The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church of the Sudan in its meeting held in Juba from 14-16, November 2011 in the context of General Synod has reaffirmed the statement of the Sudanese Bishops at the Lambeth Conference in 2008 as quoted below:
“We reject homosexual practice as contrary to Biblical teaching and can accept no place for it within ECS. We strongly oppose developments within the Anglican Church in USA and Canada in consecrating a practicing homosexual as bishop and in approving a rite for the blessing of same-sex relationships.”We are deeply disappointed by The Episcopal Church's refusal to abide by Biblical teaching on human sexuality and their refusal to listen to fellow Anglicans. For example, TEC Diocese of Los Angles, California in 2010 elected and consecrated Mary Douglas Glasspool as their first lesbian assistant Bishop. We are not happy with their acts of continuing ordaining homosexuals and lesbians as priests and bishops as well as blessing same sex relations in the church by some dioceses in TEC; it has pushed itself away from God's Word and from Anglican Communion. TEC is not concerned for the unity of the Communion.
The Episcopal Church of Sudan is recognizing the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) fully as true faithful Orthodox Church and we will work with them to expand the Kingdom of God in the world. Also we will work with those Parishes and Dioceses in TEC who are Evangelical Orthodox Churches and faithful to God.
We will not compromise our faith on this and we will not give TEC advice anymore, because TEC ignored and has refused our advices.
--(The Most Rev.) Dr. Daniel Deng Bul, Archbishop and Primate of Episcopal Church of Sudan, Juba, 12th December 2011
The point of this is significant. Anglicans have been as loath to unsettle the status quo in their relationships as different parts of one communion as they have been to actually stand against the watering down of this once noble church. Now we see the cracks developing along the fault lines of the issues that divide the liberal end of the Anglican Communion (US, Canada, England) from the more conservative end (Africa). Perhaps this will become, like the LCMS in the 1970s, a real movement to reclaim a church from the hands of those who would change it by ignoring Scripture and breaking with catholic doctrine. We could see the start of a real backbone here. And to think it came from a
"Now we see the cracks developing along the fault lines of the issues that divide the liberal end of the Anglican Communion (US, Canada, England) from the more conservative end (Africa)."
This is going to happen more and more along the entire Christian spectrum.
"We could see the start of a real backbone here."
lol lol lol lol
What backbone? It takes very little back bone to make statements either for or against homosexual behavior. In an earlier post you mentioned the letter by Chilstrom asking the RCC to support gay marriage. It took no backbone what-so-ever for him to publish that. He got exactly what he wanted, adulation from those on his side and chiding from those on the other. both of which made him feel good. He got to feel like a martyr without sacrificing a thing - what a warm fuzzy feeling. So also statements from conservative churches about homosexual behavior receive support from other conservatives and scoldings from those who support the gay agenda. Again, both make us feel good without sacrificing anything. Both get treated like heroes by those who are on their side.
I'd say both evidence all the backbone of a squid.
Try talking to a Christian homosexual who believes that sexuality should be expressed only within a lifelong monogamous heterosexual marriage.
Seriously, what does either side offer us? I've been called "narrow minded" and "deluded" by the pro-gay Christians for standing by the Law and "sodomite" and "heretic" by conservative Christians for asking for the Gospel.
A couple of months ago I was talking to another man in the LCMS who faces homosexual temptation. We were talking about "A Plan for Ministry to Homosexuals and their Families" from the LCMS web site. (produced by a task force under President Barry) He said it really depressed him, not because the document itself was bad, but because he could not imagine any LCMS pastor coming close actually following through on the suggestions it proposed.
Real backbone would be a church that actually applied both Law and Gospel to those facing homosexual desires.
Perhaps Dr Tighe knows where this body stands on WO. I was unable to find out on their website. It would be good to know before cheering their stand on one Biblical teaching where they stand on a related controversy.
Any movement to protest the direction of the EC is a good moment. No one said they are sitting down for the Sacrament with us. We can rejoice that this has become more than a war of words but real actions.
From the horse's mouth:
"And the governing structure for the Anglican Church in North America is designed to make sure that parishes and dioceses in the new church don't meander off with different biblical interpretations.
Bishops will have the final say in the choice of future bishops. Only men, and no gays, will be accepted.
Duncan says the church may continue to ordain women as deacons and priests. But pushing forward to name them as bishops, he says, is seen by the rest of the Anglican Communion as "a sad and arrogant American approach. The bishop is the symbol of the diocese and putting someone other dioceses do not recognize as capable of holding the office in the post is divisive in the international church."
I, too, welcome the direction this Anglican body is taking. As for their ordaining women that is an internal matter for them and I can't get too excited about it.
First anonymous makes a good point. Homosexual sins are no less forgiven than those good congregation kids in youth group fooling around after a movie date. I think a lot of pastors know this, but do not teach their congregations to be more charitable and loving to those struggling with homosexuality.
"Perhaps Dr Tighe knows where this body stands on WO."
This "body" both approves of it, and practices it, and I believe they have even opened the way for "women bishops," although (IIRC) they don't have any. Dear Lutheran friends, I wish you would not be so hasty to praise so-called "traditional" or "orthodox" Anglicans, when what you are confronted with (as in this case) are "ecclesial communities" that have fully embraced "yesterday's liberalism," and baulk at its inevitable sequel.
Thank you, Dr Tighe. I suspected so, but was not sure. FWIW, here is one Lutheran friend who will fill your wish. I think some of us on the Lutheran side of the fence get misty eyed at the outer trappings of traditionalism and miss whether they are connected to that from which they are supposed to flow.
No, Terry, but we do delight in hope and rejoice when, even in very small steps, the emptiness of liberal Christianity is challenged. Not every thing can be reduced to chasuble envy, Terry. This has become the log in your eye that keeps you a curmudgeon and a pessimist when some of us can hope against hope for real, substantive change, as the catholic faith is lifted up, imperfectly to be sure, but still raised up.
I couldn't agree more Mr. Amandt. Thank you.
This is a disagreement among liberal bodies on one point of liberal Christianity. The emptiness of liberal Christianity itself is not being challenged in the least by these things.
Not much I can contribute intellectually or theologically on what has been said. But I just wanted to share that the ELCA 2012 Yearbook was delivered to our congregation today. The number of congregational withdrawals and pastoral resignations, some of former mentors and colleagues, is stunning and sad. We can all argue where the sin is and who is responsible for it, but there is no disputing the consequences and evidence of it. Lord, have mercy.
Post a Comment