From the Anglican Communion Institute

Written by: The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.
Friday, July 17th, 2009

In a joint letter sent today to the Archbishop of Canterbury by the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church and the President of its House of Deputies, the presiding officers of General Convention acknowledged that that body cannot speak for the whole church in crucial matters affecting the life of the Anglican Communion:

Some are concerned that the adoption of Resolution D025 has effectively repealed Resolution B033. That is not the case. This General Convention has not repealed Resolution B033. It remains to be seen how Resolution B033 will be understood and interpreted in light of Resolution D025. Some within our Church may understand Resolution D025 to give Standing Committees (made up of elected clergy and laity) and Bishops with jurisdiction more latitude in consenting to Episcopal elections. Others, in light of Resolution B033, will not. (Emphasis added.)

This letter thus makes it clear that Resolution D025 releases bishops and standing committees from any commitment and assurances previously given to observe the moratorium on episcopal elections that has been endorsed by all four of the Communion’s Instruments and now implemented in the Communion by vote of the Anglican Consultative Council. Indeed, the official “Explanation” to the final text of D025, which states that it “provides clarification in light of the Windsor Report,” removes any doubt concerning this fact:

Our relationships in the Anglican Communion have been tested by the question of the ordination to the episcopate of individuals living in a same-sex partnership. Resolution D-039 of the 73rd General Convention, in 2000, acknowledged that the membership of the Episcopal Church includes persons living in same-sex relationships; established an expectation that “such relationships will be characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God”; and further denounced “promiscuity, exploitation, and abusiveness in the relationships of any of our members.” Three years later, the 74th General Convention reaffirmed this expectation. These standards thus provide guidance for access to the discernment process for ordination to the episcopate. (Emphasis added.)

http://gc2009.org/ViewLegislation/view_leg_detail.aspx?id=986&type=Final

This is a categorical repudiation of the communion-wide moratorium on the election to the episcopate of anyone living in a same sex partnership. Bishops and dioceses are neither asked nor expected to observe such a moratorium. They are encouraged instead to observe “standards” recognizing same-sex partnerships as reflecting “holy love.” As conceded by today’s letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, some bishops and dioceses will respect the moratorium; others will not. And those that do respect the Communion teaching will do so only because they reject the “guidance” provided by General Convention “standards.”

This explicit recognition that some bishops and dioceses will conform to Communion teaching while others will not requires that the Communion now look to individual dioceses and parishes for communion commitments. The General Convention has decided it cannot speak with one voice in committing to the Communion’s moratoria. The Communion has no choice but to acknowledge those who are ready, willing and able to make these commitments.

A note to Michael Burke, the head of the Alaska delegation to GC 09

Michael:

We appreciate your enthusiasm, your hard work and your reports while at the GC.

However, this comment stood out.

"There will, of course, be those at the extremes who cannot abide by any compromise or comprehension that permits legitimacy for those viewpoints they disagree with ...and we hold them in our love and prayers as well, as they seek a different path to be faithful to the Lord as they understand his will and Word."

It seems that those who continue to hold the faith 'once for all delivered to the saints' are now relegated to the status of 'extreme.' Further, while I do not deny the "legitimacy" of other view points, such points of view can be very wrong, both theologically and pastorally - which I judge to be the case.

The PB's opening address concerning the 'heresy' of individual salvation was uninformed and frankly embarrassing, and this wasn't lost on even some sympathetic observers.

I can only speak for myself; however, I find myself more alienated from TEC than ever before.


Jim Basinger

Slip Sliding Away

A Letter to Rowan: Slip Sliding Away ...

from BabyBlueOnline by BabyBlue

So Bonnie Anderson and Katharine Jefferts Schori have written a letter explaining things to Rowan Williams, which is quite contrary to what was actually said in debates on the floor of both the House of Deputies and House of Bishops.

Let's just recall what D025 actually says:

Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the 76th General Convention reaffirm the continued participation of The Episcopal Church as a constituent member of the Anglican Communion; give thanks for the work of the bishops at the Lambeth Conference of 2008; reaffirm the abiding commitment of The Episcopal Church to the fellowship of churches that constitute the Anglican Communion and seek to live into the highest degree of communion possible; and be it further

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention encourage dioceses, congregations, and members of The Episcopal Church to participate to the fullest extent possible in the many instruments, networks and relationships of the Anglican Communion; and be it further

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention reaffirm its financial commitment to the Anglican Communion and pledge to participate fully in the Inter-Anglican Budget; and be it further

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm the value of "listening to the experience of homosexual persons," as called for by the Lambeth Conferences of 1978, 1988, and 1998, and acknowledge that through our own listening the General Convention has come to recognize that the baptized membership of The Episcopal Church includes same-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships "characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God" (2000-D039); and be it further

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention recognize that gay and lesbian persons who are part of such relationships have responded to God's call and have exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and are currently doing so in our midst; and be it further

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm that God has called and may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church, and that God's call to the ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church is a mystery which the Church attempts to discern for all people through our discernment processes acting in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church; and be it further

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention acknowledge that members of The Episcopal Church as of the Anglican Communion, based on careful study of the Holy Scriptures, and in light of tradition and reason, are not of one mind, and Christians of good conscience disagree about some of these matters.

What Schori and Anderson attempt to maintain - despite the rejoicing going on in the progressive quarters of this church here at General Convention - that they are just acknowledging "certain realities of our common life." Then they assert "Nothing in the Resolution goes beyond what has already been provided under our Constitution and Canons for many years." Well, that's a stretch because the Constitution and Canons call for affirmation of the following by all ordained persons:

I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the Episcopal Church. Declaration." (Article III)

Earlier, the Constitution declares that the Episcopal Church is committed to "upholding
and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer. " (Preamble of the Constitution of The Episcopal Church).

Resolution D025 (as does C056) do not conform with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church which recognize the authority and teaching on scripture which is quite clear about what is considered holy living. The Faith and Order set forth in the Book of Common Prayer only recognizes matrimony between a man and woman as being holy living.

The Windsor Report recognized that and those facts on the ground have not changed. That The Episcopal Church is now not only admitting that this type of behavior has been welcomed, it has promoted it as a tool for bringing new members into the church (with disastrous results). The Spirit is doing a new thing, they say - either that is true or it is not. The Episcopal Church is rejoicing that it is true and they are no longer to pretend otherwise.

The word-smithing in this letter reflects the duplicity of the doublethink of the leadership of this General Convention. On one hand they want to explain to Rowan Williams the "complex and deliberative nature of our legislative process" and then on the other hand wants to explain that B033 is not repealed, it's just now read in light of D025 (and D056 which is on its way) - which in fact, repeals B033 as deputy after deputy after deputy after bishop after bishop after bishop said! Who do they think they are fooling? The Archbishop of Canterbury? Do they think he's that stupid?

They write this letter even before the passage of C056 which makes it abundantly clear that B033 is done, finished - as deputy after deputy after deputy attested. Nice timing, there, ladies.

Did Bonnie Anderson ever say anything to the House of Deputies to clarify their thinking - no, a thousand times no. She sat in silence as deputy after deputy after deputy repudiated B033.

Did the Presiding Bishop ever say anything in the public sessions to clarify the resolutions from what bishop after bishop after bishop said it was, both B025 and D056, did she ever say anything that even hints at what she attempts to say in this letter to Rowan? No. No, no, no.

The letter is sanctimonious and self-congratulatory and never quotes the Windsor Report or Lambeth 1.10 or the Dar es Salaam Communique or even B033 not even once. They attempt to pull the wool over Canterbury's eyes by saying, well, it's not what it really looks like because, well, we just hope (wink wink) that the Episcopal leadership will "continue to exercise prayerful discernment in making such decisions, mindful and appreciative of our relationships in the Anglican Communion." No, no, no, no - a thousand times no. Bishop after bishop after bishop after deputy after deputy after deputy saw this resolution and the one that follows it as liberation from B033 and the Windsor Report and Lambeth 1.10 (except for the bits they like and quote). They changed the wording in Title IV so that the word "Communion" now means "the Episcopal Church" - not the Communion, not the Anglican Communion.

Make no mistake about it - the intent here is to dare the Rowan Williams to say anything - for if he does, if he dares, the Episcopal Church stands ready to declare itself a victim, even as it slashes $24 million from its budget and sends staffers packing. There's nothing wrong, no, really.

If that's no enough, we have Bishop Schori writing to the "Anglican Primates" attaching a copy of the letter to Rowan Williams, writing:

TO THE PRIMATES OF THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION:

15 July 2009

Dear Brothers in Christ,

My heart was filled with joy at seeing so many of you here last week at the 76th General Convention of The Episcopal Church meeting in Anaheim, California. It is important to me that we continue to find ways to communicate with one another directly about our different cultural and ecclesial contexts, and thereby prevent any misunderstandings.

For this reason, I am sending you a copy of a letter addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury and co-signed by myself and the President of our House of Deputies. It outlines in some detail Resolution D025, which was adopted at this Convention, explaining both what this resolution means and what it does not mean. With so much misinformation circulating through the press and other sources, it is crucial to me that I provide the Archbishop and all of you with accurate information. To this end, I am also attaching a copy of Resolution D025, so that you may read it in its entirety for yourself.

As the attached letter notes, some people have been concerned that the adoption of D025 has effectively repealed the 2006 General Convention Resolution B033. Let me stress that this is not the case. Rather, we understand D025 to be more descriptive than prescriptive in nature, acknowledging the realities we face in various parts of our own Church while reaffirming our ongoing commitment on all levels to our relationships within the Anglican Communion.

I would welcome any questions or feedback you might have, and reiterate yet again my profound appreciation and joy at having so many of you with us as we gathered as a Church to worship, fellowship, and deliberate together. May God continue to bless your ministries and strengthen our bonds of affection.

Your servant in Christ,

KJS

One again, she attempts to take the victim platform - stating "With so much misinformation circulating through the press and other sources, it is crucial to me that I provide the Archbishop and all of you with accurate information." She and Bonnie Anderson did not dare to say what's written in these letters publicly here at General Convention for they must have anticipated the (understandable) outrage from the Integrity-aligned folks that would have been deafening. This is a bald face lie and she couldn't say it publicly, writing these letters to the leadership as though they will believe her. In fact, during the key points of debating D025, not one Anglican leader was sitting at the three tables set aside for them in the House of Bishop. Not one. They were gone, gone, gone.

They are now playing showtunes on the floor of the House of Deputies as we await the announcement followed by "Slip Sliding Away."

Slip sliding away, slip sliding away
You know the nearer your destination,
the more you slip sliding away
Oh God only knows, God makes his plan
The information's unavailable to the mortal man
Were workin' our jobs, collect our pay
Believe were gliding down the highway,
when in fact were slip sliding away
Slip sliding away, slip sliding away
You know the nearer your destination,
the more you slip sliding away

Rowan Williams said he didn't speak on coded language when he was here. But these resolutions are filled with coded language and it's clear that if Katharine Jefferts Schori and Bonnie Anderson are writing three-page-letters to the Archbishop of Canterbury they are severely worried. That they couldn't say their own worries to their own houses says more about the duplicity of their actions - and clarifies to all that The Episcopal Church has set its sights on slip sliding away into the sunset.

Fulcrum on Episcopal Tribulation

The decision, by a 2-to-1 majority, of the House of Bishops of TEC to pass D025 represents a further determined walking apart by the American Church and must have significant consequences for the relationship of TEC to the Church of England and the Anglican Communion.

Their decision to support, with a minor amendment, the resolution previously passed by the House of Deputies:

Ignored the repeated requests by all the Instruments of Communion, most recently the Anglican Consultative Council, to uphold the Windsor moratoria

Disregarded the explicit request of the Archbishop of Canterbury during his visit to General Convention when he stated “Along with many in the Communion, I hope and pray that there won't be decisions in the coming days that will push us further apart”.

Failed to heed the Archbishop of Canterbury's warning at General Synod that “it remains to be seen I think whether the vote of the House of Deputies will be endorsed by the House of Bishops.
If the House of Bishops chooses to block then the moratorium remains. I regret the fact that there is not the will to observe the moratorium in such a significant part of the Church in North America but I can’t say more about that as I have no details”.

Overturned the recommendation of the bishops serving on the World Mission committee who asked the House not to support the resolution, explicitly citing such reasons as that passing the resolution amounted to a rejection of the process commended by Windsor and jeopardizes the covenant, would not reflect hearing the concerns of the Communion and disregards Lambeth I.10

Withdrew the assurances given by the House of Bishops to the wider Communion in September 2007 in response to the Dar Primates' Meeting.

1 It is important to recognise the multiple levels at which the resolution disregards the mind of the Communion both in relation to human sexuality and the nature of life together in Communion as expressed in the Windsor Report and the Anglican Covenant.

It:

selectively quotes from Lambeth I.10 and affirms only the Listening Process but not the teaching and practice of the Communion consistently reaffirmed by the Instruments since 1998 which is the framework within which the Listening Process should occur.

contradicts the teaching of Scripture and the Communion by reaffirming that same-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect and careful, honest communication display “holy love”.

recognizes that “gay and lesbian persons who are part of such relationships have responded to God's call and have exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and are currently doing so in our midst” despite the clear statement of Lambeth I.10 rejecting ordination of those in same-sex unions.

reaffirms they were right to consent to the election of Gene Robinson and proceed to his consecration by affirming “that God has called and may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church” despite Windsor's request for a statement of regret for that action.

asserts their right autonomously to determine the suitability of candidates for ordination “through our discernment processes acting in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church” without reference to the discernment of the wider church or the requested moratorium.

In relation to the Anglican Communion and the Windsor and Covenant Processes, the Windsor Continuation Group stated that “A deliberate decision to act in a way which damages Communion of necessity carries consequences. This is quite distinct from the language of sanction or punishment, but acknowledges that the expression and experience of our Communion in Christ cannot be sustained so fully in such circumstances. A formal expression of the distance experienced would therefore seem to be appropriate” (Para 45). General Convention's actions clearly reject the Windsor Process and are incompatible with the affirmations and commitments agreed by ACC in the proposed covenant. A formal expression of distance, with consequent limiting of involvement in Communion counsels, must now follow if the Windsor and covenant processes are to retain credibility in the wider Communion.


In relation to the Church of England, it has recently been reaffirmed, with regard to the Church of Sweden, that “the teaching and discipline of the Church of England, like that of the Anglican Communion as a whole as expressed in the Lambeth Conference of 1998, is that it is not right either to bless same-sex sexual relationships or to ordain those who are involved in them” and that “changes in the understanding of human sexuality and marriage” will lead to impairment of relationships and limit the inter-changeability of ordained ministry.

2 These consequences must now logically follow in relation to those bishops within TEC who have voted to support D025. They could be expressed by such means as actions under the Overseas Clergy Measure and a decision that the Church of England not be represented at future TEC consecrations.


Over coming weeks, in discerning a proportionate response to this latest development it is important that

a clear differentiation is made between the majority in TEC who voted for the resolution and those – centred on the Communion Partners – who upheld the mind of the Communion within TEC. We hope that many Church of England bishops will clearly reaffirm their continued full communion with those TEC bishops who voted against the resolution.

similar disregard for the moratoria in a significant number of dioceses in the Anglican Church of Canada are not ignored

critical attention also be given to the relationship of both the Communion and the Church of England with the Anglican Church in North America.

As that discernment occurs and General Convention continues to meet and discuss other resolutions that would represent a further tearing of the fabric of the Communion we pray the words of this week's collect



Almighty and everlasting God,
by whose Spirit the whole body of the Church
is governed and sanctified:
hear our prayer which we offer for all your faithful people,
that in their vocation and ministry
they may serve you in holiness and truth
to the glory of your name;
through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.

Latest on FCA

ANGLO CATHOLIC AND EVANGELICAL BISHOPS BACK UK LAUNCH OF FELLOWSHIP OF CONFESSING ANGLICANS (FCA)

FIVE English Bishops are to take part in the launch of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans in London on July 6, expressing the breadth of support the fellowship, which had its roots in the Gafcon conference in Jerusalem last year, is experiencing.

Organisers, who booked Westminster Central Hall for the day-long event, have seen registrations from church leaders flooding in since the launch was announced just two months ago.

In addition to video and personal greetings from international guests including Archbishop Nicholas Okoh, Bishop of Asaba and Archbishop of Bendel, Nigeria, and Archbishop Henri Orombi from Uganda, delegates will also learn of the depth of support and good wishes from English bishops, leaders of both the evangelical and Anglo Catholic wings of Anglicanism.

English Bishops John Broadhurst (Fulham), Wallace Benn (Lewes), John Hind (Chichester) and Michael Nazir-Ali (Rochester) are all billed to speak to the gathering, and Peter Forster (Chester) has sent greetings.

Two other diocesan bishops will attend the event. Leading Anglo Catholic Bishop, Keith Ackerman, will lead a main session on how FCA is a catalyst for united mission, ministry and focus for both orthodox Anglicans, be they evangelical or Anglo Catholic.

Bishop Ackerman, who is President of Forward in Faith in the USA, said: “One of the reasons I am really looking forward to being with my friends in England is so that I might be able to share with them the anointing of the Holy Spirit that has occurred at this gathering (of the installation of Archbishop Bob Duncan as Primate of the Anglican Church in North America at Christ Church Plano on June 24) here in Texas.

“Some people say that they really like to stand in line and have a little bit of food from here and there – a smorgasbord – other people like casseroles. At this event the Holy Spirit has brought this meal forward, he has blended together those unique contributions that each of the strains brought and while not losing its integrity is able to put forth that which is well pleasing in his sight and to God be the glory.

“The time is right for us right now not to lose sight of what he is calling his entire Church to. The entire Anglican Communion is being called to stand up and Be Faithful! at this very time. Luke-warmness has gone and we are now ready to talk about the light of the world, Jesus Christ who is ready to ignite the work he has placed before us at this time. I cannot wait to see everyone.”

Event spokesman, the Revd Paul Perkin, a vicar from London, added: “Some are staying in the Church, but failing to stand for Christian truth and practice; others are standing firm for Christian truth and practice, but are not staying. We are standing, and we are staying.”

The gathering will also hear from a personal video message from veteran evangelical and Anglican statesman, Dr. Jim Packer, before Archbishop Peter Jensen from Australia will give a 30 minute presentation on Why the Jerusalem Statement, agreed at Gafcon in 2008 is central to the fellowship’s development across the globe, and in the UK.

Click here for press release

(Source: GAFCON website, 28/06/09)

Impressive Procession

I could do without the water!

So What's the ACNA?

Thanks to Chris Sugden!

From Mark Thompson (Moore College, Sydney)

Opinion, from Dr. Mark Thompson:

Last night the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (operating as its Supreme Court) voted 326 to 267 to confirm the call of a practicing and openly gay man to be the minister of the congregation of Queen’s Cross in Aberdeen.

The decision comes at a time when the same issue has critically divided the Anglican Communion. A non-celibate gay man is Bishop of New Hampshire in the United States, his appointment confirmed by all but a small minority in The Episcopal Church. His presence at the inauguration of President Obama was nothing less than a presidential imprimatur. The Canadian churches are pushing ahead with the liturgical blessing of same-sex unions. Powerful gay lobbies are operating in many Anglican provinces around the world, including here in Australia. Meanwhile the Archbishop of Canterbury, caught between his published private opinions and the official position of his church, keeps trying to hold everyone together.

Other denominations both in Australia and beyond have also been dealing with various levels of gay activism within their membership.

The statement released by the Fellowship of Confessing Churches states the issue with unusual succinctness: this vote ‘sends a clear signal to the world that our denomination has departed from the teaching of the Christian Scriptures, upon which its very existence depends’. This statement resonates with the stated concerns of orthodox Christians around the world and in various denominations. The written word of God states repeatedly and unambiguously that homosexuality is a contradiction of God’s creational design for human sexual expression; to use the words of the Fellowship’s statement again, ‘the clear Scriptural pattern that recognises the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman as the only proper place for sexual intimacy’.

To acknowledge the Bible’s teaching on this matter as the true expression of God’s mind is not in any way to condone violence against homosexual persons. Such violence is itself a failure to take seriously the teaching of Scripture. Christians completely repudiate any such violence against anyone with whom we might disagree and where violence has been perpetrated in the name of Christ or of his people we need to acknowledge it and genuinely repent of it. What is more, homosexual persons are entitled to certain protections under the law (e.g. the right to live free of a fear of violence, the right to own property, and the right to be paid the same salary for the same work). However, these protections should not extend to insisting that all must agree with their decisions or behaviour. It is not an act of violence to say that something is wrong or morally repugnant.

Nor is this a sign of some psychological weakness, a ‘homophobia’ which is little more than giving way to our own fears and insecurities. This psychologising of dissent or opposition is a common enough tactic in modern debates. In the popular media and in liberal circles, it is used to suggest that there is something seriously deficient in those who disagree with the consensus they are promoting. It can also be a way of avoiding serious engagement with the arguments of your opponents. After all, if their opposition is borne out of pure irrational bigotry then surely it is appropriate just to marginalise and ignore them. However, the Christian opposition to homosexual behaviour over the past two thousand years has not arisen out of fear or ignorance. It arises from God’s clear expression of his mind and purposes for human beings. It is carefully reasoned and grounded firmly in God’s revelation.

The advocates of the right of actively homosexual persons to be recognised as faithful Christians and entrusted with Christian leadership of various kinds have also sometimes argued that their opponents are all captive to naïve and fundamentalist readings of Scripture which cannot be taken seriously in the twenty-first century. They point to other practices condemned in Scripture (almost invariably the Old Testament) which Christians do not take seriously and in fact have not taken seriously for a very long time. The food and clothing laws of Leviticus are often cited in this regard. So too is the insistence in the same Old Testament book that adultery should be punishable by death. Christians once justified slavery on the basis of biblical teaching, so the argument goes, and excluded women from leadership in the Christian congregation.

However, even a basic understanding of biblical theology demonstrates the difference between most of these cases and the issue of homosexual behaviour. The food and clothing laws of the Old Testament relate to the distinct national identity of Israel as God’s chosen people. With the advent of Jesus the situation is quite different. Indeed, it is Jesus himself who declares all foods clean. Adultery, however, is very different, as the repeated denunciations of it in the New Testament testify. It is no less serious an affront to God as it was in the Old Testament, since it still involves the repudiation of God’s intention for a faithful life-long union between a man and woman. Yet the Old Testament demand for judicial execution is replaced by congregational discipline: a call to repent and temporary exclusion with the goal of full restoration. Here is an appropriate analogy with the New Testament perspective on homosexual behaviour.

The appeal to the Christian attitude towards slavery as a precedent is to a certain degree disingenuous. After all, it was evangelical Christianity, motivated by obedience to the Scriptures rather than a desire to set them aside in favour of a contemporary public consensus, which overturned the slave trade in Britain. That abominable trade in human misery had been wrongly equated with the slavery found in Israel under the Old Covenant. Furthermore, the bonds of brotherhood in Christ took precedence over all social station and effectively undermined the practice of slavery as it existed in the first century Mediterranean world (as Paul more than hints to the slave-owner Philemon).

The case of women and Christian leadership is nowhere near as straightforward. It is certainly a matter of demonstrable fact that there is no universal Christian consensus on what kinds of leadership are appropriately exercised by women and what are not. There are many who insist that women are to be considered in every way equal to men and yet that this equality is not at all compromised by recognising men and women as complements of one another rather than duplicates. Yet others prefer an undifferentiated egalitarianism. The New Testament clearly considers gender an important issue when it comes to how we should behave within the Christian congregation. Yet debate continues as to how giftedness and opportunity are related to the very few restrictions on the appropriate ministry of women in the apostolic writings.

The push for what is euphemistically called ‘homosexual inclusion’ is sometimes portrayed as the next chapter in the history of enlightenment and emancipation. The prejudices of the past and the morally bankrupt practices which arose from them have one by one been overturned as knowledge replaced ignorance and freedom overcame oppression. The mistreatment of those who were different in race or gender to those with power was rightly exposed and action was rightly taken to eliminate it. Now, we are told, there is one further kind of discrimination which needs to be overcome: discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Yet such a picture cloaks a raft of differences.

Most important of these is the simple fact that the Christian objection focuses on behaviour rather than the inward struggle with temptation. Each of us is tempted to seek fulfilment, pleasure or meaning apart from God and his good word to us. We could rightly speak about our orientation or attraction to selfishness, pride, greed, anger, promiscuity and so forth, and of our responsibility to seek God’s help to resist that orientation. Those troubled with homosexual temptation need support and care rather than repudiation. And part of that support may well be to help such people avoid circumstances which would provide opportunity to surrender to that temptation.

Nevertheless, the issue in New Hampshire, Canada, Scotland and elsewhere is homosexual activity, indeed the embrace of an actively homosexual lifestyle while claiming to submit to the Lordship of Christ.

The sad but unavoidable truth is that any Christianity which endorses homosexual activity is not authentic Christianity. It cannot appeal to the universal teaching of the Christian churches over the past two thousand years. It can lay no claim to the mandate of Scripture. It cannot legitimately suggest that Jesus overturned the teaching of the Old Testament on this issue. Indeed, when speaking to the Pharisees about divorce he explicitly reiterated God’s creational intention: ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.’ (Matt. 19:4–6)

It is important for Christians to be vocal in their opposition to moves such as that just made in Aberdeen. We need to insist that this is an aberration which is inauthentic. The lobbyists will certainly try to use it as evidence that there is no Christian consensus on this issue. This will no doubt be part of the debate in the House of Lords this week as activists try to wind back religious exemptions to the laws which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Yet we continue to say ‘no’ and to argue that homosexual practice is morally repugnant because God has made this clear in the Scriptures. And the good word of the good God who made us all is always worth living by.

Problems in Church of Scotland

General Assembly 2009 — Statement

Statement regarding the ruling of the General Assembly to support Aberdeen Presbytery’s decision that living an openly homosexual lifestyle is no barrier to ordained ministry in the Church:

We deeply regret the decision of the General Assembly, which has brought great shame on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and his Church by publicly proclaiming as holy what God, the Bible, and orthodox Christianity all down the ages, and all over the world, unambiguously call sin.

This is about far more than just sexuality. The very nature of the Christian gospel is at stake. The true gospel is not about self-fulfilment and self-expression, but a command to take up our cross in a life of self-denial, regardless of our own personal inclinations, desires or past history. Jesus’ call is one of compassion, but of compassionate truth: ‘I forgive you; go and leave your life of sin’. That is why the world rejected Jesus personally, and rejects his message today.

But the Church’s task is to proclaim the truth of God to the world nonetheless. Our own congregations, which include a number of homosexual people, are united in opposing this decision. We stand in complete solidarity with congregations in Aberdeen who stood for the truth of God, and we affirm our Christian fellowship with them, and trust many others will do likewise.

This crisis has galvanised many living churches within the Church of Scotland to seek to work together in a new way through the Confessing Churches movement. In fellowship together, and sharing resources for real gospel mission, we will embrace with renewed vigour the commission of Jesus to make true disciples, calling people to repentance and faith in his gospel, and teaching them obedience to all that he has commanded through his apostles. True Christianity cannot be silenced.

We fear that the General Assembly is seriously out of touch with the grass roots in the churches. But it should remember that these are the people who have—hitherto at least—kept a creaking denomination afloat financially. We suspect there will be a great deal less willingness to do that from now on.

Calvin on Faith

"Now, therefore, we hold faith to be a knowledge of God's will toward us, perceived from his Word. But the foundation of this is a preconceived conviction of God's truth. As for its certainty, so long as your mind is at war with itself, the Word will be of doubtful and weak authority, or rather of none. And it is not even enough to believe that God is trustworthy (cf. Rom 3.3), who can neither deceive nor lie (cf Titus 1.2), unless you hold to be beyond doubt that whatever proceeds from him is sacred and inviolable truth."

Book III, Chapter 3, paragraph 6