“If we abandon God’s Word we have nothing to offer the world. That is why this motion is before you tonight,” said the Dean of Sydney Kanishka Raffel as he introduced one of the key motions of the 2019 Synod, one which he said he moved ‘with a heavy heart’.
“My heaviness of heart is because the motion before you addresses not a departure from God’s word in the laws of the land but a departure from God’s word that is being promoted by Bishops and Synods in our Church.” Dean Raffel said. “There is one God and Father of us all, one Lord, one faith, and one baptism – but Bishops and Synods in our church nationally, risk rending the fabric of our fellowship by promoting a theology of marriage that is contrary to Scripture.”
The motion followed the Archbishop’s Presidential Address where he spoke of at least two Dioceses pushing to bless same-sex relationships. A ten-point motion, seconded by Bishop Michael Stead, reaffirmed man/woman marriage as the doctrine of scripture and of the Anglican Church, declared that blessings or affirmations of same-sex marriage are contrary to scripture and called for action where the doctrine was not being upheld.
“The Bible’s teaching on marriage is profound, unfolded through all of Scripture – Old and New Testament, from Genesis to Revelation – and deeply related not only to personal and social life but the doctrines of salvation, the church and the new creation.” The Dean said the fact that the doctrine of the Anglican Church of Australia is that marriage is the union of a man and woman in voluntary exclusive and life long commitment was affirmed by the General Synod in 2004, 2007, 2014 and in two resolutions of the General Synod meeting in 2017. The Synod had also acknowledged that same-sex blessings in New Zealand had been contrary to a resolution at the last full meeting of the world’s bishops in 1998 in Lambeth.
“I said at the beginning that the actions of those seeking to overturn the teaching of the Bible on marriage risked rending the fabric of our fellowship. This is true. But it is not the worst effect of these revisionist moves. It is not only our fellowship at stake. Even more seriously, departures from the teaching of Jesus on this subject are contrary to faithful discipleship and witness, deeply injurious and dismissive of countless millions of Christians living in accordance with God’s word – and perhaps most grievous of all, deprives people who identify as gay of the truth about God and his gospel.”
Apart from reaffirming current doctrine, the motion declared that the Diocese of Sydney ‘is in a state of impaired fellowship with any diocese that, or bishop or other minister who, has allowed or participated in the blessing or solemnisation of a marriage that is contrary to the doctrine of marriage of Christ and this Church, and with any bishop who fails to take disciplinary action against a minister holding a licence in that bishop’s diocese,’
The motion also asks the Archbishop to ‘decline any request to exercise ministry in the Diocese of Sydney from any bishop or other minister who has unrepentantly allowed or participated in a blessing or purported solemnisation of a marriage, which is contrary to the doctrine of Christ and of this Church,’ and ‘asks the Standing Committee to consider not providing financial support, whether directly or indirectly, to any Anglican diocese or body which has acted, or has allowed others to act, in a way that is contrary to the Church’s doctrine of marriage’. The motion passed easily.
Dr Sowada, right, takes notes during Synod debate. Chancellor Michael Meek and Archbishop Davies (centre and right)
Immediately afterwards, the Synod considered a motion which, if left unamended, sought to defer payment by the Sydney Diocese of the General Synod assessment because of the moves to same-sex blessings by other dioceses. This is a payment which contributes to the running of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia and would amount to more than half a million dollars in 2020.
An amendment moved by Dr Karin Sowada and seconded by Bishop Michael Stead removed the deferral of payment and called for a report from Standing Committee including legal advice, on future assessment payments. Dr Sowada described the deferral of payment close to the ‘nuclear option’. “I believe we may at some point need to do this but now is not this time,” she said. “There is a manifest unfairness to do this without having signalled it to the General Synod office ahead of time.”
Dr Sowada said Synod in 2020 could make a more considered and wise decision. “You can be sure that the ripples of this debate will find themselves all through the national church but now is not the time to do that. I hear the frustration (of Synod delegates) that this debate is moving fast and we need to make our views known – but we have made our views known by even having this debate.”
The amended motion passed, with 80 percent in favour.
““If we abandon God’s Word we have nothing to offer the world.” What an honest and beautiful way to put it,
1 Corinthians 7 – Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.” But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.”
“which is contrary to the doctrine of Christ and of this Church,’ and ‘asks the Standing Committee to consider not providing financial support, whether directly or indirectly, to any Anglican diocese or body which has acted, or has allowed others to act, in a way that is contrary to the Church’s doctrine of marriage’. The motion passed easily.” Praise God!
“Dr Sowada described the deferral of payment close to the ‘nuclear option’. “I believe we may at some point need to do this but now is not this time,” she said. “There is a manifest unfairness to do this without having signalled it to the General Synod office ahead of time.” I agree. Everyone should be given the chance to make amends. Maybe it isn’t too late yet for that assembly. Nothing is impossible with Christ.
God bless these persons who chose to uphold Christ over the filth of this world.
(edited)
Dr. Davies has elsewhere stated that he does not want LBGT members of congregations to leave the Anglican church. Why not? Surely it is precisely because of slackness in the church – its unbiblical determination to be ‘non-judgmental’ and ‘accepting’ – that has given rise to this problem in the first place. A biblical stance not only requires correct doctrine and conforming leadership, it also requires leaders to exercise a salutary discipline within the church.
Stephen,
Taken to its logical conclusion, your proposal would remove all the sinners from the Church, and then there would be no one left.
The actions taken by the Synod and the archbishop, if I understand them correctly, seem a healthy and holy course- that is, to remove financial and ecclesial support for errant dioceses, and to place the responsibility for maintaining the discipline of the church on the bishops- that is to say, to hold them accountable for the violations taking place in their dioceses.
The error is not in having gay people in the church, the error is in dismissing the doctrine of the church because it is inconvenient for gay people. It is a wonder that greed is still considered a sin (or at least “wrong”) in the dioceses that support gay marriage, and have adopted “Pride” as a liturgical season. After all, the number of greedy people far exceeds the number of gay people.
Yes I’ve heard that argument. But no-one going to church says (as it were) “I am greed” or “I am murder”? To me, people who identify as gay are doing something exactly like that. A Christian recognises their sin, repents of it and dispenses with it. If before I became a Christian I was gay, I certainly am not gay now I am a Christian. “Such were (NB) some of you”. If you are a Christian you are an ex-gay, surely?
In answer to your note up above, I take no offense.
In any case, I am not advocating for a “gay agenda” or “gay Christianity” or even “gay Christians”. Christianity needs no modifier. I do myself use the term “orthodox Christianity” to distinguish between that and the various myriad heretic movements of the modern day that identify themselves as Christian, but have in fact abandoned the foundational principals of the faith. But I do not self identify as a “heterosexual, independent voter, theology circa 1965 (that last being thrown at me once as an insult)” Christian.
What I do advocate is that the doctrine of the Church be maintained, and those who have adopted various heretical or outright pagan beliefs and practices disciplined. Particularly the leaders. So what Abp. Davies has to says in response to actions within the Church of Australia makes perfect sense to me. Those willing to accept the doctrine of the church will be welcomed in the church. Those who reject the doctrine of the church should be about the business of starting a new denomination, and not trying to undermine or take over existing denominations. But accepting the doctrine of the Church does not mean that we are all perfect and never stray from that doctrine. I’ve been on this earth quite a few years at this point, and I know there have been only brief moments when I even approached what God expects of me.
I don’t expect others to be particularly holier than I am. With few exceptions, we are all struggling to do what God would have us do, to live as He would have us live.
Modern activism has given us a language problem. As we all know, it deliberately confuses activity with identity. So Stephen, I think you’ve correctly put your finger on the language issue, but because sometimes specific sins can be an ongoing struggle for believers of all sorts, I feel we need another category.
My solution is to try to identify those who have fully embraced an SS lifestyle as “gay” or “LGBT.” They would identify themselves with this language and tend to believe that their sexual attractions are integral to who they are, and following those inclinations are also essential to who they are. But I think there are also believers who experience same-sex attraction, and who correctly identify these inclinations as counter to God’s intentions for them. They struggle to be obedient, recognize the sin in their desires and perhaps even actions, so there is repentance and trying again. Like the relapsing alcoholic for example. So I think it’s helpful to refer to this group as SSA – same-sex attracted, because they are not defining themselves by their sin… though the besetting temptations have not been eradicated.
Unfortunately, because we do not have consensus in the use of language either among traditional Christians or in larger conversations, there is a great deal of confusion.
I should acknowledge (also to tjmcmahon below) that this is a difficult subject, and one that seems to allow of different views. I hope nobody has felt wounded by my comments, and if so I apologise. In other circumstances I’d feel more comfortable with continuing the discussion. Many thanks for responding to my post.
Hi. I’m new so forgive me if I am misunderstanding you.
A homosexual who has repented of their sin is no longer a homosexual but a Christian. The homosexuality should fall to the wayside and if they are still identifying themselves by their sin, are they really giving it to Christ?
I don’t believe anyone should be stopped from coming into a church. That said, if after time the person is attending to gather other people sharing the same sin, in an effort to overcome the church with that sin – neglecting the scripture, that person needs to be spoken to.
Then, the TEC allows openly practicing sinners – proud sinners – to run their churches, so how do you expect people to renounce a sin the pastor has not renounced? How can two or three approach a “brother” if they are committing the same sin, in an unrepentant manner?
Next, how could that person be considered a “brother” if they are unrepentantly sinning against Christ? If one is allowing a proud, unrepentant sinner into the “church family”, where are the elders then what are they doing? Our job is to protect the church, and allowing people to exploit it gets no one anywhere. People who believe their sin is more important than Christ, should be asked to leave if they choose not to repent.
The Lord knew the heart of the young rich man, and let him go.He knew He would not be number one in his heart. Unrepentant sinners – whether adultery, homosexuals, or thieves who want to play “Christian” and offer no sin to Christ, why is the TEC allowing this in their “management”?
If we don’t set an example, what are we doing?
Respectfully;
We are to endeavour to lead sinners to Christ, but, we do not allow the church to be ruined by unrepentant sinners bound on calling Christ a liar. It does not make one “holier than thou” to protect the church. Read 1st John, Anglican.
1 John 2: 4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,”
1 John 1:6 – If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth.
1 John 2:3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.
1 John 3: 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God
These scripture are all applicable today as they were when written.
The church needs to be protected or it will turn out like most of the TEC – letting people go to Hell with no help afterward, making a mockery of what Christ did for us because they allow unrepentant sinners to partake of communion, teaching children that sin is ok and that Christ is a liar. That assembly makes a mockery out of Christ and what He did.
That is why, if someone chooses to unrepentantly sin against the Lord, they are not a brother and should not be allowed to become a member of the church.
Acts 20: 28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
As Christ taught Paul, and Paul was a Pharisee, his word can be trusted as that of Christ – 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
Christ did come to save sinners, he also said, Matthew 4:17 – English Standard Version From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
We do not allow proud unrepentant sinners into the fold – a little leaven….
We need to recognize a difference between activists in the pews who have no intention of repenting, and those who are earnestly seeking and open to hearing the Gospel. All are welcome. But all can expect to hear sin referred to as sin, and sinners invited to repent. When we get shy of doing this, we are actually shy of the very Gospel. And that’s a problem.
This motion is very well written and seems to encompass many variables so that it will not be easy to weasel one’s way out of it the way other provinces have done. However it still stops short of saying they are not in communion with heretics, it still speaks of impaired or limited communion.
““There is one God and Father of us all, one Lord, one faith, and one baptism – but Bishops and Synods in our church nationally, risk rending the fabric of our fellowship by promoting a theology of marriage that is contrary to Scripture.”
I have been an Anglican Synod rep here in the UK. In fact it was my involvement in that and Deanery Synod that helped convince me that it really was time to move on.. It is the elevation of tradition and reason above that of Scripture which has opened the floodgates of doubt, unbelief and social acceptability into the Church of England.
I sometimes think the increase in fancy robes and obscure rituals is all that the Anglican Church has to distinguish it as being ‘different.’
I say this not with the intention of hurting or insulting the genuine Christians within the Anglican community, but to remind that the Christian Church is there to point men and women to God, and to care for their souls. If it doesn’t know how to do this, it could start consulting Scripture again. If it feels that the Bible has nothing to offer the world today, then best they shut it all down and look for honest and gainful employment elsewhere.