« The New Shape of Anglicanism? | Main | Rowan Williams: We're Threatening Death, Not Life »
July 28, 2008
No Hope of a Solution at Lambeth, conservative bishop says
Bishop of Egypt expected today to debate over biblical authority, human sexuality.
A leading conservative, Anis released an open letter on the web. Here's one important comment:
The Lambeth Conference has been a time of great fellowship and strength; it has also been a time of disunity and conflict. Everything is going fairly well, but I do not believe that there is hope of a solution from this Lambeth conference. However I hope that we would be able to come up with a road map for a final solution of the current crisis.
Back in January, when I was in Cairo, I interviewed Bishop Anis. See below for an edited transcript of his views on outreach to gays, the crisis in Anglicanism, and how the proposed Anglican convenant might help resolve their differences.
Interview with Mouneer H. Anis, Episcopal bishop of Egypt and primate of the Anglican Province of the Jerusalem and the Middle East (including North Africa).
(Cairo, January 2008. Edited transcript.)
What's your greatest worry concerning Anglicanism?
I am very concerned about the unity among the conservatives and the evangelicals within the Communion. The Communion is in a crisis, and there are many impaired relationships.
We have made ourselves clear, our theological stand very clear many, many, many times. We announced our rejection of the new revisionists way within the Anglican Communion in many occasions and conferences. This time should not be a time for conferences only, but it should be a time when we actually take action. I personally feel that the issue of homosexuality is just a superficial symptom of a very, very deep illness in the core of the Communion.
Is this an illness in Anglicanism or the church on the whole?
The actual problem is crossing [theological] boundaries of the Communion. The Anglican way is Scripture, the authority of the Scripture, and the interpretation of the majority, or the accepted interpretations of the Scripture by the majority, not just one church within the family.
There is an element of interdependence of each church members of this Anglican Communion family. We need to affirm this. We are a communion. We are not congregationalists. We are not a federation. We are a communion. So it tears us more than any other structure.
It's hard for American evangelicals to understand what you mean by a global Communion. What does this mean to you?
The Communion is one family of several member churches, and we are tied together. There are instruments of unity within our Communion. The Primates meeting is one of the instruments of unity. There are other things that bring us together and unite us together as a body of Christ.
Although we are a communion and we are a body, we recognize other churches and see in them as part of the wider body of Christ. So we don't think of our self as the only church of Christ, but we are part of the church of Christ.
With this concept in mind that we are one body, we are one communion even if we are separated geographically, but we are one communion. There is a lot we know about each other. There is communication, direct communication all the time. Today I have communication from the East, as east as Singapore, to the west as Latin America. It's all in my desk, and that is a great experience, a wonderful thing.
Now, two families of this communion, Canada and America, by going beyond the boundaries of our Anglican way, have created severe disunity. Yes, we celebrate our diversity. But we always aware and we should be aware that this diversity is not unlimited. It is a limited diversity.
Some groups will have a different interpretation. As we interpret the Scripture we need the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit does not work in individual way. He guides the whole church.
It's not an issue of homosexuality. It is now the issue of Christology. Is Christ divine? Is he the Son of God? Is he our Savior? Is he the only Way or just a way? Is he the Son of God or just a prophet? All these fundamentals are now at stake in several parts in North America. That is a most serious thing.
Many lefty Anglican revisionists use the language of human rights to support their interpretation of the Bible. What is your objection to this approach?
Every human is free to do what he wants as long as he would not break the law of the country where he live or where she live. If we look at these three things - others, self, and laws of the government, should we also say a human can do everything as long as he or she do not break the law of God?
Sin destroys a person because it's breaking God's natural law in creation. I am a medical doctor. I can see anatomical complementarity. Each cell makes sense to me in the human body. We cannot just ignore this beautiful, natural architecture and engineering and go a different way. That is God's law.
Human rights is something that is not imposed by a small group of people on the rest of the world. Human rights is something recognized by all humanity. You are free to dress. You are free to speak. You are free to do your work. You are free to worship. These are things recognized by the whole world.
You cannot just bring a group of people, say that's a human right, and impose it on the rest of the world. If we said practicing homosexuality is a human right see, how much this will endanger the structure of the society, the natural family, and marriage structure. I cannot call this a human right.
About homophobia, unfortunately this is something always used by revisionists against conservative. Conservatives are not homophobic. I'm not homophobic. If I have gay and lesbian coming to me now, I will welcome them. I will love them the same way I will love a heterosexual. I will pastor to them the same way I will pastor to heterosexual. I recognize that they are human like me.
I recognize that Jesus loves them as he loves me. I recognize that Jesus died for them as he died for me. So from this I will deal with them, I will talk with them. But this does not mean that if I give pastoral care to them is to agree with all what they do.
Suppose I want to do pastoral care for a heterosexual man who has an affair. Should I say to him that's okay? It's okay to have an affair outside your marriage? That is not pastoral care. Pastoral care contain encouragement, contain prayer, contain rebuke, contain admonition.
You cannot call me homophobic at all because I am not homophobic
Should non-celibate gays be in church leadership?
Loving practicing homosexuals, gay and lesbian, and caring for them and pastorally caring for them is one thing, and taking them and putting them in church leadership is another thing.
You cannot get someone who breaks the law and take him and elect him as a President of the United States. It's not injustice, actually, to say, "No, I cannot appoint gay and lesbian in the leadership." That's not injustice. That is according to the law and the regulation and the guidance we receive from the Scripture that we should be clear about who will take the position.
So you believe that this includes any position, ordained or church leadership?
Yes. Any leadership. The Bible is very clear that the church should have a say about the life of the person who is going to be ordained, even a deacon. The secular society is putting pressures that [the church] has accepted. But Paul is saying very clearly that we should not conform by the world, and the actual fact, we should transform the world.
What's happening now is in the church in North America and some parts of the West [wishes] to be relevant to the world. They are allowing the values of the world to become the values of the church, which should be the other way around.
We are not called to be relevant to the world; we are called to be distinct from the world. We are called to be light and we are called to be salt. This is helpful to the world. It hurts. When you shine the light, the light hurts the darkness. That is the church. It should be light, and the light bring love, bring peace, but sometimes it brings admonition.
Are you in favor of creating an Anglican Convenant?
I think the covenant is a very important tool to affirm our interdependence. The liberals want to reduce the covenant. Some "Why a covenant? It's enough for baptismal vows. If we are baptized that's enough."
Not any more.
What is it that's going to keep the conservatives together because there are so many divisions and factions emerging?
A well-planned conference with a well-planned outcome can bring the conservatives together. If Lambeth Conference does not come out with the idea of the covenant or if many people did not sign the covenant, we as conservatives should sign the covenant together. Then we would be a covenant group, and we can start to think positively about how we can go about the mission of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Enough is enough. Our energy was drained in these issues of sexuality and all these things. It is a time now to move together to build our churches to bring the gospel to the unreached places, to communicate the love of Jesus to the societies where we live, and not to drain our energy, because that is what the devil want.
We really want to come together. In a way, we are the true Anglican Communion. So we need to strengthen the ties with each other by signing the covenant with each other and thinking what's our mission for the ten years to come.
Comments
I applaud your firm stance on these issues, and your adherance to the Word of God as the ultimate standard. I am a Christian from North America, and I agree that "tolerance" and "relative morality" is tearing at the fabric of society, and even tearing at the church. We have been looking more to our culture to define how we should live, rather than patterning our lives after Christ (who incidentally was not liked by the religious leaders of his day for his "radical" beliefs). The decline in Christianity is increasingly steep, and I was blessed to know that there are leaders being led by the Holy Spirit to build His church. God bless you, and I sincerely hope and pray for the outcome to go well with your conference.
Posted By: L Parsons | July 28, 2008 3:02 PM
Amen and Amen. I will hide His word in my heart that I may not sin against Him. I will avail myself to the Holy Spirit, so that I may be light and salt for all to see. Homosexuals, like other sinners, deserve to be set free and delivered.
Posted By: Darlene | July 28, 2008 3:10 PM
"You cannot get someone who breaks the law and take him and elect him as a President of the United States…"
Obviously the good Bishop is not up on current US politics… Uncle Dick and Little Georgie are among the worst criminals, the most lawless men, in US history; if this was not obvious in 2000, it certainly was by 2004…
Posted By: Ted Voth Jr | July 28, 2008 4:26 PM
Yes, I agree with you hundred percent. Homosexality is a sin and Jesus loves sinners and hate sin. Sin seperate us from God and also when Jesus forgave the prostitute He told her to go and sin no more. We cannot change the law of God and we should not be conformed to this world.
Prayerfully,
Freda Lawther
rflaw02@yahoo.com
Posted By: Freda lawther | July 28, 2008 4:54 PM
The Bible clearly states that in the later time, some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of the devils. They will develop itching ears and seek for teachers that will confirm their wrong way of living. Somewhere in Romans chapter one, he said that even as they will not like to retain God in their knowledge, God will give them up to reprobate knowledge. They will believe in thier folly. They will actually live in strong delusions. The issue of sexuality and sexual orientation and other malignnt issues have plagued the church recently. many christians are now interpreting the scriptures from a hedonistic point of view 'if it feels good and if no one is injured, do it'. This is in disregard of Philipians 4:8.
I can't agree less with Bishop Annis. Love does not mean accept the mess that I am living in, but compassion on me because I am human, and rebuke where I am wrong. Whom the Lord loves, He chastens. Definitely homosexuality and the like are cleary unscriptural. I am ready to take on anyone who believes the contrary in a debate on any national, cable or satellite station in any part of the world.
The foundation of God standeth sure havingthis seal, let anyone that nameth the name of the Lord depart from iniquity!
Posted By: Ikenna Orakwue | July 28, 2008 6:45 PM
Archbishop Ainis is a good and Godly man. The Spirit is now bringing together these good and Godly men and women that they may be a light unto the World and especially to those fellow Anglicans who continuie to wander around in darkness.
Posted By: eugene bogan | July 28, 2008 8:27 PM
Homosexuals (practising)are included in the body of Christ because all are sinners and fall short of the glory of God but, I do not think they should be in leadership in the church because it exemplifies an unbiblical way of living and gives a poor example for young people to follow. Is their sin any worse than any other? Sexual sin is sin against one's own body. Maybe homosexuality stems out of childhood abuse and should not be condemned if it is searching for the father figure. Henri Nuewen was a great spiritual leader who struggled with homosexuality and it gave him anguish his whole life but, he was not practicing. If practicing homosexual couples are leaders in church how is that different from the world? The devil has deceived leadership and conformed Christ's body to the standards of the world.Leaders are set apart by God to do his work in the world.
Posted By: Margaret | July 29, 2008 12:26 AM
Praise our Almighty God for he has given you courage to speak out His truth.We do not have an option as servants of our Holy God to change His immutable laws.You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see how our Creator planned human sexuality to be practised.As I recently explained to a group of young children,why do parents put a fence around their home,playground, swimming pool etc to protect the ones they love.God's laws are for the health and wholeness of His creatures.We see the evidence in western society of His broken laws.His greatest Law is LOVE,LOVE is His reason for those boundaries.When we break the boundaries and come to Him with truly sorrowful hearts,what does He do..... punish us? No He points us to the cross where His GIFT,Jesus our saviour bled and died to take the punishment our sin deserved.No wonder we are able to sing no matter what our circumstances..let our lives say thankyou as we share His good news to those who are hungry and thirsty for true love and true peace. I am praying for my brother in Christ,Mouneer Anis
Posted By: m carney | July 29, 2008 2:21 AM
The scripture in picturing Sodom and Gammorah said that "Every man and boy in the village came to" use the visitors at Lot's house. How do you think that happened? Like it is today. Disregard of God's Plan for life--one by one until "everybpdy's doing it." It shows that revisionism is not God's Plan. Please pray that we don't elect a man gifted in double speak and unable to admit he is wrong--who thinks that not killing 42 million babies is clinging to your faith--no matter how charismatic he is. Please help us, Lord, to chose wisely, To repent of our own sins. To chose leaders so in love with You that they will obey You because You are our Answer.You Are The Way.
Posted By: laura lee | July 29, 2008 7:18 AM
I and many others here in Brazil are praying for those gathered at Lambeth. This word is timely and inspired by the Holy Spirit. Thank you for speaking the truth, according to God´s word! We continue to pray...
Posted By: Gaynor | July 29, 2008 7:51 AM
lefty Anglican revisionists -- That's a nice, even-handed, fair-and-balanced, Christian-charitable way to refer to those with whom you disagree, isn't it, Mr. Interlocutor? It's not enough to disagree, but one must engage in personal attach?
There are times I'm really confused about whether I am a conservative: I find the methods and rhetoric to be demeaning and ultimately unfaithful.
Posted By: Dwight | July 29, 2008 9:11 AM
To Dwight,
'Homophobe' is a polemic coined by the purveyors of sex culture revolution.
'Homophobe' does not describe the position or feelings of those it usually addresses, it's not even close.
Worse yet the etymology of 'homophobe' is childish at best and irrational at worst; homo (slang for homosexual)+ phobe (gk for exaggerated or illogical fear). If the term was rationally derived it should be understood as 'fear of sameness'.
Posted By: Caritas | July 29, 2008 4:09 PM
I am a born again, Bible reading, Bible believing, evangelical Christian (50 yr old heterosexual married man of Swedish-American descent for those you might see such as bona fides). Why is it I find more of the spirit of truth in Gregory Peterson's post than in the much more conservative posts? (Though shame on you Gregory for the apparent vitriol in calling the Bishop's arguments "dubious, anomic inducing, greedy, egotistical"!)
I will admit that it might be ideology that shapes my affinity for certain posts. Though I think and hope my relationship with Jesus Christ and His Church is what most shapes my ideology, that many others with similar Faith have a drastically different ideology ought to give me some pause. My Faith shapes some fairly conservative values on some things like sex and opposition to abortion, but I am not at all conservative on most economic or politcal spectra. Is it only Americans that find this shocking? An Evangelical in the UK being a Socialist (gasp!) or liberal politically is not thought oxymoronic. Why is it seemingly so in the U.S.? Do conservative evangelicals not engage with the thoughts of Howard Snyder, Jim Wallace, Tony Campolo, Ron Sider et.al.to name a few U.S. evangelical writers)? I guess this is just a plea for evangelicals who are also conservatives to simply own up to the possible role of ideology in shaping their stands on issues.
Re the sins of the Church in the West . . . after 5 years of working with the Church in Bishop Mouneer's Egypt, 5 years in Congo and Burkina Faso, and 13 in Canada, I have observed that each region's churches "pet sins" tend to mirror the dominant sins of the surrounding culture. No more way oversimplified "spiritually dead Church in the materially wealthy West and spiritually vibrant church in the materially poor Global South" stereotypes from me! The Church everywhere has tremendous strengths and tremendous sins. It's a shame they so mirror our cultures. Of course materialism, hedonist individualism, pride, and greed infect our churches in Canada. Just as sexual sin and witchcraft haunt churches in Africa, and pride and contempt for the other run rampant in Middle Eastern churches facing discrimination from the religious majorities in their societies!
Posted By: Craig Anderson | July 29, 2008 11:22 PM
Leviticus 18:22 2 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ¶ Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Posted By: John | July 30, 2008 6:58 PM
Though I agree with Bishop Anis in the direction he is striving to go, I do not think he has a handle on how to solve it. That will, as he indicated, take much more work. I am also amused to see that those who disagree with him are much more concerned with conforming to the world. They avoid conforming to Scripture. What they fail to see is that we do not condemn the person, but condemn, rather, the actions of that person. We condemn the action of the person in running a red light, but we can still accept him as a friend. In the church, we can accept the person, but condemn the sin. The person must, however, be willing to repent. (Repent involves a turning about to a new direction.) It probably cannot be done in one single moment, but must be the thrust of the person's future behavior. (If the red-light runner wants to continue doing that, he will not have me as a passenger.)
Posted By: Eugene M. Wiese | August 1, 2008 5:38 PM
Who can believe that in this generation ,in the church ,inside the alter where the holy things are handled,our leaders instead of prostrating and weeping profusely before God for mercy ,sits comfortably discussing diplomacy and democracy/human rights? WHY WAS SODOM AND GOMORROH DESTROYED ? Fowls ,dogs ,goats monkeys obey d simple law of nature but man made in the image of God has chosen to provoke Him. Romans1:18-28 is explicit about this matter. The Lord is calling the church to a repentance,as am persuaded that so many of similar demonic pervassion has infilterated several assemblies. JESUS IS COMING VERY SOON >NO SEXUALLY IMMORAL WILL SEE HIM . WHY HAVE WE CHOSEN TO PROVOKE GOD IN THIS WAY ? "Oh God ,DO SOMETHING THAT MEN WILL REALISE THAT YOU ARE GOD AND THAT D CHURCH BELONGS TO YOU "
Posted By: EMMA O ANYIKA | August 4, 2008 5:54 PM
edjd3ywaj88kbyxu
http://zimiafvfngx.com >tlzfxsp kubn
http://znppgb.com
http://ryvqjns.com >mvrckj xmwhdil
http://gohppcrrre.com
http://pzpjnjkrsa.com >avedum epshs
http://ercccujcwk.com
http://qvrbltnsvus.com >vgkey mtvxjs
http://siiqxxu.com
Posted By: Stanton Bender | October 13, 2008 6:35 PM