Is there any sin the toleration of which warrrants leaving a church/denomination?

wolfsbane · 05-09-2011 07:44PM #1

The CoI has entered a new crisis:
Church rocked by gay clergystorm
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/local/church_rocked_by_gay_clergy_storm_1_3027272

I listened to this dean on radio - he's not talking about a celibate relationship.

How can any Christian remain in a church that condones conduct which is plainly condemned in Scripture and has been condemned by the Church throughout its history?

Is there any sin the toleration of which would cause an Anglican to separate themselves from the CoI? Or other Christians from any other church?

***********************************************************************
2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? 15 And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? 16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said:

“ I will dwell in them
And walk among them.
I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.”

gimmebroadband · 05-09-2011 07:52PM

IMHO. You don't leave a church just because some members failed to live up to it's teachings, you leave because you no longer believe what it preaches!

Keaton · 05-09-2011 08:20PM

gimmebroadband wrote: »

IMHO. You don't leave a church just because some members failed to live up to it's teachings, you leave because you no longer believe what it preaches!

The true Church would never teach that gay acts were acceptable. I understand the Anglicans have come round to gay unions as being acceptable.

gimmebroadband · 05-09-2011 08:46PM

Keaton wrote: »

The true Church would never teach that gay acts were acceptable. I understand the Anglicans have come round to gay unions as being acceptable.

Exactly! I guess I could have phrased it better.

Some preach it and practice it - Lesbian Vicar marries partner!!!

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-280.html/

PatricaMcKay2 · 05-09-2011 09:10PM

This puts me in a difficult position, hopefully there will be a split and those who choose to ignore the clear teaching of Scripture go their own way, otherwise I dont know what I will do. Maybe God will restrain the nonsense. The Church of Ireland has many problems which she isnt facing.

PDN · 06-09-2011 07:01AM

Yes, there are plenty of sins, the toleration of which IMHO would be good grounds for leaving a denomination.

I would not personally remain in any denomination that permitted its leaders or members to practice sexual activity (heterosexual or homosexual) outside of marriage.

homer911 · 06-09-2011 07:40AM

The Bible is quite clear that leaders in a Christian Church must be above reproach.

I am saddened to see this, but I'm not altogether surprised. I left the Church of Ireland nearly 30 years ago and I've no regrets, but there are some amazing evangelicals there and many members would be upset at these developments.

Cybercelesta · 06-09-2011 10:09AM

PDN wrote: »

Yes, there are plenty of sins, the toleration of which IMHO would be good grounds for leaving a denomination.

I would not personally remain in any denomination that permitted its leaders or members to practice sexual activity (heterosexual or homosexual) outside of marriage.

To practice sexual activity outside of hetrosexual marriage is a sin and forgivable, to preach that it is acceptable and normal is heretical!!!

antiskeptic · 06-09-2011 10:23AM

Cybercelesta wrote: »

To practice sexual activity outside of hetrosexual marriage is a sin and forgivable, to preach that it is acceptable and normal is heretical!!!

Heresy being a sin and forgivable too.

homer911 · 06-09-2011 10:31AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Heresy being a sin and forgivable too.

Provided of course that one repents of these sins....

antiskeptic · 06-09-2011 01:02PM

homer911 wrote: »

Provided of course that one repents of these sins....

What happens if you (as a Christian) get run over by a bus before you can repent of a particular sin (whether heresy, lust, robbing paperclips at work)?

PDN · 06-09-2011 01:15PM

Cybercelesta wrote: »

To practice sexual activity outside of hetrosexual marriage is a sin and forgivable, to preach that it is acceptable and normal is heretical!!!

Not quite sure why you're responding to me with all those exclamation marks.

Onesimus · 06-09-2011 01:54PM

PDN wrote: »

Not quite sure why you're responding to me with all those exclamation marks.

He is shouting at you PDN ban him......BAN HIM........BAN HIMMMMM

:pac::pac::pac::pac::P

Cybercelesta · 06-09-2011 02:10PM

PDN wrote: »

Not quite sure why you're responding to me with all those exclamation marks.

Sorry...typing style!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

homer911 · 06-09-2011 03:28PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

What happens if you (as a Christian) get run over by a bus before you can repent of a particular sin (whether heresy, lust, robbing paperclips at work)?

Is this for the purposes of discussion? I'm sure antiskeptic that you know the answer to that one..

I agree of course that its forgivable, but is it forgiven? (I'm referring to the original heresy reference..)

We are all sinners and we can all be forgiven, but to whom much is given, much will be taken away...

wolfsbane · 06-09-2011 04:16PM

I'm heartened that many of you do not subscribe to toleration of on-going sin.

I fear some denominations - Evangelical churches among them - are already (unofficially) declassifying fornication and homosexuality as sins; and abortion; drunkenness; unbelief.

I feel for true brethren in such churches - and it can happen to any of our churches. Historically they have chosen to either:
1. Protest and leave if it is not dealt with.
2. Protest and remain, fighting for it to be dealt with.
3. Protest and remain, not fighting, but merely hoping that someday it will be dealt with.

Position 1 is a good witness to the sinners that they are in fact sinning.

Position 2 is also a good witness, but risks turning into a toleration by default: the protesters are allowed to shout, as long as they do nothing to stop the rot.

Position 3 is a bad witness - like Lot in Sodom. Personal piety that does not witness to the sinner to turn him from destruction.

I am praying that my brethren will soon make a clear witness against such evil by separating themselves from it, and join with faithful brethren elsewhere.

***************************************************************************
2 Corinthians 6:17 Therefore

“ Come out from among them
And be separate, says the Lord.
Do not touch what is unclean,
And I will receive you.”[c]
18 “ I will be a Father to you,
And you shall be My sons and daughters,
Says the LORD Almighty.”

soterpisc · 06-09-2011 06:26PM

The problem is that many Church's are on a slippery path away from true faith. Catholic Church have had many failings, but its teachings have been clear on this area. We devalue the family, The Role of a Father and a Mother. Society today is pushing this ideal world where a gay man can find his perfect partner. Reality is Men move from partner to partner, no commitment and many are not happy.

The biggest threat is today is the treat to the family. No faith at home. Low parental commitment.

PatricaMcKay2 · 06-09-2011 06:47PM

The problem that I have is there are no other Churches expect the Lutheran one in Dublin that take the "Via Media" between Roman excess and extreme Protestantism. Giving it up would mean mainly worshipping at home.

philologos · 06-09-2011 06:47PM

Keaton wrote: »

The true Church would never teach that gay acts were acceptable. I understand the Anglicans have come round to gay unions as being acceptable.

Some != All.

Opinion is divided on this subject. I'd suspect that opinion is also divided in the RCC if one is willing to accept that there are liberal members of the RCC that is.

Personally I would fall to the conservative side of this argument, but there is nothing more distasteful than people taking potshots at other churches.

alex73 · 06-09-2011 08:05PM

philologos wrote: »

Personally I would fall to the conservative side of this argument, but there is nothing more distasteful than people taking potshots at other churches.

When a church has no eucharist, no apostolic sucession, invents its own interpretation of the Bible, and rewrites what is moral...Is it a Church?

philologos · 06-09-2011 08:17PM

alex73 wrote: »

When a church has no eucharist, no apostolic sucession, invents its own interpretation of the Bible, and rewrites what is moral...Is it a Church?

1. No Eucharist - Not the case of Anglicanism (or many Christian churches at all) despite how much it's detractors might like to say so.

2. No Apostolic Succession? - Not true of Anglicanism as the Church of England kept most priests that were in the former church. They also ordained new clerics and bishops. That said, anyone who has accepted the Christian faith full stop can be traced back to the Apostles through a line of evangelism.

3. Invents own interpretation of the Bible - When reading any text anyone interprets it. This is as much true of RC's reading the Bible as it is of anyone else. The church I currently attend places a huge emphasis on reading the Bible both on a personal level and with others as it is God speaking through it. I would rather understand God on a one-to-one level rather than having it mediated through a cleric.

4. Rewrites what is moral? Who are you talking about? I think that many people including people in your church have done this. Pointing the finger is invalid.

Protestant - Catholic megathread continues....

PatricaMcKay2 · 06-09-2011 08:18PM

alex73 wrote: »

When a church has no eucharist, no apostolic sucession, invents its own interpretation of the Bible, and rewrites what is moral...Is it a Church?

The C of I does have apostolic sucession and does have the Eucharist.

Is a Church that makes up dogmas not found in the first 1000 years of Christian history and proclaims that they must be believed on pain of hell fire still a Church? What about a Church that ignores the Bible?

PatricaMcKay2 · 06-09-2011 08:22PM

Philo are you originally from Ireland?

philologos · 06-09-2011 08:24PM

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

Philo are you originally from Ireland?

Yes. I moved to London a few weeks ago for work.

PatricaMcKay2 · 06-09-2011 08:25PM

This is an important subject that I would like to back to once Ive prayed, read and thought more about it, but I would say to wolfsbane that I find the idea of homosexuals having authority in the Church unacceptable. So please dont lock this thread of allow it to run off topic.

gozunda · 06-09-2011 09:29PM

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

This is an important subject that I would like to back to once Ive prayed, read and thought more about it, but I would say to wolfsbane that I find the idea of homosexuals having authority in the Church unacceptable. So please dont lock this thread of allow it to run off topic.

If I remember my history correctly there have been a number of homosexual popes....

soterpisc · 06-09-2011 09:31PM

gozunda wrote: »

If I remember my history correctly there have been a number of homosexual popes....

Could have been... But they didn't change the Faith saying it was ok.

gozunda · 06-09-2011 09:38PM

soterpisc wrote: »

Could have been... But they didn't change the Faith saying it was ok.

Thing is they had authority in the Church. I might find McDonalds unacceptable but is doesnt mean that it is tbh...

gimmebroadband · 06-09-2011 10:26PM

gozunda wrote: »

Thing is they had authority in the Church. I might find McDonalds unacceptable but is doesnt mean that it is tbh...

Limits to Papal Authority.

"The pope's authority, in the first place, is limited to matters of religion -- that is, of faith and morals, and such things as canon law, liturgy, marriage cases, ecclesiastical censures and so on, which are part of faith and morals. The pope has no authority from Christ in temporal matters, in questions of politics. He has no authority from Christ to teach mathematics, geography, history. His authority is ecclesiastical authority; it goes no further than that of the Church herself. But even in religious matters the pope is bound, very considerably, by the divine constitution of the Church."

There are any number of things that the pope cannot do in religion. He cannot modify, nor touch in any way, one single point of the revelation Christ gave to the Church; his business is only to guard this against attack and false interpretation. We believe that God will so guide him that his decisions of this nature will be nothing more than a defense or unfolding of what Christ revealed.

The pope can neither make nor unmake a sacrament, he cannot affect the essence of any sacrament in any way. He cannot touch the Bible; he can neither take away a text from the inspired Scriptures nor add one to them. His business is to believe the revelation of Christ, as all Catholics believe it, and to defend it against heresy. He cannot take away the divine authority of any of his fellow bishops as long as they are Catholic bishops in normal possession of their sees; though he can, as chief authority of the Church on earth, under certain circumstances, try, suspend or depose an unworthy bishop. The pope can, in extraordinary circumstances, rearrange dioceses; he cannot abolish the universal episcopate"

http://www.stjohn17v20-21.com/magist02.htm

gozunda · 06-09-2011 10:51PM

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Limits to Papal Authority.

"The pope's authority, in the first place, is limited to matters of religion -- that is, of faith and morals, and such things as canon law, liturgy, marriage cases, ecclesiastical censures and so on, which are part of faith and morals. The pope has no authority from Christ in temporal matters, in questions of politics. He has no authority from Christ to teach mathematics, geography, history. His authority is ecclesiastical authority; it goes no further than that of the Church herself. But even in religious matters the pope is bound, very considerably, by the divine constitution of the Church."

There are any number of things that the pope cannot do in religion. He cannot modify, nor touch in any way, one single point of the revelation Christ gave to the Church; his business is only to guard this against attack and false interpretation. We believe that God will so guide him that his decisions of this nature will be nothing more than a defense or unfolding of what Christ revealed.

The pope can neither make nor unmake a sacrament, he cannot affect the essence of any sacrament in any way. He cannot touch the Bible; he can neither take away a text from the inspired Scriptures nor add one to them. His business is to believe the revelation of Christ, as all Catholics believe it, and to defend it against heresy. He cannot take away the divine authority of any of his fellow bishops as long as they are Catholic bishops in normal possession of their sees; though he can, as chief authority of the Church on earth, under certain circumstances, try, suspend or depose an unworthy bishop. The pope can, in extraordinary circumstances, rearrange dioceses; he cannot abolish the universal episcopate"

http://www.stjohn17v20-21.com/magist02.htm

I dont get your point?

santing · 07-09-2011 07:09AM

homer911 wrote: »

The Bible is quite clear that leaders in a Christian Church must be above reproach.

I am saddened to see this, but I'm not altogether surprised. I left the Church of Ireland nearly 30 years ago and I've no regrets, but there are some amazing evangelicals there and many members would be upset at these developments.

It is indeed amazing how quickly we accept the change in morals (in Ireland) and become unaware of what sin is. It was "easy" to preach Biblical morals, say 30 years ago, when the Irish Society still practiced Biblical morals. But the change in society has shown that many Christians have no clear vision of God's holiness either.

Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, (1Ti 3:2 ESV)

homer911 · 07-09-2011 07:47AM

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

This is an important subject that I would like to back to once Ive prayed, read and thought more about it, but I would say to wolfsbane that I find the idea of homosexuals having authority in the Church unacceptable. So please dont lock this thread of allow it to run off topic.

Probably not what you meant, but most Christians would "love the sinner hate the sin" and to say that you find homosexual leadership in the church unacceptable is close to homophobia. Did you mean non-celibate homosexuals or any homosexuals? Like it or not, there are homosexual christians..

Keylem · 07-09-2011 12:47PM

I may be wrong but PatriciaMcKay2 might be referring to 'practicing' homosexual religious leaders. Being homosexual is NOT a sin. Religous leaders who practice homosexual acts, and deeming it to be normal and preaching it as such, are in direct conflict with scriptures and are showing a bad example. It makes me wonder if it's paving the way for same sex marriages in church, which can be seen in the following article.

A Tory MP is calling for churches to be banned from holding marriages if they refuse gay couples.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/09/02/tory-mp-calls-for-churches-to-be-banned-from-holding-marriages-if-they-refuse-gay-couples/

Once same sex unions are legally recognised, the next step is to target the churches in the name of equality!

You can bet that this Tory MP will not force Muslims to accept same sex marriage in their mosques.

antiskeptic · 07-09-2011 01:28PM

Keylem wrote: »

A Tory MP is calling for churches to be banned from holding marriages if they refuse gay couples.

How does he/she propose to do that?

You could remove the civil element that is currently performed during the church service - but I don't think anyone would mind that particularly, the couple could do that before or after the service.

I don't know how you'd go about banning the central element of marriage which is carried out before the witness of God and fellow man.

PDN · 07-09-2011 03:15PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

How does he/she propose to do that?

You could remove the civil element that is currently performed during the church service - but I don't think anyone would mind that particularly, the couple could do that before or after the service.

I don't know how you'd go about banning the central element of marriage which is carried out before the witness of God and fellow man.

a

I imagine that's what he's talking about - the civil aspect.

Actually I don't think it's that bad of an idea. Marriage has a certain status and respect in society because of a number of generations where marriage was viewed as something noble and sublime - where a man and a woman made a life-long commitment with God's help to love one another and be faithful to one another. It was primarily Christianity that gave marriage this status.

Today marriage is frequently temporary, leaves God out of it, doesn't necessarily mean being faithful, and increasingly seems to be headed to include two men, two women, or maybe multiple spouses.

So what's in a word? Especially when the word becomes so debased as to lose its original meaning.

Perhaps the time has come for Christians to say, "OK, you can have the word marriage and you may drag it into the gutter as much as you want." So we could use a different term (something like 'covenant partner') and change our translations of the Bible (on the basis that the word 'marriage' no longer means what it once did). We've done this with other words - which is why no-one uses 'gay' in ordinary speech to mean 'happy'.

If that were to happen, I predict that within a few generations the homosexual lobby will be shouting, "Hey! We want to be covenant partners too - how dare you treat us like second-class citizens and fob us off with this 'marriage' stuff!"

soterpisc · 07-09-2011 05:59PM

Did anyone hear the response Archbishop Alan Harper gave when asked if it was ok for CoI Clergy to enter into Civil Partnerships? He gave not definitive answer on the question. Are all members of CoI happy with ambiguity around teaching on this area?

muppeteer · 07-09-2011 06:28PM

PDN wrote: »

If that were to happen, I predict that within a few generations the homosexual lobby will be shouting, "Hey! We want to be covenant partners too - how dare you treat us like second-class citizens and fob us off with this 'marriage' stuff!"

I'd fully agree with your post apart from the very last part. I would imagine it would only be the Christian homosexuals who would want to be 'covenant partners' but this would be by definition an internal church matter and you can show them the door if you wish. 'covenant partners' would have nothing to do with the law of the state.

Also you may want something a little more catchy sounding:)

recedite · 07-09-2011 09:42PM

gozunda wrote: »

If I remember my history correctly there have been a number of homosexual popes....

Were they practising homosexuals, or celibate ones?

wolfsbane · 08-09-2011 07:51PM

soterpisc wrote: »

Did anyone hear the response Archbishop Alan Harper gave when asked if it was ok for CoI Clergy to enter into Civil Partnerships? He gave not definitive answer on the question. Are all members of CoI happy with ambiguity around teaching on this area?

I hope the believing members draw the line on this. They have let so much more go by in the past.

Harper's response is just what I expected - hemming and hawing, hoping it will all blow over, and the newly extended borders of right and wrong will be accepted by all. Just like the time before, and the time before that.

********************************************************************
1 Corinthians 5:9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.
12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”

soterpisc · 08-09-2011 08:54PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

I hope the believing members draw the line on this. They have let so much more go by in the past.

Harper's response is just what I expected - hemming and hawing, hoping it will all blow over, and the newly extended borders of right and wrong will be accepted by all. Just like the time before, and the time before that.

I couldn't have put it better myself. But so far no CoI (if there are any on boards.ie) have come out for or against.

We are all weak... but teaching its ok to live a fallen life?... What next, its ok to abort, Kill yourself if you are sick.

J C · 09-09-2011 09:15PM

Cybercelesta wrote: »

Sorry...typing style!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can empathise with you on that one !!!!:):D

lmaopml · 09-09-2011 09:40PM

PDN wrote: »

a

I imagine that's what he's talking about - the civil aspect.

Actually I don't think it's that bad of an idea. Marriage has a certain status and respect in society because of a number of generations where marriage was viewed as something noble and sublime - where a man and a woman made a life-long commitment with God's help to love one another and be faithful to one another. It was primarily Christianity that gave marriage this status.

Today marriage is frequently temporary, leaves God out of it, doesn't necessarily mean being faithful, and increasingly seems to be headed to include two men, two women, or maybe multiple spouses.

So what's in a word? Especially when the word becomes so debased as to lose its original meaning.

Perhaps the time has come for Christians to say, "OK, you can have the word marriage and you may drag it into the gutter as much as you want." So we could use a different term (something like 'covenant partner') and change our translations of the Bible (on the basis that the word 'marriage' no longer means what it once did). We've done this with other words - which is why no-one uses 'gay' in ordinary speech to mean 'happy'.

If that were to happen, I predict that within a few generations the homosexual lobby will be shouting, "Hey! We want to be covenant partners too - how dare you treat us like second-class citizens and fob us off with this 'marriage' stuff!"

I think anybody in the gay community who wonders about the difference between a civil partnership and 'marriage' and who is serious about it knows the difference between them?..... Perhaps even moreso than some who make vows as male and female and are only going through the motions? I'm sure most know that they are involved in a civil ceremony....but God is still part of their lives too. Very many.

That doesn't mean they will quib about it - they make their choices, like everybody else...they know what is condemned and what sin is, and have a choice to partake or no..Who knows what way God judges.

Sorry, I have a brother in law who is so lovely and is also '''''GAY'''', but is more charitable and more Christian and loving and excited about helping others, not in the least stereotypical. He sits at mass, but never receives, he makes his own peace, he inspires me in some ways...he knows he is off the beaten track when I think I'm particularly on it.... Like hell..

God is judge. All we can do is fight for truth and love.

recedite · 09-09-2011 09:58PM

soterpisc wrote: »

I couldn't have put it better myself. But so far no CoI (if there are any on boards.ie) have come out for or against.
.

They are probably not too bothered about it. Any C of I people I know tend not to get excited by such matters.

lmaopml wrote: »

Sorry, I have a brother in law who is so lovely and is also '''''GAY'''' but is more charitable and more Christian and loving and excited about helping others.......
God is judge.

Or maybe just a sky fairy.

All we can do is fight for truth and love.

Amen to that

antiskeptic · 09-09-2011 10:11PM

PDN wrote: »

Actually I don't think it's that bad of an idea. Marriage has a certain status and respect in society because of a number of generations where marriage was viewed as something noble and sublime - where a man and a woman made a life-long commitment with God's help to love one another and be faithful to one another. It was primarily Christianity that gave marriage this status.

Indeed.

Today marriage is frequently temporary, leaves God out of it, doesn't necessarily mean being faithful, and increasingly seems to be headed to include two men, two women, or maybe multiple spouses.

So what's in a word? Especially when the word becomes so debased as to lose its original meaning.

There's a modern day habit of doing that. Taking that which has substance, hollowing out all that gives it substance then sending it forth with all that we desire wrapped in a veneer of the classic.

The modern mini-cooper springs to mind. And laminate flooring.

Perhaps the time has come for Christians to say, "OK, you can have the word marriage and you may drag it into the gutter as much as you want." So we could use a different term (something like 'covenant partner') and change our translations of the Bible (on the basis that the word 'marriage' no longer means what it once did). We've done this with other words - which is why no-one uses 'gay' in ordinary speech to mean 'happy'.

Now there's a good idea! I suspect though, that Christendom hasn't diminished enough to make this a reality quite yet.

If that were to happen, I predict that within a few generations the homosexual lobby will be shouting, "Hey! We want to be covenant partners too - how dare you treat us like second-class citizens and fob us off with this 'marriage' stuff!"

True, were it not for the (apparent) fact that the next generation will see a huge fall off in the numbers of cultural Christians and with it, the profile of Christianity. We won't "count" as much in order that folk will be as worried about us and what we get up to in our churches. Methinks

recedite · 23-09-2011 07:08PM

Is there any sin the forgiveness of which warrrants returning to a church/denomination?

"I do not seek retribution," he wrote but he felt "deeply cheated of a priestly life that I have been exercising as it were by subterfuge, outside the communion of the Catholic Church".

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/abused-bishop-ready-to-forgive/story-e6frg6n6-1226133531732

Is there any sin the toleration of which warrrants leaving a church/denomination?

Comments