appreciating your perspective and your interest in dialoguing.

    That sayid, just to say that to say that the Bible is not crystal clear about what God says about the sinfulness of any and all homosexual activity is still, imho, revisionist thinking at best and total disregard for sound biblical interpretation at worst.

    When examining the best available scholarly materials on the meanings of the words and phrases you alluded to earlier, there really is no intellectually honest reason to make a determination that is wildly different from where the Judeo-Christian tradition has stood for millenia.

    But my issue, as I’ve said, with the election of Robinson is NOT that he is gay, and it isn’t even that he is a practicing homosexual. I do not dispute your statement that we are all sinners. Amen, we are.

    However… His total disregard for Scripture as God’s inspired Word is by extension a total disregard for the Anglican Articles of Religion. His idea that just because Scripture and the Church tell us something is wrong doesn’t necessarily make it so is hardly the viewpoint that should be exhibited by a bishop in a Christian denomination. (Yes, there is a higher standard for leaders than “laity”, the Bible makes this abundantly clear.)

    We are all sinners, and I am a little more “progressive” on who I would invite into Christian fellowship with me than you might guess, by the way, but to have such a reckless disregard for the importance of a Christian understanding of the importance of Scripture by electing someone to bishop who has no real interest in the authority and inspiration of Scripture… Well, let’s just say that a big part of me is glad that I left the Episcopal Church just before all this went down.

  • Page 1 of 1 pages

Post Your Comments:

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Live Comment Preview:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: