Episcopal chruch approves gay bishop

It seems to me, as an outsider, that a final decision (apparently there is one more vote to be taken this week) in favor will inevitably split the church. If there are things that just can't be papered over, this is surely one of them.

 

Hopefully it will split the church, because then the more biblical remnant can come out and be counted. One very good scenario would be for a province of conservative Episcopalians to be recognized by the worldwide Anglican communion, and for the individual churches to then join that synod. A best-case scenario would have the communion withdraw recognition of the Episcopal Church other than the new conservative synod both as apostate and even maybe out of apostolic succession.

 

Forgive my ignorance here but I thought the Anglican Church was already doing some of these more liberal things....marrying gays, ordaining women etc?

Maybe I don't understand what you are saying?


LaRae

 

Why not just call it what is is. It ain't
Liberal--------------IT'S SIN!

The reason was in the past, small Episcopalian
congregations could just shake their heads at
what they might call fringe groups. Now, they
are faced with a loose Cannon who WILL have a
DIRECT influence on Episcopalian positions.
It will be a matter of Genes and not sin. The
gay divorcee and his "friends" will have
imput in every "Episcopalian" church. A
question is still, "Where Have You Gone Mrs.
Robinson". And is it my imagination or is his
present partner alot younger...
Funny, on the TODAY SHOW I heard Gene talking and
he said he prays and listens to what GOD says
to him. He said it may JUST BE HIS EGO SPEAKING
but thinks it's GOD. The Scripture, Bible,
the WORD of GOD was NEVER mentioned.
Who is on the LORD's side and who is on Gene's?
It would seem the the Episcopalian church has a
Tobiah to deal with, but are they Christian enough?

 

Just to clarify, the EC did not approve him as Bishop. A lower governing body approved his nomination. The decision now goes before a council of bishops, who will decide whether or not to confirm him.

 

From what I understand, the confirmation of Robinson takes three rounds of votes. So far, he's gotten two out of the three. But what I've heard from speculation this morning, it is almost expected that he will get the third vote.

Quite honestly, I don't see how this issue couldn't split the Episcopalian church. Many American dioceses as well as international ones have denounced this confirmation.

 

God has already cast the one and only "vote" that counts. God does not approve of homosexuality. Lev. 18:22. He will not allow those who practice such to enter the kingdom of Heaven. I Cor.6:9,10. Instead of entering heaven they will receive the recompense due them as per their deeds. Romans 1:22- 27,Romans 2:6, II Cor. 5:10.
It would behoove the one in consideration to repent before it is impossible to do so. II Pet. 3:9-11.

 

So what is different between installing a homosexual and installing child molesters like the Catholic church has done? Or Keeping whoremongers as some protestant churches have done?

 

So then, gays are all child molesters?

Do you also believe that all blacks are lazy and stupid or that all Jews are greedy?

 

Most of the priests in the scandal did not molest children, but young men who were just not of legal age yet--so it was still sex abuse, but it was not pedophilia: it was really a gay priest scandal.

 

Forgive my ignorance here but I thought the Anglican Church was already doing some of these more liberal things....marrying gays, ordaining women etc?

Maybe I don't understand what you are saying?

LaRae </font>[/QUOTE]The Anglicans have gradually recognized, one national denomination at a time, God's call to women into ordained ministry, but apostate things like ordaining openly unrepentant sinners like practicing gays--that's causing a huge uproar by opponents within Anglicanism. They do already have gay priests, but they have authority only over their individual congregations that accepted them. The issue now is a gay bishop, who would have authority throughout a whole diocese and a vote in denomination-wide policies (plus serve as the camel's nose under the tent).

 

The Anglicans have gradually recognized, one national denomination at a time, God's call to women into ordained ministry, but apostate things like ordaining openly unrepentant sinners like practicing gays--that's causing a huge uproar by opponents within Anglicanism. They do already have gay priests, but they have authority only over their individual congregations that accepted them. The issue now is a gay bishop, who would have authority throughout a whole diocese and a vote in denomination-wide policies (plus serve as the camel's nose under the tent). [/QB][/QUOTE]


Well I consider women's ordination 'apostate' right along with the rest....I think what we are seeing now is no surprise...the slippery slope is accelerating (first birth control now openly practicing gay priests.....)


LaRae

 

I think the president of the church at Cenchrea (the deacon Phoebe), the teacher-of-men Prisca, the apostle Junia, and all the women who were prophets in the NT (who outranked everybody but apostles) might disagree. Admittedly, Paul did make an exception to his egalitarianism for the church at Ephesus, because of the situation there involving gnostics of the Artemis cult inflitrating the church with their teachings of female superiority, original female Deity being the author (creator, Greek authentein, sometimes translated 'usurp') of man, of woman being first in creation order, and of their goddess having no need for a male in order to experience childbirth. On the other hand, his championship of equality between the sexes shone as usual when he defended his teaching that women could speak and prophesy the Word of God and pray aloud in the assembly when in 1 Corinthians 14 he quoted his misogynistic opponents before soundly refuting them; note his use of the particle 'h throughout the epistle.

 

I think the president of the church at Cenchrea (the deacon Phoebe), the teacher-of-men Prisca, the apostle Junia, and all the women who were prophets in the NT (who outranked everybody but apostles) might disagree. Admittedly, Paul did make an exception to his egalitarianism for the church at Ephesus, because of the situation there involving gnostics of the Artemis cult inflitrating the church with their teachings of female superiority, original female Deity being the author (creator, Greek authentein, sometimes translated 'usurp') of man, of woman being first in creation order, and of their goddess having no need for a male in order to experience childbirth. On the other hand, his championship of equality between the sexes shone as usual when he defended his teaching that women could speak and prophesy the Word of God and pray aloud in the assembly when in 1 Corinthians 14 he quoted his misogynistic opponents before soundly refuting them; note his use of the particle 'h throughout the epistle. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I've heard all the arguments before and they are all wishful thinking....and you notice that Jesus (who outranks everyone) did not make ANY women apostles nor did he give them the authority to bind and loose or carry out his message in a ministerial sense.

It's one thing to spread the word of Christianity and completely another to minister to the needs of a congregation and be in authority over them.


LaRae

 

I think the president of the church at Cenchrea (the deacon Phoebe), the teacher-of-men Prisca, the apostle Junia, and all the women who were prophets in the NT (who outranked everybody but apostles) might disagree. Admittedly, Paul did make an exception to his egalitarianism for the church at Ephesus, because of the situation there involving gnostics of the Artemis cult inflitrating the church with their teachings of female superiority, original female Deity being the author (creator, Greek authentein, sometimes translated 'usurp') of man, of woman being first in creation order, and of their goddess having no need for a male in order to experience childbirth. On the other hand, his championship of equality between the sexes shone as usual when he defended his teaching that women could speak and prophesy the Word of God and pray aloud in the assembly when in 1 Corinthians 14 he quoted his misogynistic opponents before soundly refuting them; note his use of the particle 'h throughout the epistle. </font>[/QUOTE]I've heard all the arguments before and they are all wishful thinking....and you notice that Jesus (who outranks everyone) did not make ANY women apostles nor did he give them the authority to bind and loose or carry out his message in a ministerial sense.

It's one thing to spread the word of Christianity and completely another to minister to the needs of a congregation and be in authority over them.


LaRae [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I don't consider God's Word wishful thinking. And as for Jesus, His appointments were made in the Palestinian world and did not include Gentiles. Thus the church can only ordain Jewish men? I've heard the arguments from people trying to nullify God's chosen ministers before myself, and they don't hold up to sound exegesis.

I trust then that you don't speak in church, that you wear a modest katastole, and whenever you pray or prophesy you only do so with your whole head veiled. And you don't recognize anyone as ordained who isn't a married man with obedient children.

 

Oh, and Episcopalians in America have the choice to leave the Episcopal Church but remain Anglican:

The Episcopal News Service has noted, "Since the Denver General Convention, there have been scattered reports of priests and parishes leaving the Episcopal Church and affiliating with the newly formed Anglican Mission in America (AMiA), the umbrella organization for 'missionary work' undertaken in the U.S. by the Church of South East Asia and the Church of Rwanda."

According to http://www.theamia.org/ ,

"The Anglican Mission in America was born in Amsterdam in August of 2000 following three years of preparation.

"At Amsterdam, Archbishops Kolini of Rwanda and Yong of South East Asia gave the signal 'Full Speed Ahead' to what had been the First Promise Movement and AACOM (Association of Anglican Congregations on Mission),and the Anglican Mission in America was born. Bishops Chuck Murphy and John Rodgers—who had been consecrated Missionary Bishops to the United States from Rwanda and South East Asia January 29, 2000, Singapore—became the overseers of a dynamic Anglican mission on American shores. Four additional bishops were consecrated in Denver last summer, and things have been full speed ahead ever since.

"The Anglican Mission provides a way for congregations and clergy to be fully Anglican—connected to the worldwide Anglican Communion through the leadership in Rwanda and South East Asia—while, at the same time, being free of the crises of faith, leadership and mission in the Episcopal Church USA."

 

So what is different between installing a homosexual and installing child molesters like the Catholic church has done? Or Keeping whoremongers as some protestant churches have done?

If the RCC had paraded a child molester as priest and then "Affirmed" that this behavior was to be fully embraced by the church as "normal" or as a "personnal morally neutral preference" THEN we would have "the same thing" as the atrocity being displayed in the Episcopalian church today.

Lev 18 makes it "very clear" that this particular level of moral depravity - approving this practice - is one of the crimes for which the "pagan" nation of the Caananites were cast out BEFORE Israel came into being.

Lev 18 did NOT charge the pagan nations with the crime of idolatry, or adultery or Sabbath breaking. None of that was applied to them - though they were clearly guilty of all of it. But in that PURELY secular state of Pagan Caananites - God condemned them - and crushed their civilization DUE to the sins listed in Lev 18.

And guess what we find there in that list?

There is no way to "put a nice face" on that sin.

There is no way to put "enough lipstick on that pig" to make it fly at a party.

In Christ,

Bob

 

America is "At risk" as a nation in approving of those same Lev 18 sins. However, when we see Christian groups promoting approval of those sins at the very hightest levels - well there either "IS" a God or there "isn't".

Either Soddom and Gomorrah WERE destroyed by God or they weren't.

There either WAS a world wide Flood - or as 2Peter 3 predicts "the will be those who say that there WASN't such a thing".

There either IS a creator who Created "For in SIX days the LORD created the heavens and the earth and the sea and ALL that is in them" or there WASN'T.

So much has been done in recent decades to embrace man-over-Bible "as if" God isn't politically correct "enough" - to "Fit in" today and not "scientific" enough to actually MAKE our solar system and living biosphere as HE stated.

The recent step of the particular sect of the Episcopal church -- is just another "example".

In Christ,

Bob