Posted by
Playful Walrus on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 12:43:15 PM
Over the last week, there have been three stories of note in the bankrupt Los Angeles Times - which is part of a company that may have been bullied by an allegedly corrupt Democrat Governor - that have covered conflicts in the Episcopal/Anglican church over church teaching and practice when it comes to homosexual behavior.
Once again, we see that everything has to suffer in deference to homosexuality advocacy.
Duke Helfand had the first story on the breakaways.
To gain official recognition, the new province must still get approval from two-thirds of the 38 provincial Anglican leaders who represent 77 million Christians worldwide. If approved, it would be the first such province based on theology, not geography, a dramatic departure from Anglican policy.
"This is a reformational movement," said the Rev. Peter Frank, a spokesman for the Common Cause Partnership, which is spearheading the effort. "We believe that Anglicanism is a beautiful thing. Here in America it got on a track that was taking it farther and farther away from its core beliefs. We're attempting to return to that."
Helfand had a story the next day as well.
The presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church declared Thursday that church members who joined a newly formed conservative denomination "are no longer Episcopalians," even as she predicted that the exodus had largely run its course and would not trigger further large-scale defections.
Jessica Garrison had the third story.
The bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles has announced that church leaders can bless the unions of same-sex couples as a matter of policy.
Oh yes. I seem to recall that the Scriptural justification for this is found in 1st Illusions 4:69.
The rite endorsed by Bruno also allows the blessing of other relationships, such as those between two senior citizens who do not wish to legally marry because they might lose health insurance or Social Security benefits.
Stand up for your love! Uh, unless it might cost you something.
The Bible and tradition both teach that 1) sex is for marriage, and; 2) marriage unites the sexes. Believe me, I have tried to find a way around point one. You will not find permission in the Bible to engage in sexual activity with someone other than your spouse. It isn’t there.
So the larger issue here is, is the Bible authoritative or not? I wouldn’t expect an unchurched person to say yes. However, a church that has the Bible as Scripture can only deviate from Biblical teaching in this area by:
1. Claiming new divine revelation that supersedes the Bible.
2. Claiming that the portions of the Bible that teach sex is for marriage and that marriage is exclusively something that unites the sexes are not authoritative. (In that case, what other Biblical teachings are not authoritative? Love thy neighbor?)
3. Claiming that the Church (universal) and many unchurched people have been wrong for all of this time in concluding that the Bible teaches that sex is for marriage and that marriage is exclusively something that unites the sexes.
4. Claiming that the Bible contains an expired time limit on limiting sex to marriage and limiting marriage to uniting the sexes.
Otherwise, they are simply not even trying to hide the fact that they are allowing the culture to change the church, instead of calling the culture to be changed by the church. Instead of fighting sin, they are accommodating it for the sake of convenience.
Well guess what? A lot of the culture is telling me to sleep in and do other things with my time and money instead of attending church and supporting church financially. That would certainly be convenient.
Is it always easy to live the Christian way? Does God promise to cater to all of our desires? No. But part of being devoted to God is doing things His way instead of our own.