This is a good question. All I get in google searches are “Anglican Ink” and a variety of general info on the cathedral, plus almost as much on the cathedral in Newcastle Australia.
To me the strongest aspect of the argument to accept homosexual ‘marriage’ in the Church of Christ is the problem of celibacy. We who are heterosexual can marry and as the Bible says,
‘become one’. Homosexuals are limited to celibacy.
I think most of the Christians I know would happily accept homosexuals as part of our congregation as long as they were either celibate or kept their private life er, private. In fact I know a couple in another congregation who are in some sort of close relationship, but don’t talk about it.
However, this situation is really unsatisfactory to all, a) because a homosexual cannot openly practice a homosexual relationship and b) the congregation is in effect in deceiving itself.
The Scriptures nowhere mention an accepted loving homosexual relationship.
Not in the Old Testament, nor in the New.
Nowhere.
In fact the only references to homosexuality are both condemnatory and forbidding.
Ist Corinthians 6 NKJV “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [b]homosexuals, nor [c]sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were [d]sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.”
So those of us who regard the Scriptures as inspired by God are stuck because St. Paul addressing believers in one of the most liberal and broadminded cities in ancient Greece, condemns not only heterosexual immorality, he condemns homosexuality and sodomites.
Yet he says, “and such were some of you..”
So presumably as well as reformed fornicators there were reformed homosexuals and sodomites in that congregation.
We may not like it. It seems unkind, prudish and harsh; certainly inconvenient to the Church of today! But if we rip these and similar passages out of the Scriptures in the name of Inclusion, what then?
Where does it stop?
Will the 10 random bishops be attending to see what the Lambeth they hope for will really be like?
They really are full of pride aren’t they.
Is there not one Diocesan bishop in the CofE who will not speak out against this? The whole organisation is a cesspit of apostasy and iniquity.
And how do they get ordained in the first place? What happened to candidates presenting themselves with deep rooted homosexual tendencies being dissuaded from the priesthood?
I hate my sin. I weep because of my failings before the Lord of which there are many. I don’t celebrate it, neither do I take ‘pride’ in it. If the Bishop of Newcastle has allowed this then they should be hauled up before CDM.
The more we focus on our God the more we see our failings and weaknesses.Yet He loves and His strength is made perfect in our weakness. That’s what our faith is all about being loved by Him and seeking to love Him in return, that His love flows through us to love others.
One that is counter cultural, and more concerned about God than the government.
As I say, is there not one?
I agree. There are many faithful people on the ground. Sadly these days unless you have an MBA or have been a senior executive in the secular world, you have virtually no chance in the CofE of being a Bishop.
If only all would hear the baptists cry today!
Then again, when was the last orthodox bishop appointed also?
I’d add to my last comment that you also need to be a member of the “right on dude ” brigade ie liberal loving and lobbying!
For information, the person appointed to the See of Newcastle is Christine Hardman.
One is amazed that even revisionists could read a Bible and come to the conclusion that a month long celebration of Pride (along with several other Pride feast days throughout the year) was a requirement for all cathedrals and dioceses of the Church of England.
I’ve come to the conclusion that most bishops in CoE are “gay heterosexuals”. They don’t want to participate in gay sex, but they desperately want to be invited to all the parties and wear rainbow vestments. This is actually a phenomenon on many college campuses.
To me the strongest aspect of the argument to accept homosexual ‘marriage’ in the Church of Christ is the problem of celibacy. We who are heterosexual can marry and as the Bible says,
‘become one’. Homosexuals are limited to celibacy.
I think most of the Christians I know would happily accept homosexuals as part of our congregation as long as they were either celibate or kept their private life er, private. In fact I know a couple in another congregation who are in some sort of close relationship, but don’t talk about it.
However, this situation is really unsatisfactory to all, a) because a homosexual cannot openly practice a homosexual relationship and b) the congregation is in effect in deceiving itself.
The Scriptures nowhere mention an accepted loving homosexual relationship.
Not in the Old Testament, nor in the New.
Nowhere.
In fact the only references to homosexuality are both condemnatory and forbidding.
Ist Corinthians 6 NKJV “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [b]homosexuals, nor [c]sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were [d]sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.”
So those of us who regard the Scriptures as inspired by God are stuck, because St. Paul addressing believers in one of the most liberal and broadminded cities in ancient Greece, condemns not only heterosexual immorality, he condemns homosexuality and sodomites.
Yet he says, “and such were some of you..”
So presumably as well as reformed fornicators there were reformed homosexuals and sodomites in that congregation.
We may not like it. It seems unkind, prudish and harsh; certainly inconvenient to the Church of today, but if we rip these and similar passages out of the Scriptures in the name of Inclusion, what then?
Where does it stop?
One orthodox Anglican priest I know welcomed a homosexual couple to his parish by saying “I’ve got straight people in my congregation who are sleeping together outside of marriage. When I preach against homosexual activity know that I also preach against heterosexual immorality. The same rules apply to everyone.” They were happy to be welcomed as sinners into a church of sinners. After a year or so they stopped having genital activity and lived together as best friends. After one died, the other vowed celibacy (meaning more than chastity, but avoiding emotionally intimate relationships with other men.)
I think that’s an excellent approach. As I have said before it seems to me the CofE has obsessed about homosexuality and forgotten how often adultery and fornication are condemned in Scripture.
Either God’s salvation is effective for all repentant sinners or it is biased in favour of heterosexuals. Which is stupid.
God knows each one of us through and through and loves us with the same redeeming love. There are lots of websites in which homosexuals share their experience of redeeming grace, and I for one welcome a loving approach to the problem as long as it is Scripturally based.
“They were happy to be welcomed as sinners into a church of sinners.”
How does this mesh with the biblical admonition to put sexually immoral people out of the church (1 Cor. 5)?
If the church leaders (clergy, wardens, etc) know that regular members of the congregation are living in unrepentant sexual relationships, or living in defiant and unrepentant ways with other obvious sins, action of some sort must be taken, especially if the people concerned are regularly sharing the Lord’s Supper.
Really?
Well said
They weren’t members of the church. They attended church. Don’t we want sexually immoral people to attend church?
I don’t recall anything in the New Testament distinguishing people who are official members and those who just attend regularly. In my Anglican church (as with many other churches) you can participate as most members do without ever being received. Do Paul’s admonitions have nothing to do with them because they aren’t official members? He was concerned about the leavening effect in the church and the salvation of the errant believer (vv. 5-7) . Does the person “bear the name of brother” (v.11)? Then he (or she) is to be removed. I know this runs contrary to the current atmosphere of inclusiveness, but it is what Paul said. Was he wrong to be so (apparently) harsh?
Questions:
1) How can one (Bingo Allison) be both non-binary and transgendered? Forget biology and science–this is a logically impossible grammatical proposition.
2) Two of these people identify as bisexual. Whatever in common can they possible have with someone who is nonbinary? Each ideology cancels the other out completely.
3) I am assuming that Miss Hill is a lesbian. Her entire identity disappears in the presence of either nonbinary or transgender ideology. Lesbians simple cease to exist under either worldview..
One does surmise that the standards for course work in Logic and Grammar at Oxford and Cambridge have fallen to the same sorry state as the degree programs in Theology and Ethics.
Spot on. Just goes to show what a load of twisted thinking this amounts to. Brings to mind an old American expression I heard when I was a child…”Gee, they’re just crazy, mixed-up kids..” Trouble is, they have faaaar too much influence and clout.
What percent of Anglicans reading this article are in communion with the people on the poster? How long will they be?
There are many people in the World who despise the fallen state they see all around them. Their Souls crying out for help and where do they turn for salvation? These Priests promoting what to many is revolting, wrong and abnormal are putting them off from finding the Glory of God. Does the Devil exist? look around.
Thank you. My point was the sinners within the Laity are turning to certain Clergy who are promoting sin.
I await Gluttony Month, Lust Month, and Sloth Month.
Sloth Month activities might be a good thing.
Isn’t “Sloth Month activities” a contradiction in terms?
Hahaha! love it 🙂
If you follow the facebook link kindly provided by James Paice down below (or above, depending on how you have your disqus page set up), you discover that this panel discussion is only one small part of 3 days of Pride festivities at the cathedral, including a “Pride Eucharist”, which, thankfully, at least distinguishes it from a Christian Eucharist.
I don’t understand why orthodox in England are worried about episcopal oversight if they leave the Church of England. There certainly is no episcopal oversight in the church they are in now.
But what is this pride eucharist TJ? Can anyone here tell me what exactly a pride eucharist is?
Interesting if it is a form of the eucharist, that it says it is with Bingo Allison who is apparently a Deacon. Without any further info, are we to assume Bingo is presiding, in which case they can add the additional charge of ignoring canon law about presidency to the list.
Mind you, given the scope of the nature of this abhorrent event I suppose that it is least of the problems that Newcastle Cathedral clearly has.
Bingo has a youtube channel; their (?) video on “A Poem and a Prayer for Trans Day of Visibility and Mothering Sunday” gives some background on their (?) life.
For a deacon, they (?) seem to lack public speaking skills. They (?) can’t speak a sentence without looking at their (?) phone.
The schedule for the weekend’s events also includes a “Pride Eucharist with the Rev Bingo Allison”. Which seems to imply that Rev Bingo is presiding. Perhaps Rev Bingo is only preaching? Or, maybe Rev Bingo’s phone is preaching? But if so, no mention is made, nor of anyone else who might be the presider.
If indeed presiding at a Eucharist, it would certainly mean that Bingo is an exceptional deacon, with an exceptional dean and bishop violating several not so exception (quite normal, actually) canons of the church. Oh, wait, I forgot, different religion altogether. Nevermind.
What the hell is this?
I see that Bingo Allison is curate to the Order of the Black Sheep in Chesterfield. That ‘fresh expression’ of church has been entirely off-the-rails since it was set up by Mark Broomfield.
What is the souorce of this, is it a leaflet or on the internet ?
https://www.facebook.com/thomas.matthew.sharp/posts/10156175300307353
This is a good question. All I get in google searches are “Anglican Ink” and a variety of general info on the cathedral, plus almost as much on the cathedral in Newcastle Australia.
To me the strongest aspect of the argument to accept homosexual ‘marriage’ in the Church of Christ is the problem of celibacy. We who are heterosexual can marry and as the Bible says,
‘become one’. Homosexuals are limited to celibacy.
I think most of the Christians I know would happily accept homosexuals as part of our congregation as long as they were either celibate or kept their private life er, private. In fact I know a couple in another congregation who are in some sort of close relationship, but don’t talk about it.
However, this situation is really unsatisfactory to all, a) because a homosexual cannot openly practice a homosexual relationship and b) the congregation is in effect in deceiving itself.
The Scriptures nowhere mention an accepted loving homosexual relationship.
Not in the Old Testament, nor in the New.
Nowhere.
In fact the only references to homosexuality are both condemnatory and forbidding.
Ist Corinthians 6 NKJV “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [b]homosexuals, nor [c]sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were [d]sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.”
So those of us who regard the Scriptures as inspired by God are stuck because St. Paul addressing believers in one of the most liberal and broadminded cities in ancient Greece, condemns not only heterosexual immorality, he condemns homosexuality and sodomites.
Yet he says, “and such were some of you..”
So presumably as well as reformed fornicators there were reformed homosexuals and sodomites in that congregation.
We may not like it. It seems unkind, prudish and harsh; certainly inconvenient to the Church of today! But if we rip these and similar passages out of the Scriptures in the name of Inclusion, what then?
Where does it stop?
Will the 10 random bishops be attending to see what the Lambeth they hope for will really be like?
They really are full of pride aren’t they.
Is there not one Diocesan bishop in the CofE who will not speak out against this? The whole organisation is a cesspit of apostasy and iniquity.
And how do they get ordained in the first place? What happened to candidates presenting themselves with deep rooted homosexual tendencies being dissuaded from the priesthood?
I hate my sin. I weep because of my failings before the Lord of which there are many. I don’t celebrate it, neither do I take ‘pride’ in it. If the Bishop of Newcastle has allowed this then they should be hauled up before CDM.
The more we focus on our God the more we see our failings and weaknesses.Yet He loves and His strength is made perfect in our weakness. That’s what our faith is all about being loved by Him and seeking to love Him in return, that His love flows through us to love others.
One that is counter cultural, and more concerned about God than the government.
As I say, is there not one?
I agree. There are many faithful people on the ground. Sadly these days unless you have an MBA or have been a senior executive in the secular world, you have virtually no chance in the CofE of being a Bishop.
If only all would hear the baptists cry today!
Then again, when was the last orthodox bishop appointed also?
I’d add to my last comment that you also need to be a member of the “right on dude ” brigade ie liberal loving and lobbying!
For information, the person appointed to the See of Newcastle is Christine Hardman.
One is amazed that even revisionists could read a Bible and come to the conclusion that a month long celebration of Pride (along with several other Pride feast days throughout the year) was a requirement for all cathedrals and dioceses of the Church of England.
I’ve come to the conclusion that most bishops in CoE are “gay heterosexuals”. They don’t want to participate in gay sex, but they desperately want to be invited to all the parties and wear rainbow vestments. This is actually a phenomenon on many college campuses.
To me the strongest aspect of the argument to accept homosexual ‘marriage’ in the Church of Christ is the problem of celibacy. We who are heterosexual can marry and as the Bible says,
‘become one’. Homosexuals are limited to celibacy.
I think most of the Christians I know would happily accept homosexuals as part of our congregation as long as they were either celibate or kept their private life er, private. In fact I know a couple in another congregation who are in some sort of close relationship, but don’t talk about it.
However, this situation is really unsatisfactory to all, a) because a homosexual cannot openly practice a homosexual relationship and b) the congregation is in effect in deceiving itself.
The Scriptures nowhere mention an accepted loving homosexual relationship.
Not in the Old Testament, nor in the New.
Nowhere.
In fact the only references to homosexuality are both condemnatory and forbidding.
Ist Corinthians 6 NKJV “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [b]homosexuals, nor [c]sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were [d]sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.”
So those of us who regard the Scriptures as inspired by God are stuck, because St. Paul addressing believers in one of the most liberal and broadminded cities in ancient Greece, condemns not only heterosexual immorality, he condemns homosexuality and sodomites.
Yet he says, “and such were some of you..”
So presumably as well as reformed fornicators there were reformed homosexuals and sodomites in that congregation.
We may not like it. It seems unkind, prudish and harsh; certainly inconvenient to the Church of today, but if we rip these and similar passages out of the Scriptures in the name of Inclusion, what then?
Where does it stop?
One orthodox Anglican priest I know welcomed a homosexual couple to his parish by saying “I’ve got straight people in my congregation who are sleeping together outside of marriage. When I preach against homosexual activity know that I also preach against heterosexual immorality. The same rules apply to everyone.” They were happy to be welcomed as sinners into a church of sinners. After a year or so they stopped having genital activity and lived together as best friends. After one died, the other vowed celibacy (meaning more than chastity, but avoiding emotionally intimate relationships with other men.)
I think that’s an excellent approach. As I have said before it seems to me the CofE has obsessed about homosexuality and forgotten how often adultery and fornication are condemned in Scripture.
Either God’s salvation is effective for all repentant sinners or it is biased in favour of heterosexuals. Which is stupid.
God knows each one of us through and through and loves us with the same redeeming love. There are lots of websites in which homosexuals share their experience of redeeming grace, and I for one welcome a loving approach to the problem as long as it is Scripturally based.
“They were happy to be welcomed as sinners into a church of sinners.”
How does this mesh with the biblical admonition to put sexually immoral people out of the church (1 Cor. 5)?
If the church leaders (clergy, wardens, etc) know that regular members of the congregation are living in unrepentant sexual relationships, or living in defiant and unrepentant ways with other obvious sins, action of some sort must be taken, especially if the people concerned are regularly sharing the Lord’s Supper.
Really?
Well said
They weren’t members of the church. They attended church. Don’t we want sexually immoral people to attend church?
I don’t recall anything in the New Testament distinguishing people who are official members and those who just attend regularly. In my Anglican church (as with many other churches) you can participate as most members do without ever being received. Do Paul’s admonitions have nothing to do with them because they aren’t official members? He was concerned about the leavening effect in the church and the salvation of the errant believer (vv. 5-7) . Does the person “bear the name of brother” (v.11)? Then he (or she) is to be removed. I know this runs contrary to the current atmosphere of inclusiveness, but it is what Paul said. Was he wrong to be so (apparently) harsh?
Questions:
1) How can one (Bingo Allison) be both non-binary and transgendered? Forget biology and science–this is a logically impossible grammatical proposition.
2) Two of these people identify as bisexual. Whatever in common can they possible have with someone who is nonbinary? Each ideology cancels the other out completely.
3) I am assuming that Miss Hill is a lesbian. Her entire identity disappears in the presence of either nonbinary or transgender ideology. Lesbians simple cease to exist under either worldview..
One does surmise that the standards for course work in Logic and Grammar at Oxford and Cambridge have fallen to the same sorry state as the degree programs in Theology and Ethics.
Spot on. Just goes to show what a load of twisted thinking this amounts to. Brings to mind an old American expression I heard when I was a child…”Gee, they’re just crazy, mixed-up kids..” Trouble is, they have faaaar too much influence and clout.
What percent of Anglicans reading this article are in communion with the people on the poster? How long will they be?
There are many people in the World who despise the fallen state they see all around them. Their Souls crying out for help and where do they turn for salvation? These Priests promoting what to many is revolting, wrong and abnormal are putting them off from finding the Glory of God. Does the Devil exist? look around.
Thank you. My point was the sinners within the Laity are turning to certain Clergy who are promoting sin.
I await Gluttony Month, Lust Month, and Sloth Month.
Sloth Month activities might be a good thing.
Isn’t “Sloth Month activities” a contradiction in terms?
Hahaha! love it 🙂
If you follow the facebook link kindly provided by James Paice down below (or above, depending on how you have your disqus page set up), you discover that this panel discussion is only one small part of 3 days of Pride festivities at the cathedral, including a “Pride Eucharist”, which, thankfully, at least distinguishes it from a Christian Eucharist.
I don’t understand why orthodox in England are worried about episcopal oversight if they leave the Church of England. There certainly is no episcopal oversight in the church they are in now.
But what is this pride eucharist TJ? Can anyone here tell me what exactly a pride eucharist is?
Interesting if it is a form of the eucharist, that it says it is with Bingo Allison who is apparently a Deacon. Without any further info, are we to assume Bingo is presiding, in which case they can add the additional charge of ignoring canon law about presidency to the list.
Mind you, given the scope of the nature of this abhorrent event I suppose that it is least of the problems that Newcastle Cathedral clearly has.
Bingo has a youtube channel; their (?) video on “A Poem and a Prayer for Trans Day of Visibility and Mothering Sunday” gives some background on their (?) life.
For a deacon, they (?) seem to lack public speaking skills. They (?) can’t speak a sentence without looking at their (?) phone.
The schedule for the weekend’s events also includes a “Pride Eucharist with the Rev Bingo Allison”. Which seems to imply that Rev Bingo is presiding. Perhaps Rev Bingo is only preaching? Or, maybe Rev Bingo’s phone is preaching? But if so, no mention is made, nor of anyone else who might be the presider.
If indeed presiding at a Eucharist, it would certainly mean that Bingo is an exceptional deacon, with an exceptional dean and bishop violating several not so exception (quite normal, actually) canons of the church. Oh, wait, I forgot, different religion altogether. Nevermind.
What the hell is this?
I see that Bingo Allison is curate to the Order of the Black Sheep in Chesterfield. That ‘fresh expression’ of church has been entirely off-the-rails since it was set up by Mark Broomfield.