THE
TRUTH IN PRINT
October 2003, Vol. 9: Issue 9
A Publication of the Valley church of Christ
2375 W. 8th Street, Yuma, AZ 85364
(928) 539-7089
The Degraded State Of The Anglican Church
By Bob Lovelace
Just about anyone today who reads the newspaper knows the "gay
clergy" issue may split the Anglican church. By "Anglican" they
mean those denominations that sprang from the old Church of England. The
conservative portion of the Episcopal church in America has certainly made their demands against liberal church leaders,
who approved their church's first openly gay bishop and allowed church
blessings of same-sex unions. The last article I read on this had a caption of
the Dallas meeting -- some of the Episcopal bishops were shown striking a pious
pose in prayer as someone who wears the title "Reverend" is depicted
on a large video screen with his hand raised high leading them in prayer on the
final day of the American Anglican Council meeting, October 10 in Dallas,
Texas. I do not find the wearing of the title "Reverend" for bishops
in Christ's church in the New Testament. Jesus condemned the wearing of
religious title as marks of distinction and power (Matt. 23:1-12). I did take
note of their religious apparel which, I'd say, was not quite as imposing as
the one the Pope wears. When I read the New Testament I find no such
"religious dress" distinction for the church of Christ for
"elders" or "bishops" (read their qualifications in I Tim.
3:1-7; Titus 1:1-9). Paul's statement on bishops (compare Titus 1:5 with verse
7 to see that "elder" and "bishop" referred to one and the
same position) contained in those qualification reads, "Holding fast the
faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine
both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers" (Titus 1:9 (KJV). Dear
reader, God's word is plain as to where the issue really lies- only "sound doctrine" is acceptable and that
which is not and is immoral is not acceptable for any local church with its own
bishops or elders. Wouldn't you think any elder
(bishop) in the first century knew that practicing homosexuality was a sin? Of
course they did and elders know such today! (read I
Cor. 5:11-13; 6:9-11; Rom. 1:24-27;
2 Pet. 2:6-9; Jude 7; Gen. 19:24 ).
Read the foregoing verses and then consider the various council
meetings, emergency meetings, etc., along with the human credentials and
advanced technology used to present to the world their stress of trying to
decide if homosexuality is sin that cannot be tolerated by their church. Please
now, try not laugh out loud. Why cannot they simply read the Bible?
Here's one for you. On a larger scale than just America it
appears that they even have their own titular head - the "archbishop of Canterbury, the titular
head of the 77 million-member global Anglican Communion-the churches that trace
their roots to the church of England," so I've
read. Moreover it is reported that as archbishop of Wales he had ordained a priest he
knew was a homosexual. May I say -- no surprise! He says he now follows the
line taken by bishops at the 1998 Lambeth Conference
"rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture," I
read. He's called an emergency meeting of the 38
primates (leaders) of the world's Anglican churches in London looking for a way to bridge
differences. However he defended the appointment of the so called Rev. Canon
Jeffrey John as bishop of Reading who affirmed as a homosexual he is now
celibate, I read. Again --no surprise! I read that John decided he'd stay where
he was at London's
Southwark Cathedral, which has a reputation as one of
the Church of England's most liberal dioceses. The article said that the
Cathedral's dean, the so called Rev. Colin Slee was
outspoken in support of John. Slee said "John's
appointment didn't violate the policy that says practicing homosexuals cannot
be ordained priests." That associated press article pointed out that Slee argues that homosexuality is not specifically
mentioned in the Bible. Well of all things but, really, let me say -no
surprise! In the same article Slee also argued that
the evangelicals have been flexible on other things clearly condemned in the
Bible, "and yet they draw the line about homosexual relationships,"
he's quoted as saying. That he'd argue this way, well -- no
surprise! This primate, Slee, is quoted
as saying that the churches past attitude of "don't ask, don't tell"
puts too much pressure on gay priests. Again, no surprise! The article
mentioning Slee's views began with the views of the
Rev. David Page, a gay priest who is vicar of St. Barnabas, Clapham
Common in south London,
who is quoted as saying "there are many like him ministering to the Church
of England parishes in London."
Hold it for a second as I need to get something in here -- no surprise! And he
said, "Many don't want to compromise the development of their ministry by
declaring themselves gay and with partners." And friend will you listen to
this and probably with no surprise? He said, "To win promotion or ever become
a bishop they realize 'having to be quiet is the price I have to pay'." It
certainly looks to me like the qualifications that God gave for bishops in the
Bible, for Christ's true church, just don't figure in
with their rationale. But again -- no surprise!
OK, alright, I'll go ahead and put the qualifications down once
again for bishops or elders in Christ's church for, after all, they are indeed
part of the New Testament which is God's divine arrangement and will for the
church Christ built (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23; Col. 1:18). You know it
is His church! Hear Paul, "This is a true
saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth
a good work. [2] A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,
vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to
hospitality, apt to teach; [3] Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of
filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; [4] One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in
subjection with all gravity; [5] (For if a man know not how to rule his own
house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) [6] Not a novice, lest
being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. [7]
Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall
into reproach and the snare of the devil" (1 Tim. 3:1-7, KJV).
Now I ask you - tell me you can read this with no surprise. Ah, I
was just kidding as I know you can. The vicar of St. Barnabas mentioned above
is quoted as saying, "I challenge the bishops to devise a process where it
is safe to speak for ourselves." A great big-- No Surprise! Does
anyone care to consider that God has spoken on the sin of homosexuality? If one speaks and condemns homosexuality then they are safe with
God, aren't they? Should one speak and condone the practice of
homosexuality, lesbianism and same sex unions and marriages then they are not
safe with God! Just who is it that church leaders
today desire that they should be considered "safe" with, man or God?
(Gal. 1:10)
Alright, I'll put you to the test one last time here and see if
you can read this with, you guessed it, no surprise. A report
stated:
"ECUSA Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold said last week that the Bible does
not condemn homosexual acts. "Discreet acts of
homosexuality" were condemned only because they involved lust instead of
the "love, forgiveness and grace" of homosexual relationships,
explained Griswold, apparently relying on his NIGLV (New International Gay and
Lesbian Version) translation. "Homosexuality, as we understand it as an
orientation, is not mentioned in the Bible. I think the confirmation of the
bishop of New Hampshire
is
acknowledging what is already a reality in the life of the church and the
larger society of which we are a part."
There is absolutely no surprise in reading about the New International
Gay and Lesbian Version!
Back to the Table
of Contents
Home