A Cup of "Cool" Water

So, I woke up today ready for the vilification to begin after my letter last night (see my most recent post). Instead, as I was making the girls their breakfast, my oldest my daughter hollered across the house, "Daddy, sdomeone's at the door!" It was only 7:30, so I hought to myself, "oh great, the arrows are flying at me early!" But when I went to the door, a parishioner was standing there with a cup of coffee in his hands. He said, "I read your blog, and agree with what you are saying, and I think your decision was courageous." At which point he held out the cup of coffee and said, "So, I brought you a coffee." We chatted for a couple more minutes, then he left. And as I walked inside I felt absolutely supported and loved by this brother in Christ. Jesus words in Matthew 10 rang in my ears (words about persecution for following Jesus):

Matthew 10:32 So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, 33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. 34 Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 40 Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. 41 The one who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and the one who receives a righteous person because he is a righteous person will receive a righteous person's reward. 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward. (ESV)

My Parish Letter

My dear friends in the Parish of Morrisburg – Iroquois – Riverside Heights,

It is with a heavy heart that I report that today I relinquished my license to Bishop John Chapman of the Diocese of Ottawa. This means that as of today I am no longer your rector, nor am I licensed to perform any priestly or diaconal duties within the Anglican Diocese of Ottawa or in the Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC). Instead, I have been licensed as a priest within the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC). I know that this comes as an enormous shock to most of you, to say the least. I asked Bishop Chapman permission to address the parish this Sunday to explain myself and to say ‘farewell’, but that request was denied. I am not allowed back in the church buildings (except for the rectory, which our family will vacate by Oct 14). So, I thought it best to write this note to help address some of the likely questions that must be emerging as you receive this news.

1) Was I fired?
No. I need to be clear on this. Bishop Chapman did not fire me, nor was I coerced into relinquishment. This was a voluntary act, that I was forced by conscience to make. I could no longer serve under Bishop Chapman’s episcopal oversight, nor alongside so many colleagues who have abandoned the “faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). More on those heresies in a moment. This was an agonizing decision that was not taken lightly (though the bishop tells me I need my head examined, literally) and one that I am still pained by. When we came to this parish we came with the full intention of staying long term. We quickly fell in love with this place and with you. But, as we got more involved with diocesan life we were horrified by how far off the rails the bishop and diocesan synod were taking us. Sure there are many within this parish who share those same liberal sentiments, but, nevertheless, my conflict is with the bishop and diocesan synod, not with you.

2) But surely I could have ignored the diocesan “heresies” and simply kept on doing my faithful work in this parish?
No longer. For the nine years that I have served within the ACoC, I’ve watched these heresies eat away at the faithful and add even more confusion to the lost. And this apostasy (i.e. the abandonment of the faith) means ultimately that people are being led away from salvation by a “different gospel...that is not gospel at all” (Gal 1:6-7). I can no longer work within and support an institution that is leading people away from Gospel. Though the local rector has a fair amount of autonomy on what they preach and practice, our episcopal structure binds us to the bishop and the diocese. We are not congregationalists, who can ignore what others are doing, but rather we are episcopalians, who are legally and morally bound tightly together. As a bishop will say in the licensing of a rector, “receive this ministry which is mine and yours.” If I am correct in seeing this bishop as an apostate, then the whole of the diocese is touched by that apostasy.

3) But isn’t this just all about homosexuality?
Not at all. It is unfortunate that much of what the average person hears about the current shakeup within Anglicanism is that it is only about whether “we accept or reject homosexuals.” As a priest, I have never rejected anyone on the basis of their sins. What is at stake is the question of whether homosexuality is a godly lifestyle for Christians to engage in. But even this is not the REAL issue at all, but rather the symptom. The REAL issue is the rejection of the Gospel of repentance, forgiveness, and new life offered in Jesus Christ. It is also a rejection of the authority of the Bible. If the culture deems something as permissible, then the liberal church quickly baptizes it regardless of what the Bible says. But what if the biblical vice lists (e.g. 1Cor 6:9) are, in fact, still valid? That the sins that scripture catalogues (including homosexuality) are the ways in which we are a fallen people who need the grace of salvation and forgiveness in Jesus? Then will we not be inflicting enormous harm by telling people that God is okay with these sins when he really isn't? At the heart of this issue is the question, ‘do we really need a Saviour, or are we mostly okay on our own?’ It seems to me that the bishop and synod of the Diocese of Ottawa have opted for the latter. Where they have gone I can go no longer.

4) Do I think that everyone who remains in the Anglican Church of Canada is apostate?
Absolutely NOT! The Lord alone is judge. I have friends across the country who have chosen to stay and fight for faithfulness within the ACoC. And I know that there are people within this parish who love Jesus passionately and hold the Bible as authoritative. My hope – and the hope of all of us who realign with ANiC – is that the true church, made up of all different brands of faithful Christians, can eventually experience the unity envisioned in Jesus’ high priestly prayer, “Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one” (John 17:11). Certainly not all within the ACoC have bowed the knee to Baal (see 1Kings 19:18; Rom 11:4) yet each of us does need to test the spirits of the churches of which we are members (1Jn 4:1).

5) Have I ceased to be a priest or an Anglican?
Not in the slightest. I relinquished my license, not my ordination as a deacon and priest in the Church of God. Bishop Donald Harvey of the Anglican Network in Canada recognized my holy orders today in writing and therefore my ordination remains valid and I continue to faithfully hold to my vows. As far as being Anglican is concerned, it is argued that between 70-80% of Anglicans worldwide agree with the theological conservatives. As my new Primate, Archbishop Gregory Venables has said, “Far from being dissidents, these people [i.e. in ANiC] are classic Anglicans.”

6) Am I putting my family out on the street by this decision?
No, but thanks for caring about our needs. Though it is hard to leave this parish, we are blessed to have been offered a new position within ANiC that will provide us with a comparable income and a venue to continue to minister. If individuals would like to know more about my new ministry, please email me and I will be glad to chat about it.

In closing, let me say that though this action may seem to say otherwise, I very much do love the people of this parish, and I am going to miss you terribly. Forgive me if it seems a bit over the top to quote Martin Luther here, but his words, when he was on trial for standing up to a church that had lost its way, resonate with me deeply:
Unless you prove to me by Scripture and plain reason that I am wrong, I cannot and will not recant. My conscience is captive to the Word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.

With love and prayers in Christ Jesus,
The Reverend Paul Donison

Mark Discoll & J.I. Packer Define "Heretic"

Where Did the True Theological Liberals Go?

My friends,
A great firestorm erupted on facebook over my most recent note that has been subsequently deleted by me (if you want to read it it is still on my blog www.underethiopia.blogspot.com ). Several individuals have questioned whether I understand the "harm" I am causing by talking about these issues.

What bothered me the most was not that people disagree with me on this (that is not a first!) but that there was a revulsion that this should even be talked about. Part of what I write here is from a message I sent to one individual who had been so offended.

You see the problem here is a deformed liberalism. Liberalism in its pure form is the belief that humans are free -- especially in their own thoughts and speech. Liberalism in this form, is welcoming of all differing "voices" at the table. When talking about any issue the pure liberal desires that no voice is excluded. Sure there are "table manners" that require every voice to be respectful of the others, but if an opinion is too controversial or unpopular that it gets uninvited to the discussion table, the pure liberal feels that the resulting truncated conversation will be incomplete and less valid. For how can the "free thinker" be able to "freely" form their own opinion if a particular voice has been banned. The pure liberal would see such a situation as intellectual fascism. And yet, isn't that exactly what much of liberalism has (de)evolved into? They call for all the voices except the ones that are not on their script,or are uncomfortable. This kind of deformed liberalism is, in fact, not liberalism at all. It is a new kind of fundamentalism. A narrow-mindedness that is not interested in hearing anything other than its own viewpoint. And this is exactly the climate that is being created about many of the issues related to (so called) "liberal" Christianity. Traditional views on human sexuality, the uniqueness of Christ, and beginning or ending of life issues (among others) are "inappropriate" and "unwelcome" in this new fundamentalism that is disguised as liberalism.

I do very much understand just how sensitive and personal the issue of human sexuality -- that I talked about in my blog post -- is to the GLBT (acronym for "Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, Transgendered") community, and I have always attempted to craft my words accordingly (though I'm sure I often fail at that). However, the "harm" caused by bringing up these issues should never be enough reason to suppress dialogue. Even the most "liberal" of Anglican dioceses -- the Church body in which I serve as a priest -- have pleaded for a continuing dialogue on these issues. My blog posts were written in that spirit. I must say, though, that sometimes it seems that when those who are "liberal" on these issues call for dialogue, they are actually calling for monologue (listen to the GLBT side, but not the nasty "conservative viewpoint).

What I keep trying to remind people is that the question of legitimizing and blessing homosexuality as a holy option for Christians requires a complete shift (or even a complete replacement) of beliefs that the Church has lived out for nearly 2000 years (longer if you include the history of Israel). If a change or reformation of these seems required how can steamrolling over the "old ways" ever be helpful. I know, I know...the argument is given that the harm caused to the GLBT community is too great to allow these "harmful" traditional opinions to be voiced. But what about the harm caused if we steamroll through these decisions (not waiting for each other, not walking together) and we are wrong. What if through the process of discernment the Anglican Communion (even the more "progressive" provinces) find that, in fact, the Holy Spirit is NOT guiding us into this? That the biblical ethics for godly sexuality are, in fact, still valid? That homosexuality is another one of the many ways (no worse than any other) in which we are a fallen people who need the grace and forgiveness found in Jesus? Then will we not be inflicting enormous harm by telling the GLBT community that God is okay with this lifestyle when he really isn't? Is that what good shepherding looks like?

As someone who desires to be a faithful shepherd to the flock, I take Ezekiel 3:16-21 seriously. It keeps me sharing my "unwelcome" voice on this issue (not mine, but what I interpret Holy Scripture's voice to be) for the sake of others:

16 At the end of seven days the word of the Lord came to me: 17 "Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. 18 When I say to a wicked man, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. 19 But if you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his evil ways, he will die for his sin; but you will have saved yourself. 20 "Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. Since you did not warn him, he will die for his sin. The righteous things he did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. 21 But if you do warn the righteous man not to sin and he does not sin, he will surely live because he took warning, and you will have saved yourself."

Why I Continue to Hold to the "Official" Anglican Communion Position on Human Sexuality

(This is an expansion on a short essay I recently wrote)

It is an interesting time to be a Christian worshipping and serving in the Worldwide Anglican Communion. It is interesting because there is an amazing realignment taking place where many Anglicans who desire to remain faithful to the “faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3) are finding and creating new ecclesiastical structures. These new ecclesiastical structures – such as the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) of which the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC) is a founding member – are, in fact, not new at all in a theological sense. Sure they are new charitable societies, in that the Episcopal Church USA (TEC) and the Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC) continue to function as they always have from a legal perspective. However, it can be convincingly argued that ACNA and ANiC (and the other bodies like them) are “old” – or “original” or “continuing” – since they continue to hold to what Anglican Christians have always held on matters of essential doctrine and ethics.

Of course the battleground is currently on issues of human sexuality. Before I go any further, what does the Anglican Communion officially believe about human sexuality? In 1998 the bishops of the Anglican Communion met for their decennial Lambeth Conference and passed Resolution I.10 by 526 votes to 70:

This Conference:
a. commends to the Church the subsection report on human sexuality;

b. in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage;

c. recognises that there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation. Many of these are members of the Church and are seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the Church, and God's transforming power for the living of their lives and the ordering of relationships. We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ;

d. while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture, calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals, violence within marriage and any trivialisation and commercialisation of sex;

e. cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions.

And yet despite the clear language of these and similar statements (1, endnote below) the ACoC and TEC have continued unabated to teach and practice a revisioned sexual ethic where homosexuality is a legitimate and “blessable” (to invent words) lifestyle for Christians. The blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination of practicing homosexuals to each of the three apostolic orders – i.e. bishops, priests, and deacons – has been the straw that has broken the proverbial camel’s back as far as unity is concerned. Many biblically faithful Anglicans have concluded that the ACoC and TEC have departed theologically and ethically from the Anglican Communion and have therefore realigned themselves in these new structures. However, as this realignment takes place, one of the great slurs thrown at these “new-yet-truly-old” bodies is that this is all about homosexuality.

It is terribly unfortunate that much of what the average person hears (skewed by much of the media and by revisionists) about the current realignment within Anglicanism is that it is only about divergent opinions on homosexuality. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this is an intentional strategy of satan and those whom he has deceived. Instead of having an open debate about the primary heresies being promoted by much of the ACoC and TEC– doctrines of Scriptural authority, the reality of sin, the need for repentance, the uniqueness of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, to mention just a few – the revisionists continue to claim that this realignment is only about “either accepting or rejecting homosexuals.” As a result, most of culture, and many biblically uninformed Christians find it intolerable and unthinkable for the Church to call homosexuals to repent and embrace a lifestyle of abstinence (or to seek transformation of their orientation). Recently we saw the vilification of Rochester Bishop Dr Michael Nazir-Ali for simply stating the biblical and “official” Anglican standard:

The Bible’s teaching shows that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is the way to express our sexual nature. We welcome homosexuals, we don’t want to exclude people, but we want them to repent and be changed. (2)

Though this orthodox position will continue to draw fire from the world, it is still the means by which God is redeeming people lost in sexual brokenness. It is an understatement of enormous proportions to say that this call to abstinence or change for Christians with homosexual orientations (3) will be “difficult.” I suppose that as a former stage actor, I have had more close friendships with gay people than the average priest. At one time in my life, I prided myself on the fact that I was therefore more adequately qualified to speak into the homosexual crisis in our Church. However, regardless of the number of gay friends I have had over the years, I have never had to face a requirement of life-long sexual abstinence because of my orientation. No doubt, this is an enormous challenge for Christians with homosexual orientations, and yet this is the biblical call that the Church must uphold in love. In Richard Hay book, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, Richard’s gay Christian friend, Gary, puts it this way,

“Are homosexuals to be excluded from the community of faith? Certainly not. But anyone who joins such a community should know that it is a place of transformation, of discipline, of learning, and not merely a place to be comforted or indulged.” (4)

One only needs to read the testimonies of Christians who, in the power of the Holy Spirit, are overcoming their same-sex attractions to be reminded of why the Church cannot cease its witness about Godly sexuality. As I began composing this essay, I read through Zaccheus Fellowship’s website (5) and was moved to tears more than once to read about the freedom that these brothers and sisters in Christ have come to know. Some have been transformed from their homosexual inclinations to faithful heterosexual marriages, while others have found a faithful home in sexual abstinence. I will close with the words of these courageous witnesses:
If the Church is to be effective in this day and age, it must be a voice of hope in the world – a voice which seeks to give hope to a people living in a world where there seems to be only hopelessness. The Zacchaeus Fellowship exists to bring hope to the homosexual/lesbian, and to the Church. It is our hope that the Church may see the Good News that the Gospel holds for all of us in our brokenness, and particularly how that Good News of God's grace and mercy contains a message of hope for those affected by same-sex attractions. Each of us here today has experienced that lifestyle, and now understands that hope and faith in Jesus Christ brings wholeness and freedom. The person living the homosexual life of brokenness can realize victory and a fullness of life, one which God created for each and every one of us. (6)

-------

ENDNOTES

1 Some notable examples are the 1979 Canadian House of Bishops Guidelines; 1994 Montreal Declaration; 1997 Canadian House of Bishops Statement on Human Sexuality; 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10; 2003 Primates’ Meeting at Lambeth; 2005 Primates' Meeting in Dromantine, Ireland; and 2007 Primates’ Meeting in Dar es Salaam.

2 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5744559/Change-and-repent-bishop-tells-gays.html

3 About Christians with homosexual orientations, Richard B. Hays writes, “Can homosexual persons be members of the Christian Church? This is rather like asking, ‘Can envious persons be members of the church? (cf. Rom 1:29) or ‘Can alcoholics be members of the church?’ De facto, they are.” The Moral Vision of the New Testament, p.400.

4 Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, p.401

5 A ministry of healing and transformation to homosexuals by men and women who have overcome their same-sex attractions in the power of the Holy Spirit. http://www.zacchaeus.ca, see also http://www.newdirection.ca for New Direction Ministries Canada’s site.

6 2005 Presentation to the House of Bishops, “Conclusion” http://www.zacchaeus.ca/HOB.HTML

An Academic Look at Homosexuality and the Bible

This is a preview clip from Pure Passion's site. There are a few ads throughout the clip trying to sell the DVDs, so just muscle through them. All in all, Gagnon offers a compelling argument that the Bible speaks clearly on sexual immorality -- as opposed to liberal scholars who will often say that the Bible doesn't say anything definitive on the subject (or at least that Jesus doesn't).

Dr. Robert Gagnon, What Does the Bible Teach About Homosexuality? S3E2 from Pure Passion on Vimeo.

There's just nothing right about the Niagara Rite

NIAGARA FALLS REVIEW

BY BRAD PETERS, REVIEW NEWS EDITOR

AUGUST 12, 2009

The Niagara Falls Review reported recently that Anglican priests can start blessing same-sex marriages effective Sept. 1.

Why wait?

As long as we're throwing away 4,600 years of Judeo-Christian theology and teaching, why not get right to it? Perhaps "throwing away" is a little strong, but radically reworking it is not far from the mark. Rev. Charlie Masters, the national director of the Anglican Network of Canada (an organization formed by Anglicans unwilling to follow the denomination's gay marriage position), says that the Anglican church is reinterpreting the Bible to reflect current societal trends.

The Christian church -regardless of denomination -must, to some degree, reflect the society that it is in. Otherwise, its relevance is compromised. This has been a hard lesson learned to varying degrees of the main denominations and expressions of Western Christianity, mainly evident in shrinking congregations. But reflecting culture and society is one thing: Being shaped, and fundamentally redesigned in light of societal trend and pressure is something all together different.

While change is necessary and essential for all organic structures -of which Christianity is surely one -the reasons for change must be long considered and well thought out before implementation. It is here that the presentation by Bishop Michael Bird of the same-sex blessings change begins to show its weakness. The reasons that the bishop presented to Review reporter Corey Larocque just don't add up.

During the interview with Larocque, Bird said that welcoming homosexuals is a social justice issue. In that he is correct. Welcoming all people -regardless of their situations, be they sexual, financial, criminal or personal is the job of the church. Sexual orientation is only one of the many struggles people bring with them into our halls of faith. All should be welcomed with the same openness and attitude of Christ himself.

However, the leap from providing acceptance to affirming a lifestyle that our guiding principles -Scripture itself -condemns is flawed logic. If Christ remains the head and example of the Anglican church, it should follow Jesus' example. And Bird points out areas where Anglicanism attempts to do just that -fighting poverty and environmental responsibility. Bird also points out the mission of Christ to reach out to all people. And it's true, Jesus did. But in his outreach and instruction, he often encouraged people "to go and sin no more."

But that's the trouble word, isn't it? Sin. We don't like to use that word, even in many faith circles. But if we in the larger Church fail to identify what Scripture defines as sin, we risk losing the ability and position to identify what Scripture reveals as good. If we can no longer proclaim what is good, how can we continue to share Christ with those who need him -regardless of their sexual orientation.

The bishop says people need to be free to experience the presence of God in their own way. Perhaps that's true. My experience of God is likely to be different than yours because of the uniqueness of the nature of relationship. However, before one can experience that presence of God, Scripture teaches us that one must be free of sin. Unable to reach that state on our own, we rely on the atoning sacrifice of Christ to provide passage, access to God. Is homosexuality any different or worse than other human sin? Of course not.

But the church should be helping to reduce sin in the lives of its members, not institutionalizing it and blessing it.

There are many within the umbrella of Christianity that disagree with same-sex marriages and the church blessing of them. That doesn't make us homophobic, or some frothing-at-the-mouth Fred Phelps clones. Far from it. It's one more step in our journey to be as Christ-like as we can be this side of heaven.

As one who counts himself a follower of Christ, my intent is not to try to belittle or tear down those who claim the same goal and allegiance, but rather to challenge my brothers and sisters to rethink their current position on this issue. Regardless of denomination, we must hold fast to the unalterable truths of God ... especially in turbulent times, with quickly changing social mores and moral sacrifices.

Brad Peters is The Review's news editor. He also serves as student pastor at Facer Street Baptist Church in St. Catharines.