Archbishop of Canterbury Shuts the Door of the Cathedral to Orthodox Anglicans

Have a look at my post #2 in this thread:

Is the man "the husband of one wife"? No, he seems instead to be the husband of a husband.

Is he living a lifestyle that is "respectable" and "above reproach"? No, as I've laid out already, same-sex civil unions are saturated in the appearance of impropriety. Anyone who doesn't want to admit that is doing a fair imitation of a head-in-the-sand ostrich.

Is the man "holding firm to the trustworthy word as taught"? No, for nearly two millennia the word of God has been taught by the church to mean that godly, obedient men don't enter into such relationships with one another. For someone in a church leadership position, such behavior would have been totally unthinkable prior to about 50 years ago... it would have been so far out of the question, we would not be having this conversation because the conclusion would be foregone.

Besides, Dr. Monteith is assuming a position wherein he leads, guides, and essentially teaches many students through the teaching staff which he will oversee as dean. One might say that he will be 'a teacher of teachers.' What does James 3:1 say? Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. We dare not use the same standard for leaders and teachers in the church as we use for laity, because the potential for damage to the body of Christ on earth is so great. The person appointed to that post needs to truly be above reproach and a shining example of orthodox Christianity and godly lifestyle for the very reason that he is in a position that greatly influences the future of the faith handed down to us by Jesus Christ through the Twelve.

 

"What the appointment of a dean in a civil partnership... has to do with" the word of God is no mystery at all! Since the word of God contains words about God as well as words about God's will for His church (i.e., theology), and since those words clearly disqualify the gentleman for the position to which he was appointed, the Abp's allegation that this is not the case amounts to an attempt to change orthodox Christian theology.

 

I’ve asked several times now what any of this has to do with the Articles of Faith (as set out in the Creed), and I’ve yet to receive a straight answer. The idea that this is somehow a theological issue is patent nonsense. It’s just more “culture war” polemics masquerading as ‘doctrine’ in the service of schismatic rhetoric, all while presuming the guilt of a cleric. That’s quite a combination.

 

So are you suggesting that every leader in the church must be married to a wife and if they are not married and having sex they are therefore, according to the way you interpret the text, disqualified for leadership roles in Christ's church? Yes or No?

So you are actually calling this person a liar when he says that he is living according to the caveats outlined by the rules of the denomination he serves Christ under? You realise that you may be falsely accusing a brother in the faith I suppose, but that is considered to be of little consequence apparently. Are your personal suspicions to be paramount to what may actually be the truth? If they are not, then who is responsible for committing sin in this scenario?

Such relationships DID exist from up to THREE millenia ago, but they were not formalised in legal agreements we now call civil partnerships. There was no sexual connotation in the two examples of intamacy that I have quoted in the links, and there is no absolute certainty that any sexual activity is involved in a civil partnership, particularly when celebacy is claimed by the partners in it. As it certainly would have been between David and Jonathan and John and Jesus, had civil partnerships existed and had they chosen to formalise their close concern, (love), for one another.
.

 

You have been given many straight answers by me and others. You just don't like them. We can only show you the well; we can't make you drink the water.

 

That is disingenuous, to put it mildly. What I’ve actually gotten is a lot of redirects and non-answers. No one has said which article of the Creed the CoE supposedly violated by appointing a priest to a deanery who is in a civil partnership but is presumed celibate, in accordance with the current canons of the CoE. If I’m wrong, it is a simple matter to provide a quotation where you or another participant here stated what Article of Faith has been denied. On the flip side, accusing a cleric of misconduct without evidence is bearing false witness, and the one part of the Bible that is said to be written by God himself contains that very prohibition, so you tell me which of us has a problem with “theology.” To discard procedural presumption of innocence in favor of the intuition of the idealistic is a fascist position if ever I’ve known one. It is also absurd to claim that the CoE “shut the door” to the “orthodox”, just as it is a false dichotomy to treat “orthodox” and “liberal” as mutually exclusive categories. Plenty of great theologians of the Church have been both, by the standards of their age.

 

You suffer from the same inability to distinguish eros from agape that many liberals suffer from. Jesus' love for John and the other apostles was agape, not eros. And the relationship of Jesus to the apostles was far closer in any sense than a mere civil contract could provide. This love was not romantic, or even phileo (close friendship); it was a vast and self-sacrificing love that Jesus feels for all his subjects equally. John was an apostle, but no more or less beloved than any other of the Apostles (or any other human being, for that matter). To believe otherwise is to credit Jesus with the sin of favoritism, which I certainly hope you did not intend.

Consider the passage in John 21:15-17 where Jesus asks Peter three times if Peter loves him. Jesus keeps asking because Peter keeps giving him the wrong answer. Peter uses phileo, when Christ wants agape.

And the friendship of David and Jonathan has been twisted by homosexuals for years to mean something other than it is portrayed in the Bible. No Jew or Christian has ever read the book in this way until the 1970's, but now it's accepted by liberals as hoary tradition (as Tiffy exhibits above). But that exegesis has always been a transparent lie, one that serious scholars have discarded decades ago. No scholarship supports it, no serious student of the Bible (liberal or orthodox) believes it, no religious tradition holds it, but it keeps on cropping up in conversations anyway.

The "civil union" argument is ridiculous on many levels, but first and foremost it fails even as the fig leaf it is supposed to be. All the rights granted in a civil parnership are available through other legal means: power of attorney, conservatorships, guardianships, even LLC Partnerships (or their UK equivalent). Why specifically a "civil partnership" between two homosexual men? Because it is a simulacrum of actual marriage, that's why. That's how it's understood by nearly everyone (including everyone in this discussion). So it is a faux marriage between two men. That the church allows this situation to pertain without penalty is an obvious violation of basic Christian and canon law (which Rexlion has already explained above).

As always, the fundamental issue is not really homosexuality or any of the other hot-button issues now. The basic issue has always been, and remains, the authority of Scripture. What the Bible says, God says. The Bible is God's revealed word to humanity regarding who he is, what he is, and how he is to be worshiped. Jesus is a member of the triune God; he was with the Father in the beginning (John 1:1-5), and through him all things were made. He along with the Father and the Holy Spirit invests the Old Testament as well as the New (including all those "clobber verses" that so vex the liberals). When the orthodox insist on Biblical standards of morality, we are insisting on the commands of God himself.

 

The problem is that you are confused, but you keep accusing us of being confused, or at least obfuscatory.

The misapprehension is yours. I don't know how else to educate you on this issue. If you cannot accept that avowed and unrepentant homosexuality in and of itself is a disqualifier for ecclesial service, I don't know what else to say to you.*

*And before you say "But celibacy!" again, consider this: Impropriety remains, even if it's the appearance of impropriety; a man of God must be humble and self-effacing enough to avoid even the appearance, lest he cause his sheep to stumble. If nothing else, the failure of the clergy in question to do this marks them with the sin of pride as well as homosexuality, making them doubly unfit.

 

LOL, wrong again. Thank you for making my point, and so verbosely.

 

Insisting that it must have to do with the Articles of Faith is a straw man.

The word of God takes precedence over the 39 Articles.

 

Must be married, no. If married or otherwise cohabiting in a formalized "couples" relationship, then yes it must be a marriage before God and of one man to one woman.

Yes, absolutely disqualified. Such a minister or church leader must step down from the leadership role until he can sort through his life, get back on track as a good example to the laity, and be once more entrusted by his bishop or archbishop with the duties of leadership.

Straw man. Or can you show me a statement by Monteith that his civil union is entirely platonic and free from eros? But even if he has made such a statement, the appearance of impropriety remains by the very fact of the union. Only a fool would presume that there is no 'conjugal' activity between two members of a civil union, because the opposite presumption is nearly universal among mankind; ask anyone!

I need not accuse, nor do I need to know for certain what goes on in his bedroom, for the simple fact that his lifestyle (living openly in a civil union with another man) is not "respectable" and "above reproach" in the eyes of the laity at large; it is a stain upon Christianity and a dishonor to the church, one that subjects the church to gossip, laughter, and claims of hypocrisy. But apparently I'm responding to one of those ostriches...

How dare you besmirch David and Jonathan, and John and Jesus? They didn't move in together and present themselves to those around them as a "couple"! But Monteith has done exactly that! Non-sexual agape love is wonderful, but that type of love is not the connotation connected to either marriages or civil unions. Not then, and not now!

 

I never said anything about the 39 Articles. The articles of the Creed are what we pledge to uphold in the baptismal vows. So I’ll ask again: which articles of the Creed have been violated here? That God is the Father Almighty? That Christ is his son? That the dead will be raised? It is the schismatic GAFCON/ACNA-inspired rhetoric that is confused here, not actual Anglicans’ reaction to it.

 

No I don't and I don't teach my grandad to suck eggs. You should know very well by now that I am well aware of the differences between different Greek types of what we in the English language lump together under the single word LOVE. There is nothing you can teach me on that particular subject.

Labelling me with the (derrogatively in America term), Liberal, does not disguise the fact that you have no evidence whatever that the type of LOVE that the person we are discussing has for his civil partner, is anything other than agape, but even if it was eros, (not forbidden by God), his celebacy would render even that acceptable in terms of the requirements of conduct of leaders laid out in scripture, and to imply otherwise , let alone openly accuse, opens you to the accusation of bearing false witness, which is forbidden by God.

Consider the passage in Mark 10:21 Even though the Greek word agape is used here agape means loving in far more than just passingly liking someone.

Dictionary Definition. ἀγαπάω agapaō; perhaps from ἄγαν agan (much) (or compare h5689); to love (in a social or moral sense): — (be-)love(-ed). AV (142) - love 135, beloved 7; of persons to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly of things to be well pleased, to be contented at or with a thing

David's love for Jonathan went way beyond just being good friends with each other. There would have been nothing exceptional about that for scripture to comment upon.

How some scripturally uneducated homosexuals interpret the bible is irrelevant to the fact that the person we are discussing claims to be celebate. What some OTHER homosexuals think the text means is neither here nor there. Many people do not understand scripture properly and read into it what they would LIKE it to mean. Even homophobes are capable of doing THAT.

You are still banging on accusing the person under discussion of lying about being celebate and trying to imply that that would make no difference anyway. FEELINGS are not sin. Sins are deeds of the flesh. It's those that incur judgment. It is only when FEELINGS lead a person to commit DEEDS that sin is full blown. FEELING eros toward someone is not sinful. Actual "fanny grabbing" like your ex US 'president' confessd proudly to, IS sinful, for example.

You chose to make it so. That is what you believe and which convinces you that you are right and others are wrong. However we will all have to wait until we know as we ourselves are known by God before we have absolute certainty of all that.
.

 

Slippery like a wet fish, huh? The only "Articles of Faith" I'm familiar with are the 39 Articles. I've never heard of "articles of the Creed" until you bring it up. You continue to further narrow your definition in an effort to avoid the plain facts: the written word of God takes precedence, and the appointment was contrary to the written word of God. End of story.

 

What a great signature line that would make!

I'm still waiting for the evidence. Where is Monteith's public statement? Of course, even if he did actually and truly make this claim, it would remind me of Bill Clinton's claim that, yes, he smoked marijuana, but he didn't inhale.

Jesus would be astounded by this.
Mat 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman (or a man!) with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Envy, greed, lust, jealousy.... the "thought sins" are numerous, and willfully engaging in them is as condemnatory as engaging in physical deeds.

 

Wrong. Jesus said in Matt. 5:27-28: "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Pride is a sin of the mind and heart; the main sin of the Pharisees was pride and arrogance. As Jesus said in Matt. 23:1-12:

There is only one unforgivable sin, which is also a sin of the mind and heart; see Mark 3:28-29:

Sins of the mind and heart are some of most deadly and corrosive sins there are. Lust occurs first in the mind; it is only secondarily of the body. Lies, lust, envy, pride, arrogance, unbelief, heresy -- all are sins foremost of the mind and not the body. It is not the body that sins, but the soul within the body. The body is given by and belongs to God; thus sins through the body (sexual sin) are a sin against the body (as it is the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit), not of it. See 1 Cor. 6:18-20:

 

Also no. When I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior, I accepted his Word given in the Holy Bible as inerrant truth. The Holy Spirit within me gives me confidence that the Word I was given is true. God revealed himself to us through his Word, spoken down the ages through his inspired scribes, prophets, disciples, and through his only Son, and given to us as our guide to salvation. This is something the Anglican creeds and confessions have always taught, and something I believe with all my heart.

The Bible is inerrant and true not because I wish it so; it is inerrant and true because God gave it and preserved it so.

The answer is in my sig -- see 2 Tim 3:16-17.

 

You have, I suppose heard of the term hyperbole: (a rhetorical figure that produces a vivid impression by extravagant and obvious exaggeration.) "“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they DO." "They do all their deeds to be seen by others." "“Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”. If you do not utter, you have not committed the sin of blasphemy. You have merely been tempted to give utterance to a blasphemy. "Flee from [actual] sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the [actually] sexually immoral person sins against his own body.

Which includes fornication, consorting with prostitutes, rape, pimping and all forms of perverted sexual behaviour regardless of whether same sex relations are involved.
.

 

Let us call it storge rather than eros, then; it rises to close familial affection, certainly. But not romantic love.

 

Nonsense. Blasphemy occurs in the heart before it is ever spoken aloud or written down. A man who speaks only pieties but hates and profanes God in his heart is still guilty and subject to judgement on the last day.