Confusion
about the word “Love”
Showing posts with label Homosexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Homosexuality. Show all posts
Friday, February 05, 2016
Quinquagesima
I
Corinthians 13 * Luke 18:31-43
At
the present time the Church and all of society are in a crisis due to the
attempt to rob the word “marriage” of any true definition, adding more
confusion to what has been imposed in the past by a rampant divorce culture.
The secular proponents of what they call this “evolution” justify it by using
the word “equality” without definition and in place of a substantive argument.
The religious proponents of it try to justify it by the word “love.” After all,
“Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” The
problem is that we use the word “love” in English to mean several things,
making it unlike many words in our language that are precise. You may say “I
love a juicy steak.” But you cannot have charity for a juicy steak.
The King James version of today’s
Epistle reading, I Corinthians 13, uses the word “charity.” In most other
places where the same word, agape (ἀγάπην),
appears in the original Greek, the King James Version has it translated
as “love.” Here it is translated, however, with the word “charity” perhaps to
be very specific, coming as it does from the Latin caritas, into which agape
was translated by St. Jerome. Good Biblical exegesis and study places agape on a higher level than the other
words also translated “love.” Indeed, it is not too much to say that this word
speaks of the love of God, and that this love is a virtue that can be grown in
our lives only by the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5, Galatians 5:22). The character
of this love is described very powerfully in today’s Epistle reading, and in
the character of this love we see the character of God, in fact, we see Jesus.
The
character of this love is completely giving and selfless, and this love was the
love that kept Jesus Christ from coming down off the cross. This love, not the
nails, held Him there. As I have said before, take that love personally, as did
Another
word that is used in the original Greek New Testament, and that is translated
“love,” is philea (φιλία), which means brotherly love and
also friendship. From this we have the words
Another
Greek word is storge, (στοργή), which is the affection of parents to their
children. It is a word that was not used much in ancient literature, but it has
survived.
The fourth Greek word for love is
never used in the New Testament, though it appears in the Greek Apocrypha. That
word is eros (ἔρως), and from it we have the English word “erotic.”
It is the love of sexual passion. When the word has a good meaning it is only
between a man and his wife. It can be present side by side with both philea and even agape. But, again, only between a man and woman who are married to
each other is this kind of love a good thing. Eros can be present, however, with practices forbidden by God’s
commandments in such sins as adultery or fornication.
Here we must deal with another Greek
word that appears quite a bit in the New Testament, a word that is never
translated “love,” and never should be so translated. In the Gospel accounts of
things that Jesus said when warning against carnal sins, in the Greek
manuscripts quoting Him, He used this word; that word is pornea (πορνεία). From it come the words pornography
and fornication. Obviously, pornea
has no redeeming value. It is always sin. The weakness of translating the word pornea as “fornication” is that modern
people assume that fornication is limited in definition to premarital sex. But,
in fact, pornea means any and every
kind of sexual immorality, from adultery to incest, from premarital sex to
same-sex acts, etc.
The following things, therefore, can be
present in combination:
1. Eros
and pornea
2.
Eros
and
philia
3.
Philea
and
pornea.
4.
Philea
and agape
5. Perhaps
even eros and agape, but only in marriage.
(In the above, bear in mind that pornea is never translated as love.)
But
what can never be present in combination is pornea
and agape, for, as we heard read in
today’s Epistle, “Charity … rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the
truth.” We also heard, “Charity … seeketh not her own.”
To
equate love of neighbor, which is agape,
with eros is a problem. Such love
should be exclusive of a man for his wife, and a woman for her husband. And
since pornea is not love at all, but
lust, even if it is combined with eros,
it is certainly not the love God commands us to have for our neighbor, and is
far from the new commandment of Christ, “That ye love one another as I have
loved You (agape).”
Indeed,
when it comes to the subject of sin, if seeing that one’s neighbor is in the
grip of sin and needs to repent and be forgiven by Christ, charity, agape, cannot rejoice. Charity moves us
to pray and hope for the person’s repentance and salvation. It cannot move us
to participate or enable sin. Such is not the love of God.
Some
indeed protest that their acts and relationship of pornea are a kind of love, a kind the Church needs to affirm. So
they tell us that the Church ought to bless same-sex “marriages.” But, I ask
you, cannot two people in an adulterous affair also claim that their acts and
relationship are a kind of love? Indeed, inasmuch as eros may be filled with emotion, people do say it and mean it. If
we can bless a sinful union then why not have the Church some up with rites to
bless an adulterous affair? After all, they are in love, and love is always
good – right? But the true love of God, charity, agape, cannot rejoice in iniquity. It will move one to repent, and
to want the other party to repent also.
Let
us look at the context of that specific commandment that Jesus quoted as the
second great commandment of the Law:
“Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine
heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon
him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy
people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD (Leviticus
19:17, 18).”
Does the love of God actually
rebuke? In this case, does it actually move one to urge repentance of his
neighbor? Yes. You see agape doesn’t
seek its own gratification, and is willing to be unloved and rejected, just as
Christ was willing to go to the cross and endure the hostility of sinners
against Himself.
So
throwing around the word “love,” as these proponents and apologists of sin do
all the time, turns the word into a sound no more meaningful than a dog’s bark.
The Son of God came into the world to save the world, not to make the world
safe for immorality. Jesus showed the love of God by dying for our sins and
offering forgiveness and a new life to all who come to Him with sincere
repentance and true faith.
Sunday, September 13, 2015
Don't believe it
Matt. 5:17-19
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
There it was again, the same lie, this time on Facebook from a "friend" who should know better. Proudly displayed on a meme, with a picture of Jesus teaching, were the words: "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality." Really? How about the part that is quoted above? The commandments of God about sexual relations have never changed, for they are part of the moral law. Clearly written are the words, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination (Leviticus 18:22)." Arguing that the same book forbids eating unclean food is not an argument at all, for the Kosher laws are not part of the two tables, the moral law. This why the laws concerning sexual morality are repeated in the New Testament, in this case, we find (in addition to the oft quoted Romans 1:26, 27 in a context of warning) a relevant passage in I Corinthians 6:9-11.
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."
It is not only the word translated "effeminate" - μαλακός (malakos) - that identifies the specific sinful practice, but also the word translated "fornicators" - πόρνος (pornos)
from the word πορνεύω (pornea), always translated “fornication.”
For, although the word "fornication" is understood these days to refer to sexual relations of a male and a female outside of marriage, the actual word means much more. It means any and every kind of sexual transgression, including but not limited to adultery, homosexual acts, sexual child abuse, sexual relations with animals, etc. Jesus never said anything approving about pornea, but instead only as sin, with strong words of warning.
"Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable. And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man (Matthew 15:15-20)."
All sin is serious enough for Jesus to have taken up His cross of death, not to approve of sins, not to change the moral law, but to atone so that we may be forgiven all of our sins and enter into eternal life. Jesus came to save His people from their sins, not to make the world safe for pornea.
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
The Doctrine of the Lord Jesus Christ concerning marriage
The following is a reworking of an older post (Man and Woman), reworked because the earlier one was written before the Supreme Court ruling on June 26, 2015, and for the purpose of setting these details out in a purely teaching format.
And Adam said, This is now bone
of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was
taken out of Man.
And he
[Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them
at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a
man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall
be one flesh? (Matthew 19:4,5)
Dearly
beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of
this congregation, to join together this Man and
this Woman in holy Matrimony;
which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's
innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his
Church.
(Book
of Common Prayer)
In the two
quotations from Genesis and from Matthew we have been given God's word concerning
marriage, and specifically, in Matthew, the words of Jesus Christ Himself. The
purpose of this article is to examine and highlight what He Himself taught when
He was physically present in this world. As you can see, Jesus quoted from
Genesis, but deliberately modified it with the word "Two" (or
"Twain" in the older English of the KJV), thus ruling out polygamy
for His followers. What we have, therefore, from the teaching of our Lord Jesus
Christ, is His word that marriage is between one man and one woman. He
follows that by saying that “some have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom Heaven
We have
been given, in Christ’s doctrine, the teaching of sacramental marriage, that is,
that marriage is God's own work. For, He follows it directly in the next verse
with the words, "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What
therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder (v.6)."
Sacramental marriage is what we celebrate and bless in the Church, because it
is the work of God Himself: "What therefore God hath joined together..." Not
simply the Church, not simply the power of the state, not simply a covenant
between a man and a woman, but God Himself makes the man and the woman one
flesh.
And,
indeed, it is clear from both Genesis and the words of Jesus in the Gospel of
Matthew that two people of the same sex cannot
be married in the eyes of God. The Hebrew words in Genesis are unmistakable.
The word for "Woman" and "Wife" (as quoted above) are one
and the same word: Ishah (אִשָּׁה). The word for
"Man" is Ish (אִישׁ). The same applies
to the Greek original in Matthew. The word for "wife" is Gyne (γυνή), from which comes
the English word "Gynecology," and which means a woman of any age,
and also means "wife." Furthermore, this follows the words from
Jesus' own mouth: "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the
beginning made them male and female..." making the following words obvious
in meaning: "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall
cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh." Sexual
complementarity, something two people of the same sex do not have and cannot
have, was created by God for marriage as a sacramental bond, to produce
children and establish the family.
We can well
understand why the Bible translators used the word "Wife" rather than
"Woman" in both Genesis and Matthew. In English, to say that a man
shall be joined to his woman might suggest something other than
marriage to lazy ears, even though it is clear from the context that marriage
is the only possible understanding of the words. But, in this day and age, we
need to know that in Hebrew and in Greek the words for "Woman" and
"Wife" are the same, with the meaning of a married couple derived
from the context.
I was made
aware of some celebrity championing same sex "marriage" with the
argument that its advocates do not want to change the definition of what
marriage is. That statement constitutes a factual absurdity. Of course it is a
redefinition. In the whole history of the world every civilization has known
that sexual complementarity - male and female - are of the very essence of what
marriage is. It has never been understood any other way. From the teaching of
scripture we see why: It is literally a part of God's creation, and not a
man-made institution. Its roots do not come from jurisprudence. It is a part of
human nature itself, as anthropology confirms (this celebrity went on to bring
up Women's Suffrage and the Civil Rights Movement as if there is a connection
between those important accomplishments and this new same-sex “marriage” idea.
But there is no genuine connection, none whatsoever; only what some want to
create by the power of suggestion rather than by facts, reason and logic).
One might
as well argue that a triangle has the right to define itself as a circle, and
that such an expanded definition of the word "circle" would not
change the nature of circleness. If
the word "circle" can mean also a triangle, then we have lost the
meaning of the word. Such a definition is too inclusive to be meaningful. If
the cause of including recognition of a triangle as a circle is fortified by
the ruling of a court, all that would happen is that Mathematics teachers could
no longer teach geometry, that is, not legally, because words would have lost
their meaning.
The revelation of Christ’s
own teaching is not subject to change, whether one calls it “evolving” or “being
led by the Spirit.” The Holy Spirit will not contradict what Christ has taught,
because God will not contradict God. The truth is settled forever.
Tuesday, July 07, 2015
Love wins - Lust loses
"Charity...rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth." I Corinthians 13:4,6
June 26, 2015 will live on in infamy. Within minutes of the Supreme Court issuing the most arbitrary ruling since Roe vs. Wade, namely Obergfell vs. Hodges, by which it created a national "Constitutional Right" to same-sex "marriage," President Obama tweeted the words, "Love Wins." During that time the Episcopal Church held its General Convention in Utah. it included a service described as follows:
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Episcopalians marked 40 years of advocacy in the Episcopal Church during a Monday night Eucharist characterized by inclusive language, liturgical innovations and prayers for “disordering our boundaries and releasing our desires." Hundreds of Episcopalians at the denomination’s triennial General Convention in Salt Lake City, Utah participated in a festive Eucharist hosted by Integrity USA, the church’s unofficial LGBT caucus. The event took place the same day that bishops gave approval to a new gender-neutral marriage rite which appears likely to be enacted by the end of the week. (Juicy Ecumenism, June 30, 2015)
Present was Louie Crew, longtime advocate of homosexual and lesbian activism in the Episcopal Church, receiving praise as a "prophet" and, apparently, worship as a god:
“And now a word from the Prophet Louie,” a prayer leader introduced, beginning a video on the life of Crew. Following the video, the congregation was led in singing “Louie, Louie, Louie Hallelujah.”
The Episcopalians are not alone among mainline denominations in the United States, accepting and advocating not only "Gay" activism, but also what they have been calling "Marriage Equality" for several years, namely same-sex "marriage." It has been given the status of a Civil Rights issue by its supporters, which serves only to make a mockery of genuine Civil Rights, for which several people were jailed, beaten, fire-hosed, and murdered during my childhood years, concerning which we saw just about nothing on television news back then. Those issues were about a real need for justice, engaging the opposition of evil violent men, including the Ku Klux Klan. In the twenty-first century, for homosexuals and lesbians to demand some "right" to same-sex "marriage," as if it were on the same level as the true Civil Rights struggle, insults our intelligence. For mainline denominations, such as the Episcopal Church, to be part of the LGBT scene, requires some kind of religious rationale.
That is where the religious Left are on board with President Obama and many people on the secular Left; to try and give the whole idea some spiritual meaning, they use the word "Love." It works in English, but would not work in the Koine' Greek of the original New Testament. By love they mean eros, and nothing more, that word from which we get the English word "erotic." "Love" in that limited carnal sense cannot mean the same thing as Phileo and Agape one meaning brotherly love and the other Divine love. Agape was translated into Latin as Caritas, the root word for the English "Charity."
It is good that the King James Bible, in I Corinthians 13 uses the word "charity," because it means love in a specific, in this case Divine, sense. In English one may say, "I love a big juicy steak." One cannot say, "I have charity for a big juicy steak." Sadly, to people in modern English speaking society, the word "Love" covers any relationship that leads, it would seem, to an orgasm. Indeed, the Episcopalians have stated quite accurately that there has been a "disordering [of] our boundaries, and releasing [of] our desires."
In their blasphemous "Eucharist" in Salt lake City, the Episcopalians also celebrated an attack on the family as the basic unit in society, and as created and ordained by God through nature.
“We got to this place of redefining marriage by redefining two other words: home and family,” ["Bishop" Suffragan Mary] Glasspool declared in her sermon.
Clearly, in the "thinking" of such people, a purely emotional appeal either to guilt or ignorance, or both, takes the place of theology. It cancels out God's revelation as known and understood for millennia, as taught by Christ and His Apostles and known to the Church since the beginning. Their use of the word "love" is empty of anything and everything to do with Christ and His cross. Saint Paul wrote:
"For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:6-8)."
The Love of God must be spoken of and understood in the context of Christ crucified. On the cross we see something terribly ugly, so much so that "We hid as it were our faces from Him (Isaiah 53:3)." The sight of the man of sorrows broken, bruised, and bleeding is the very sight of God's judgment on our sin. It is also the historical event in which the love of God has been manifested most clearly for all to see. The sight of God's love is not a smiley face, and would never fit into one of those "Precious Moments" Bibles (with pictures so "sweet" that they might cause diabetes and tooth decay). It is not a new approval of human sin, but judgment on sin. It is not acceptance nor affirmation of sin, but it is the forgiveness of all sins for those who repent and believe. It is where the blood was shed for the remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22).
To use the word "love" in a distorted way is to preach a false gospel of a false Jesus, with the empowering of a false spirit (see II Corinthians chapter 11). Such a false Jesus is now the new "Jesus" of former President Jimmy Carter, as he said on July 7:
"I believe Jesus would. I don't have any verse in scripture. ... I believe Jesus would approve gay marriage, but that's just my own personal belief. I think Jesus would encourage any love affair if it was honest and sincere and was not damaging to anyone else, and I don't see that gay marriage damages anyone else," he said.
Why would any believer speak of what Jesus would approve? The Jesus Christ in whom we believe already told us His standards.
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (Matthew 5:17,18).
And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man
(Mark 7:20-23).
A big lie often buzzing around the internet is that "Jesus said nothing about homosexuality." The Jesus we see in the Gospels has nothing good to say about fornication. The English word can be misleading, because it is often understood in a limited way. But the word in the Greek New Testament is porneia (πορνεία), from which we get not only the word "fornication," but also the word "pornography." It does not mean merely heterosexual intercourse before or outside of marriage. It means every kind of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexual acts, sexual acts with children, sexual acts with animals, etc. This new and different Jesus that former President Carter believes in is a fraud. He is not our Risen lord Jesus Christ Who "came into the world to save sinners (I Timothy 1:15)."
That's right. He came to save sinners, indeed "to save His people from their sins (Matthew 1: 21)." Not in their sins, but from their sins. Jesus Christ came into the world for that, not to make the world safe for porneia. His coming was not to wink at immorality, and give His okay on carnality. Those who are now teaching that He did, or "would" are false prophets, for a Jesus who "would" do this or that, rather than the real Jesus Who did speak very clearly, is a false Jesus indeed, one who can be controlled by sinful imaginations.
What would you say of a doctor who, seeing that you have brought yourself to a fatal condition that will end your life in six months max, failed to tell you his diagnosis, and that you could live a long and healthy life by changing your habits immediately? We would consider him most unprofessional to say the least, unethical to say more, and criminal to say much more. But, what if he failed to tell you how to save your life because, in his words, to deprive you of temporary pleasures just wouldn't be loving? What judgment awaits clergy who fail to preach repentance, because of "love?"
The new liturgical declaration of Episcopalians in the Salt Lake City General Convention is utterly Satanic. A modern pagan religion, "The Law of Thelema," invented by Aleister Crowley, an English magician, in the 1900s, declares, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law, love under will." This was taken also by modern Satanism in 1966, and promoted by Anton Szandor LaVey, founder of the "Church of Satan." That is the same mentality that the LGBT supporting Episcopalians were expressing in their new liturgy: "Disordering our boundaries and releasing our desires."
Against that spirit and mind stands the Cross of Christ, demonstrating God's judgment on sin while saving sinners because of Divine love - the real love.
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Episcopalians marked 40 years of advocacy in the Episcopal Church during a Monday night Eucharist characterized by inclusive language, liturgical innovations and prayers for “disordering our boundaries and releasing our desires." Hundreds of Episcopalians at the denomination’s triennial General Convention in Salt Lake City, Utah participated in a festive Eucharist hosted by Integrity USA, the church’s unofficial LGBT caucus. The event took place the same day that bishops gave approval to a new gender-neutral marriage rite which appears likely to be enacted by the end of the week. (Juicy Ecumenism, June 30, 2015)
Present was Louie Crew, longtime advocate of homosexual and lesbian activism in the Episcopal Church, receiving praise as a "prophet" and, apparently, worship as a god:
“And now a word from the Prophet Louie,” a prayer leader introduced, beginning a video on the life of Crew. Following the video, the congregation was led in singing “Louie, Louie, Louie Hallelujah.”
The Episcopalians are not alone among mainline denominations in the United States, accepting and advocating not only "Gay" activism, but also what they have been calling "Marriage Equality" for several years, namely same-sex "marriage." It has been given the status of a Civil Rights issue by its supporters, which serves only to make a mockery of genuine Civil Rights, for which several people were jailed, beaten, fire-hosed, and murdered during my childhood years, concerning which we saw just about nothing on television news back then. Those issues were about a real need for justice, engaging the opposition of evil violent men, including the Ku Klux Klan. In the twenty-first century, for homosexuals and lesbians to demand some "right" to same-sex "marriage," as if it were on the same level as the true Civil Rights struggle, insults our intelligence. For mainline denominations, such as the Episcopal Church, to be part of the LGBT scene, requires some kind of religious rationale.
That is where the religious Left are on board with President Obama and many people on the secular Left; to try and give the whole idea some spiritual meaning, they use the word "Love." It works in English, but would not work in the Koine' Greek of the original New Testament. By love they mean eros, and nothing more, that word from which we get the English word "erotic." "Love" in that limited carnal sense cannot mean the same thing as Phileo and Agape one meaning brotherly love and the other Divine love. Agape was translated into Latin as Caritas, the root word for the English "Charity."
It is good that the King James Bible, in I Corinthians 13 uses the word "charity," because it means love in a specific, in this case Divine, sense. In English one may say, "I love a big juicy steak." One cannot say, "I have charity for a big juicy steak." Sadly, to people in modern English speaking society, the word "Love" covers any relationship that leads, it would seem, to an orgasm. Indeed, the Episcopalians have stated quite accurately that there has been a "disordering [of] our boundaries, and releasing [of] our desires."
In their blasphemous "Eucharist" in Salt lake City, the Episcopalians also celebrated an attack on the family as the basic unit in society, and as created and ordained by God through nature.
“We got to this place of redefining marriage by redefining two other words: home and family,” ["Bishop" Suffragan Mary] Glasspool declared in her sermon.
Clearly, in the "thinking" of such people, a purely emotional appeal either to guilt or ignorance, or both, takes the place of theology. It cancels out God's revelation as known and understood for millennia, as taught by Christ and His Apostles and known to the Church since the beginning. Their use of the word "love" is empty of anything and everything to do with Christ and His cross. Saint Paul wrote:
"For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:6-8)."
The Love of God must be spoken of and understood in the context of Christ crucified. On the cross we see something terribly ugly, so much so that "We hid as it were our faces from Him (Isaiah 53:3)." The sight of the man of sorrows broken, bruised, and bleeding is the very sight of God's judgment on our sin. It is also the historical event in which the love of God has been manifested most clearly for all to see. The sight of God's love is not a smiley face, and would never fit into one of those "Precious Moments" Bibles (with pictures so "sweet" that they might cause diabetes and tooth decay). It is not a new approval of human sin, but judgment on sin. It is not acceptance nor affirmation of sin, but it is the forgiveness of all sins for those who repent and believe. It is where the blood was shed for the remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22).
To use the word "love" in a distorted way is to preach a false gospel of a false Jesus, with the empowering of a false spirit (see II Corinthians chapter 11). Such a false Jesus is now the new "Jesus" of former President Jimmy Carter, as he said on July 7:
"I believe Jesus would. I don't have any verse in scripture. ... I believe Jesus would approve gay marriage, but that's just my own personal belief. I think Jesus would encourage any love affair if it was honest and sincere and was not damaging to anyone else, and I don't see that gay marriage damages anyone else," he said.
Why would any believer speak of what Jesus would approve? The Jesus Christ in whom we believe already told us His standards.
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (Matthew 5:17,18).
And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man
(Mark 7:20-23).
A big lie often buzzing around the internet is that "Jesus said nothing about homosexuality." The Jesus we see in the Gospels has nothing good to say about fornication. The English word can be misleading, because it is often understood in a limited way. But the word in the Greek New Testament is porneia (πορνεία), from which we get not only the word "fornication," but also the word "pornography." It does not mean merely heterosexual intercourse before or outside of marriage. It means every kind of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexual acts, sexual acts with children, sexual acts with animals, etc. This new and different Jesus that former President Carter believes in is a fraud. He is not our Risen lord Jesus Christ Who "came into the world to save sinners (I Timothy 1:15)."
That's right. He came to save sinners, indeed "to save His people from their sins (Matthew 1: 21)." Not in their sins, but from their sins. Jesus Christ came into the world for that, not to make the world safe for porneia. His coming was not to wink at immorality, and give His okay on carnality. Those who are now teaching that He did, or "would" are false prophets, for a Jesus who "would" do this or that, rather than the real Jesus Who did speak very clearly, is a false Jesus indeed, one who can be controlled by sinful imaginations.
What would you say of a doctor who, seeing that you have brought yourself to a fatal condition that will end your life in six months max, failed to tell you his diagnosis, and that you could live a long and healthy life by changing your habits immediately? We would consider him most unprofessional to say the least, unethical to say more, and criminal to say much more. But, what if he failed to tell you how to save your life because, in his words, to deprive you of temporary pleasures just wouldn't be loving? What judgment awaits clergy who fail to preach repentance, because of "love?"
The new liturgical declaration of Episcopalians in the Salt Lake City General Convention is utterly Satanic. A modern pagan religion, "The Law of Thelema," invented by Aleister Crowley, an English magician, in the 1900s, declares, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law, love under will." This was taken also by modern Satanism in 1966, and promoted by Anton Szandor LaVey, founder of the "Church of Satan." That is the same mentality that the LGBT supporting Episcopalians were expressing in their new liturgy: "Disordering our boundaries and releasing our desires."
Against that spirit and mind stands the Cross of Christ, demonstrating God's judgment on sin while saving sinners because of Divine love - the real love.
Friday, May 08, 2015
Man and Woman
by Fr. Robert Hart,
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
(Genesis 2:23,24)
And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
(Matthew 19:4,5)
Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church.
(Book of Common Prayer)
In the two quotations from Genesis and from Matthew we have been given God's word concerning marriage, and specifically, in Matthew, the words of Jesus Christ Himself. The purpose of this article is to examine and highlight what He Himself taught when He was physically present in this world. As you can see, Jesus quoted from Genesis, but deliberately modified it with the word "Two" (or "Twain" in the older English of the KJV), thus ruling out polygamy for His followers. What we have, therefore, from the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, is His word that marriage is a lifelong bond between one man and one woman. He follows that by saying that “some have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven ’s sake (v.12).” Christians have always understood this to mean there are two states of life for believers. One is marriage, and the other is complete abstinence from sexual relations, whether one remains open to marriage in the future, or lives as a lifelong celibate by vocation. Aside from these two states of life, marriage or complete abstinence, no third alternative exists for anyone who seeks to follow Christ and be His disciple, that is, a Christian.
We have been given, in Christ’s doctrine, the teaching of sacramental marriage, that is, that marriage is God's own work. For, He follows it directly in the next verse with the words, "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder (v.6)." Sacramental marriage is what we celebrate and bless in the Church, because it is the work of God Himself: "What therefore God hath joined together..." Not simply the Church, not simply the power of the state, not simply a covenant between a man and a woman, but God Himself makes the man and the woman one flesh.
And, indeed, it is clear, from both Genesis and the words of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, that two people of the same sex cannot be married in the eyes of God. The Hebrew words in Genesis are unmistakable. The word for "Woman" and "Wife" (as quoted above) are one and the same word: Ishah (אִשָּׁה). The word for "Man" is Ish (אִישׁ). The same applies to the Greek original in Matthew. The word for "wife" is Gyne (γυνή), from which comes the English word "Gynecology," and which translates into English as "woman" and also as "wife." Furthermore, this follows the words from Jesus' own mouth: "Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female..." making the following words obvious in meaning:"For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh." Sexual complementarity, something two people of the same sex do not have and cannot have, was created by God for marriage as a sacramental bond, to produce children and establish the family.
We can well understand why the Bible translators used the word "Wife" rather than "Woman" in both Genesis and Matthew. In English, to say that a man shall be joined to his woman might suggest something other than marriage to lazy ears, even though it is clear from the context that marriage is the only possible understanding of the words. But, in this day and age, we need to know that in Hebrew and in Greek the words for "Woman" and "Wife" are the same, with the meaning of a married couple derived from the context.
I was made aware of some celebrity championing same sex "marriage" with the argument that its advocates do not want to change the definition of what marriage is. That statement constitutes a factual absurdity. Of course it is a redefinition. In the whole history of the world every civilization has known that sexual complementarity - male and female - are of the very essence of what marriage is. It has never been understood any other way. From the teaching of scripture we see why: It is literally a part of God's creation, and not a man-made institution. Its roots do not come from jurisprudence. It is a part of human nature itself, as anthropology confirms (this celebrity went on to bring up Women's Suffrage and the Civil Rights Movement as if there is a connection between those important accomplishments and this new same sex "marriage" idea. But there is no genuine connection, none whatsoever; only what some want to create by the power of suggestion rather than by facts, reason and logic).
The new idea of same-sex marriage has been confused with the idea of Civil Rights in the secular arena. But honesty compels us to say that in Sacramental Theology it is not a matter of rights, but rather of definition. One might as well argue that a triangle has the right to define itself as a circle, and that such an expanded definition of the word "circle" would not change the nature of circleness. If the word "circle" can mean also a triangle, then we have lost the meaning of the word. Such a definition is too inclusive to be meaningful. If the cause of including recognition of a triangle as a circle is fortified by the ruling of a court, all that would happen is that Mathematics teachers could no longer teach geometry, that is, not truly, because words would have lost their meaning. That is what the secular arena has done to the word "marriage." But the Church must not accept the world's standards as her own.
The revelation of Christ’s own teaching is not subject to change, whether one wishes to call it by such euphemisms as “evolving” or “being led by the Spirit.” The Holy Spirit will not contradict what Christ has taught, because God will not contradict God. The truth is settled forever. Marriage is an institution ordained by God for one man and one woman, and it is God Who makes the man and the woman one flesh.
Wednesday, December 03, 2014
Who needs Canterbury?
Was there any doubt that the Church of England would vote to have women "bishops" from now on? How is the C of E really any different from the Episcopal "Church" here in the United States, other than certain particular cultural traits of the English and the C's Establishment (i.e., as the State Church)? Nonetheless, we see the phenomenon of some people in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) openly trumpeting communion with Canterbury as some sort of advantage, as if it provides a superior status of some kind, making them the authentic Anglicans. We see the phenomenon of the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) apparently delighted finally, since its birth in the 1870s, to have a connection to the See of Canterbury.
Continuing Anglicans did initially seek to begin their venture hoping to be in communion with Canterbury. In the Affirmation of St. Louis, back in 1977, we find this:
"The Continuation of Communion with Canterbury
We affirm our continued relations of communion with the See of Canterbury and all faithful parts of the Anglican Communion. WHEREFORE, with a firm trust in Divine Providence, and before Almighty God and all the company of heaven, we solemnly affirm, covenant and declare that we, lawful and faithful members of the Anglican and Episcopal Churches, shall now and hereafter continue and be the unified continuing Anglican Church in North America, in true and valid succession thereto."
Then Archbishop of Canterbury, Donald Coggan, strongly opposed the new Continuing Church, and gave it no recognition. As a result, the Continuers went ahead without any official status as part of the Anglican Communion. Frankly, forced to choose between orthodoxy and Anglican Communion membership, it was clear that genuine fidelity to Christ required the willingness to forego that membership. After a while, it became obvious that this estrangement was beneficial to the Continuing churches. The Anglican Catholic Church even went so far as to add this note to the original Affirmation of St. Louis:
"[Note: Because of the action of General Synod of the Church of England, Parliament, and the Royal Assent, the College of Bishops of the Anglican Catholic Church is obliged no longer to count the See of Canterbury as a faithful part of the Anglican Communion.]"
The operative word is "faithful," both in the original and in the note. To preserve Church order and the validity of Holy Orders, the separation proved necessary. Perhaps there exists a failure of communication between us and the ACNA. You see, we are glad not to be in communion with Canterbury. If we were offered communion with Canterbury we would decline it, as in "Thanks, but no thanks."
The ACNA, on the other hand (which still has Priestesses in the Church, though we hope, and pray, not for long), has held communion with Canterbury as worth having. And this comes at a time when the Anglican Communion is falling apart, due largely to the refusal of African churches to participate in future Lambeth Conferences. For most of those African Anglicans, the final straw has been the liberal acceptance of homosexual acts, something very clearly revealed to be sin in the Scriptures.
Perhaps, under political pressure, someday in the future, the Church of England will go the way of the Church of Sweden, where the clergy are required by law to perform same-sex "weddings." I have no doubt that right here, in my adopted state of North Carolina, the local Episcopalians will be performing same-sex "weddings" and feeling all warm and fuzzy about how liberal and advanced they have become. The See of Canterbury has watched for years the Episcopalians, trailing only slightly behind them into heresy and apostasy.
Back in the beginning, the Continuers saw that ordination of women was simply the latest symptom, and one that required separation to protect sacramental validity. The arguments that were used for women's ordination were not merely similar to the arguments for acceptance of homosexual acts, leading to same-sex "blessings" and now "weddings," but largely the very same arguments. Just substitute a word here and there, and it all boils down to the same reasoning. Where did it begin? By believing that a person's sex (not "gender"- the word is "sex"- as in male and female) was totally irrelevant to anything sacramental. So, it went from ordination to marriage. The confusion of seeing a woman "priest" at the altar, portraying the heavenly Bridegroom, and seeing two people of the same sex get "married" to each other, may be different in degree, but it is the same in kind. The C of E, with its priestesses and bishopettes, is just a little behind the Episcopalians here in America. It is only a matter of time, as always.
What is the Anglican Communion anyway? Was the Episcopal Church part of something called the Anglican Communion in the late eighteenth century? How about during the War of 1812? Historically, the Anglican Communion is a very recent thing.
I would urge my friends in the ACNA, including those in the REC, to cut themselves free from the weight of it. Of my charity, I wish they would take several pages from our book. One of those pages says we don't need communion with the See of Canterbury. No orthodox church body does. In fact, no orthodox church body can afford the price that comes with it.
Continuing Anglicans did initially seek to begin their venture hoping to be in communion with Canterbury. In the Affirmation of St. Louis, back in 1977, we find this:
"The Continuation of Communion with Canterbury
We affirm our continued relations of communion with the See of Canterbury and all faithful parts of the Anglican Communion. WHEREFORE, with a firm trust in Divine Providence, and before Almighty God and all the company of heaven, we solemnly affirm, covenant and declare that we, lawful and faithful members of the Anglican and Episcopal Churches, shall now and hereafter continue and be the unified continuing Anglican Church in North America, in true and valid succession thereto."
Then Archbishop of Canterbury, Donald Coggan, strongly opposed the new Continuing Church, and gave it no recognition. As a result, the Continuers went ahead without any official status as part of the Anglican Communion. Frankly, forced to choose between orthodoxy and Anglican Communion membership, it was clear that genuine fidelity to Christ required the willingness to forego that membership. After a while, it became obvious that this estrangement was beneficial to the Continuing churches. The Anglican Catholic Church even went so far as to add this note to the original Affirmation of St. Louis:
"[Note: Because of the action of General Synod of the Church of England, Parliament, and the Royal Assent, the College of Bishops of the Anglican Catholic Church is obliged no longer to count the See of Canterbury as a faithful part of the Anglican Communion.]"
The operative word is "faithful," both in the original and in the note. To preserve Church order and the validity of Holy Orders, the separation proved necessary. Perhaps there exists a failure of communication between us and the ACNA. You see, we are glad not to be in communion with Canterbury. If we were offered communion with Canterbury we would decline it, as in "Thanks, but no thanks."
The ACNA, on the other hand (which still has Priestesses in the Church, though we hope, and pray, not for long), has held communion with Canterbury as worth having. And this comes at a time when the Anglican Communion is falling apart, due largely to the refusal of African churches to participate in future Lambeth Conferences. For most of those African Anglicans, the final straw has been the liberal acceptance of homosexual acts, something very clearly revealed to be sin in the Scriptures.
Perhaps, under political pressure, someday in the future, the Church of England will go the way of the Church of Sweden, where the clergy are required by law to perform same-sex "weddings." I have no doubt that right here, in my adopted state of North Carolina, the local Episcopalians will be performing same-sex "weddings" and feeling all warm and fuzzy about how liberal and advanced they have become. The See of Canterbury has watched for years the Episcopalians, trailing only slightly behind them into heresy and apostasy.
Back in the beginning, the Continuers saw that ordination of women was simply the latest symptom, and one that required separation to protect sacramental validity. The arguments that were used for women's ordination were not merely similar to the arguments for acceptance of homosexual acts, leading to same-sex "blessings" and now "weddings," but largely the very same arguments. Just substitute a word here and there, and it all boils down to the same reasoning. Where did it begin? By believing that a person's sex (not "gender"- the word is "sex"- as in male and female) was totally irrelevant to anything sacramental. So, it went from ordination to marriage. The confusion of seeing a woman "priest" at the altar, portraying the heavenly Bridegroom, and seeing two people of the same sex get "married" to each other, may be different in degree, but it is the same in kind. The C of E, with its priestesses and bishopettes, is just a little behind the Episcopalians here in America. It is only a matter of time, as always.
What is the Anglican Communion anyway? Was the Episcopal Church part of something called the Anglican Communion in the late eighteenth century? How about during the War of 1812? Historically, the Anglican Communion is a very recent thing.
I would urge my friends in the ACNA, including those in the REC, to cut themselves free from the weight of it. Of my charity, I wish they would take several pages from our book. One of those pages says we don't need communion with the See of Canterbury. No orthodox church body does. In fact, no orthodox church body can afford the price that comes with it.
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
What's the difference...
...between us & the Anglican Church North America (ACNA)? This question comes up at least once a day.
Officially, the difference is that the ACNA is treating the latest stages of a disease that has been allowed too long to develop. We deplore blessing of same-sex unions as much as the next fellow; but we also deplore the basic rejection of God's own authority that laid the groundwork, the earlier rebellion that made this latest symptom of ECUSAnism possible. We recognized the earlier symptoms of the fatal disease back in 1977. We knew that we had to treat it drastically by cutting out the infected organs and taking the full dose of antibiotics. But, the leaders of the ACNA have yet to detect the early symptoms, for they still accept priestesses in the church.
This confusion about sexual identity in one sacrament, ordination, was the necessary first step leading to rejection of the marriage sacrament and covenant as established by God in the creation of Man. If a woman can be ordained to a male role (a father in the household of God-see I Tim. 3), then two men can marry each other, or two women. Therefore, though we may pray for our ACNA brthren to become enlightened, we cannot join with them. They are following along the same path as the Episcopalians, only they are going at a slower pace from a further distance. The destination is the same.
This old essay, reprinted from October 2007, may help explain:
Officially, the difference is that the ACNA is treating the latest stages of a disease that has been allowed too long to develop. We deplore blessing of same-sex unions as much as the next fellow; but we also deplore the basic rejection of God's own authority that laid the groundwork, the earlier rebellion that made this latest symptom of ECUSAnism possible. We recognized the earlier symptoms of the fatal disease back in 1977. We knew that we had to treat it drastically by cutting out the infected organs and taking the full dose of antibiotics. But, the leaders of the ACNA have yet to detect the early symptoms, for they still accept priestesses in the church.
This confusion about sexual identity in one sacrament, ordination, was the necessary first step leading to rejection of the marriage sacrament and covenant as established by God in the creation of Man. If a woman can be ordained to a male role (a father in the household of God-see I Tim. 3), then two men can marry each other, or two women. Therefore, though we may pray for our ACNA brthren to become enlightened, we cannot join with them. They are following along the same path as the Episcopalians, only they are going at a slower pace from a further distance. The destination is the same.
This old essay, reprinted from October 2007, may help explain:
The Holy Ghost made me do it
Flip Wilson's Geraldine character said "the Devil made me do it." It is what modern ECUSAns have been saying about the Holy Spirit. "The Holy Spirit" has made them do all sorts of things, from "ordaining" women to blessing the "union" of man and husband, and of woman and wife. Soon, the Holy Spirit will be blamed when they bless the union of a man and his horse. And, the "wedding" will be beautiful, full of warm and fuzzy things that bring tears to the eyes of animal lovers everywhere. Some ECUSAn conservatives who embrace "Biblical doctrine" will approve of the union as long as the horse and the human are of the opposite sex. As Fr. Thomas Hopko of the Orthodox Church said to my brother David (sorry to say, in a conversation you cannot google up on your computer), "the Holy Spirit does all sorts of things that the Holy Ghost would never do."
The problem with those who are "led by the Spirit" is that they must re-imagine the Bible and disregard Tradition. To do this, they must first invent little fictions. Did you know, for example, that New Testament approves of and endorses slavery? This would have come as no small surprise to the American Abolitionists who based their movement on their Christian Faith and scripture. But, now we have the generally accepted consensus of the Revisionists. I suppose that Saint Paul, instead of teaching the right way of life to Christians who were slaves under the pagan system of Rome, should have urged a Spartacus style revolution, no doubt with the same results, instead of carrying out his mission. His failure to do so must be read as approval of slavery, if not endorsement. And, why must it be so read? To make the Revisionist argument, that's why. Obviously, these Revisionists have never read Deuteronomy 23:15, 16: "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him." The abolitionists, however, had read it.
These allegedly Spirit led innovations teach us that God is capricious, but at least he is growing in his understanding, and so leading us to follow him in his own search for enlightenment. It took him quite a while, by another of their fictions, to figure out what to do with Gentiles in the Church (it seems that their Holy Spirit, unlike the One we know, never plans ahead). Once again, a little passage of scripture the Revisionists seem never to have read is Acts 11:17, 18. "[Peter said] Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." They confuse Peter's later flaw, as recorded in the Epistle to the Galatians when he was corrected by St. Paul, with the heresy of the "Judaizers" that sprung up even later still. They miss the fact that Paul corrected his fellow apostle on the basis of settled, revealed, doctrine already established, and that the Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) defended and upheld that same established doctrine. But, by inventing this period of doctrinal confusion, this historical "fact" of their collective imagination, they show once again, by using scripture (in clear "Jehovah's Witness" style) that their God takes a while to figure these things out, and then leads them into the newest discovery of his limited, finite understanding, His never-ending search for truth.
So, their Holy Spirit takes them into new and unsettled territory as he matures and learns. Our Holy Ghost, however young He was on the Day of Pentecost, has become old and set in His ways. He does not approve of women's "ordination" anymore than He did when Christ bestowed Him on the Apostles. And, He does not bless same sex unions, no matter how many clergy persons do. The Revisionists have used the same arguments for women's "ordination" that they now use for Homosexualism because, they walk in the same spirit, and in the same steps. And, no, it is not the Holy Spirit.
If they are going to quote Flip Wilson, they ought to quote him verbatim.
_______
So, you see, returning to 2011; the difference between us and the ACNA is that they have no ultimate defense against the thinking I have described above.
The problem with those who are "led by the Spirit" is that they must re-imagine the Bible and disregard Tradition. To do this, they must first invent little fictions. Did you know, for example, that New Testament approves of and endorses slavery? This would have come as no small surprise to the American Abolitionists who based their movement on their Christian Faith and scripture. But, now we have the generally accepted consensus of the Revisionists. I suppose that Saint Paul, instead of teaching the right way of life to Christians who were slaves under the pagan system of Rome, should have urged a Spartacus style revolution, no doubt with the same results, instead of carrying out his mission. His failure to do so must be read as approval of slavery, if not endorsement. And, why must it be so read? To make the Revisionist argument, that's why. Obviously, these Revisionists have never read Deuteronomy 23:15, 16: "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him." The abolitionists, however, had read it.
These allegedly Spirit led innovations teach us that God is capricious, but at least he is growing in his understanding, and so leading us to follow him in his own search for enlightenment. It took him quite a while, by another of their fictions, to figure out what to do with Gentiles in the Church (it seems that their Holy Spirit, unlike the One we know, never plans ahead). Once again, a little passage of scripture the Revisionists seem never to have read is Acts 11:17, 18. "[Peter said] Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." They confuse Peter's later flaw, as recorded in the Epistle to the Galatians when he was corrected by St. Paul, with the heresy of the "Judaizers" that sprung up even later still. They miss the fact that Paul corrected his fellow apostle on the basis of settled, revealed, doctrine already established, and that the Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) defended and upheld that same established doctrine. But, by inventing this period of doctrinal confusion, this historical "fact" of their collective imagination, they show once again, by using scripture (in clear "Jehovah's Witness" style) that their God takes a while to figure these things out, and then leads them into the newest discovery of his limited, finite understanding, His never-ending search for truth.
So, their Holy Spirit takes them into new and unsettled territory as he matures and learns. Our Holy Ghost, however young He was on the Day of Pentecost, has become old and set in His ways. He does not approve of women's "ordination" anymore than He did when Christ bestowed Him on the Apostles. And, He does not bless same sex unions, no matter how many clergy persons do. The Revisionists have used the same arguments for women's "ordination" that they now use for Homosexualism because, they walk in the same spirit, and in the same steps. And, no, it is not the Holy Spirit.
If they are going to quote Flip Wilson, they ought to quote him verbatim.
_______
So, you see, returning to 2011; the difference between us and the ACNA is that they have no ultimate defense against the thinking I have described above.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
"GAY" ROMAN CATHOLIC SEMINARIES
On his blog, Anglican Catholic Priest, Fr. John Roddy has written:
You may read the information posted as "GAY" ROMAN CATHOLIC SEMINARIES by clicking on the title.
"In the interest of full disclosure to Anglicans considering accepting the terms of conversion to Roman Catholicism outlined in Anglicorum Coeitibus I am posting excerpts and links to two articles one from News Week and another from Ignatius Press. The one in News Week is approving of the capture of the Roman Seminaries by organized leftists homosexuals. The one from Ignatius Press is an account from a young man who endured the "gay" atmosphere that was imposed on the seminary."
You may read the information posted as "GAY" ROMAN CATHOLIC SEMINARIES by clicking on the title.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Now more than ever
Those of you who want to see the Anglican T.V. presentation of the CCP creation of a "new province" may click here. However, this is strictly FYI, inasmuch as we cannot endorse the creation of a church body that includes a very broad and wide tent of theological disparity. Although we pray for these Anglicans as fellow Christians, and especially as Anglicans of a sort, we must remain separate from a "province" that builds its constitution on the principles of the Jerusalem Declaration of GAFCON. Concerning that statement, no finer analysis can be found that the one written by Archbishop Mark Haverland. We posted that statement here, as well as a statement by Fr. John Hollister.
Near the beginning of his statement, Archbishop Haverland wrote: "GAFCON produced a now widely published statement which does not address the innovations that led to the formation of our own Continuing Church in 1976-8: namely the ‘ordination of women’, a new and radical Prayer Book, and a pro-abortion policy." This brings me to my main point. As much as some of us may be on the side of our "Common Cause Partnership" (CCP) brethren and friends emotionally, this new "province" begins its life with the same infection that has killed the Episcopal "Church" and is killing the worldwide Anglican Communion. It may progress more slowly, but it cannot fail to progress.
The result is that, in the day to day world of our churches in real life communities, "where the rubber hits the road," such a church body creates an unfortunate competition for the hearts and minds, and therefore the affiliation, of well-meaning Christians who desire to be faithful and orthodox. In all honesty, and in all sincerity, we know that the truth is stated in our own Affirmation of St. Louis. As a result of the formation of this new "province" our fidelity to, and proclamation of the principles of our Affirmation, is called for now more than ever. Because this new CCP province, led mostly by Bishop Bob Duncan, includes toleration of modern practices that were never allowed in the Apostolic Catholic Tradition of the Church (in which Tradition and for its members, the New Testament was written and recognized as part of the whole Canon of Sacred Scripture), this new church body adds it voice to the general confusion of the world. To use C.S. Lewis terminology, it retains the errors common to our age.
_____
Regarding the entire CCP and GAFCON movement, it is their claim that their main issue is not simply the Homosexualist heresy in some modern Anglican churches, but rather fidelity to scripture and its teaching. To that we answer in two ways. The first is contained in what I stated above, that the Scriptures come from Holy Spirit working within the Church, for the Church, and can be understood rightly, therefore, only with the aid of the entire Apostolic and Catholic Tradition. The second thing we say to them, in reply, is that while we may accept the sincerity of their claim, why has it taken this one issue of Homosexualism to move them to action? Why did they not join with us to resist equally anti-scriptural behavior and doctrine? I am afraid that we know the answer, about which I wrote a controversial article some time ago, which appeared in the pages of Touchstone, and which you may find here.
______
One more thing today. Regarding the above, I want to make available to our readers an analysis from Fr. Geoffrey Kirk of Forward in Faith, United Kingdom (FIF/UK). Although Fr. Kirk is not of the Continuing Church, his writing is always worth reading. This article is particularly relevant to all of the above.
Near the beginning of his statement, Archbishop Haverland wrote: "GAFCON produced a now widely published statement which does not address the innovations that led to the formation of our own Continuing Church in 1976-8: namely the ‘ordination of women’, a new and radical Prayer Book, and a pro-abortion policy." This brings me to my main point. As much as some of us may be on the side of our "Common Cause Partnership" (CCP) brethren and friends emotionally, this new "province" begins its life with the same infection that has killed the Episcopal "Church" and is killing the worldwide Anglican Communion. It may progress more slowly, but it cannot fail to progress.
The result is that, in the day to day world of our churches in real life communities, "where the rubber hits the road," such a church body creates an unfortunate competition for the hearts and minds, and therefore the affiliation, of well-meaning Christians who desire to be faithful and orthodox. In all honesty, and in all sincerity, we know that the truth is stated in our own Affirmation of St. Louis. As a result of the formation of this new "province" our fidelity to, and proclamation of the principles of our Affirmation, is called for now more than ever. Because this new CCP province, led mostly by Bishop Bob Duncan, includes toleration of modern practices that were never allowed in the Apostolic Catholic Tradition of the Church (in which Tradition and for its members, the New Testament was written and recognized as part of the whole Canon of Sacred Scripture), this new church body adds it voice to the general confusion of the world. To use C.S. Lewis terminology, it retains the errors common to our age.
_____
Regarding the entire CCP and GAFCON movement, it is their claim that their main issue is not simply the Homosexualist heresy in some modern Anglican churches, but rather fidelity to scripture and its teaching. To that we answer in two ways. The first is contained in what I stated above, that the Scriptures come from Holy Spirit working within the Church, for the Church, and can be understood rightly, therefore, only with the aid of the entire Apostolic and Catholic Tradition. The second thing we say to them, in reply, is that while we may accept the sincerity of their claim, why has it taken this one issue of Homosexualism to move them to action? Why did they not join with us to resist equally anti-scriptural behavior and doctrine? I am afraid that we know the answer, about which I wrote a controversial article some time ago, which appeared in the pages of Touchstone, and which you may find here.
______
One more thing today. Regarding the above, I want to make available to our readers an analysis from Fr. Geoffrey Kirk of Forward in Faith, United Kingdom (FIF/UK). Although Fr. Kirk is not of the Continuing Church, his writing is always worth reading. This article is particularly relevant to all of the above.
the way we live now
Geoffrey Kirk has been listening to Bishop Gene Robinson and finds him percipient in his understanding of the issues
What would we do without Gene Robinson? He is the bellwether of the liberal agenda. Like God himself, if he did not exist it would be necessary to invent him.
Long ago, when women's ordination was no more than an idea in the mind of Christian Howard, many of us were warning that gay marriages and gay bishops were the logical corollaries. Of course we were ridiculed. The issues were discrete and distinct, it was said. No connection between them could reasonably be posited. Evangelicals in favour of women's ordination were especially adamant on the subject. I recall one particular Archdeacon...but it would be churlish to mock the retired.
Now Gene (bless him!) has come forward with a belated vindication of all those fears - as if the progress of the agenda were not now plain for all to see. Gene was addressing a conference of gay American Roman Catholic priests (like diligent Pharisees, revisionist liberals will encompass sea and land to make one proselyte, and with the same result). He concluded with the following advice: 'It's too dangerous for you to come out as gay to your superiors, but I believe that if you work for the ordination of women in your church, you will go a long way toward opening the door for the acceptance of gay priests.'
It is worth setting out, therefore (for those who still doubt it) why Gene is right about the connection between women's ordination and gay bishops, and to state as clearly as we can what that connection is.
To begin with first principles: what is human life for? To this question orthodox Christians have traditionally replied that it is to be lived in obedient service to God and in the hope hereafter to enjoy him for ever. For liberal Christians, on the contrary, it is self-evident that the end of human existence is self-fulfilment and self-realization. We are, quite literally, an end in ourselves: I exist in order fully to express the person that I am.
From such an understanding it follows that anything which limits or curtails free expression of the self is wicked and destructive. Social or sexual stereotypes not only limit human freedom, but destroy individual potential. We are made, not to conform but to choose. Each person has an inalienable right to be what he or she wishes to be and (so long as the rights of others are respected) to do what he or she wants to do. The argument between liberal and traditional Christians therefore is one of teleology. Catholic Christians find fulfilment in conformity to the given ('...whose service is perfect freedom'). For liberal Christians the highest good is the affirmation of the self (T am what I am').
From this liberal understanding two things follow.
First, it follows that there can be no legitimate reason to prohibit anyone, at any time, from any role, social or sacramental, to which they believe themselves to be called. All professions should be open to both women and men, and no restraints (other than those strictly dictated by biology) should affect men and women in their relationships one with another.
Secondly, it follows that arguments in favour of such restraints and prohibitions must be maliciously self-interested ('...he would say that wouldn't he'). So the arguments for an all male priesthood are seen as part of an over-arching patriarchalist conspiracy and the arguments against gay marriage seek only to sustain the privileges presently (and unjustly) accorded to married heterosexuals. This hermeneutic of suspicion, moreover, attaches not only to contemporary protagonists but to the whole of the tradition and to the Scriptures themselves. There can be no appeal to authority because all authority is necessarily tainted.
Whilst it is by no means certain that Gene has worked all this out consciously, he knows it subliminally He knows that the principal difficulty for homosexual-ists is the explicit prohibitions of Scripture, and that it is not enough to appeal to some over-arching trajectory of'inclusivity' against them.
Scripture itself must be relativized and neutralized. And what better to assist in that process than the ordination of women - where no specific text of Scripture can be cited, and where the unbroken tradition of two thousand years can be portrayed as a perversion of the real meaning of the Bible by a self-interested and repressive clique?
And if Gene knows only too well the uses of the hermeneutic of suspicion, he is just as clear about the dialectic of guilt. Women's ordination in The Episcopal Church was swept forward on a tide of liberal guilt - guilt for the church's attitude to black Episcopalians, which found institutional expression as late as the 1980s. The improbable analogy between slavery and an all male priesthood was a significant factor in the campaign to ordain women; perhaps the most important. Now the displacement of guilt is to be deployed (even less plausibly) in favour of gay marriages and the ordination of practising gays.
Rome, of course, is a tough nut to crack. Thus far the liberal tide has broken against that rock. Humanae Vitae still stands, and women's ordination has been declared to be beyond the Church's competence. It is obvious that if the Doctrine of Self-Fulfilment is to replace the notion of obedience to Revelation (if the gospel of Rousseau is to replace that of Jesus Christ) a breach must be made. Where better to begin, in a Church which accords such honour to the Mother of God, than with the role women play in the sacramental life?
It must by now be clear to every diligent observer that the Catholic Church is crucial in the fight for the very survival of Christianity in the secularised West. If the culture of secular humanism (or de-humanisation, as it appears to faithful Christians) is to be resisted and finally overcome it will be through the exercise of the Roman Magisterium.
Gene has, characteristically, got it absolutely right. If Rome can be forced into retreat on one major issue (and, improbably as it seems at the moment, women's ordination may well be that issue) then the dam is broken and the rest will follow. If Rome stands firm, then the vaunted experiments of The Episcopal Church will wither on the vine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)