Total visitors right now: 108

Logged-in members:


Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Updated:  Dr. J. I. Packer Suspended

Thursday, February 28, 2008 • 7:40 pm

The link has been updated.


68 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook

Wait - what is this?  Is this the same as “inhibited”?  Are we talking about Regent College or the ACC?  Sorry to be dense but the link gives nothing but the headline and a promise of “more later.”

[1] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 02-28-2008 at 08:46 PM • top

wow, if this is due to his disaffiliation with the Anglican Church of Canada then…well…wow.

[2] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 02-28-2008 at 08:52 PM • top

J.I. Packer suspended?

I think we’re the ones in suspense.  Dr. Packer is probably carrying on as usual.  I’m guessing there is no suspense on his part.

Still one has to wonder.  This is sheer shock effect of how far the urge to force conformity to the Gospel of My Own Personal Experience has travelled in the past six to ten years.

[3] Posted by Rom 1:16 on 02-28-2008 at 09:15 PM • top

Having sought confirmation of this from MSM sources I can’t find it. I can see where the Canadian Church of Liberally Universal would desire reducing his impact in Christendom, but perhaps this needs further corroboration before we light the signal fires?

[4] Posted by masternav on 02-28-2008 at 09:27 PM • top

More information Link:

Dr. Packer was one of my theology profs in pursuit of my first theology degree.

[5] Posted by Josip on 02-28-2008 at 09:28 PM • top

Original story has been removed from site.

[6] Posted by jobeena on 02-28-2008 at 09:49 PM • top

+Ingham’s cowardly and contemptible action is a badge of honor awarded to Dr. Packer for faith, integrity (the REAL kind) and courage that +Ingham doesn’t begin to understand or recognize or embody.

By the way, the worked fine when I first clicked it but now on a 2nd visit it says “page not there”.  Hope Michael Daley’s new site isn’t getting hacked like CaNNet was taken down.

[7] Posted by Milton on 02-28-2008 at 09:49 PM • top

If you mean Anglican Planet, its still there.

Grannie Gloria

[8] Posted by Grandmother on 02-28-2008 at 10:01 PM • top

Could someone summarize what was on the link before it disappeared? Suspended?  From what and by whom?  Thanks.

[9] Posted by C. Sullivan on 02-28-2008 at 10:10 PM • top

It will be intersting to see if this was a punitive action by Ingham or merely an automatic and clerical step pursuant to Packer’s transfer to the Southern Cone.  If Ingham has any sense at all, he would not do this until he had a request from Packer in writing.

[10] Posted by wildfire on 02-28-2008 at 10:13 PM • top

Not the TAP story.  What’s disappeared is the original “breaking” terse post that this thread started with from the Daley site but he is just about to post something so we’re to hold our horses.

[11] Posted by jobeena on 02-28-2008 at 10:16 PM • top
[12] Posted by SCMichael on 02-28-2008 at 10:26 PM • top

well, it appears he might very well be CoE, but he might lose his license to practice in Canada.

[13] Posted by southernvirginia1 on 02-28-2008 at 10:30 PM • top

The link has been fixed.

[14] Posted by JackieB on 02-28-2008 at 10:43 PM • top

Well, if true, this Ingham chappie certainly has his panties in a twist over those who would dare to violate his canons, his understanding of the canons, his interpretation of the understanding of the canons, his historical interest in the writings alleged to be canons, his approach to the purported record of allegations of sayings of things possibly attributed to a group of writers of uncertain provenance that are called canons, ... you know, those thingies that he breaks regularly and has authorized the breakage of.  So this would be consistent insofar as Ingham can be accused of consistency in anything approaching actual thought.  But it boils down to he’s got his panties in a wad because other persons act like him. and, damn it, they are NOT supposed to do that!  Just ask Monty Python, they have some prescient, not to say prophetic skits about Ingham the Buffoonery Bishop of Canada, or something very like.

[15] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 02-28-2008 at 10:49 PM • top

i read the one link that works and it seems the man resigned and was changing his license. i don’t see anything about him being suspended.

[16] Posted by sarahsnemisis on 02-28-2008 at 11:02 PM • top

My oh my,
This is personal for so many of we Regent alum who both worshiped at St. John’s Shaughnessy and who learned our theology from J.I.  I suspect he will take this as a badge of honour.  But isn’t this simply outrageous.  Dear Rowan, grow a pair.

[17] Posted by dl on 02-28-2008 at 11:11 PM • top

This will backfire on the impertinent and disobedient Bishop of New Westminster.

We know and respect Dr. Packer enormously and his books are more widely read than those of some of our bishops.

[18] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 02-28-2008 at 11:17 PM • top

Pure hubris on the part of + Ingham.  All he can do is remove his license in New Westminster.  He can then complain to the English Bishop (whoever that may be).  If Ingham tried to depose Jim Packer, (remove his holy orders)  then he might start an international incident.  How dare a Canadian presume to do such a thing to a Church of England priest!

I asked the same questions about my own exposure (as a C of E priest) to vindictive bishops in TECUSA and my bishop in London gave the above answer.

Ingham is all bombast and in this case powerless.

[19] Posted by Fr Ian on 02-28-2008 at 11:19 PM • top

The beatings will continue until morale improves. +New Westmnister.

It seems the beloved bishop takes the Art of Demotivating quite seriously.

[20] Posted by Bill2 on 02-28-2008 at 11:23 PM • top

The article by Sue Careless on gives lots of valuable background information.  Part of what’s remarkable is that the orthodox churches in the Vancouver area that disaffiliated with the diocese six years ago have gone without confirmations during that whole time and been in ecclesiastical limbo in other ways.  That obviously couldn’t continue much longer.  I’m so glad +Harvey and the Southern Cone took them in.  It’s also telling that the largest congregation in the ACoC averages only 760 people on Sundays.

This online article implies that Dr. Packer was planning to leave, or already has formally left, the ACoC himself.  If so, this is simply a gratuitous act of spite on +Ingham’s part, just as has happened so often in TEC when priests have left it for a foreign jurisdiction and then been declared to have “abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church” and to have renounced the ordained ministry altogether.  But oh, the gall of taking such an unjust swipe at this great man of God!

David Handy+

[21] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 02-28-2008 at 11:31 PM • top

With some sadness I think that the time when we can put up with the discord and dissension that ACoC and TEC have brought to the Communion has passed and it will be better if they go off and sort themselves out instead of infecting the rest of us with their ludicrous theology and un-Christian behaviour.

[22] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 02-28-2008 at 11:45 PM • top

#23 “by Sue Careless”  Sounds like a good nickname for TEC Canon David Booth-Beers or PB Katherine Jefferts-Schori!

(Reasserting knuckle-draggers can too spell KJS’ name when we want to!)

[23] Posted by Milton on 02-29-2008 at 01:00 AM • top


I know it was just a joke, but just in case anyone doesn’t know, Sue Careless is thoroughly orthodox and has frequently visited St. John’s Shaughnessy. She is also the author of the excellent two volume series (with more to come, I believe), “Discovering the Book of Common Prayer: A Hands-On Approach.”

[24] Posted by Fr. David McElrea (formerly farstrider+) on 02-29-2008 at 03:27 AM • top

I was joking!  ;>)

[25] Posted by Milton on 02-29-2008 at 04:24 AM • top

-Ingham has no shame.  Incredible.

[26] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 02-29-2008 at 07:35 AM • top

Sorry—slight error.  16 said Bp Ingham was insane with evil, no less than Hitler and Stalin.

[27] Posted by DavidH on 02-29-2008 at 08:09 AM • top

Next time there’s a thread about how terrible the etiquette on reappraiser blogs is, let’s be sure to point out 16 above as an example of how much better things are here.  (Bp Ingham = Satanic dragon, and Bp Ingham = worse than Hitler and Stalin.)  Calling the commenatrix.

[28] Posted by DavidH on 02-29-2008 at 08:09 AM • top

This is certainly symbolic of the depravity of the ACC and especially New Westminster. If you are looking for a modern day example of Ahab/Jezebel and Elijah, this would be it.

[29] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 02-29-2008 at 08:15 AM • top

Well, Ingham certainly acts like someone insane with evil.  And he certainly acts Satanic.  Acts like a duck, quacks like a duck . . .

[30] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 02-29-2008 at 08:17 AM • top

Whoa Sasha…

Put a lid on the Satan talk, OK?

[31] Posted by Greg Griffith on 02-29-2008 at 08:20 AM • top

I laughed when I read your final thought.  I wholeheartedly agree with you.  But alas, our goodly ABC has determined to avoid decisive action at all costs (regardless of what the ACI says).  Authority or not, Rowan does have the ability to state opinions.  I don’t care if he can’t actually do anything about Ingham and others, but the man is more than allowed to speak his mind.  Sadly, he may be doing just that.

[32] Posted by Saint Dumb Ox on 02-29-2008 at 08:21 AM • top

“The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.”
St. John Chrysostom

[33] Posted by Dilbertnomore on 02-29-2008 at 08:49 AM • top

Nick Knisely has a delightfully understated comment on this at Episcopal Café:

J.I. Packers’ teaching and writing is not commonly encountered the Episcopal Church, it is widely known and respected by Evangelicals in the Anglican Communion. The possible suspension of Packer may create a bit of a problem for both the Archbishop of Canada and the Archbishop of Canterbury given the reaction that could be expected from many parts of the Communion.

[34] Posted by wildfire on 02-29-2008 at 09:13 AM • top

I am very pleased that Packer has moved to a jurisidiction where he can retain his credibility and serve out the remainder of his Chrisitian life of service without compromise.

[35] Posted by Going Home on 02-29-2008 at 09:16 AM • top

When I was a new Christian in a Mennonite church over 30 years ago, probably not yet even knowing what “Anglican” meant, J. I. Packer was one of the first and most trusted authors who helped me know what this new life as a Christian was intended to be like. That was long ago, and long before I stepped into the bit of the church that calls itself Anglican. Packer is a giant, not merely for us who are Anglican, but throughout the Christian world.

What a contrast between Packer and his impact on Christianity and its everyday disciples of Jesus versus the heretical Bishop Ingham and his disgusting theater of the absurd. Ingham’s net impact on Anglicanism and Christianity has been less than zero - a large negative - both in his statements and his actions.

This report of Packer’s possible suspension does not so much raise my anger level - that has never been lacking for those “bishops” who seek to destroy the faith and the faithful. It is perhaps unnecessary to say that this latest report provides continuing clarity for which be began praying some years ago. But it does emphasize an expected fruit of apostasy: seek to shut down wherever possible every effective source of Christian truth. Ingham knows who is head of the church. In New Westminster, according to him, it is Michael Ingham, not Jesus. Ingham will be obeyed and followed, or he will attempt to shut you down. That is not news. It has been his pattern. His possible or threatened action against Packer is merely a milepost on that dark road.

[36] Posted by Bill Cool on 02-29-2008 at 09:25 AM • top

Mark, not only that, Dr. Packer is revered among evangelicals of many denominations.  This will likely increase the visibility of the rot in the Anglican Communion.

[37] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 02-29-2008 at 09:26 AM • top

Bentley claimed that not only has Bishop Ingham “abandoned” St John’s for the past six years, but the Anglican Church of Canada has been “completely mute” as well. She said if Bishop Ingham locks them out “We’ll meet on the grass.”

Sounds to me like Ingham is insane with GREED. Let him have the silly buildings—if ALL orthodox-believing Episcopalians had been willing to take such a stand, ie, stand up on their own hind legs, forget their buildings and “meet on the grass” in 2003, this whole mess would have been settled long ago.

[38] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-29-2008 at 09:35 AM • top

I’m shocked and I’m saddened. After initial reactions, I’m not surprised, Ingham is more like Bruno and Chane—In some ways the open warfare approach is better because everyone can see, especially the fence sitters in CoE and forces the issue with those who still seem to be in a imaginary land where everything will just one day go away.

[39] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 02-29-2008 at 09:49 AM • top

You have a point, Hosea. An obvious evil is generally less dangerous than a hidden one.

[40] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-29-2008 at 09:53 AM • top

I am sorry, but I find this just hysterically funny.  I mean it is utterly ludicrous.  What next, will Ingram (no + on purpose) next threaten to inhibit ++Rowan himself?  Outlaw the Roman Catholic Church?  Have NT Wright kidnapped, tried, and burned at the stake?

What an utter and contemptable abuse of authority.

Dear ++Rowan, you have it in your power to make an immediate, forceful and unambiguous answer to this that will do more than you know to rescue the Communion.  I pray you will revoke the priviledge of invitation of a certain bishop who is actively attempting to tear the Communion completely apart.

[41] Posted by tjmcmahon on 02-29-2008 at 10:51 AM • top

“Dr. J. I. Packer Suspended”

“An enemy has done this”
—-Matthew 13:28

An enemy who sows weeds among the wheat, then uproots the wheat, ties it in bundles to be burned, and carries the weeds with honor into his barn.

[42] Posted by Irenaeus on 02-29-2008 at 11:30 AM • top

The buildings are a proxy in this disagreement. Possession of the buildings for the revisionist represent the rightishness and justness of their cause. If they lose the buildings, they lose it all in their eyes. There is nothing spiritual for them in this disagreement. They will not survive as congregations if they lose the property and they know it. That is the spiritual problem with postmodernism, it has to be affirmed by the larger society to be valid. The legal blow from not having their buildings equates to rejection by the society. One has to remember that the revisionist see this as a matter of civil rights and not choice on the parts of gays. If there is no affirmation they are out of here and on to the next cause. Whereas, the orthodox draw support from the Bible, an unchanging source of inspiration, vision and direction. Buildings are important, but not a core issue which threatens the worship of God.

[43] Posted by ctowles on 02-29-2008 at 12:31 PM • top

Has Dr. J.I. Packer left the ACC for the Southern Cone with the parish he attends, or has he renounced his association with the ACC but retained his English bishop? He is being threatened with having his licence to function under this Canadian bishop revoked I take it? This should be an embarrassment for the Anglican Communion as a whole. Especially given that he is well into retirement at 82 (though still active). I know several retired clergy that are attending breakaway churches and no one bothers them. Dr. Packer was a wonderful touchstone for me in my seminary years, in that he was a link to orthodox Christianity which was not a strong suit in Episcopalian Seminaries at the time—- or now. In fact, as a newly ordained priest in Mississippi, in the UEC, I had to visit a PCA Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi to hear him speak—- neither of us would have been welcomed in many TEC churches at that time (I seem to recollect that for decades he has dealt very little with Episcopalians here in this Country, preferring more reformed bodies). I always think of Dr. John Stott when I think of Dr. Packer, he was another touchstone and icon. I wonder where he is in all of this? He retired many years ago from All Souls, London…I heard him at the same Seminary in Jackson in which I’d heard Dr. Packer…

[44] Posted by FrVan on 02-29-2008 at 12:32 PM • top

I have heard Dr. Packer a number of times, and once even had the privilege of conversing with him over dinner.  I never for a moment entertained the thought that what I was experiencing in Dr. Packer’s presence was made possible solely through the graciousness and leadership of -Michael Ingham.  Dr. Packer is very much his own man;  he spoke for himself with vigor, intellectual vitality and spiritual insight prior to this suspension, and will continue to do so as long as he has life and breath to do so.  I can’t for the life of me see how he and his ministry are in the least bit hurt by -Ingham’s actions.  Before long, the bishop will be forgotten, but Dr. Packer will be remembered as a good and faithful servant.

[45] Posted by DuPage Anglican on 02-29-2008 at 01:07 PM • top


You can’t go wrong with “Knowing God”

[46] Posted by James Manley on 02-29-2008 at 01:23 PM • top

“Possession of the buildings for the revisionist represent the rightishness and justness of their cause”—-CTowles [#46]

True. In a radical PC view of the world, it’s all about power. Might makes right. Possessing the buildings demonstrates who has the might.

[47] Posted by Irenaeus on 02-29-2008 at 07:55 PM • top

I believe I read somewhere that the Bishop of New Westminster is busy working on his autobiography which has the working title Not Knowing God.

[48] Posted by RMBruton on 02-29-2008 at 08:42 PM • top

” True. In a radical PC view of the world, it’s all about power. Might makes right. Possessing the buildings demonstrates who has the might. “

Sort of like a skunk who decides to make camp in your outhouse on a cold night… :D

[49] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-29-2008 at 08:42 PM • top

Tha Anglican Church of Canada, the weak link in the great chain of the Anglican Communion.

[50] Posted by RMBruton on 02-29-2008 at 09:09 PM • top

Sasha, I do not disagree with what you are saying here, but I do think that it is possible to call a spade a spade while maintaining one’s civility.

Also, I find this to be very interesting, and I’d like to investigat this further:
(you wrote) “some of these predator false-prelates also try (and even sometimes succeed, worse yet!!) to get other churches from other denominations (Presbyterian, Baptist, Romanist, etc.) giving shelter to dissident congregations to evict those as well!!  They even have been known to go after facilities like schools, hotels, stores, etc. ”
Can you give me some examples of that? There are laws on the books to prevent this sort of thing from happening; when it does happen, it raises the question, “Why?” (or maybe, “Who’s getting paid off to let this sort of thing slide, and by whom?”)

[51] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-29-2008 at 10:22 PM • top

#41 Goldendog ... to quote “Sounds to me like Ingham is insane with GREED. Let him have the silly buildings—if ALL orthodox-believing Episcopalians had been willing to take such a stand, ie, stand up on their own hind legs, forget their buildings and “meet on the grass” in 2003, this whole mess would have been settled long ago. ”  You don’t know how I truly wish that is what we’d all do. We need to forget about “stuff” and get back to what matters!
#55 Sasha… We don’t need to call a spade a spade… meet evil with evil… WE need to take the high road… NEVER and I mean NEVER let someone dictate how you act… that is up to YOU!!!  The only one who should ever dictate how you act or react to others is Jesus.

[52] Posted by Gordy on 02-29-2008 at 10:54 PM • top

Against this sort of harassment there is scant legal recourse; however if they are using the legal system itself to harass people that is a different matter. There are laws in place against that, but unfortunately, judges themselves can be bought.

[53] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-29-2008 at 10:57 PM • top

Sasha and Gordy,
Regarding Gordy’s [50] “We don’t need to call a spade a spade”, recently on a thread here, Hosea6:6 explained that he focuses on describing the action rather than the person. Saying an action is greedy or arrogant is different than saying the person is greedy or arrogant. I thought Hosea’s distinction was very practical and helpful

[54] Posted by Deja Vu on 02-29-2008 at 11:00 PM • top

I’m not sure I can agree with that, Deja Vu. The emotion and thought process of an individual is what would make something greedy or arogant. It most definitely requires the “human element” to make it so. I don’t believe you can sanitize something of this nature and separate it from its human creator to prevent offending or holding someone accountable for what they say or do.

[55] Posted by Gordy on 02-29-2008 at 11:19 PM • top

I would not be an Anglican today, much less the Dean of an Anglican seminary, if it were not for the influence J. I. Packer had on me when I was a Baptist seminarian thirty years ago. If Packer had not written anything beyond his preface to a modern edition of John Owen’s, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ he would still rank as a great theologian. But he has written a great deal more than that; and, in his long ministry, he has inspired several generations of Christians, clergy, and scholars.

Stand Firm readers may be interested in this tribute to John Owen, written by John Piper, that gives great insight into the impact of Owen’s theology and spirituality on J. I. Packer.

Finally, I hope the English bishops and other Evangelicals who are urging all the Global South bishops to come to the Lambeth conference and have tea (and Holy Communion!) with the likes of Michael Ingham are taking notice of what he has done to one of their own.

[56] Posted by ToAllTheWorld on 03-01-2008 at 02:53 AM • top

I wonder when the revisionists are going to start burning Bibles at their parades and rallies (services) in the name of One World Religion. When they start going after people like J. I. Parker, I can’t help but think about Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his efforts to save the Church during an earlier political hijacking.

Well, it is now clear that their racist comments towards the African members of the Anglican Communion, and their claims of bigotry towards all who place Christ at the center of the Church, must be answered. This new thing religion is not of God.

[57] Posted by Dr. N. on 03-01-2008 at 08:57 AM • top

Well, it is now clear that their racist comments towards the African members of the Anglican Communion, and their claims of bigotry towards all who place Christ at the center of the Church, must be answered.

OK… you have my attention, LOL. Could you give me some links to these comments?

[58] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 03-01-2008 at 04:35 PM • top

Greg said:

Whoa Sasha…

Put a lid on the Satan talk, OK?

Whoa Greg.
I have for 40 years watched bizarre behavior of Episcopal clerics, especially bishops, and am thoroughly, fully, totally, without reservation convinced that 1. Demonic possession is real, and 2. That the noted clerics have in their midst quintessently Satanic persons who are possessed. I will not proof text or indulge in any lengthy defense of my position in this matter. I will state I see no other explanation for their actions. We are in the presence of great Evil, and the pretense that it does not exist is the central error we have made over the last 40 years. We have been called by scripture to contest this avalanche of horror, and in response, have tried to negotiate with It. We see how well that has worked.
This is certainly off topic, and offensive, so for my part, further discussion on the 8 billion pound gorilla in the room is accordingly suspended.

[59] Posted by teddy mak on 03-01-2008 at 10:58 PM • top

I am praying for Dr. Packer and his congregation.  I must share a comment placed by someone on another blog TitusOneNine:

Ingham should stick his suspension where the Son don’t shine.

Which is in his cathedral.
February 28, 9:35 pm

[60] Posted by Tremblingnut on 03-02-2008 at 07:56 AM • top

Tremblingnut, ROFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But, the Son is everywhere….
Psa 139:7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?  Psa 139:8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou [art] there:if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou [art there].

.....even in the most unlikely places, such as Ingham’s cathedral.

[61] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 03-02-2008 at 08:24 AM • top

goldndog [65].  I don’t think I can do justice to a link-list you request, and invite you to read here for a while for articles as they come up. At minimum, this blog and others of the orthodox side have been called “online bigot conventions.” I’m sure we all have been, at least indirectly, called bigots for narrowing ourselves to the Church with Christ as its center. Read a “progressive” blog, and the word bigot will appear in almost every thread. I have experienced direct/indirect comments of bigotry at an Episcopal church on Sunday morning from clergy and members, when traditional Anglican positions were suggested in forums or over coffee. Rather than remain silent, I moved on and am much happier in a orthodox setting.

On the comment of racist positions, I refer you to the claimed superiority of the enlightened, progressive church; comments that white men are pulling the strings for the African provinces and TEC abortion policy that is disproportionately terminating pregnencies in the black community. Also, separatist vision allowed border crossing to serve the Nigerian community, but only when whites joined CANA did border-crossing become trouble. Notice further how the Africans are welcome at Lambeth, as long as disproportionately and under represented. When they get a position, as in 1998, it is ignored.

To not avoid your request for links, I provide a few below for your consideration. I consider this as minimal and representative, and encourage others here to point you to articles. TEC claims inclusivity, but tread quietly and give them money if you are orthodox; let them run the show.,M1,M1

[62] Posted by Dr. N. on 03-02-2008 at 07:37 PM • top

Dr. J.I. Packer’s theology is not the issue. Here is the real issue. When Michael Ingham accepted the position of Anglican Bishop he made a commitment before God and those in charge within the Anglican community to uphold the Christian faith and biblical doctrine. What Michael Ingham has done instead is push a secular liberal agenda that has no place in the Christian church. Furthermore, the weakness within the Anglican Church in general is that there is no proper accountability structure in place that would deal with removing someone from office when biblical commitments that were made are not kept. Michael Ingham will be judged by God for his disobedient behaviour towards God’s Word he was supposed to uphold, unless he repents and turns from his wicked ways.

[63] Posted by Maurice Harting on 03-26-2010 at 03:03 PM • top

I suppose there will be controversies like this when bold decisions are made especially when it has to do with the Church!! Breaking off from old traditions always creates a big controversy and such a decision was only expected when theologian Dr. J I Packer, who was one among the synod members who walked out when the Anglican Church of Canada voted to bless same sex-unions which according to him ‘falsifies the gospel light of Christ”!

[64] Posted by brown erik on 04-04-2011 at 11:51 AM • top

Brown Erik what do you mean by “breaking off from old traditions always creates a big controversy”? If you mean that the Bible and its standards are an old tradition that we need to “update” to the current times I strongly would disagree with you. The culture in which we live needs to be conformed and transformed to the image of Christ and His ways as seen in the Bible and not the other way around.
If you mean that the old tradition of sin (including homosexuality amongst others see 1 Corinthians 6 as oine example) needs “breaking off” from and those within the Christian church that defend the practise of homosexuality (and other sins) need to be “broken off” from I would agree, since allowing antinomianism in the church would be a destructive force with serious eternal consequences. So next time be more specific when stating your position.

[65] Posted by Maurice Harting on 04-04-2011 at 12:33 PM • top

[65] Maurice Harting

Brown erik is an advertising bot.  It creates a false blog post so it can insert an advertising link into the post. 


[66] Posted by carl on 04-04-2011 at 12:43 PM • top

I think he’s a person doing some advertising - that’s a lot more “intelligent” than any bot I’ve seen.  Spam nonetheless though, he’s doing it on multiple threads as well.

[67] Posted by Wilf on 04-04-2011 at 12:53 PM • top

The updated link seems to be a commercial site. Nothing to do with the Anglican Church.
Perhaps someone can rescue the archived article and post it instead of the link.

[68] Posted by Marie Blocher on 04-04-2011 at 04:15 PM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.