BREAKING: Primate of Kenya and Chair of GAFCON Primates’ Council Publicly Criticises ABC

As a clergy Associate Member of the AMiA and a member of the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, I received the referenced statement in an email:

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/30627

And here is the link to the statement from GAFCON:

http://gafcon.org/news/july-message...e=StandFirm&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=link

 

The situation in Anglicanism and indeed in all of Christianity is that there is a great non-breachable divide between those hedonistic cultural relativists who refuse to make value judgments, who don't believe anything is inherently wrong, who choose to call evil good and even celebrate it, who essentially call God a liar by denying what He has said in scripture about homosexual sex and the value of life, and those on the other side who wish to uphold traditional Biblical ethics, morality, and the clear words of scripture. The divide is between the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and a false gospel of "another christ", between Biblical Christianity and apostate Christianity, between true Christians and baptized pagans.

 

You seem to be on a tear with this stuff.

The message doesn't play well in our diocese, where we are busy worrying about basic problems like destruction of aboriginal cultures by the imposition of European values, sexual and physical abuse of children in the Indian Residential Schools, social breakdown on Reserves due to what they are calling "cultural genocide".

These groups you refer to have no traction at all here. But really: the "baptised pagans" line is over the top and shows a readiness to declare people as heretics. When I meet a 17 year old who has 2 kids, whose family is alcoholic and raped her when young, whose reserve-based housing lacks indoor plumbing and the water is contaminated, the first thing on my mind is not whether she's gay. She may have taken to sleeping with a woman to feel safe and if that helps, the judgementalism can get lost. We want her to be supported when she attends the health mother-healthy baby clinic, that her fears of Social Services and Child Protection don't prevent her from attending, that whomever she lives with is nonabusive and doesn't want to start a grow-op. We don't ask her to do anything. We love her. If she decides to come toward something we consider healthy, we will help. But we won't hinder if she doesn't and we will not preach at her. Ever.

We have to minister to people where they are, in the state they are in, and we cannot impose, because we burned them when we did the last time.

 

If the message doesn't play well there, it is because your diocese has departed from orthodoxy. Those who have departed from the faith can properly be referred to as baptized pagans. Such is the condition of TEC. While there are many faithful Christians and local churches in TEC and other like-minded Anglican bodies, such bodies are no longer Christian churches.

 

I'm not part of TEC.

It is outrageous to tell someone they are not part of a Christian church. Who are you to judge?

 

It is not outrageous if it is a fact. If a denomination denies essentials of the faith, then it has departed from such faith.

 

Since it has been declared that it is outrageous to say that a denomination is not a Christian church, let me pose this:

Is the Unitarian Universalist denomination Christian any longer? They allow atheists and non-theist members. Since a belief in God is not a requirement to be a part of their "church", are they a Christian church?

Is the Jehovah's Witnesses a Christian church? How about the Universal Life Church?

If a denomination does not hold to the essentials of the faith or has departed from same, how can they be considered a Christian church?

I know in today's cultural relativism which has come to dominate mainline Christianity, it is not acceptable to make value judgments or call something for what it is, and thus the non-breachable divide between orthodox Christians and those who have abandoned the faith.

 

In previous centuries, people burnt each other at the stake, had wars, and did other terrible things to each other with ideas like your's. It is not up to you to sit in judgement over anyone. How dare you. If you want to be part of a denomination which excommunicates, makes pronouncements of anathema and otherwise rules fully from the top down, why don't you join the Roman catholics? I have no understanding of how you could be comfortable within Anglicanism which does not operate this way. Though your post-flag says Celtic Christian. Perhaps you also believe in fairies.

 

If we abandon Christian truth we shall be lost forever. Consequently a few wars here and there are not as important as the loss of Christian truth, which will be the complete and final destruction of mankind.

Oh and, you don't really have the right to tell anyone how Anglicanism operates. You may sit in the ultra-liberal Church of Canada but that has nothing to do with Anglicanism as such. Just because a bunch of local people decided to change their rules doesn't change the nature of the thing. If anything it means they stop being related to the thing (Anglicanism in this case).

 

The Anglican Church of Canada is not some fantasy of your's as "ultra liberal". It is broad church with a scattering of anglo-catholic parishes. The Anglican Church of Canada takes the creeds a foundational. We reject the strident nonsense on either end. We're the middle. If the middle and the broad swath of the middle is too much for you, you do really need another home in the world of Christianity. Who runs your version of Anglicanism? you?

When we're talking about Anglicanism and your counterpart introduces denominations that I don't know anything about as a vain attempt to bolster a reactionary, ultra-conservative perspective that considers only what s/he thinks is Christian, we're not far from the sort of terrible that caused wars. Christ was interested in individuals, and I don't recall his dismissal of suffering. Care enlighten us.

 

Thank-you. I take responsibility for hyperbole and related commentary. I have always thought we do well to discuss and understand ourselves as all part of the Body of Christ, and when in person, go up the communion rail together. I do get emotional about that. Thank-you again.

 

Despite your post full of falsehoods and insults, I shall answer without responding in kind: To try to compare and analogize about Christians killing other Christians in the past with my views on sodomy is false and insulting. I grew up Baptist, a group which was persecuted by state-churchists, including Anglicans; Baptists were for religious freedom for all -- yes, even for the persecutors. But those Baptists would never have affirmed sodomy.

I do not "sit in judgment", but I do make value judgments, based on what God has said in scripture, unlike cultural relativists. And I refuse to call evil good.

I am an archbishop ordained in an Old Catholic communion which affirms religious freedom and traditional, Biblical morality. And I am also a clergy Associate Member of the AMiA, an Anglican jurisdiction which affirms the traditional Anglican formularies and stands firmly for traditional, Biblical morality. So, no, I could not ever be comfortable in the RCC, theologically or ecclesiologically. But I stand with orthodox Anglicanism, which condemns the TEC's and all cultural relativism and abandonment of Biblical faith and morals.

So, I and orthodox Anglicanism believe in the Bible. With your support of sodomy, it is clear that you are the one who believes in fairies -- pun intended.

 

If I posted the link to my website, I would dare anyone to call my views reactionary and ultra-conservative. My views on hell alone would prove that charge to be untrue. But I am orthodox, and traditional/Biblical on morality. This is the chasm that is the dividing line in postmodern Christianity; it cannot and should not be breached. It delineates who aligns with the scriptures and who abandons the faith -- individually and denominationally.

By its actions and votes as a denomination, TEC has abandoned the faith. There are still many good and faithful individuals and local churches in the TEC; I sympathize with them, as many do not have another viable option, due to location, circumstance, etc.

 

Archbishop or no, you haven't listened to Admin who posted. You're forgiven even if you don't want to be.

"Old Catholic?" never heard of them. I understand after looking them up.

We are all Christian, even if it doesn't fit a narrow view. You may condemn and stone. I'm not going to do that. With less than 1 person per square km in terms of population density where I live, your European schisming just doesn't work. A little search suggests your denomination is sort of Mennonites with liturgy. I have a few Mennonite friends. We may not agree on everything, but we are friends. Can we agree not to condemn further? We disagree, and are not going to. Can you accept that?

BTW, the comment about fairies is that they do in fact believe in them in Newfoundland, a province of Canada and in Cape Breton. It is a feature of their unique 400+ years of culture there. They are in fact understood as much more like demons.

 

I thought you said you weren't confessional?

 

There is no litmus test. All are welcome. If you ask, you'll be told the creed is the church's foundation. There is no requirement beyond baptism to receive communion and be part of the Body of Christ.

 

Perhaps that's the problem. There is a moral duty even when there is no ecclesiastical requirement imo.

 

I'm not understanding what you consider the problem. Baptism is the ecclesiastical requirement.

'all are welcomed, by studying his word intently we see that this is true. First of all, Christ died for mankind.' Rm 5:8