We interrupt our regularly scheduled programming to bring you this series of disturbing stories. The Episcopal Church USA (2.3 million members) is part of the larger Anglican Communion (77 million). The ECUSA has apostatized beyond repair: GET OUT NOW!
Strike One:
In 2003, Episcopalians angered many conservatives in the United States and abroad by electing an openly gay man from New Hampshire, V. Gene Robinson, as a bishop. Before Robinson's consecration, no openly gay priest had become a bishop in the Anglican Church's more than 450-year history. In 1998, global Anglicans voted that homosexual behavior was contrary to Scripture. In 2004, top Anglican leaders officially called for American Episcopalians to repent.
Strike Two:
Sunday, June 18, 2006, the Episcopal Church chose Nevada Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as its leader, making her the first woman to head any denomination in the Anglican Communion worldwide. She was known as one of the most liberal bishops in America. Only the United States, Canada and New Zealand have female bishops, although some other provinces allow women to qualify for the position. The Church of England does not allow female bishops. Jefferts Schori, 52, a former oceanographer, backed Robinson's election.
Strike Three, Your Out!
Newly elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on Monday, June 19, 2006 that she believed homosexuality was no sin and homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same gender. Interviewed on CNN, Jefferts Schori was asked if it was a sin to be homosexual. "I don't believe so. I believe that God creates us with different gifts. Each one of us comes into this world with a different collection of things that challenge us and things that give us joy and allow us to bless the world around us," she said.
Strike Four, Ichabod!
The 2006 ECUSA General Convention tabled discussion on a proposed resolution that would put the Church on the side of saying that Jesus Christ is the only name by which anyone is saved; the resolution was deemed too controversial to be discussed.
Say what you want about the first three items, but there is no way you can argue the fact that the Bible says that Jesus is the only way to salvation. There is no way you should remain in this synagogue of Satan.
John 14:6 – Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Acts 4:12 – Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
1 Timothy 2:5 – For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Strike One:
In 2003, Episcopalians angered many conservatives in the United States and abroad by electing an openly gay man from New Hampshire, V. Gene Robinson, as a bishop. Before Robinson's consecration, no openly gay priest had become a bishop in the Anglican Church's more than 450-year history. In 1998, global Anglicans voted that homosexual behavior was contrary to Scripture. In 2004, top Anglican leaders officially called for American Episcopalians to repent.
Strike Two:
Sunday, June 18, 2006, the Episcopal Church chose Nevada Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as its leader, making her the first woman to head any denomination in the Anglican Communion worldwide. She was known as one of the most liberal bishops in America. Only the United States, Canada and New Zealand have female bishops, although some other provinces allow women to qualify for the position. The Church of England does not allow female bishops. Jefferts Schori, 52, a former oceanographer, backed Robinson's election.
Strike Three, Your Out!
Newly elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on Monday, June 19, 2006 that she believed homosexuality was no sin and homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same gender. Interviewed on CNN, Jefferts Schori was asked if it was a sin to be homosexual. "I don't believe so. I believe that God creates us with different gifts. Each one of us comes into this world with a different collection of things that challenge us and things that give us joy and allow us to bless the world around us," she said.
Strike Four, Ichabod!
The 2006 ECUSA General Convention tabled discussion on a proposed resolution that would put the Church on the side of saying that Jesus Christ is the only name by which anyone is saved; the resolution was deemed too controversial to be discussed.
Say what you want about the first three items, but there is no way you can argue the fact that the Bible says that Jesus is the only way to salvation. There is no way you should remain in this synagogue of Satan.
John 14:6 – Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Acts 4:12 – Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
1 Timothy 2:5 – For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
21 comments:
Just another step towards end-times apostasy!
To quote your tag: Even so, come, Lord Jesus!
God have mercy on us!
The only verse that comes to mind concerning us & such as these: Rev. 22:11 "He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still."
12 "And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work.
PS- "the resolution was deemed too controversial to be discussed." This would be comical if it wasn't such a sad commentary on the hardness of mens' (& womens') hearts.
even so--
Why is #2 a "strike?"
The Bible teaches it is wrong to have female leadership in church, as the women are not to preach or teach men, not to usurp authority, to be silent in the services. God has given church leadership responsibility to men.
1 Timothy 2:11-14 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1 Timothy 3:1-2 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
A bishop is the same as a pastor and an elder. He is supposed to be the husband of one wife... Deacon's have almost the same requirements - must be a God-called man, not a woman.
exist~dissolve,
If #1 is a strike, then, considering the last statement of the paragraph about #2, it would by necessity be a strike also, which leads directly to #3.
Of course, as a Christian, one whom claims Christ as his only means of salvation, #4 is where I believe any reasonable person would draw the line of demarcation between believers and non-believers.
Jerry,
Possibly anticipating your next question, I am of the complementarian persuasion.
Anyone -
With regards to strike #2.....wouldn't we need some bible examples to justify women becoming bishops? The "leadership" roles that I've read are men....Abraham, Moses, Isaac, Jacob, the apostles (all men)... So why is it OK to deviate from that?
Biblical examples some have used are (not all are listed here)...
in the Old Testament,
Deborah as judge of Israel (Judges 4:4-5:15)
Huldah the prophetess (2 Kings 22:14)
and in the New Testament,
Priscilla (various / Romans 16:3),
Phoebe (Romans 16:1, 27 - the word used for servant is same as word used for deacon),
and Junia (Romans 16:7 - an apostle?) .
I believe all those cases can be answered satisfactorily, but don't want to spend the time here. I would recommend anyone interested to Piper and Grudem's work with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
Complementarian is as opposed to egalitarian; Chris, you would probably understand complementarian as the conservative, or dare I say, traditional way of thinking. Egalitarainism would encompass the move to have women pastors and teachers, etc.
Hope that helps. God bless!
Jerry--
The Bible teaches it is wrong to have female leadership in church, as the women are not to preach or teach men, not to usurp authority, to be silent in the services. God has given church leadership responsibility to men.
The actual cultural/social circumstances of the various churches which would have prompted such instructions from Paul (not God) aside, your argument is hardly compelling. After all, the "bible" teaches a lot of things that most don't do. Do you have a "little wine" because it's good for your stomach? Do you make the women in your church cover their heads during worship? Do you expel men who have too long of hair?
The Scriptures were written by real people in real circumstances to deal with real issues. We must not simply assume that every word is somehow universally and categorically applicable to every culture/society in history.
Chris--
With regards to strike #2.....wouldn't we need some bible examples to justify women becoming bishops? The "leadership" roles that I've read are men....Abraham, Moses, Isaac, Jacob, the apostles (all men)... So why is it OK to deviate from that?
I don't necessarily think an "example" would be necessary. The reasons for the leadership roles in the biblical examples being all filled by men (with some shocking examples, nonetheless!) is because--surprise, surprise--the world of the Scriptures was one dominated by patriarchy. As we no longer live in such a cultural milieu (to the chagrin of many evangelicals), we cannot expect that the formative, cultural values which actualized the composition of the leadership in the time of the Scriptures can be categorically applied to our context.
Most certainly this idea of female leadership is a hot button issue, but the fact remains that this denomination has consistently, of late, decided upon more innovative ways of looking at scripture, at best, and at worst, as in the case of #4, they have refused the clear teachings of Jesus and the Apostles directly.
Whew, I've been using my dictionary a lot lately! :)
Actually, I was in a fellowship of believers where the hair "thing" was an issue.
Thanks Even So, for the complementarian/egaliterian explanation.
Exist-Dissolve - What I'm wondering about the cultural thing is this. Should we allow the culture to determine our values or does the Word tell us what our values should be? Who gets to "draw the lines"?
Thanks for your patience ya'll!
Complementarian is as opposed to egalitarian;
I'm sorry, I don't have a good dictionary handy to define what these terms mean. Can you explain them please? Thanks.
Exist, I do not believe the Bible presents cultural issues that were only applicable to that culture - even the letters to the Corinthians were specifically stated to be read in all the churches.
Do you have a "little wine" because it's good for your stomach? Do you make the women in your church cover their heads during worship? Do you expel men who have too long of hair?
To answer these:
- The Bible teaches that there is both alcoholic and non-alcoholic wine. Non-alcoholic wine is proven to be good for stomach problems - so I see no problem with that.
- 1 Corinthians 11 teaches that the woman's hair is her covering, therefore it is to be long - and yes, we do teach that. We believe it is rebellion for a woman to get a butch haircut or shave it off.
- The passage also teaches that it is a shame for a man to have long hair - and yes, we teach that as well. In both these cases, Paul referred to the created order as reason for stating this - last I checked, that hasn't changed, so it is still applicable. It doesn't say to put a man out for long hair - but it does teach that it is wrong; therefore we won't have any female workers with short hair and male workers with hippy hair in our ministries. We have set standards they need to conform to.
the world of the Scriptures was one dominated by patriarchy. As we no longer live in such a cultural milieu... we cannot expect that the formative, cultural values which actualized the composition of the leadership in the time of the Scriptures can be categorically applied to our context.
Why was the Biblical OT culture patriarchical? Because the men chose it to be that way, or because God did? It is pretty clear that God did - therefore the argument that it was their culture (their culture formed by God actually - though that is not what you were saying) and not ours - and therefore is not applicable to us today does not fit the Bible facts.
For example, the leadership in the tabernacle and temple was chosen by God - specifically male priests, after His pattern. In the NT we see male apostles, male deacons, male evangelists, etc. In fact, in Revelation 2, Thyatira gets in a lot of trouble for having a female leader over them.
Paul wrote his letter to the Corinthian church - yet stated his instruction was for the churches:
1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1 Corinthians 7:17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
1 Corinthians 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.
There is no way we can say certain passages in the epistles were just for such and such church and not for us today (unless the context clearly says so - which is an entirely different thing than us just saying it isn't relevant). For example, Paul gave specific instructions to Titus, that were for him to follow - we can learn from his example - but he is not calling us to go to Crete to set in order what is missing in those church - though the pattern would be to have proper Biblical leadership in all our churches, leadership especially based on the pastoral epistles that teach us how we are to behave ourselves in the house of God.
chris--
Exist-Dissolve - What I'm wondering about the cultural thing is this. Should we allow the culture to determine our values or does the Word tell us what our values should be? Who gets to "draw the lines"?
Well, I think that the "either/or" motif is a bit of a false dichotomy. All values are mediated, whether they be "modern" values or those which are present in the Scriptures (which were themselves mediated through the cultural/religious/social milieu in which the writers' lived and wrote). Moreover, the very process of interpretation mitigates the possibility of engaging a "pure" value from the Scriptures, for the values of the Scriptures are, in fact, mediated to us through our cultural/religious/societal presuppositions.
Therefore, though we may not like it, there are no hard and fast "lines" that can be drawn. Rather, we must continually approach the values which we maintain to determine within the community of believers which values are "hook, line and sinker" from our cultures and which are honest reflections upon the overarching messages of Scripture (as opposed to an uncritical assertion of propositional "values" based upon proof-texting).
I'm sorry, I don't have a good dictionary handy to define what these terms mean. Can you explain them please? Thanks.
Even so may provide alternate definitions, but as I understand it, "complementarian" refers to each sex fulfilling certain roles which are "proper" to their gender. One is not seen as greater than the other, but there are definite divisions between what is and is not proper for the respective sexes. Egalitarian, on the other hand, refers to the "leveling" of possibility for action in which all "stops" are gone as far as what is and is not appropriate for each sex.
A practical example of these can be seen in the issue under discussion. A complimentarian conception would have specific roles for males and females within the work of the church. One would not be seen as above the other in importance (such as "pastor" verses "sunday school teacher). Egalitarian, on the other hand, would not prescribe which sex could be "pastor", but would open the doors for both sexes to fulfill identical roles within the leadership and work of the church.
Exist, I do not believe the Bible presents cultural issues that were only applicable to that culture - even the letters to the Corinthians were specifically stated to be read in all the churches.
Sure, all the churches of that cultural social milieu which would have shared similar values and presuppositions about the natural "order" of relationship between the sexes. When Paul said "all the churches," he was not thinking about us. He was thinking about the churches that were extant when he lived.
- The Bible teaches that there is both alcoholic and non-alcoholic wine. Non-alcoholic wine is proven to be good for stomach problems - so I see no problem with that.
Paul never said that. He said "wine." The natural understanding of this word, in its context and normal usage of the time, would have meant the good stuff--alcoholic wine. You are reading an ethical presupposition into Paul's usage of a word when there is no textual warrant to do so.
1 Corinthians 11 teaches that the woman's hair is her covering, therefore it is to be long - and yes, we do teach that. We believe it is rebellion for a woman to get a butch haircut or shave it off.
What if it falls out because of cancer or old age? This sounds very similar to Islamic conceptions of the subjugation of women--a legalistic application of a theological idea.
The passage also teaches that it is a shame for a man to have long hair - and yes, we teach that as well. In both these cases, Paul referred to the created order as reason for stating this - last I checked, that hasn't changed, so it is still applicable.
Good thing Jesus was gone by the time Paul came around, for he most likely had long hair. Again, the obvious reading of the text presumes that there was something going on in the cultural context of the church to which the letter was written to warrant such ideas. Perhaps a pagan temple cult used males with long hair in their rituals, or some other issue. Regardless of what prompted Paul's ideas, I hardly see an warrant for making this a universal, categorical instruction that should apply to all generations and cultures of Christians. Again, it seems that you are imposing a certain presuppositional idea about nature of Paul's teachings that are not supposed by Paul's own thought.
It doesn't say to put a man out for long hair - but it does teach that it is wrong; therefore we won't have any female workers with short hair and male workers with hippy hair in our ministries. We have set standards they need to conform to.
You use the term "hippie hair," which seems to reinforce the point that you have uncritically applied a prooftext and used it to form a prejudice when there is no cultural, Scriptural, or rational reason why this should happen. Can you not discuss this without resorting to gross stereotypes? Plenty of other cultures around the world have men who wear their hair long besides North American "hippies."
Why was the Biblical OT culture patriarchical? Because the men chose it to be that way, or because God did?
I would suggest that since patriarchy has tended to engender the violent and dehumanizing of one sex that, like the other, is created in the image of God, it would seem to be a very human-created relationship.
It is pretty clear that God did
Ok...where?
therefore the argument that it was their culture (their culture formed by God actually - though that is not what you were saying) and not ours - and therefore is not applicable to us today does not fit the Bible facts.
I have no idea what you mean by this.
For example, the leadership in the tabernacle and temple was chosen by God - specifically male priests, after His pattern.
Well, considering that the pagan nations around Israel often used female prostitute-priests in worship, this is not surprising. However, it by no means categorically precludes females from positions of authority in the church. Wasn't there something in the bible about Christians--male and female--all being the "priesthood of believers?" Therefore, this example is entirely moot.
In the NT we see male apostles, male deacons, male evangelists, etc.
Do a study sometime on the cultural evaluation of women in the first century. It will open your eyes to why men were all in positions of leadership. It wasn't because the female sex is precluded from these roles--it was because of the culture in which the early church spread--women apostles, deacons and evangelists would not have been accepted, nor would they have been successful.
In fact, in Revelation 2, Thyatira gets in a lot of trouble for having a female leader over them.
Paul has some pretty choice words for plenty of churches with male leadership as well, not to mention the directives against the other churches of Revelation 2-3. Surely not all of these were screwed up because of their female leadership. Your example here is a non-point.
Paul wrote his letter to the Corinthian church - yet stated his instruction was for the churches:
1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1 Corinthians 7:17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
1 Corinthians 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.
I'll point you to my comments above about the issue of "all churches."
There is no way we can say certain passages in the epistles were just for such and such church and not for us today (unless the context clearly says so - which is an entirely different thing than us just saying it isn't relevant). For example, Paul gave specific instructions to Titus, that were for him to follow - we can learn from his example - but he is not calling us to go to Crete to set in order what is missing in those church - though the pattern would be to have proper Biblical leadership in all our churches, leadership especially based on the pastoral epistles that teach us how we are to behave ourselves in the house of God.
So how does one make the determination? Paul in 1 Corinthians wrote to the churches (plural) in Corinth. How do you know he meant for it to be circulated beyond? Would he really want his instructions to the Corinthians about the specific problems they were having in their worship services categorically applied to other churches? I doubt it! The problem is that you are so intent on making these writings entirely transcendent of cultural considerations that you render them entirely meainingless for those to whom they were originally written! This, IMO, is the height of hermeneutical sin and does nothing but marginalize vast sections of Christian history for the sake of the propogation and preservation of one's own philosophical presuppositions.
With regard to exist~dissolve's definition of complementarian / egalitarian, I concur, this is the understanding of the words.
With regard to the issues surrounding this debate, I already gave you the one side, Piper and Grudem, for the other, try Denver Seminary's Douglas Groothuis (pronounced like (g)root-(h)ice); he and his wife, Rebecca Merill Groothuis have done some scholarly work in this area. I do not agree with his conclusions, but I do respect Dr. Grothuis as a theologian, and consider him to be a Christian brother.
I think the Bible itself could settle this debate quite for anyone willing to accept it as the unadulterated testimony of the Holy Spirit to believers in Christ. The question seems to be- does every verse transcend time & culture in application? I believe it does, with some reservations- this is where a contrite heart & the individual ministry of the Holy Spirit comes in. In Scripture, God gives us tests to examine individuals & greater movements to see if they are genuinely inspired by Him (while being prudent not to be overly judgmental in nature):
Matt. 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
16 "You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
17 "Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
18 "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 "Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
From my experience, the majority of women who strive for positions such as pastor, elder or bishop carry beliefs Scripture clearly opposes (strikes 3 & 4 bear this out in Ms Jefforts-Schori’s case); as they profess severely adulterated interpretations of Scripture, they expose themselves & the movements which support them as “bad trees.”
PS- That being said, I would not support a woman for the offices of pastor, elder, or bishop; but I would not vigorously oppose one who is already in tenured in office- if she held to the fundamental tenets of Scripture, for therein are (very) limited instances of inspired women placed in leadership positions.
The pastor of the largest Episcopal church in the US, David Roseberry, has informed the ECUSA that his church, Christ Church of Plano, Texas, has decided to leave the ECUSA, but will remain as part of the Anglican communion of churches. How this will all "shake out" we do not know, but pray for this man and his church as he has taken the courageous and Christlike action.
Bravo, and God's peace and blessing and strength to all who follow his footsteps.
GET OUT NOW
Post a Comment