It was impressive if seemingly merely symbolic to have a priest wearing cope to rise up and raise objection to the first female bishop of the Church of England. Why did he do it? In his own words, here, he explains. . . .
God the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of the New Testament in the Bible. How can we now say that God got it wrong ? How can we claim that the Holy Spirit now tells us that women are to become bishops and priests when it could just as well be said that the Holy Spirit at one time guided the Church to keep a male ministry of Bishops, priests, and deacons? How can we credit such a reversal to a God who is described as eternal and unchanging, and the Son of God who is described as the same yesterday, today, and forever?Some seem to believe God is doing some new things in His Church. The only problem with that is the new things they claim he is doing contradict what He has done and what He has said in His Word. It may not be popular or fashionable but there is but one word that endures forever and only one word in which salvation is to be found. That is the unchanging Word of the Lord. The Spirit, if it does anything at all, moves us to live in faithfulness to that Word yesterday, today, and forever the same. Anything else claimed by the Spirit is false and misleading and unworthy of those who bear the name of Christ. Why do we care more about how what we believe is seen by the world when it is how God sees it that makes the difference? While I applaud the effort of Fr. Williamson, I believe that for the Church of England, and, sadly, most Anglicans, it is too late to set the anchor in the Word of God.
6 comments:
"While I applaud the effort of Fr. Williamson, I believe that for the Church of England, and, sadly, most Anglicans, it is too late to set the anchor in the Word of God."
Although painful to admit, I agree. But there is a remnant within the Anglican communion that strives to follow God's Word and apostolic church tradition. The continuing Anglican churches within America are such an example. The Anglican Province of America, the Anglican Church in America, and the Anglican Catholic Church are examples of this faithful remnant. They are small with plenty of problems. But they remain steadfast in opposing women's ordination and other aberrations within the church at large.
Worldwide Anglicanism and Lutheranism are both in a pitiful shape. Only faithful remnants remain. May God protect and guard church bodies such as the LCMS and continuing Anglicans from the onslaught of worldly influence.
James
@James: a n all-male clergy is small comfort in churches that reject the hisotricity of Genesis, as all they say is that they prefer their modicum of Liberalism to Anglican excess thereof; IOW how much cyanide would you like in your drink?
Kirk Skeptic: Not sure what you mean by your comment "IOW how much cyanide would you like in your drink?"
The continuing Anglican churches I mentioned have much more in common with the LCMS than just traditional male clergy. But alter fellowship is very unlikely since the continuing Anglicans don't accept the Book of Concord. Having said that, I find it ironic that many LCMS members likely don't have a clue what the BOC is. Rather, many worship like Baptists and other evangelicals. I say that with a sense of sadness - not glee. There is plenty of cyanide to go around within many traditional denominations.
I commend the COE priest who challenged the ordination of the female bishop - regardless of other theoretical disagreements we may have.
James
@James: my cyanide point was that any amount of Liberalism is toxic. Your observations about the LCMess are true, although I've heard that the Sydney group has left much of the historical Anglican worship for Presby-styled "hymn sandwich;" correct me if I'm wrong.
My thesis was that the Continuinng Anglicans are very much a mixed bag, with confusion vis-a-vis male headship as pertaining to church office and toleration of Darwinism. They ae a liturgically mixed bag as well, as a CANA congregation I'm aware of permits intinction. Like with us, things are so bad that it's not so much about denominations or movements, but rather a congregation by congregation affair.
Does not an episode like this only confirm that the Bible should not be the only norm for establishing the doctrine of the Church? I certainly grant that those who do not want to hold to any authority other than their very selves will acquiesce to anything. But the whole notion that "what is in the Bible" has given rise to pretty much every major heresy. Nestorians, Arians, Apollinarians, et al. have all used the text of Scripture to justify their heresies. It was the faithful and steadfast witness if the Church which crushed these heresies, not the Bible, nor just the words of the Scriptures, but the Church. The Church is the pillar of truth. Even Scripture says that! We are never going to win the battles over heresy by quoting Biblical passages alone. The witness if the Church in what it has always taught, preached and believed should be our first and last line of defense.
The Church of England is a schismatic church and was created by men. It has no divine authority whatsoever.
@unknown: and thatparticular church is....?
Post a Comment