A debate rages over marriage and ordination of homosexuals in the Anglican Church of Canada. Several congregations or dioceses are voting to break with the national mother church over the issues. While the people are thankful the votes are a stand of the majority against marriage rights accorded homosexuals as others, they are sad that it has come to having to make such a decision.
But why bring God into the controversy? What does He have to do with the Anglican Church? Are we talking about the Church of God here? Are we speaking of Biblical saints, the Body of Christ? Certainly not if the Bible is our guide.
With leaders dressing in ostentatious garments and glorying in proud titles, unlike Christ and His disciples, do the people truly think their shepherds will lead them in right worship of God? Are they not aware that these are works of men altogether independent of Him? Apparently not. Why should it surprise people that the high officials of the Church of England would come up with absurdities of every kind? (The Archbishop of Canterbury even muses on accommodating mild elements of Muslim Sharia law in England, a law quite contrary to the Bible and Christian faith.) Figs are never gathered of a thornbush, no matter how many fig leaves are tied to it and no matter that the thornbush is called a fig tree.
Let’s look at some of the elements involved. The Anglican situation is a labyrinth of complications the true church would not and could not have, even though spiritual and Biblical values are debated.
Besides the evident moral and Biblical issues, the conflict gets somewhat sticky in other respects – legally, socially, and financially. For example, if a congregation splits, which segment holds title to the common property, those who split from the Anglican Church of Canada or those who remain with it? What if, of 200 members, 195 choose to leave and 5 remain? Do the 5 retain ownership because they remain faithful to the national organization, or should the majority have ownership rights? How great must a majority be? 51%? Two thirds? Or must the decision be unanimous? If there is a unanimous vote to part with the national organization, do the locals (who paid for the property) receive or retain ownership or does the national church?
It gets even stickier. What if the national church changed the articles of faith midstream, after the congregants came on board agreeing to former principles as formally, unequivocally stipulated in their “Statement of Faith”? In this case, many congregants say, “We did not leave the Anglican Church – it left us. Church doctrine was originally based on the Bible but it has departed from Biblical rule and direction. In faith and conscience, we cannot agree with the change. We are forced to leave. It isn’t our fault!”
More stickies: “Our departed loved ones are buried in the Church graveyards…husbands, wives, children, parents…who gets the graveyard sites? We put our money into the buildings. Do we have to start all over when we are not the ones who changed things?”
Be it known that the Anglican Church from its inception has been Christian only nominally, not Biblically (read The True Marks of a Cult). It does not occur to the members that there ought to be no debate on these matters according to the Bible, which is, presumably, foundational to their profession of faith in Christ. This is assuming Anglicans believe the Bible and wish to live by its precepts and dictates as from God. On homosexuality, the Bible is unequivocal:
“They say they are wise, but they are fools; instead of worshiping the immortal God, they worship images made to look like mortals or birds or animals or reptiles. And so God has given those people over to do the filthy things their hearts desire, and they do shameful things with each other. They exchange the truth about God for a lie; they worship and serve what God has created instead of the Creator Himself, Who is to be praised forever! Amen.
Because they do this, God has given them over to shameful passions. Even the women pervert the natural use of their sex by unnatural acts. In the same way the men give up natural sexual relations with women and burn with passion for each other. Men do shameful things with each other, and as a result they bring upon themselves the punishment they deserve for their wrongdoing. Because those people refuse to keep in mind the true knowledge about God, He has given them over to corrupted minds, so that they do the things that they should not do” (Romans 1:22-28 GNB).
“You shall not lie with mankind as with womankind. It is abomination to God” (Leviticus 18:22 MKJV).
How can there be any debate about what the Bible clearly has to say about homosexuality? Is it not because some disagree with God? If they disagree, a true church would not permit them to be there. Lest homosexuals look for an opportunity to silence me by an ignorant Human Rights Commissioner and ill-conceived effort, allegedly for justice, consider that Victor is not saying these things – the Bible is; Victor merely repeats what God says. You ought to try hauling Jesus Christ up to the HRC. Victor’s sin is that he believes God, agrees with Him, and desires to obey Him in all things. If God wrote the Bible (and He did), then I certainly don’t see how He might find fault with what I have written against homosexuality. Do you?
However, those who do not believe the Bible to be of God will do as they please and find a way to uphold the laws of Canada and the Charter of Rights, which are often contrary, if not in letter, at least in spirit, to the Bible. Do I no longer have the right to believe and preach the Bible? According to militant homosexuals, Muslims, feminists, abortionists, idolaters, adulterers, and other groups, Christians do not have the right to believe, preach and live by the Bible.
So now where are the freedoms of religion and speech for Christians, presumably enshrined in the Charter of Rights of Canada? Down the toilet, that’s where – flushed down the sewer by Pierre and party, who thought it better to have rights without responsibilities, and rights for those who saw things as they did, or rights not defined as God wills and defines them. They see rights to do evil, according to God’s definition, but “to Hell,” they say, “with rights to speak against evil. To Hell with the right of living by one’s conscience if one believes the Bible, speaking and acting on Its contents. To Hell with God and His wise Laws and sayings! We know better! We are a ‘just society.’”
Freedom of religion? Yes, there is plenty, as long as religion is not in agreement with the Scriptures, and very little of it is. But freedom to agree with God, to believe the Bible and to speak that agreement is trashed by our Charter of Rights, parliament, foolish lawmakers, our Supreme Court and Canadian society in general, which condones and believes all the bullshit (excuse me – uncastrated adult male bovine doodoo) coming forth from godless, arrogant, presumptuous mouths who frame laws contrary to God’s Law.
They do so for various reasons. Some do it because they don’t know any better. Some do it for money. Some do it thinking to please their constituents and parties. Some do it because their darkened spiritual leaders advise them to do it. Some are coerced or intimidated into it.
But some do it in order to salve their consciences and justify their own lawlessness. “Let’s keep the punishment for drunken driving minimal. I drink and drive. I wouldn’t want to get caught with a stiff fine or a stint behind bars.” Or, “Let’s lower the age of consent for sex to 14, or even 12! Hey! Who knows? I may get caught hopping into bed with a 13-year old! If we have a law to condone it, who can say it isn’t right to do it then?” Or, “Let’s delay or outright oppose laws against child porn. I want to be able to watch it without fear of getting caught. Who am I harming anyway?” The Liberal party of Canada has resisted, prevented, opposed, stonewalled, and voted against laws to prevent child abuse, pornography, organized crime…you name it. It has, with Canada’s consent, supported the greatest of evils. Why is this? Because Canada is rotten in its society. Its government has only represented its society’s true nature and intent. Hopefully, Harper’s government remains a breath of fresh air.
The reason it has come to this confusion with the Anglican Church, as with the Catholic, United, Lutheran, and other nominal churches, in terms of ungodly, useless debates, if not splits, is because these formal, religious organizations are not the true Christian Church. They have nothing to do with It or the Lord Jesus Christ. They are representations of Babylon (confusion). Indeed, their stance is altogether antiChrist. Anglicans need only read the Bible they think to prefer and believe. If believing, why are they not obeying the laws, precepts, and principles they say they believe? How do the Bible’s teachings and requirements agree with the Anglican Church? They don’t; there is no agreement, except in word. If only in word, what does the Bible have to say about that? Here is what James says:
“But be doers of the word, and not only hearers of it, blinding yourselves with false ideas” (James 1:22 BBE).
“Do not misuse My Name. I am the LORD your God, and I will punish anyone who misuses My Name” (Exodus 20:7 CEV).
Some time ago, we published The True Marks of a Cult, wherein we refuted and denounced the foolish guidelines others have laid out to define and condemn groups as cults. We proved that those guidelines, being partisan, ignorant, antiBiblical, and subjective, often condemned the Lord Himself. To establish legitimate guidelines, we identified and enumerated true, Christian, Biblical truths, examples, laws, and principles, based on the lives and teachings of Jesus Christ and His disciples. Thus far, we have had not one person willing even to try to refute what we have had to say – not one.
I direct the reader to The True Marks of a Cult to point out that the Anglican Church, in terms of Biblical definition, is corrupt and straining out a gnat with this same sex union issue. This issue is a symptom, manifesting the fact that people need to get out of there altogether, turning to and repenting before the Lord, whose Name they have been taking upon themselves in vain. The game playing is over.
“And I heard another voice from Heaven, saying, Come out of her, My people, that you may not be partakers of her sins, and that you may not receive of her plagues. For her sins joined together, even up to Heaven, and God has remembered her unjust deeds. Reward her as she has rewarded you, and double to her double, according to her works. In the cup, which she mixed, mix double to her. As much as she has glorified herself and has lived in luxury, so much torment and sorrow give her. For she says in her heart, I sit as a queen, and I am not a widow; and I do not see mourning at all. Therefore her plagues will come in one day, death and mourning and famine. And she will be consumed with fire, for the Lord God Who judges her is strong” (Revelation 18:4-8 MKJV).
I can look at a delicious plate of my favorite food and be excited, particularly when hungry. I can appreciate beautiful scenery or anything that excels in power or beauty or some desirable characteristics. I’ve been very impressed with writers who have such wonderful abilities to express themselves. I often wish I could write like them. But these excitements and desires, while legitimate or neutral in themselves, can’t be allowed free rein. I can’t allow myself to covet my neighbor’s goods or any other thing, though I may appreciate what’s there.
There is no such thing as a problem that God hasn't ordained for good for the sake of all involved.
Navigating through the ways of the religious is impossible and leads to loss, but trusting in the Lord leads to good in the end.