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