While the Anglican Church is fighting within itself to put a few things right, whether or not homosexuals can be ordained as bishops, is surely the core issue. The lead, was that Gene Robinson, an openly gay, was consecrated by the US church. The Canada church went on to bless same-sex union. So-called 'conservatives' boycotted the recent Lambeth conference because of the presence of US and Canada delegates there. Meanwhile, parish members of Gene Robinson's church were having a barbeque celebration. A lady, while attending the barbeque, told the reporter that the Gospel preached us to love, not to hate.
How flashy to claim that it's a Gospel of love that Jesus preached. He could have done it in a more flashy way (as compared with what is in the Gospels), giving energetic talks on mega-conferences, doing TV talkshows, giving out huge donations, building up orphanages all over the world - any good deeds we can think of, EXCEPT going to the Cross. This love-only gospel, as many falsely hold, is anything but a true gospel.
Who is the God that we put our faith in? Yes He is a God of Love. He loves us - all sinners, unconditionally. But, I dare to say, He is also a God that HATES - He hates sins. And He is a God of Judgment，because He is a God of Righteousness, and will judge us all at the end of the world. Hence comes the great sacrifice He Himself offered. If sin is anything trivial, He didn't need to pay such a big price. There is no room for Redemption, if people can simply love and be good. No, Jesus came to save, and He died for us, because of our sins.
It's funny to find that even some Anglican theologians regard homosexuality not as a sin, on the ground that Jesus never mentioned it. I wonder, people might be very happy that Jesus didn't mention many sins in the Bible explicitly so they had more 'freedom'.
When Jesus was confronted by people bringing the woman caught in adultery (John 8), He didn't even mention 'adultery is a sin'. He wrote on the ground with his fingers. The result, was all the onlookers felt guilty and left one another. Jesus then told the woman, 'Neither do I condemn you; go, and sin no more.’ He came, to save, not to condemn and judge.
Yet He said, 'Sin no more'. He came to visit whores, Pharisees, tax collectors, adulterers and adulteresses. With His holy presence, He needed not to tell them about the sins they committed. Yet He asked, 'Sin no more'.
As for the Law, if we interpret it as 'traditionalism', Jesus surely stood by it, 'Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.' The biblical references on homosexuality as a sin are numerous, including in the Old Testament LEV 18:22, 20:1-3, HOS 9:9, and in the New Testament, ROM 1:26-27, 1CO 6:9-10. Did Jesus never mention it, as some Anglican theologians claimed? It occurs to me when I was thinking about it, MAT 10:15, 'Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city'. It is a grievous warning, and we can read it along with JUD 7: 'Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.'
Nothing is clearer than that.
This world, is sinking into secularism. Ordinary people, stars, seminary professors, bishops, all question the legitimate position of the Bible being taken as a morality standard. They say, time has changed, traditionalism doesn't have a place any more. What they really object, is not traditionalism or conservatism, but the old and true Gospel, the Gospel of the Cross. This is however, nothing new. The world, with all its armies of disbelief, have rejected the Gospel.
I don't want to be rude, but seriously, if we don't accept the Gospel, i.e., accept Jesus as our personal Saviour, we can't understand God's commandment, let alone adhere to it. We are simply unable to do good. Now, for us believers, why does God have the right to give us the law? He is God, we are human. Why should we stick to His law? Yet we are His children. Father always has some rules for his son, not to punish him, but to keep him from hurting himself, paying a grievous price thereof. This is nothing else but love.
Apostle John said, "Behold, what manner of love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God." (1 John 3:1) He then pointed out, "we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him. And every man that has this hope in him purifies himself, even as He is pure." We are, because God is. It is all because
we have the special relationship with God.
William Barclay's "Ethics in a Permissive Society", a brilliant book about the basis of biblical ethics. We can have a quick look of the bible verses, as follows. DEU 5:6, 'I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.' He is our Saviour. And His commandments we listen to. DEU 24:18, 'but thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee thence: therefore I command thee to do this thing'. No matter it is to worship the True God, or to treat neighbours with fairness and favour, there is only one single ground, is that we are saved by God. We are saved from being a slave to Satan, doing evil in darkness. Now we belong to God, and we should walk in the light, being like Him, and doing good through Him.
Not only we should keep ourself upright, we have the responsibility to remind people who err (JAM 5:19). Only love can complete the law.
Back to the news, this time, it takes a Catholic priest to
remind them of the danger of secularism and relativism. However, since Cardinal Dias warned that the Anglican Church is suffering spiritual Alzheimer's disease, the Society of Alzheimer's sent in a complaint, saying he offended the suffers of Alzheimer's. Hmm. In this political-correctness-maniac society, remember you can't say words such as 'spiritual deafness' etc., not even 'spiritual death' since the dead will surely have a problem with it! But I don't think there is a need for the Cardinal to apologize or even comment on that illogical charge.
If separation is the only way to preserve truth in church practice, there is no problem out of that.
Presbyterians have done that. Why shouldn't the Anglicans, especially after we read
this?
The Archbishop was speaking as the bishops emerged from three days of retreat and a service featuring Buddhist chants and grass-skirted Melanesian dancers in Canterbury Cathedral.
Some are sober:
a family will break with no boundaries. A union kept by politics but without a common biblical faith, is anything but a church. Those bishops proud of how inclusive they are, do they know what they are doing? The church needs to be separate, to be holy, and then it can reach to the community, this as always as in any other church business, remaining in Jesus Christ.
Last but not least, even when Jesus Himself declared He is the Truth, People rejected Him, saying He was possessed. Dr John Sung the famous Chinese preacher, was sent to an insane asylum by the Union Theological Seminary back in 1920s. There is, as always, a danger for being confident that you have the truth, but we should never ever be ashamed of it. Jude said, ‘you should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.' Paul said, 'I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept my faith.' True Christians, fear not.
