Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Has the Episcopal Church really been "Falsely Accused"? Part V
Stand Firm ^ | 9/05/2006 | Matt Kennedy

Posted on 09/05/2006 6:06:00 PM PDT by sionnsar

The Episcopal Church is not the victim. Rather, she has, by her official actions, tightened the chains on those already caught up in sexual sin. Rather than proclaiming repentance and freedom, the Church has become propagandist for a form of rebellion and disobedience that leads to physical and spiritual enslavement.

In this fifth installment of my response to Fr. Tom Woodward’s apology for the Episcopal Church entitled, Falsely Accused, I will address Fr. Tom’s assertions in his second point, namely that the AAC, the Network and the Church of Nigeria have falsely accused the Episcopal Church of “embracing sin”.

In the first three installments of this series I demonstrated that:

1. Not only have false teachers like John Shelby Spong and Dr. Marcus Borg been given the unfettered freedom to preach and teach in parishes and diocesan gatherings accross the Episcopal Church for the last thirty years, but their message has been embraced and trumpeted by influential leaders in the highest echelon including, notably, the Presiding Bishop-elect Katharine Jefferts Schori.

2. Nevertheless, the pervasive presence of false teaching is causal not material. The Episcopal Church officially stepped outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy with the election, consent, and consecration of V. Gene Robinson, a divorced man living in sexual relationship with another man, to the office of bishop in the state of New Hampshire , a decision confirmed most recently at GC2006.

In the fourth installment I demonstrated that:

1.The clear teaching of the New Testament and the univocal teaching of the Church throughout all times and in all places is that Jesus Christ is the sole mediator of eternal salvation. There is no other “vehicle” to the Father.

2. The Episcopal Church rejected the opportunity to confirm this universal teaching of the Church when the House of Deputies formally refused to consider resolution D058 at the 75th General Convention.

3. Influential leaders in the Episcopal Church, including Presiding Bishop-elect Katharine Jefferts Schori, have publicly stated that Jesus Christ is merely one “vehicle” to “the divine” among other equally valid vehicles, directly contradicting the clear teachings of the New Testament and the unbroken Tradition of the Church.

This morning I will demonstrate that the Episcopal Church has not embraced “sinners” as Fr. Tom suggests, but has rather, with the election, consent, and consecration of Gene Robinson to the office of bishop, embraced “sin” and in so doing has led and is leading countless souls into the darkness of sexual bondage and away from the light and freedom of the gospel of Christ.

The fact that +Robinson is unrepentant and was consecrated and remains an undisciplined bishop in good standing makes any argument that TEC has embraced both the sin and sinner somewhat redundant.

However, the necessary corollary to Fr. Tom’s defense is an assertion that same-sex behavior is not in fact sinful. While a response to Fr. Tom’s assertion will require some exegesis, it does not necessarily depend on it. The established teaching of the Anglican Communion is that homosexual behavior is incompatible with scriptures (Lambeth98: Resolution 1.10). The Anglican Communion’s teaching is one with every contemporary branch of the Church (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) and consistent with the historic teaching of the Church in every time and every place.

Thus, the burden of proof is squarely on the shoulders of the tiny and shrinking cadre of radical scholars who argue that there are sufficient biblical grounds for legitimizing same-sex behavior.

And they have yet to come near meeting the burden.

The established teaching of the Church is not overturned and cannot be overturned by the reckless actions of a minor branch. As Archbishop Rowan Williams recently said:

In terms of decision-making the American Church has pushed the boundaries. It has made a decision that is not the decision of the wider body of Christ...if we are going to have time to discuss this, prayerfully, thoughtfully, we really don't need people saying: we must change it now. The discussion must not be foreclosed by a radical agenda. The decision hasn't been made yet. Or rather, the tradition and teaching of the Church is what it always was.

Thus, as I noted above, the argument below is somewhat redundant.

And yet, it is necessary. The purple shirts, collars, tassels, and phylacteries, the symbolic accoutrements of spiritual authority, lend a veneer of credibility to the actions of the TEC as does the language of legislative process used to justify them.

The Episcopal Church has, in fact, embraced sin and in so doing has caused great, possibly eternal, harm to those caught up in the homosexual lifestyle.

My response will begin with a close look at Fr. Tom’s apology. This will lead directly into a brief refutation of some of his more egregious points.

Fr. Tom begins by mischaracterizing the charges against both the Episcopal Church and Jesus.

Charge against Episcopalians: Loving a person means acceptance and love of that person’s sins.

This was a charge made against Jesus by religious leaders, that by sharing meals with the tax collectors and sinners, he was not only affirming them as people but also accepting and affirming their sins.

Well, not exactly. The charge was that associating with these people in some way made Jesus unclean; that their lack of virtue rubbed off both morally and ceremonially.

But the Pharisees’ real problem was that despite the accompanying miracles and the words of the prophets they rejected the validity and authority of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ.

When they first heard of the coming of the Christ through John the Baptist they rationalized their disobedience to the preparatory call to repent by asserting that John’s ascetic existence was sustained through demonic possession.

When the Christ arrived the Pharisees rationalized their disobedience by asserting that Jesus’ entourage of tax collectors, prostitutes, and people of low repute bespoke personal impurity and loose morality.

Here’s Jesus’ rehearsing their excuses.


ohn the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ (Matthew 11:18-19)

The reality is that the Pharisees had simply hardened their heart to Christ and his Word.

In response to their accusations against him, Jesus said:

“Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 32 I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.” (Luke 5:31-32)

Notice that Jesus is very clear about his reasons for associating with “sinners.” His desire is like that of a physician, to “heal” the “sick” of their “sickness.” He does not simply associate with sinners for the sake of associating with sinners. He associates with sinners for the purpose of turning them from their sin. Sin is the sickness for which he intends to be both the Physician and the Cure.

Jesus was radically opposed to sin as a doctor is radically opposed to disease and for the same reason. Both destroy the creatures of God. One cursory skim of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) should be enough to persuade anybody that Jesus was not one to excuse sin.

The great irony here is that the ones who thought themselves “well,” the Pharisees, were in fact the sickest of all. Jesus warned them:

“Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you.” (Matthew 21:31)


The tax-collectors and prostitutes were willing to acknowledge their guilt and turn to Christ for forgiveness and restoration.

By contrast, though Jesus longed to heal them, the Pharisees would not be healed because they refused to acknowledge that they were sick.

“For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him.” (Matt 21:32)

The most spiritually dangerous thing any sinner can do when convicted by the Word of Christ is to deny that his or her sin is sin. This is a denial that if sustained leads to a hardened heart.

The most destructive thing a teacher or preacher can do is to encourage and affirm the sinner in this mistaken belief, thereby facilitating the hardening process.

This is why Jesus warns that:

...whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 “Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes! 8 And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire. (Matt 18:6-9)

And he warns his followers to beware of those who clothe themselves as prophets and assume the dignity and honor of the prophetic office all the while undercutting the Law of God.

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. (Matt 7:15-17)

It is easy to be confused by this passage. We might be tempted think that by “good fruit” Jesus means that someone is “nice” or kind or polite or helpful about the church or generous. Those are all good things, but wolves know how to do them.

Jesus defines what he means by “good fruit” a few verses later:

“21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’” (Matt 7:21-23)

Those who bear bad fruit may indeed do mighty and good works. Their ministry may be marked by power and even miraculous signs, but if they do not submit themselves to the will of the Father (v. 21), they are workers of lawlessness (23). Those who truly love God submit to and follow his commands.

Thus, Jesus was radically dedicated to the destruction of sin in the people he loves. In fact, his direst warnings were directed toward those who might lead them falsely by calling what is good evil and what is evil good.

Moreover, the charge against Jesus: that his association with sinners in some way implicated him in their sinfulness or impurity was unfounded because Jesus ate and drank with tax collectors and prostitutes with the intent and purpose of bringing them to repentance.

Those who made the charge were themselves in a worse position than the tax-collectors and prostitutes because they:

1. Refused to acknowledge the Lordship of Christ, hear his Word, and repent of their sins. Tax collectors and prostitutes repented and found forgiveness and salvation. The Pharisees could not repent because they would not acknowledge their sin.

2. Were actively involved in teaching and saying false things about Christ, leading their followers further away from him.

At this point, we must turn back to Fr. Tom’s apology and when we do we find that charges, as he articulates them, are somewhat mischaracterized and understated.

The Episcopal Church does not stand accused of believing that:

Loving a person means acceptance and love of that person’s sins.

Rather the Episcopal Church is accused of embracing a sin to the detriment of the sinner. And, in fact, it is far more than an accusation, it is (as I have pointed out in every installment to this point) a historical fact.

In truth, the great folly of the Episcopal Church resembles the folly of the Pharisees as described above.

The Lord Christ has revealed homosexual behavior to be sin in both the Old and New Testaments. For two thousand years the Church has conformed herself to this revelation.

Not only has the Episcopal Church failed to acknowledge this revealed truth but she has actively revolted against it with the election, consent, and consecration of Gene Robinson to the office of bishop, the ongoing use of rites for same sex blessings in countless dioceses, and the refusal to accede to the Windsor requests from the wider communion. The Episcopal Church is not accused of embracing sin, the Episcopal Church has embraced sin and adopted it matter of official policy.

The Church has refused to acknowledge the disease diagnosed by the Physician and in so doing has blocked followers path to the Cure.

So, Fr. Tom has set up players in the wrong places. The Episcopal Church does not stand in the place of Jesus, falsely accused by the pharisaical Network, AAC, and Church of Nigeria.

Rather the Episcopal Church pharisaically refuses to acknowledge her sin while launching accusations of intolerance and hatred against the ACC, Network, and Church of Nigeria because they have called TEC to be what she was founded to be: a hospital for sinners; the community context in which the great physician does his healing work. No one can be healed in the context of TEC so long as the disease is denied.

Since Fr. Tom misunderstands the nature and depth of the charges, the remainder of his apology is quite off the mark.

He goes on to ask:

The Network people are surely not suggesting that in loving felons, the leaders in The Episcopal Church are condoning or loving the felonies – or that in following Jesus’ command to love our enemies, we are encouraging them to defeat us?

It’s good that Fr. Tom poses this first paragraph as a question.

The answer, of course, is "no". No one suggests that in “loving felons” the Episcopal Church is, at the same time, “loving felonies”. Nor would anyone from an orthodox perspective suggest that Jesus’ command to love our enemies includes “encouraging them to defeat us.”

What has been asserted (as noted above) is that The Episcopal Church has embraced, encouraged and blessed what the bible clearly, consistently, and unequivocally defines as sin.

Of course that leads us to the crux of the issue:

The issue here seems to be the growing understanding throughout the church that the homosexual practice condemned in Leviticus and Romans 1:27 is far different from what more and more Episcopalians know first hand in the gay and lesbian people they see in loving, caring relationships which are based on commitment, fidelity and the desire to reflect the presence of God in their common life.

As Fr Tom well knows, “Leviticus and Romans 1:27 ,” are not the only places in the bible where homosexual behavior is condemned.

Positively, from Genesis to Revelation, heterosexual marriage is defined as the sole context of human sexual _expression. The marriage of a man and a woman provides living picture or reflection of the relationship between God and his people, Christ and his Church. The sexual union of male and female, the joining together of distinct physically complimentary beings in one flesh to produce offspring provides a glimpse into the intimate relationship, the indissoluble bond between the Lord and the people he brings to himself and indwells.

The sexual union of male and male or female and female distorts and destroys that natural image. Therefore the bible is shot through with laws and regulations forbidding any and all sexual unions beyond heterosexual marriage.

Moreover, this is not in dispute. The only ecclesial context in which there is a “growing understanding” that the texts forbidding homosexual behavior do not apply to contemporary monogamous homosexual relationships is from within the small and shrinking ghetto of liberal Protestantism.

Elsewhere in the Church nothing of the sort is taking place. In fact, as evidenced by ++Rowan William’s recent willingness to, at the very least, distance himself from his more optimistic writings with regard to homosexual behavior in the Church (see the interview linked above), the momentum seems to be moving in the opposite direction.

This is to be expected. Heresies generally assail the Church and gain prominence for a time. But, as God is faithful to his promise that the gates of Hell will never prevail, they are ultimately shown to be the lies.

This heresy too is being revealed and will ultimately be revealed for the lie that it is though its supporters desperately trying to shore up its failing foundations (hence the need for the optimistically named, Episcopal Majority).

Fr. Tom goes on to repeat an argument made repeatedly by advocates of homosexual behavior:

“Again, most Episcopalians believe that homosexuality is an inborn affect, something St. Paul did not know. This new understanding then has altered the original context of Paul’s prohibition and allows us to focus on the qualities of intimate relationships, whether homosexual or heterosexual, rather than on externals.”

At this point I am simply going to refer you to the article I wrote for my parish, reprinted this morning on Stand Firm, in which I address the exegetical issues in depth.

In short, whether or not it is discovered that homosexual desire is inborn and biological/genetic, is beside the point.

In Romans 1:18-32, Paul identifies both the homosexual impulse and the act as one of the more visible ramifications of the fall of humanity and the resulting “twist” or “marring” of our created natures.

Sin has worked itself into the very core of our being so that our desires are no longer to live and act in accordance with the natural order established at Creation, but to act against it. Thus, as Robert Gagnon points out, if Paul were to travel forward in time and discover that homosexual attraction is genetically/biologically based, he would not be surprised. The whole point of Romans 1-3 is to demonstrate that all human beings are “very far gone” from God’s original design, that we are fallen and that this fall has resulted in inborn drives that manifest in rebellious behavior.

Moreover, as an educated man raised and educated in Hellenized Tarsus, it is difficult to believe that Paul had no access whatsoever to suggestions of inborn homosexual predispositions that result in life-long “loving” homosexual unions. Both ideas were articulated clearly by Plato in his famous Symposium, approximately 400 years before Paul was born. Here is the relevant section. It is lengthy but worth quoting in full:

Aristophanes professed to open another vein of discourse; he had a mind to praise Love in another way, unlike that either of Pausanias or Eryximachus. Mankind, he said, judging by their neglect of him, have never, as I think, at all understood the power of Love. For if they had understood him they would surely have built noble temples and altars, and offered solemn sacrifices in his honour; but this is not done, and most certainly ought to be done: since of all the gods he is the best friend of men, the helper and the healer of the ills which are the great impediment to the happiness of the race. I will try to describe his power to you, and you shall teach the rest of the world what I am teaching you. In the first place, let me treat of the nature of man and what has happened to it; for the original human nature was not like the present, but different. The sexes were not two as they are now, but originally three in number; there was man, woman, and the union of the two, having a name corresponding to this double nature, which had once a real existence, but is now lost, and the word ‘Androgynous’ is only preserved as a term of reproach. In the second place, the primeval man was round, his back and sides forming a circle; and he had four hands and four feet, one head with two faces, looking opposite ways, set on a round neck and precisely alike; also four ears, two privy members, and the remainder to correspond. He could walk upright as men now do, backwards or forwards as he pleased, and he could also roll over and over at a great pace, turning on his four hands and four feet, eight in all, like tumblers going over and over with their legs in the air; this was when he wanted to run fast. Now the sexes were three, and such as I have described them; because the sun, moon, and earth are three; and the man was originally the child of the sun, the woman of the earth, and the man-woman of the moon, which is made up of sun and earth, and they were all round and moved round and round like their parents. Terrible was their might and strength, and the thoughts of their hearts were great, and they made an attack upon the gods; of them is told the tale of Otys and Ephialtes who, as Homer says, dared to scale heaven, and would have laid hands upon the gods. Doubt reigned in the celestial councils. Should they kill them and annihilate the race with thunderbolts, as they had done the giants, then there would be an end of the sacrifices and worship which men offered to them; but, on the other hand, the gods could not suffer their insolence to be unrestrained. At last, after a good deal of reflection, Zeus discovered a way. He said: ‘Methinks I have a plan which will humble their pride and improve their manners; men shall continue to exist, but I will cut them in two and then they will be diminished in strength and increased in numbers; this will have the advantage of making them more profitable to us. They shall walk upright on two legs, and if they continue insolent and will not be quiet, I will split them again and they shall hop about on a single leg.’ He spoke and cut men in two, like a sorb-apple which is halved for pickling, or as you might divide an egg with a hair; and as he cut them one after another, he bade Apollo give the face and the half of the neck a turn in order that the man might contemplate the section of himself: he would thus learn a lesson of humility. Apollo was also bidden to heal their wounds and compose their forms. So he gave a turn to the face and pulled the skin from the sides all over that which in our language is called the belly, like the purses which draw in, and he made one mouth at the centre, which he fastened in a knot (the same which is called the navel); he also moulded the breast and took out most of the wrinkles, much as a shoemaker might smooth leather upon a last; he left a few, however, in the region of the belly and navel, as a memorial of the primeval state. After the division the two parts of man, each desiring his other half, came together, and throwing their arms about one another, entwined in mutual embraces, longing to grow into one, they were on the point of dying from hunger and self-neglect, because they did not like to do anything apart; and when one of the halves died and the other survived, the survivor sought another mate, man or woman as we call them,—being the sections of entire men or women,—and clung to that. They were being destroyed, when Zeus in pity of them invented a new plan: he turned the parts of generation round to the front, for this had not been always their position, and they sowed the seed no longer as hitherto like grasshoppers in the ground, but in one another; and after the transposition the male generated in the female in order that by the mutual embraces of man and woman they might breed, and the race might continue; or if man came to man they might be satisfied, and rest, and go their ways to the business of life: so ancient is the desire of one another which is implanted in us, reuniting our original nature, making one of two, and healing the state of man. Each of us when separated, having one side only, like a flat fish, is but the indenture of a man, and he is always looking for his other half. Men who are a section of that double nature which was once called Androgynous are lovers of women; adulterers are generally of this breed, and also adulterous women who lust after men: the women who are a section of the woman do not care for men, but have female attachments; the female companions are of this sort. But they who are a section of the male follow the male, and while they are young, being slices of the original man, they hang about men and embrace them, and they are themselves the best of boys and youths, because they have the most manly nature. Some indeed assert that they are shameless, but this is not true; for they do not act thus from any want of shame, but because they are valiant and manly, and have a manly countenance, and they embrace that which is like them. And these when they grow up become our statesmen, and these only, which is a great proof of the truth of what I am saving. When they reach manhood they are lovers of youth, and are not naturally inclined to marry or beget children,—if at all, they do so only in obedience to the law; but they are satisfied if they may be allowed to live with one another unwedded; and such a nature is prone to love and ready to return love, always embracing that which is akin to him. And when one of them meets with his other half, the actual half of himself, whether he be a lover of youth or a lover of another sort, the pair are lost in an amazement of love and friendship and intimacy, and one will not be out of the other’s sight, as I may say, even for a moment: these are the people who pass their whole lives together; yet they could not explain what they desire of one another. For the intense yearning which each of them has towards the other does not appear to be the desire of lover’s intercourse, but of something else which the soul of either evidently desires and cannot tell, and of which she has only a dark and doubtful presentiment. Suppose Hephaestus, with his instruments, to come to the pair who are lying side by side and to say to them, ‘What do you people want of one another?’ they would be unable to explain. And suppose further, that when he saw their perplexity he said: ‘Do you desire to be wholly one; always day and night to be in one another’s company? for if this is what you desire, I am ready to melt you into one and let you grow together, so that being two you shall become one, and while you live live a common life as if you were a single man, and after your death in the world below still be one departed soul instead of two—I ask whether this is what you lovingly desire, and whether you are satisfied to attain this?’—there is not a man of them who when he heard the proposal would deny or would not acknowledge that this meeting and melting into one another, this becoming one instead of two, was the very _expression of his ancient need (compare Arist. Pol.). And the reason is that human nature was originally one and we were a whole, and the desire and pursuit of the whole is called love. There was a time, I say, when we were one, but now because of the wickedness of mankind God has dispersed us, as the Arcadians were dispersed into villages by the Lacedaemonians (compare Arist. Pol.). And if we are not obedient to the gods, there is a danger that we shall be split up again and go about in basso-relievo, like the profile figures having only half a nose which are sculptured on monuments, and that we shall be like tallies. Wherefore let us exhort all men to piety, that we may avoid evil, and obtain the good, of which Love is to us the lord and minister; and let no one oppose him—he is the enemy of the gods who opposes him. For if we are friends of the God and at peace with him we shall find our own true loves, which rarely happens in this world at present.

Again, this was written centuries before Paul wrote his letter to the Romans and whether he read the Symposium or not, it is at the very least evident that the dual concepts of inborn homosexual attraction and loving homosexual relationships had been present in Greek society long before Paul and it is highly likely that Paul knew of them.

Fr. Tom then shifts from his unfounded dismissal of the clear consistent biblical injunctions against homosexual behavior to another favorite revisionist tactic: setting one section of the scriptures against another.

St. Paul, himself, shifts the ground somewhat as he moves from his attack on abusive sexual relationships in the first chapter of Romans, where he argues for restraints, to his very powerful statement about how to value and judge relationships which are marked by the presence of the Holy Spirit:

The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law. (Galatians 5:22-24)

Of course, as Jesus mentions above (Matt 7:21-23), the “fruit of the Spirit” includes willing submission to the revealed will of God without which all of the other perceived “fruits” are mere window-dressings.

But we don’t need to turn to the gospels to refute Fr. Tom’s assertion. The very passage he uses to justify the blessing of homosexual behavior in fact condemns it.

Given what Paul says about homosexual behavior elsewhere it is absurd to suggest that he would associate sex outside of the heterosexual marriage bond with “faithfulness” or “self-control.” He consistently identifies homosexual behavior as sin and associates it not with the “fruit of the Spirit" but with "works of the flesh" or the fallen nature.

Thus despite the fact that someone living in unrepentant sexual immorality may be kind, gentle, self-giving, generous, helpful at church, and loyal to his or her partner, the very fact that he or she is living in unrepentant disobedience necessarily means that he or she is not bearing good spiritual fruit.

In other words, the kindness and generosity of a willfully disobedient person does not absolve their disobedience nor does it mean that their acts of disobedience must suddenly be seen as acts of righteousness.

Put that way, Fr. Tom’s suggestion seems rather absurd and with good reason.

He goes on to make the following understatement:

One thing that has changed is our understanding of how difficult it has become for the church to condemn human relationships that are filled with the marks and the presence of the Holy Spirit.

It is not only difficult, it is impossible for the Church to condemn human relationships that are filled with the marks of grace. The Church can only confirm and relay the affirmations and condemnations that the Lord has already revealed. Thus, while the church cannot forbid marriage or single celibacy, it can and must confirm and relay the revealed Word of God which forbids homosexual relationships.

“To judge those relationships as sinful – when God’s presence in them is so apparent – is most likely a matter of a lack of faith than anything else.”

Rather, contemporary faithlessness is made most manifest in the Episcopal Church’s official rejection the clear, objective, proscriptions of the Word of God on the basis of the subjective experience of an elite minority.

Liberal and moderate Episcopalians condemn sexual relationships that are promiscuous, exploitive or outside the bonds of love and commitment. For the Network/Nigerian coalition to claim otherwise is reckless and, basically, a smear job on faithful Christians.

The real smear is found in Fr. Tom’s apology. The “Network/Nigerian coalition” does not claim that the Episcopal Church embraces “promiscuous” or “exploitative” relationships. The claim is that the Episcopal Church has embraced a form of sexuality that the bible and the Church together have always and everywhere defined as sin. When the Church embraces sin, she necessarily does grave harm to the sinner.

The Episcopal Church is not the victim. Rather, she has, by her official actions, tightened the chains on those already caught up in sexual sin. Rather than proclaiming repentance and freedom, the Church has become propagandist for a form of rebellion and disobedience that leads to physical and spiritual enslavement.

There can be no doubt. The Episcopal Church has embraced sin to the detriment of sinners.

TOPICS: Mainline Protestant

1 posted on 09/05/2006 6:06:07 PM PDT by sionnsar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ahadams2; cf_river_rat; fgoodwin; secret garden; MountainMenace; SICSEMPERTYRANNUS; kaibabbob; ...
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (typically 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by sionnsar, Huber and newheart.

Resource for Traditional Anglicans:
More Anglican articles here.

Humor: The Anglican Blue (by Huber)

Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15

2 posted on 09/05/2006 6:06:47 PM PDT by sionnsar (†† | Iran Azadi | SONY: 5yst3m 0wn3d, N0t Y0urs | UN: Useless Nations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

Bishop Gene Robinson does remain unrepentant... The first duty of a bishop is to love the church, IMHO; Robinson obviously does not. He loves himself for if he truly loved the church he would have not tried to become a bishop knowing his lifestyle would split the church. In Robinson's mind he is "Jackie" not "Gene" Robinson and wants to be remembered as a barrier breaker.

3 posted on 09/06/2006 5:58:37 AM PDT by meandog (While Clinton isn't fit even to scrape Reagan's shoes, Bush will never fill them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson