Thank you for this Dan. I was going to write something along these lines for this week’s news sheet, however I think I'll just link this video instead. Very well and eruditely put. Thank you for your service to the truth. God bless.
As a non Christian, I fail to understand (and I have tried) why anyone thinks that abandoning the teachings of the Bible ('the word of god') is something that the church and Christians should do. And, how this would NOT make the church non Christian.
I personally accept the authority of Scripture. However within the Christian tradition people vary in how they read and understand Scripture. For example, they vary to the extent that they value reason or tradition or Scripture; they vary to the extent that they believe that Scripture has words that need to be obeyed, words that need to be interpreted in context, words that have been inspired but need to be read critically and a few (very few in my experience) who believe there is no element of divine inspiration at all. As a church leader with members from Europe, Africa and the Indian Subcontinent I help my people understand where they may differ to each other as we read and consider the text together.
@@joyskillswithmikeandruthjo6325 Thank you for your generous reply. In honesty I am trying to understand. You have given me more to think about. Of course language is an imperfect medium, and in my experience it is all to easy for people to misunderstand even when they share the same language and cultural heritage. I do wonder whether the 'need' of the receiver of the word veils the meaning of the message. None of us are perfect.
Christianity is not specifically about the Bible as such. It's about the teachings of Jesus The Christ. That's why it's called Christianity, not "Biblicism." The idea of the ideal nuclear family - mum dad 2.4 children - has only rarely been part of the human story. This was due to high mortality rates, and still is in many parts of the world. In Victorian England there were probably as many stepfamilies as now, and it's estimated that in 1870, 1 in 5 households with children were single parent. That is young widows and widowers struggling to bring up the children alone.
This new C of E report states : "Nor does singleness imply celibacy. The choice to remain single does not deny the enjoyment of a sexual relationship, but it might indicate a wish to avoid being committed in a permanent couple relationship". Not only do you no longer need to be married, it doesn't even have to feel permanent. Unbelievable. Any vestigial respect I had for our church 'masters' has completely vanished. One night stand anyone?
@@kristinesharp6286 I do not believe it is a wise thing to do if you want to live a christian life, in which commitment is a cornerstone. In life at large would not think it is a good idea, but we know it is where the flood is taking a lot of people.
I agree that Focus on the Family got it right and the "church" of England got it terribly wrong. At what point do we stop calling this "church" Christian? Liberalism is not Christianity, but as Paul warns us, it's another gospel.
I think we owe an apology to the fundamentalists. They predicted this would come when we blatantly ignore the Bible’s teaching on female pastors and leadership in the church.
On a serious note, yes, the only thing we can trust is the Bible. We cannot do good without God, so nothing good can come when we depart from scripture. While we're at it can I convince you to bring back head coverings too?
@@user-or4ut2qi3q I do not know if you are serious or mocking. But some sisters I know is convicted by Paul’s argument (NOT based on fashion but on order of Creation) in 1 Cor. 11 to wear/bring scarves and cover their heads during prayer and corporate worship.
Yeah! I'm all for wonderful conversation, but strict on NOT accepting that disrespect level! Those are the trolls that are destroying good conversation places like this one. Shame on them!... Rev. Dan might to have his reasons to be at the stance he's now. As a truly respectful liberal I accept it as far as he's accepting us here! But hatred discourse as said by that troll, that is a no go. Have a nice day!...
The Church of England seems to be bending towards a small proportion of the population over the majority of its believers - it has disregarded those who have same sex attractions but who have been celibate to serve in the church - and offers no encouragement to those who experience a difficult marriage. Personally I find it difficult to understand how the Church has come to disregard doctrines that have existed for thousands of years. Where will it all end?
@D-Bunker-zv1bj 1. You cannot judge what I have to think about. 2. I am reading what God tells us in the Bible is ‘normal’. 3. ‘Gay’ people should still be cared for by the church.
Biblical ideal norm is the traditional nuclear family parents, mother father with children. With husband and wife supporting one another in supporting nurturing their children.
They don’t come to church. Changing the definition won’t attract people who will feel historically shunned and drive away those already at church. They will say, oh that is nice. And still not come.
I am sorry Rev Dan but I think Churches must stick to the Biblical text's it is not up to us to change the word of God and Jessus disciple's teaching. I think the modernisation of Churches in way's out side of the Bible scripture's they will fail as God and Jessus christ will guide believer away to other church's that do teach the bible scriptures.
Rev Dan, can you answer my question? Does the CofE recognise the ‘non blood’ children of a marriage? In context… My Nan died recently and had a funeral at a CofE church. My Nan was my Stepdads Mum, My Mum & Stepdad got married in 1990 & my Stepdad took on the role of a Father of myself & my two siblings. At the funeral, the Rev talked about the life of my Nan, her pride in her own three children, their spouses & her Grandchildren & Great Grandchildren. The names of the Grandchildren (their spouses) & Great Grandchildren were all read out, EXCEPT myself, my Siblings & my Siblings children. My Mum & Stepdad were extremely upset & after the committal, questioned the Reverend. They were told that the church did not recognise “Non-Blood” family members… Is this correct?? I am deeply upset and want to make an official complaint. If this is CofE view then I will complain to the church, if this is just the view of this one Reverend, then I will make a formal complaint about him. Thanks in advance for your reply x
I'm looking at the report. The authors seem to be quite reticent to allow reason to operate and trust the conclusions it produces, opting rather for an attempt at description and embracing all perspectives. In doing this, sometimes it seems like the only wrong perspective is the right one. They refuse to allow, for instance, an "idealized" view of family to impinge upon their research, seemingly believing this will improve the quality of the result. Fair enough. But what is their resultant definition of family? "Quite simply, ‘family’ refers to people who are bound together by love and kindness". This is so vague as to be wholly useless, and as you have said, Rev. Dan, biblically incorrect. It even applies to community groups. If a male voice choir is as much a family as my actual family, I find that to be personally demeaning. To arrive at this definition is to sideline God's good intention in the name of embracing the margins. Somehow, God managed both to centralize his ideal _and_ embrace the margins, which is evident if you read the Old Testament. They seem not to acknowledge the concept of degrees of participation, for instance that a household headed by a widower is strictly deficient, in that it really should have both father and mother present. Once they have called God's good intention bad by rejecting it as idealized, is it any wonder they redefine Christian morals to allow license to "singles" or creating a new category of "non-marital intimate couple relationships"? Again, all they are doing is devaluing the good, or more pertinently, profaning the sacred. But who would want to do that? Well, I don't know, but ask yourself which generation would think footnoting The Beatles is clever or even appropriate?
Just watched your discussion about the definition of marriage in the Anglican church, and basically felt vindicated in my views about the same subject. For reference, I am either now or formerly an Episcopal, which is/was a part of the Anglican communion, who has for several years been frustrated with the attempt by the Episcopal church to redefine marriage and priesthood. To be clear I believe that marriage, as a Christian, is defined as a union of a man and a woman with the aim of the creation of a larger family through creation or adoption of children. Re-defining that as anything else changes the church from a place that teaches about having a relationship with God to a house of mirrors that merely reflects your interpretation of life to exist within that union (with God) to be what God intended. I believe all churches warn about depending on the mystical to exclusively guide your spiritual existence. I am in my fifties, have never been married and have no children. I say I am now or formerly an Episcopal because I was raised in the church, and really liked it; as in I believed in its teachings, traditions, and in the fellowship of the community. But, in the last twenty years have become increasingly dissatisfied by its transformation and its new message, a message the Anglican community in England seems to now also be struggling with. I also don’t consider myself to be a member of the Episcopal because of my single status, and s my lack of active participation. Being single complicates matters of attendance; i.e. as marriage is a central component of Christian life, people expect members to be seeking union and family. You underscored that point, of the goal of marriage, in your discussion just presented. Without being critical, I can’t help but wonder that the apostles Peter and Paul thought about that - that being a single member, unless you are seeking a spouse, more or less excludes you from participating as a member of the church. It may not be an intended inference, but it is there. I’m not being critical of the message, after all in Genesis, after joining Adam and Eve in marriage, God did essentially say to be fruitful and to multiply. Multiplication does seem to be a central tenant to life, as it is necessary for continued existence. Alternatively, the Roman church has created particular institutions for single people: as priests, friars, and nuns. The issue of celibacy aside (as that relates more to issues of property than anything else), it addresses the solitary life by essentially creating a church family, with its own family rules, for those living alone. And as in marriage, requires a commitment to a family style of life. I’m not aware of what they do for members not seeking a life in the clergy. Has the Anglican communion ever addressed this issue?
@D-Bunker-zv1bj I think there is an "ick" factor for straight people about homosexuality rooted in childhood conflicts. If the one's that are "icked out" by same sex relations could just snap out of it, as adults I think they'd see these arguments in a new light. If they really understood what the phobias actually mean, trans, homo etc instead of the territorialized definitions we hear all the time they'd be more sympathetic.
A chicken of sorts may be coming home to roost in Lambeth Palace. I cannot help but be preoccupied with what seems to be a contradiction in Anglicanism itself. The bishops who made the English Reformation had been consecrated, as had generations of bishops before them, as sacrificing priests. After they had changed their beliefs about the Eucharist, they were committed to the judgement that the Mass they had been ordained to conduct was after all a blasphemous and idolatrous artifice. At this point, they were in no position to deny that the episcopal ordination they had received had an evil purpose and was no Christian ordination at all.
Christ made the ultimate sacrifice on the cross. No other “sacrifice” is needed. To be blunt, it’s blasphemous for a priest to call down Christ to once again be sacrificed. We respond to the Holy Trinity, the Holy Trinity does not respond to the request of a man in this specific instance.
@@jameskeys971 The way I read Scripture is that the sacrifice of Christ in the cross was a Passover sacrifice in which He was slain on a day other than that appointed. In The Talmud (Pesahim 60) a Passover slaughtered on the "wrong" day is lawful as a peace offering (shelamim) of which the thank offering (Eucharist) is a sub-category. By Numbers 15:3-10 a peace offering or a burnt offering must be accompanied by a grain offering (mincha). Hence, the Last Supper. Why must the Eucharist be conducted in the Christian Church week after week? Because it was the duty of the High Priest to make a daily grain offering. But to get back on topic, the Protestant thesis is that the men who served in England as bishops from the beginning of the 16th century and in previous centuries were not Christian bishops ordained for the purpose for which Christ made bishops - they were ministers of blasphemy and idolatry who had received nothing from Christ to pass on to the bishops of the Church of England from the time of Elizabeth I onwards.
Who now looks to the Church of England as an institution for any spiritual wisdom at all. It’s say. Why do you think that Christianity has lost its importance for the West?
Many years of watering down the gospel to be less offensive has left Christians unaware of the true gospel and open to blatantly false teaching. The gospel is offensive to those who are perishing, Jesus is the only way, truth and light. God is more than love He is also righteous and demands we also be righteous. This is only achieved through a living relationships with Jesus Christ.
@@D-Bunker-zv1bj My emphasis was on the "they", referring to the many, both inside and outside of the COE. Your thinking is insular. "The truth hurts". Why would that be? A Christian believer CHOOSES to follow God at His Word! Fully! As is required by the call, command and commission of Jesus Christ our Lord. "The whole community" (leaders and those who sit under heresy, apostacy, mockery and scorn - "white-washed sepulchres", "den of vipers") do not seem to need any help in "slurring" themselves (Romans 1:20-28, etc). What pages of Scripture would you discard? Tear out? Why would you do that (at your own risk)? Let the evidence speak. God will not be mocked! The COE has chosen its path of heresy and apostacy. It makes itself "God". Making God in THEIR image and bringing Him down to their level of experience (wants and desires). Let the evidence speak! The Truth is neither "mine" not "yours - but God's (John 1:5 - further and John 14:6). And Luke 9:23 is very clear. Christ Jesus is the Word, "the Alpha and Omega", "the Beginning and the End". Christianity is not a religion, but a personal relationship with a Personal Redeemer. The Christian believer is called (invited) to obey (joy) and follow (peace) our Lord Jesus Christ (His Words, counsel, guidance - and admonition - guided by the Holy Spirit - in the practice of belief and to live our lives in the light of eternity. Choices! We are all free to choose, but never free from the consequences thereof. Hebrews 4:12,13. Revelation 1:8 and Revelation 22:20.
We should love our neighbours by telling them the truth. Identifying as a sin ( homosexual) is an abomination in God’s sight. In a same sex situation,to say this can be more successful than some man woman marriages is false. It can never be successful not Glorifying God . Trying to accept same sex situations is not a possibility in a Biblical loyal Church. Love is telling the sinner/ sinners they need to repent and rebellion against this truth is vital in a faithful Christian Church.
@@chrismachin2166 I'm sorry, Chris, I invited you to ask yourself that question. Let me put it differently - and I apply this to myself as well as to you and to all who claim to be followers of Christ - how true is what you consider to be true? You claim it, you preach it, you shout it at others, but are you absolutely sure you know the veracity of this truth? And as for love - well, just how deep is this love? How sincere is it? Is it compassionate and forgiving or is it self-seeking and self-righteous? Is it unconditional or are there conditions that people have to meet in order to get some of this love? I apologise for being rather judgemental by suggesting that you are lacking in love and truth. That is not for me to judge. But I do believe we should all ask ourselves some serious questions about our understanding of truth before we pontificate to others, however lovingly we might think we're doing it.
@@kevinskippon9927 Can I ask,Kevin,what is your standard of truth? Who’s truth do you adhere to? When you answer this question ,I will move on to my position on the word “ love”.
@@chrismachin2166 I'm not used to being interrogated but I'm pretty sure I know where this is going. I'm not used to playing the game of "I'll tell you if you tell me first" but, hey ho, that's the way some people do it. I expect your standard of truth is fixed with narrow and carefully protected parameters - i.e. what you believe to be the inerrant and absolute truth of the writings that happen to make up what we have as the Bible and what you accept as the Word of God (whatever that is). I do not hold to such a fixed standard. Truth is to be sought (as Jesus invited us to do). Truth manifests itself in many ways, in many places and through many people - we can see and celebrate that of God in everyone. We can be led by the Spirit into the very indefineable mystery of God's truth. And God can certainly surprise us as we discover truth in very surprising ways. Furthermore, claiming to have absolute truth is a fallacy, a delusion or simply blind wishful thinking or arrogance.
God tells us what "family" is. Husband (Man), Wife (Woman), children ("procreation of" "godly offspring"). Redeemer and Lord Jesus is Love. Love is a Person. He established a New Covenant. A New Teatament (where "T's & C's" apply). "Gay men with children come to church"? "Go and sin no more". And see Romans 1:20-28. Why would gays want to come to church if not to repent of their mocking of God ("male/female to procreate and bring forth godly offspring") but who would scorn God Creator, in the continuation of their deviant, perverse and depraved lifestyle. Christianity is not a religion but a Personal relationship with a Personal Redeemer? And the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, authotitative, uncompromising Word of God.
Perhaps, "Rev Dan", rather than subtlely stirring away with that biblical homophobic spoon of yours - cleverly and innocuously presented - it would be better to focus on the profound mystery of God's love - manifested in part by the life and teaching of Jesus. Please ask yourself what good your messages are doing AND what harm your ill-considered and mis-conceived words are doing. Of course, this is just my personal opinion but I think it should be expressed on behalf of the many millions of our brothers and sisters who, according to respondents here, will have their share of heaven taken away, are an abomination, are caught in a flood and other somewhat scary language and nasty attitude, all in the name of Christ I am guessing.
@@user-re2ey4ti4v You disappoint me. Throwing out unverifiable snippets from the Bible in the hope that I might be scared into submission, seems to me to be a pointless exercise and a lazy way to engage in a discussion. It also suggests that you're not listening. Is that because you don't care or you don't want to listen to anything that doesn't fit into your neat little God box?
Thank you for this Dan. I was going to write something along these lines for this week’s news sheet, however I think I'll just link this video instead. Very well and eruditely put. Thank you for your service to the truth. God bless.
Being 49, divorced and a father /grandfather I can testify that the Peace of the Lord can certainly be found in chastity.
As a non Christian, I fail to understand (and I have tried) why anyone thinks that abandoning the teachings of the Bible ('the word of god') is something that the church and Christians should do. And, how this would NOT make the church non Christian.
I personally accept the authority of Scripture. However within the Christian tradition people vary in how they read and understand Scripture. For example, they vary to the extent that they value reason or tradition or Scripture; they vary to the extent that they believe that Scripture has words that need to be obeyed, words that need to be interpreted in context, words that have been inspired but need to be read critically and a few (very few in my experience) who believe there is no element of divine inspiration at all. As a church leader with members from Europe, Africa and the Indian Subcontinent I help my people understand where they may differ to each other as we read and consider the text together.
@@joyskillswithmikeandruthjo6325 Thank you for your generous reply. In honesty I am trying to understand. You have given me more to think about. Of course language is an imperfect medium, and in my experience it is all to easy for people to misunderstand even when they share the same language and cultural heritage. I do wonder whether the 'need' of the receiver of the word veils the meaning of the message. None of us are perfect.
Christianity is not specifically about the Bible as such. It's about the teachings of Jesus The Christ. That's why it's called Christianity, not "Biblicism."
The idea of the ideal nuclear family - mum dad 2.4 children - has only rarely been part of the human story. This was due to high mortality rates, and still is in many parts of the world.
In Victorian England there were probably as many stepfamilies as now, and it's estimated that in 1870, 1 in 5 households with children were single parent. That is young widows and widowers struggling to bring up the children alone.
When I go to church I look for a leader to lead me through life and steer me in the right direction.
This new C of E report states : "Nor does singleness imply celibacy. The choice to remain single does not deny the enjoyment of a sexual relationship, but it might indicate a wish to avoid being committed in a permanent couple relationship".
Not only do you no longer need to be married, it doesn't even have to feel permanent.
Unbelievable. Any vestigial respect I had for our church 'masters' has completely vanished.
One night stand anyone?
How can such a "church" survive? Where is God in all of this pleasure and enjoyment of the flesh?
Hooking up randomly is now allowed?
@@kristinesharp6286 I do not believe it is a wise thing to do if you want to live a christian life, in which commitment is a cornerstone. In life at large would not think it is a good idea, but we know it is where the flood is taking a lot of people.
That this should be okay now??? Unbelievable 😳 What of the Bible? This is a whole new redefinition 😱
@@ruthdavies4919 Would this be the same Bible that features prominent figures such as David and Solomon that you're appealing to?
I agree that Focus on the Family got it right and the "church" of England got it terribly wrong. At what point do we stop calling this "church" Christian? Liberalism is not Christianity, but as Paul warns us, it's another gospel.
I think we owe an apology to the fundamentalists. They predicted this would come when we blatantly ignore the Bible’s teaching on female pastors and leadership in the church.
Apology accepted lol
On a serious note, yes, the only thing we can trust is the Bible. We cannot do good without God, so nothing good can come when we depart from scripture.
While we're at it can I convince you to bring back head coverings too?
@@user-or4ut2qi3q I do not know if you are serious or mocking. But some sisters I know is convicted by Paul’s argument (NOT based on fashion but on order of Creation) in 1 Cor. 11 to wear/bring scarves and cover their heads during prayer and corporate worship.
@@lesterchua2677 I'm glad to hear it! Praise The Lord. It is as simple as this: If the Bible says it, we should obey it!
Women can’t be ordained (inc vicars), as said from Timothy.
Dan, these two comments from this Stevo Outdoors character are beyond offensive. Could you remove them please? Thanks.
Yeah! I'm all for wonderful conversation, but strict on NOT accepting that disrespect level! Those are the trolls that are destroying good conversation places like this one. Shame on them!... Rev. Dan might to have his reasons to be at the stance he's now. As a truly respectful liberal I accept it as far as he's accepting us here! But hatred discourse as said by that troll, that is a no go. Have a nice day!...
The Church of England seems to be bending towards a small proportion of the population over the majority of its believers - it has disregarded those who have same sex attractions but who have been celibate to serve in the church - and offers no encouragement to those who experience a difficult marriage. Personally I find it difficult to understand how the Church has come to disregard doctrines that have existed for thousands of years. Where will it all end?
@D-Bunker-zv1bj 1. You cannot judge what I have to think about. 2. I am reading what God tells us in the Bible is ‘normal’. 3. ‘Gay’ people should still be cared for by the church.
The word is the word and if you change it your share of heaven will be taken away from you!
Biblical ideal norm is the traditional nuclear family parents, mother father with children. With husband and wife supporting one another in supporting nurturing their children.
The homosexuals, feminists, indoctrination on gender incongruence etc have wrecked the family unit.
Thank you. So apparently hearing a biblical perspective.
I recommend looking into Katy Faust's work at Them Before Us.
They don’t come to church. Changing the definition won’t attract people who will feel historically shunned and drive away those already at church. They will say, oh that is nice. And still not come.
I am sorry Rev Dan but I think Churches must stick to the Biblical text's it is not up to us to change the word of God and Jessus disciple's teaching. I think the modernisation of Churches in way's out side of the Bible scripture's they will fail as God and Jessus christ will guide believer away to other church's that do teach the bible scriptures.
Rev Dan, can you answer my question? Does the CofE recognise the ‘non blood’ children of a marriage? In context… My Nan died recently and had a funeral at a CofE church. My Nan was my Stepdads Mum, My Mum & Stepdad got married in 1990 & my Stepdad took on the role of a Father of myself & my two siblings.
At the funeral, the Rev talked about the life of my Nan, her pride in her own three children, their spouses & her Grandchildren & Great Grandchildren. The names of the Grandchildren (their spouses) & Great Grandchildren were all read out, EXCEPT myself, my Siblings & my Siblings children.
My Mum & Stepdad were extremely upset & after the committal, questioned the Reverend. They were told that the church did not recognise “Non-Blood” family members…
Is this correct?? I am deeply upset and want to make an official complaint. If this is CofE view then I will complain to the church, if this is just the view of this one Reverend, then I will make a formal complaint about him.
Thanks in advance for your reply x
I'm looking at the report. The authors seem to be quite reticent to allow reason to operate and trust the conclusions it produces, opting rather for an attempt at description and embracing all perspectives. In doing this, sometimes it seems like the only wrong perspective is the right one.
They refuse to allow, for instance, an "idealized" view of family to impinge upon their research, seemingly believing this will improve the quality of the result. Fair enough. But what is their resultant definition of family? "Quite simply, ‘family’ refers to people who are bound together by love and kindness". This is so vague as to be wholly useless, and as you have said, Rev. Dan, biblically incorrect. It even applies to community groups. If a male voice choir is as much a family as my actual family, I find that to be personally demeaning.
To arrive at this definition is to sideline God's good intention in the name of embracing the margins. Somehow, God managed both to centralize his ideal _and_ embrace the margins, which is evident if you read the Old Testament. They seem not to acknowledge the concept of degrees of participation, for instance that a household headed by a widower is strictly deficient, in that it really should have both father and mother present.
Once they have called God's good intention bad by rejecting it as idealized, is it any wonder they redefine Christian morals to allow license to "singles" or creating a new category of "non-marital intimate couple relationships"? Again, all they are doing is devaluing the good, or more pertinently, profaning the sacred.
But who would want to do that? Well, I don't know, but ask yourself which generation would think footnoting The Beatles is clever or even appropriate?
I'm curious, what is The Beatles footnote you reference?
Love makes a family, not the law.
Just watched your discussion about the definition of marriage in the Anglican church, and basically felt vindicated in my views about the same subject. For reference, I am either now or formerly an Episcopal, which is/was a part of the Anglican communion, who has for several years been frustrated with the attempt by the Episcopal church to redefine marriage and priesthood. To be clear I believe that marriage, as a Christian, is defined as a union of a man and a woman with the aim of the creation of a larger family through creation or adoption of children. Re-defining that as anything else changes the church from a place that teaches about having a relationship with God to a house of mirrors that merely reflects your interpretation of life to exist within that union (with God) to be what God intended. I believe all churches warn about depending on the mystical to exclusively guide your spiritual existence.
I am in my fifties, have never been married and have no children. I say I am now or formerly an Episcopal because I was raised in the church, and really liked it; as in I believed in its teachings, traditions, and in the fellowship of the community. But, in the last twenty years have become increasingly dissatisfied by its transformation and its new message, a message the Anglican community in England seems to now also be struggling with.
I also don’t consider myself to be a member of the Episcopal because of my single status, and s my lack of active participation. Being single complicates matters of attendance; i.e. as marriage is a central component of Christian life, people expect members to be seeking union and family. You underscored that point, of the goal of marriage, in your discussion just presented. Without being critical, I can’t help but wonder that the apostles Peter and Paul thought about that - that being a single member, unless you are seeking a spouse, more or less excludes you from participating as a member of the church. It may not be an intended inference, but it is there. I’m not being critical of the message, after all in Genesis, after joining Adam and Eve in marriage, God did essentially say to be fruitful and to multiply. Multiplication does seem to be a central tenant to life, as it is necessary for continued existence.
Alternatively, the Roman church has created particular institutions for single people: as priests, friars, and nuns. The issue of celibacy aside (as that relates more to issues of property than anything else), it addresses the solitary life by essentially creating a church family, with its own family rules, for those living alone. And as in marriage, requires a commitment to a family style of life. I’m not aware of what they do for members not seeking a life in the clergy.
Has the Anglican communion ever addressed this issue?
@D-Bunker-zv1bj I think there is an "ick" factor for straight people about homosexuality rooted in childhood conflicts. If the one's that are "icked out" by same sex relations could just snap out of it, as adults I think they'd see these arguments in a new light. If they really understood what the phobias actually mean, trans, homo etc instead of the territorialized definitions we hear all the time they'd be more sympathetic.
Desmond tutu was false teacher.
Vote with your feet. Avoid CofE churches like the plague.
A chicken of sorts may be coming home to roost in Lambeth Palace.
I cannot help but be preoccupied with what seems to be a contradiction in Anglicanism itself.
The bishops who made the English Reformation had been consecrated, as had generations of bishops before them, as sacrificing priests. After they had changed their beliefs about the Eucharist, they were committed to the judgement that the Mass they had been ordained to conduct was after all a blasphemous and idolatrous artifice. At this point, they were in no position to deny that the episcopal ordination they had received had an evil purpose and was no Christian ordination at all.
Christ made the ultimate sacrifice on the cross. No other “sacrifice” is needed. To be blunt, it’s blasphemous for a priest to call down Christ to once again be sacrificed. We respond to the Holy Trinity, the Holy Trinity does not respond to the request of a man in this specific instance.
@@jameskeys971 The way I read Scripture is that the sacrifice of Christ in the cross was a Passover sacrifice in which He was slain on a day other than that appointed. In The Talmud (Pesahim 60) a Passover slaughtered on the "wrong" day is lawful as a peace offering (shelamim) of which the thank offering (Eucharist) is a sub-category.
By Numbers 15:3-10 a peace offering or a burnt offering must be accompanied by a grain offering (mincha). Hence, the Last Supper.
Why must the Eucharist be conducted in the Christian Church week after week? Because it was the duty of the High Priest to make a daily grain offering.
But to get back on topic, the Protestant thesis is that the men who served in England as bishops from the beginning of the 16th century and in previous centuries were not Christian bishops ordained for the purpose for which Christ made bishops - they were ministers of blasphemy and idolatry who had received nothing from Christ to pass on to the bishops of the Church of England from the time of Elizabeth I onwards.
You said we live in a complex world. It’s only complex because man made it that way.
Marriage protects women.
Real marriage as biological man and woman (not trans etc), it also protects children. Satanic governments ignored it
Who now looks to the Church of England as an institution for any spiritual wisdom at all. It’s say. Why do you think that Christianity has lost its importance for the West?
Many years of watering down the gospel to be less offensive has left Christians unaware of the true gospel and open to blatantly false teaching. The gospel is offensive to those who are perishing, Jesus is the only way, truth and light. God is more than love He is also righteous and demands we also be righteous. This is only achieved through a living relationships with Jesus Christ.
"They" want our children.
@@D-Bunker-zv1bj My emphasis was on the "they", referring to the many, both inside and outside of the COE. Your thinking is insular. "The truth hurts". Why would that be?
A Christian believer CHOOSES to follow God at His Word! Fully! As is required by the call, command and commission of Jesus Christ our Lord. "The whole community" (leaders and those who sit under heresy, apostacy, mockery and scorn - "white-washed sepulchres", "den of vipers") do not seem to need any help in "slurring" themselves (Romans 1:20-28, etc). What pages of Scripture would you discard? Tear out? Why would you do that (at your own risk)? Let the evidence speak. God will not be mocked!
The COE has chosen its path of heresy and apostacy. It makes itself "God". Making God in THEIR image and bringing Him down to their level of experience (wants and desires). Let the evidence speak!
The Truth is neither "mine" not "yours - but God's (John 1:5 - further and John 14:6). And Luke 9:23 is very clear. Christ Jesus is the Word, "the Alpha and Omega", "the Beginning and the End".
Christianity is not a religion, but a personal relationship with a Personal Redeemer. The Christian believer is called (invited) to obey (joy) and follow (peace) our Lord Jesus Christ (His Words, counsel, guidance - and admonition - guided by the Holy Spirit - in the practice of belief and to live our lives in the light of eternity.
Choices! We are all free to choose, but never free from the consequences thereof.
Hebrews 4:12,13. Revelation 1:8 and Revelation 22:20.
This is a report from the spirit of the world; certainly not from the Holy Spirit.
It can redefine what ever it wants.
The Church of England is not a real church because it is not founded by Jesus.
S
This was meant to be a comment on the monarchy video. Posting went astray. Sorry
We should love our neighbours by telling them the truth. Identifying as a sin ( homosexual) is an abomination in God’s sight. In a same sex situation,to say this can be more successful than some man woman marriages is false. It can never be successful not Glorifying God . Trying to accept same sex situations is not a possibility in a Biblical loyal Church. Love is telling the sinner/ sinners they need to repent and rebellion against this truth is vital in a faithful Christian Church.
I would invite you, lovingly, to ask yourself what exactly YOUR loving truth is - I think you will find it rather lacking in both love and truth.
@@kevinskippon9927 can you explain why my truth is lacking in both love and truth.
@@chrismachin2166 I'm sorry, Chris, I invited you to ask yourself that question. Let me put it differently - and I apply this to myself as well as to you and to all who claim to be followers of Christ - how true is what you consider to be true? You claim it, you preach it, you shout it at others, but are you absolutely sure you know the veracity of this truth? And as for love - well, just how deep is this love? How sincere is it? Is it compassionate and forgiving or is it self-seeking and self-righteous? Is it unconditional or are there conditions that people have to meet in order to get some of this love?
I apologise for being rather judgemental by suggesting that you are lacking in love and truth. That is not for me to judge. But I do believe we should all ask ourselves some serious questions about our understanding of truth before we pontificate to others, however lovingly we might think we're doing it.
@@kevinskippon9927 Can I ask,Kevin,what is your standard of truth? Who’s truth do you adhere to? When you answer this question ,I will move on to my position on the word “ love”.
@@chrismachin2166 I'm not used to being interrogated but I'm pretty sure I know where this is going. I'm not used to playing the game of "I'll tell you if you tell me first" but, hey ho, that's the way some people do it.
I expect your standard of truth is fixed with narrow and carefully protected parameters - i.e. what you believe to be the inerrant and absolute truth of the writings that happen to make up what we have as the Bible and what you accept as the Word of God (whatever that is). I do not hold to such a fixed standard. Truth is to be sought (as Jesus invited us to do). Truth manifests itself in many ways, in many places and through many people - we can see and celebrate that of God in everyone. We can be led by the Spirit into the very indefineable mystery of God's truth. And God can certainly surprise us as we discover truth in very surprising ways. Furthermore, claiming to have absolute truth is a fallacy, a delusion or simply blind wishful thinking or arrogance.
God tells us what "family" is. Husband (Man), Wife (Woman), children ("procreation of" "godly offspring"). Redeemer and Lord Jesus is Love. Love is a Person. He established a New Covenant. A New Teatament (where "T's & C's" apply). "Gay men with children come to church"? "Go and sin no more". And see Romans 1:20-28. Why would gays want to come to church if not to repent of their mocking of God ("male/female to procreate and bring forth godly offspring") but who would scorn God Creator, in the continuation of their deviant, perverse and depraved lifestyle. Christianity is not a religion but a Personal relationship with a Personal Redeemer? And the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, authotitative, uncompromising Word of God.
Perhaps, "Rev Dan", rather than subtlely stirring away with that biblical homophobic spoon of yours - cleverly and innocuously presented - it would be better to focus on the profound mystery of God's love - manifested in part by the life and teaching of Jesus. Please ask yourself what good your messages are doing AND what harm your ill-considered and mis-conceived words are doing. Of course, this is just my personal opinion but I think it should be expressed on behalf of the many millions of our brothers and sisters who, according to respondents here, will have their share of heaven taken away, are an abomination, are caught in a flood and other somewhat scary language and nasty attitude, all in the name of Christ I am guessing.
"Blessed are those who are not offended at Me."
Jn 3:16
Heb 12:14
@@user-re2ey4ti4v You disappoint me. Throwing out unverifiable snippets from the Bible in the hope that I might be scared into submission, seems to me to be a pointless exercise and a lazy way to engage in a discussion. It also suggests that you're not listening. Is that because you don't care or you don't want to listen to anything that doesn't fit into your neat little God box?
@@user-re2ey4ti4v nothing to say? I hope I haven't offended you.