I have several friends that attend the Anglican Church that Sheri and I used to attend. Its a great church, though it seems to be quite solitary amidst the storms that are currently racking the Episcopal communion. For those of you that don't know, and don't care to read the articles, essentially the new leading Bishop of the ECUSA is a woman from Nevada, who is staunchly in support of homosexuality.
Reuters/AP
21, June 2006
WASHINGTON -- Newly elected leader of the US Episcopal Church Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said yesterday she believed homosexuality was no sin and homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same gender.
The bishop of the Diocese of Nevada was elected Monday as the first woman leader of the 2.3 million-member US branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion.
Interviewed on CNN, Bishop Jefferts Schori was asked if it was a sin to be homosexual.
"I don't believe so. I believe that God creates us with different gifts. Each one of us comes into this world with a different collection of things that challenge us and things that give us joy and allow us to bless the world around us," she said.
"Some people come into this world with affections ordered toward other people of the same gender and some people come into this world with affections directed at people of the other gender."
Bishop Jefferts Schori's election seemed certain to exacerbate splits within an Episcopal church that is already deeply divided over homosexuality, with several dioceses and parishes threatening to break away.
So much so, that the Anglican Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, has suggested that the issue of electing a homosexual to the position of Bishop will look like "an interesting footnote" in comparison to the agenda that comes with this newly selected leader. He, and other conservatives of the church, are demanding actions be taken by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. It looks more and more as if a split truly will occur and rend the conservative elements from the liberal in the Anglican/Episcopalian communions.
Now, this is unquestionably a sad thing. That any church should get to this point, in a battle with its own leadership for its very soul, is a tragedy indeed. Yet the issue of "schism" is a very serious one, and the question of how this will resolve itself is dreaded by many who fear that the only solution will be a split.
Here is my problem...I do not understand how "breaking" with a woman that holds her own philosophy over what is plainly said in the word of God is anything less than what we do with any other person who is in fact lauding a falsehood as truth. We recognize that there is a separation between us and them...not to keep them at arm's length, but to make it plain that they do not speak for the true followers of Christ.
If property rights come up as a result...so be it. But that cannot be the basis for action or inaction.
Neither can the question of standing for the right, even if it means separating, revolve around whether or not it makes people like us.
And it certainly cannot revolve around the question of the authority of the individuals of the church to stand and reject those in authority, if and when they (those in authority) have lost their way.
The authority of the church resides in its continued faithfulness to the word of God. If that fades, so does the authority of the church, and regardless of the title that precedes someone's name, any Christian founded in the word of God may and should challenge someone who is claiming to be representatives of God's word while ignoring the teachings found within.
I don't think peace and unity are to be cast aside with reckless abandon. But neither do I think you should hold tightly to the name of a church or denomination when that church or denomination has lost its way. All are either followers of Christ or they are merely lost and dying. You say you follow Paul, I say Peter...but both Peter and Paul had better be following Christ or its all for naught; and if either of them isn't following Christ then we should challenge them and if they won't repent we take on the lead, letting them lay where they fell.
Redemption for those that choose heresy over the truth is possible...but that cannot compromise the mission of the Church, which (whatever name it goes by) is to stand as a light of Christ's truth, love, justice & mercy. You cannot be a light when those that share your name are continually dragging the light through the mud and the mire.
I realize that there are always conflicts within the Church. Stupid people do stupid things all the time that shame the name of Christ. I know I have! But this is a specific instance where the lines should be clear: liberals in the Anglican church would see the leadership evolve the church into something it is not. If the leaders won't repent, they can no longer lead. If they say you have abandoned the church and cannot call yourselves members of that body any longer, so be it. They have left the faith, and are not a part of Christ's Body. But a middle ground is unacceptable. The time comes to separate the wheat from the chaff. Human institutions fade away; the only ties that truly bind are eternal in nature and they don't revolve around institutions or manmade systems.
Sigh. I have concluded, as I have said earlier, that I am not an Anglican. I am a Protestant Evangelical. Perhaps I cannot appreciate this problem to its fullest extent. I know that there are problems (deep seeded problems) with the Protestant traditions...there are reasons there are multiple forms of the Baptist church! Still, I don't think that you must live with one sickness to avoid the other. I think its possible to stand and even divide over the right issues if need be, and not devolve into a chaotic and schism filled mess. If the Lord is leading, I must believe that by breaking with those that have abandoned Him, you will prosper. I know I have seen that to be true in my parent's lives.
I am praying for my brothers and sisters that are facing this test. It is a difficult time and I don't envy their choice. May God be glorified in spite of us, and may we follow after Him in spite of ourselves.
If you read this and you're involved in this discussion actively...I hope you understand the spirit it was written in. I don't think this is a pleasant choice to have to make. I just think there is a clearly right and a clearly wrong option. That probably sounds naive. When are things black and white, right or wrong? I guess, I think they enter that place when it comes down to the presence of truth...is it there or not? I have said before, I am a truth person; I value truth over most things. Perhaps that's a fault...I like to hope that I value truth and use it to give me insight into how best to love and achieve peace...but I know what I am and what I have a tendency to be. This new presiding Bishop has forsaken the truth, claiming its in the name of love. That's the sign...its black and white. Speak and stand for the Truth in Love...if that costs Peace, that is the price. Peace in this world is not the goal.
No comments:
Post a Comment