From the Living Church: Alternate Primates’ Meeting Agenda Proposed
February 13th, 2007 posted by kendall at 3:04 pm
Following two days of meetings at a hotel near the Tanzanian capital, Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria wrote to Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams on Feb. 12 setting forth the Global South’s concerns over the agenda and structure of the Feb. 14-19 meeting of the leaders of the 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion.
While the text and form of the letter, which was received by Archbishop Williams shortly before he left London for Tanzania, has not been made public, its contents are understood to follow upon correspondence between the two church leaders focusing on The Episcopal Church, the primates’ meeting, the Lambeth Conference of Bishops in 2008, and the structures of the Communion.
Global South leaders have objected to Archbishop Williams’ invitation to the Archbishop of York on structural grounds. Adding a second representative from the Church of England to the primates’ roster fundamentally alters the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, changing his role of primus inter pares to that of an executive officer, they have argued.
The objections to Archbishop Sentamu come not to the person of the Ugandan-born archbishop, leaders of the coalition told a reporter, but to Archbishop Williams’ “fait accompli” of having altered the primates’ meeting membership without consulting its members.
Archbishop Williams’ position that he has no choice but to invite Bishop Jefferts Schori in deference to her office as Presiding Bishop has also received short shrift from the Global South primates, who have argued that it is improper to place protocol above truth. The objections laid against Bishop Jefferts Schori’s presence at the meeting in the Kigali Communiqué and the “Road to Lambeth” paper should be heard and not prejudged, they argued, according to sources familiar with the exchanges.
53 COMMENTS ARE BELOW! Click on the link for comments below the line.
posted by t19elves at 3:19 PM
1 Comments:
Comments:
53 Responses to “From the Living Church: Alternate Primates’ Meeting Agenda Proposed”
1. Michael Ware Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 3:18 pm e
What was that noise? It sounded like a shot across someone’s bow. Heave to and prepare to be boarded.
the snarkster
==============
2. Publius Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 3:29 pm e
The GS are going to force the appropriateness of the Presiding Bishop’s being “seated” as a primate to be debated before she is seated. This front-loads the whole discussion of TEC’s defiance and the position of the reasserters and their request for APO. I love this.
===========
3. Stu Howe Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 3:36 pm e
My two cents here. First this is not a shot across the bow, it is more than that. This leads to the second, I suspect Publius is correct and that this front-loads the discussion.
===============
4. Jason Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 3:40 pm e
I dunno, but this reporting seems to be a twisted mess second or third hand mess.
Better to wait for something more clear and understandable.
============
5. William Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 3:45 pm e
Well, everyone wants to read the tea leaves and figure out what’s gonna happen before it happens. I guess you get brownie points for that somewhere.
If I were a Primate of the Anglican Communion, I would be willing to listen to your PB and let her listen to me as well. I would have no problem with her being at this meeting and in fact would want her to be there. However, I would not share Communion with her. There is a distinction to be drawn between fellowship with persons whose beliefs are not yours, and fellowship at the Lord’s table.
I do wonder if Archbishop Akinola is “counting votes” and wondering if ++Rowan is attempting to stack the deck. Even so, the Global South gets to decide who they share communion with, whether they have a majority vote at a meeting or not.
This is the difference between following Jesus, and caring about politics.
===================
6. MJD_NV Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 3:50 pm e
Well, at least we now know why Bates seemed to think that the authority of the ABC was being diminished. Apparently, something IS afoot - what remains to be seen.
================
7. Jason Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 3:51 pm e
5.
Very, very well said, William:
” the Global South gets to decide who they share communion with, whether they have a majority vote at a meeting or not.
This is the difference between following Jesus, and caring about politics. “
================
8. Liz Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 3:54 pm e
I know we have all been praying about all this for a very long time, but why don’t we, before leaving our offices, or starting to cook dinner, etc…all take a moment where we are and pray together….let’s say at 5pm EST.
Gracious Father, we pray for thy holy Catholic Church. Fill it
with all truth, in all truth with all peace. Where it is corrupt,
purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in any thing it is
amiss, reform it. Where it is right, strengthen it; where it is in
want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake
of Jesus Christ thy Son our Savior. Amen.
=================
9. Truth Unites ... and Divides Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 4:01 pm e
“Archbishop Williams’ position that he has no choice but to invite Bishop Jefferts Schori in deference to her office as Presiding Bishop has also received short shrift from the Global South primates, who have argued that it is improper to place protocol above truth.”
Perhaps “nuance” is needed here. Protocol that serves biblical truth/love/unity is good and welcomed. Protocol that serves political means and ends is not welcome.
==================
10. In_Vermont Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 4:05 pm e
Initial action reports usually result in speculation, most of which consist of extrapolations based on inadequate data points.
Even when the initial data points are encouraging, they provide no guarantee of a successful outcome.
Its best to just to wait and see.
==============
11. Frances Scott Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 4:47 pm e
I don’t recall the ABC mentioning inviting Jefferts Schori “in defference to her office”. I do remember his saying that we need to see faces rather than deal with people at a distance…or words to that effect.
12. Gayle Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 4:49 pm e
It is now after midnight in Dar Es Salaam and it is already Feb 14th. Does anyone know that local time that the Primates are supposed to convene? Is there anything type of preliminary agenda out of a blog or two?
At any rate, we may be waking up to some interesting news.
13. Jason Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 4:51 pm e
By now KJS’s first day of misery should be about over. I believe today was the pre-meeting day with KJS and Duncan et al… Unless she was miraculously transformed into a real Christian, she has probably already sealed the fate of the ECUSA and herself as out of the communion whether now or sometime in the not distant future.
That the ECUSA could elect someone so heavy on ideology and so light on theology says everything you need to know about the ECUSA.
14. Henry Troup Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 4:57 pm e
Jason #13 - seems to me that TEC/ECUSA are not the only ones “heavy on ideology”. What is the GS position on the US PB-ship? That it’s vacant? Pretty ideological, given the presence of a living, breathing woman in the meeting.
15. Jim Elliott Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 5:13 pm e
Jason,
Don’t for get: she has the example of the previous presiding bishop who was known for his skill at saying what others wanted to hear in order to get his own way. So far, I haven’t seen her exercising that skill, but, then again, all we have are news interviews to go on.
16. Jason Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 5:14 pm e
14. As KJS claims the vestries and pastorates in the Virginia churches vacant, then yes, the PBship of the ECUSA is vacant. She has broken communion and violated the Windsor Report. As she claims the Virginia parishes abandoned, then the ECUSA is also abandoned.
17. Ordinand Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 5:14 pm e
#14 - Yes, the PB-ship is vacant (or at least irregular), just as her ‘celebration’ of the eucharist is just a snack and a sip of wine.
18. Sherri Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 5:25 pm e
Liz (#8), thank you for posting that prayer - one to keep praying this week.
19. Brian Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 5:32 pm e
Once again we see that ++Akinola is nothing but a bully. The unfortunate problem for us is that ++Williams is the Neville Chamberlain of the Anglican Communion. Let’s hope he becomes a Churchhill sometime soon.
20. Brian Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 5:46 pm e
Other Brian,
Pray tell … what do you think of Paul when reading his letters to the church of Corinth?
Maryland Brian
21. Mark Reynolds Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 5:47 pm e
#17
I believe that particular analysis has a venerable history in the Church: it’s called Donatism! Also, Article XXVI “Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments” provides a more recent explication of the topic.
Faithful Christians who receive Christ truly in the Bread and Wine still fill the pews (and many of the Bishop’s chairs, also) in TEC. I know this is hard for many Stand Firm readers to believe, but ++KJS isn’t a pope; those of us who choose to remain with our faithful priests and congregations in the TEC are not bound by her teachings.
Please pray for us and for TEC.
22. D. C. Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 5:55 pm e
Michael Ware [#1] writes: “It sounded like a shot across someone’s bow. Heave to and prepare to be boarded.”
When the Navy and Coast Guard do that, the proper response is to do as ordered. When pirates do it, the proper response is very different.
I’m still mystified why traditionalists seem to care so much what the GS primates think.
23. Barre Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 5:56 pm e
Am I missing something? I thought at their previous meeting the Primates had asked TEC to withdraw from the counsels of the church. If they did, why would ABC feel free to invite PB Shori without the concensus of the Primates? Why haven’t the Primatse objected on this basis?
24. Nonjuror Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 6:01 pm e
Wow–some of you are out of touch. The Windsor Report was a series of recommendations. It was not a series of conditions that had to be met for Schori to take office. There are consequences attached to TEC’s response to Windsor, but those consequences are not yet clear.
Schori was duly elected according to the TEC canons. She has not been disciplined, defrocked, tried, or removed, nor do the Global South primates have the right or standing to discipline, defrock, try or remove her.
Refusing to take communion is petty and puts politics ahead of belief. I’m sure I’ve taken communion beside nonbelievers. I image each week I share the rail with heretics and apostates. Some weeks I’m the heretic and apostate. The consecration abides.
Perhaps if these GS Primates examined their hearts they’d see that sharing the sacrament is the best thing they could possibly do—better than proposing agendas, better than announcing preconditions. Pray together and share the bread and wine. Maybe show some faith.
25. Brian Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 6:05 pm e
Mark,
OTOH, how many will not know Christ because they will snicker and laugh whenever they hear your congregation is a member of TEC? How many men will you not be able to reach because, in their unchurched, minds, all they will understand is, “Oh, that’s that gay church …” and have nothing to do with your ministry? You’ll never get past that one. Is the mission of the church only about faithfulness within a heterodox denomination once an orthodox alternative is available?
Maryland Brian
26. Truth Unites ... and Divides Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 6:08 pm e
#22, D.C. writes: “I’m still mystified why traditionalists seem to care so much what the GS primates think.”
I think you can probably hazard a reasonable guess: It’s because GS primates are biblical, faithful, obedient, and historically orthodox in their servant-leadership.
27. D. C. Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 6:12 pm e
Maryland Brian asks: “… how many will not know Christ because they will snicker and laugh whenever they hear your congregation is a member of TEC? How many men will you not be able to reach because, in their unchurched, minds, all they will understand is, “Oh, that’s that gay church …” and have nothing to do with your ministry? You’ll never get past that one.”
One could say the same about the legions of nonbelievers and doubters who would be perfectly happy to follow Jesus, but they can’t get past the strange doctrinal claims that traditionalists insist must be believed.
28. Francis Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 6:15 pm e
Whoa! Like the creed, DC. Folks are just happy to hear there is still some Anglicanism somewhere in the world, ’cause it sure doesn’t exist officially in the US. Panel of Reference said that.
29. Sherri Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 6:21 pm e
D.C., you mean they can’t get past a faith that actually requires them to believe something and to allow themselves to be changed by it?
30. Brad Page Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 6:22 pm e
Ordinand (#17): The principles you seem to hold (based on your comment) are a long way off-topic, not only for this post but for the Anglican Communion as well. Have you not heard almost all of the reasserter leadership say the issues with Dr. Shori are not about the fact that she is a woman?
You should be aware that as far as the ordination of women goes, that discussion/debate has been effectively abandoned within Anglicanism (and therefore won for those in favor of it by default). Most of the Communion and all of the political leadership (reaserter and reappraiser alike) have moved on. Those who continue to protest this innovation will be an ever increasing (and ineffective) minority.
As far as the subject of this post goes, it remains to be seen just how much further the leadership of the Anglican Communion are willing to go to accommodate/tolerate the recent and various innovations of ECUSA. As we have done since 2003 we will have to wait and see.
Given the time and effort expended since 2003 to address the current vexations (with few results that would increase credibility/unity/mission within Anglicanism) it seems impossible that any other issue…including those of the ordination of women and Anglicanism’s Eucharistic theology…could ever be addressed in such a way that would give Anglicanism an articulate voice in these matters.
I don’t think the Communion will ever have much conversation about the issues you allude to, and if they do it will be a conversation (like those of recent years) that leaves the world wondering what on earth was actually said.
BTW: Mark Reynolds (#21): Church History is often informative, but it is no longer “formative” in the theological mind and will of The Episcopal Church USA, or perhaps even the majority of Anglicanism. As for the Articles of Religion, as simple “historical documents” (see previous sentence) their authority is null and void within most of Anglicanism (and all of ECUSA).
31. Brian Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 6:50 pm e
D.C.,
Show me a dynamically growing heterodox mainline denomination and …. I’ll eat my laptop. There’s already the UCC. You can believe just about anything there. Hasn’t helped them much …
Maryland Brian
32. ECJ Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 7:02 pm e
[#24] “Pray together and share the bread and wine. Maybe show some faith.
Pray to whom? The GS primates and KJS no more worship the same God then did Elijah and the prophets of Baal. Show faith in whom? They do not believe in the same God. The exercise is pointless.
ECJ
33. John Henry Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 8:03 pm e
“Refusing to take communion is petty and puts politics ahead of belief,” wrote #24,
Indeed, it has been the consistent teaching of the Caroline Divines that the Host at every Euchrist is the Risen Christ. By refusing to take Communion in the presence of PB Schori, the GS primates will snub, not +Katharine Schori, but Christ, and reveal their true colors, as they did at Dromatine, Ireland, when they refused to receive the Body and Blood of Christ in the presence of +Frank Griswold.
34. In_Vermont Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 8:33 pm e
Reply to #33.
No John,
by refusing to share the eucharist with Schori, they are refusing to give status to a person who has heretically challenged the uniqueness of Christ and the His promised Salvation through Him.
I am sure that if Schori were to adequately confess a Scripturally derived and traditionally accepted Christology to the primates that they would have no problem celebrating the Eucharist with her.
Such a confession would also have to include an acceptance of the Scriptures and the traditions of the church catholic.
35. William Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 8:44 pm e
Nonjuror, the notion of nonbelievers taking communion with you is, well, ahem, fascinating. I guess I will leave it at that. John Henry, your comment at #33 is simply yet another falsehood on your part.
As I said above and neither of you apparently care to understand, as a Christian I am perfectly willing to relate to both of you on multiple levels. I’m willing to engage in a reasonable discourse with you on a blog. I’m willing to feed you if you are hungry and visit you if you are sick. We can even be friends.
But to be in communion with each other by definition means that we share certain core beliefs. For example, I believe that Christ is the only means by which we are saved; your PB does not. I suspect the Global South Primates agree with me, and not your PB. Hence, we are not in communion with each other although we can certainly be friends.
36. Ross Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 9:03 pm e
Y’all seem a whole lot pickier about who you’ll sit at the table with than Jesus ever was.
37. Jason Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 9:16 pm e
36.
I dont recall Jesus eating with pharisees.
38. Africanised Anglican Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 9:23 pm e
# Ross Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Y’all seem a whole lot pickier about who you’ll sit at the table with than Jesus ever was.
Ross, I’m genuinely curious: what do you make of I Corinthians 5:11-12?
39. William P. Sulik Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 9:31 pm e
In #13 above, we read
Unless she [Bishop Jefferts Schori] was miraculously transformed into a real Christian…
Look, I strongly and firmly disagree with Bishop Jefferts Schori, Bishop Peter James Lee and the rest of the ECUSA establishment, but I do not doubt their faith in Jesus Christ. I believe their theology is wrong, misguided and even heretical and may lead/is leading others astray. But it is not up to me, or KJS or PJL or even Kendall Harmon to make the decisions as to who is a sheep and who is a goat.
Please pray for her. Please show her charity. Please remember that Christ loved her enough to die for her.
And I do not mean this as a personal rebuke, but a rebuke of an attitude that I know I frequently feel when I see what the Peter Lees of the world are doing to my friends and co-laborers.
grace and peace,
wm.
40. Spiro Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 9:32 pm e
Ross,
Jesus never sat with anyone at the table, affirming his/her sinfulness. Jesus supped with sinners and called them to repentance, and they did. Jesus said: If anyone invites me in, I will come in and sup with him.
Communion with KJS is out of place, unless she accepts Jesus as the ONLY way to GOD. So far, she is not showing any indication of expressing such a belief.
KJS may be inviting Christ in, but she is insisting on her OWN terms. Too bad.
41. Richard Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 9:35 pm e
Re # 17 et. al.
I am still in a(n) ECUSA parish. I hope for the best. But today I wrote the rector and treasurer saying I was withholding my pledge. I can no longer even in a tiny part support the people at 815. Not my ultimate call, but from my vantage point they aren’t Christian, repudiate Biblical teachings, and are actively engaged in persecution of the orthodox. By my standards the presiding bishop is a Bad Person, and I will not, could not, break bread with her. Nor can she have any of my money– it would make me a bad servant of Him who gave me the money in the first place. I am praying for deliverance.
42. Nonjuror Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 9:49 pm e
William,
What I mean is that I (or you, or anyone on this blog) have very likely shared communion with non-believers. Unless you have personally vetted the guy beside you in the pew you can’t know the secret atheist hiding in the choir, the kid who gave up on God at 15 and goes on Sunday because his parent make him, even the pries who long ago abandoned his vows but still “works” at the church. So how is my sacrament diminished because the person beside me has doubts about the virgin birth, or just mumbled the creed without meaning it, or has a sin they didn’t confess?
I know I’ve botched my confession during the liturgy, but still gone up to the rail, hoping that maybe the act of taking the wafer can give me some grace. In my parish (and, I suspect, in yours) there are people who come to the rail each week despite carrying unconfessed, unrepentant mortal sin. Ought I to refuse my communion because off what they’ve done and left undone? Stand in the sanctuary and declare that it is time to start expelling the unbelievers before we take communion?
How is it that the PB’s evil is such that her mere presence can somehow endanger the sacrament for the GS primates?
The BCP (in the Catechism section, pp 859-860) tells us that the Eucharist “strengthens our union with Christ and one another.” If the GS primates are worries about the state of the PB’s relationship with Christ, they should beg her to take communion, not attempt to bar the door. The BCP also tells us that to take Communion we should “be in love and charity with all people.” Hard to be in love and charity when you refuse to meet, much less sit at the same table.
43. Nonjuror Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 9:52 pm e
Yikes! Sorry for the typos; hit submit too quick.
44. Spiro Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 10:58 pm e
Dear Nonjuror,
Your argument/reasoning is very, very flawed.
There is a world of difference between taking Communion with or next to a fellow who may have given up on his/her belief in God, and sharing Communion with a Presiding Bishop who openly (keeping no one in doubt) denies the essential/core beliefs/teachings of the Church.
Nonjuror, if you were a priest, I am sure you must be aware of the Disciplinary Rubrics on page 409.
A priest has a duty and a responsibility to refuse Communion to a person under various situations/conditions. Some of these are less serious than the unconscionable evil KJS and several other ECUSA Bishops are unlashing on the Church, potentially damaging the spiritual health and development of thousands of people.
That ECUSA does not seriously follow and enforce the Disciplinary Rubrics does not mean the Primates should be expected to be as uncaring about the sacredness of the Eucharist.
Yes, the Eucharist is a sacred meal: it is not sharing a table at Burger King or IHOP.
45. D. C. Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:46 pm e
Spiro [#44] says: “Yes, the Eucharist is a sacred meal: it is not sharing a table at Burger King or IHOP.”
For many years, my wife and I have belonged to a New Covenant Group. Two Fridays a month, after a Bible study, we take our families to dinner at Skeeter’s, which has been called ‘a sports bar for kids.’ Personally, I’ve had a greater sense of spiritual communion, and of giving thanks to God, at these dinners than I think I’ve ever had at a formal church Eucharist.
We welcome friendly visitors at these Skeeter’s get-togethers, incidentally, of whatever faith or none. Sometimes we have visitors who are invited by one of our group. Sometimes they’re friends of one of our families who happen to wander up to say hi, and end up staying to eat with us.
If I were told I had to give up either formal Eucharists or our Skeeter’s dinners, and were forced to choose between the two, it’d be a no-brainer.
46. Gawain Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:59 pm e
I thought Jesus WAS a pharisee.
Spiro, Jesus died with two sinners alongside him. He called sinners to repentance, but the biblical witness seems to indicate the presence of God in both the lives of sinners and the righteous. Futher, it does seem to me that God has powers that you choose not to ascribe to him. I’m amazed at how much you know about the hearts of +KJS and how God views her. To be honest, it simply tells me a lot about you.
Do you want God to exclude her? Lets say God were to ask you “Spiro, she says she loves me, but there are many ways to me. what do you think?” Would you damn her? It seems like you would.
why not charity instead, and then trust in your faith?
47. Brad Page Says:
February 14th, 2007 at 12:10 am e
D.C. (#45): I suppose Christians of all stripes can (and do) differ in the the various understandings of the Lord’s Supper (Sacramental vs Ordinance, and Memorial vs Real Presence. etc…), as long as it’s spiritual intention is to follow Christ’s words and intentions in sharing bread and wine in memory (anemnesis) of Him. An evening at Skeeters as a serious (and better) equivilent? Sorry, but that seems well out of bounds. (It does sound like a nice gathering…a real fellowship meal…but it is a different thing from what our Lord instituted on the night before he died. Isn’t it???)
48. Spiro Says:
February 14th, 2007 at 12:11 am e
Re: DC (#45), and his fellow-travelers,
I really have very little more to say. What more can I say to a person who compares a meal at Skeeters with the Holy Eucharist?
D.C., are you really sure you are a Christian? Do you really understand the significance of the Eucharist, and the fact that this is about the ONLY sacrament that Jesus commanded we do in remembrance of Him?
Christ, on so many occasions had meals and dinners with lots of people and in peoples’ homes, but He specifically made the Last Supper a special and sacred mean of Remembrance for His Death and Resurrection.
What more can I say? When is this insanity going to end?
49. Professor Fate Says:
February 14th, 2007 at 12:12 am e
DC,
Maryland Brian (#31) asked you a legitimate question. Why didn’t you answer him?
50. Spiro Says:
February 14th, 2007 at 12:32 am e
Gawain (#46),
Yes, Christ died with two sinners be His sides, BUT only to one of them he said: “Today you will be with me in Paradise.”
If the Christ of the Christian Church is the person you Revisionists are making Him to be, He would have said to both thieves, today both of you will be with me in Paradise. But we know Christ DID NOT extend the invitation to Paradise to the thief who mocked Him, but ONLY to the one WHO ACCEPTED HIM AS THE WAY TO GOD, who said to Him: Lord remember me when you come to your Kingdom. And Christ responded to him: TODAY YOU WILL BE WITH ME IN PARADISE.
As for the heart of the PB, I don’t know her heart. BUT I KNOW HER EXPRESSED BELIEF AND THEOLOGY. I am not judging her, but I am called to discern her teaching and if such teaching is contrary to the Word of God. Every ordained minister has a duty, a responsibility, and an obligation to denounce False Teaching, such as KJS’s, and to point out her error, so as to save as many people from error as the minister can. This is a serious matter.
Christ died for ALL, but only those who accept Him to them he extends the invitation to His Kingdom. Any message that does not clearly articulate this is misleading, to say the least.
51. Truth Unites ... and Divides Says:
February 14th, 2007 at 12:41 am e
Spiro, you done good.
52. Ross Says:
February 14th, 2007 at 1:03 am e
#38 Africanised Anglican says:
Ross, I’m genuinely curious: what do you make of I Corinthians 5:11-12?
I make of it that maybe Paul should have read Mark 2:15-17.
#40 Spiro says:
Jesus never sat with anyone at the table, affirming his/her sinfulness. Jesus supped with sinners and called them to repentance, and they did. Jesus said: If anyone invites me in, I will come in and sup with him.
Communion with KJS is out of place, unless she accepts Jesus as the ONLY way to GOD. So far, she is not showing any indication of expressing such a belief.
Jesus sat at table with the sinners and called them to repentance. If you’re so sure that ++KJS needs to repent, why won’t you invite her to Jesus’ table? Surely, in your eyes, she needs it?
53. ann r Says:
February 14th, 2007 at 2:04 am e
Where there is an authority able to judge these matters, heretics are excommunicated. Without such an authority, or until a higher authority acts, the Christian who is convinced that Y is a heretic has the choice of “breaking communion” or saying “what you are teaching is not in conformity with accepted Christian doctine, and therefore I cannot believe that you are indeed a Christian.” When Y is a leader, priest, teacher, and is leading others into error, the Christian has a duty to break fellowship until the issue is resolved. The problem is “liberal protestantism” and “modernism” have so changed the content of the faith, and they are so convinced that this change is “no big deal!” that the orthodox believer is truly shocked.
Post a Comment
<< Home