Why the (Anglican) Church needs a schism
September 1st 2007 14:07
The Anglican church is in a crisis. There can be no other word that is more apt or more fitting. Unfortunately it is in a crisis of it's own doing. From the time in 2003 when the Anglican (or episcopalian) church in the United States and Canada decided to start ordaining gay and lesbian priests there has been a dramatic shift in support away from them. Especially in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. 15 of the 29 regions do not support the Americans decision to take such action. These 15 regions who have backed away from the US in this matter are doing so to preserve the traditional core values of what it believes to be God's word. Come September 30 2007 when the worldwide body of Anglicans meet there will be a split.
This apparent split goes further than just the gay issue. It represents the old church with it's old values versus a new more inclusive church with newer values. It is all very well and good to incorporate all people into the church because it is what we are called to do as a body. However, at what cost to what is scripturally sound?
The Bible does have it's stance on homosexuality just as it has it's stance on all else that is considered "sin". Mind you I am going by what the Bible says. It is a "sin" no greater than any other but it is still considered a "sin". Homosexuality in my mind is what's called a "victimless sin" where even though it is wrong it only harms the offender. Bearing that in mind can you imagine a priest being a drug addict (another "victimless sin" ) and being allowed to become a Bishop or an Archbishop?
Homosexuals should be welcomed into any church however no denomination shouldn't go as far as putting them into a leadership position. The Church cannot have leaders who live in direct contradiction to the word of God. It is irksome that they claim to live a Christian life but still they deliberately go against the word of God and refuse to repent for their actions. If there was a repentance of sins (and by repentance of sins I mean "I am truly sorry Lord for going against your Word. I ask for your forgiveness and I ask for You to give me strength to stop living this way") then I may consider it.
I am fully cognizant of the fact that we are all "sinners" but there is the difference that those of us who are Christian and repent of what we know to be wrong and those of us who claim to be Christian and refuse to do the same.
Would you be comfortable with someone who supposedly has studied the bible, knows what is expected of them as a leader in the Church and the community but who continues to lie or steal, be an adulterer or a fornicator? You would feel uncomfortable, wouldn't you? Remembering that there are no distinctions between sins so why should it now be okay to put someone in a leadership position that is akin to the wolf leading the sheep astray?
This is a very dangerous and slippery slope that not just the Anglican church is on but also for the rest of Christianity. This litmus test will show not only where we as a church stand biblically on our morals and values but also what we are passing onto future generations.
This apparent split goes further than just the gay issue. It represents the old church with it's old values versus a new more inclusive church with newer values. It is all very well and good to incorporate all people into the church because it is what we are called to do as a body. However, at what cost to what is scripturally sound?
The Bible does have it's stance on homosexuality just as it has it's stance on all else that is considered "sin". Mind you I am going by what the Bible says. It is a "sin" no greater than any other but it is still considered a "sin". Homosexuality in my mind is what's called a "victimless sin" where even though it is wrong it only harms the offender. Bearing that in mind can you imagine a priest being a drug addict (another "victimless sin" ) and being allowed to become a Bishop or an Archbishop?
Homosexuals should be welcomed into any church however no denomination shouldn't go as far as putting them into a leadership position. The Church cannot have leaders who live in direct contradiction to the word of God. It is irksome that they claim to live a Christian life but still they deliberately go against the word of God and refuse to repent for their actions. If there was a repentance of sins (and by repentance of sins I mean "I am truly sorry Lord for going against your Word. I ask for your forgiveness and I ask for You to give me strength to stop living this way") then I may consider it.
I am fully cognizant of the fact that we are all "sinners" but there is the difference that those of us who are Christian and repent of what we know to be wrong and those of us who claim to be Christian and refuse to do the same.
Would you be comfortable with someone who supposedly has studied the bible, knows what is expected of them as a leader in the Church and the community but who continues to lie or steal, be an adulterer or a fornicator? You would feel uncomfortable, wouldn't you? Remembering that there are no distinctions between sins so why should it now be okay to put someone in a leadership position that is akin to the wolf leading the sheep astray?
This is a very dangerous and slippery slope that not just the Anglican church is on but also for the rest of Christianity. This litmus test will show not only where we as a church stand biblically on our morals and values but also what we are passing onto future generations.
| 16 |
| Vote |
Add Comments
