Stand Firm

But it is nice to put it out in writing what he has been saying and teaching to his people and the world all along.

I’d like to see the list. If they are not some polygamous Anglican bishops and priests I would be very surprised, human nature being how it is and all.

#3 I am puzzled as to why on earth you would want to see a list of the polygamous folk ++Akinola is referring to. Isn’t it far more important that he is articulating that this sinful practice does still exist among some Christians in Nigeria. We need to pray for them, as the Nigerian Church would want us too.

The church in Nigeria has made it clear that there will never be a bishop, priest, deacon, or other leader who is engaged in polygamy. There is no list, because there is no one to put on the list.
Br_er Rabbit

If only our own bishops had done this very same thing regarding homsexuality and lesbianism. Bravo Ab Akinola!

“We cannot claim to be a Bible-believing church and yet be selective in our obedience.”

Here we see displayed the crucial difference between the Global South and the Global West/North. The former is willing to take truly bold positions that fly in the face of the prevailing cultural norms in the non-Christian society around them. The latter capitulates and doesn’t even put up much of a fight.

This latest action by the leading Anglican primate in the world is why I’m so excited about the kind of faithful, bold leadership that God is raising up for the New Anglicanism. As +Bob Duncan the Lion-Hearted loves to say, “Courage breeds courage.”

GAFCon is only a month away or so. On this, the virtual eve of Pentecost, let us pray that this unprecedented gathering of future-oriented Anglican leaders will experience something like a New Pentecost, speeding the gospel to the ends of the earth.

The Church of Nigeria authorities have explained that no polygamists are eligible for their clergy. I am quoting below from a Bishop of Eastern Nigeria, and see emphasis (in my capitals):

“We approach polygamy from an evangelistic point of view. The polygamist is at the unconverted stage. Now he hears the Word of God and comes to the Lord. We accept him as he is and we disciple them to the point that they see this way of life is contrary to the word of scripture. For the sake of our understanding of a compassionate God we instruct them to take no further wives and take care of the wives and kids they have as they become believers. We are not callous in our discipling of them. We do say no more wives. We teach them new responsibilities. THEY ARE NOT PERMITTED LEADERSHIP ROLES IN THE CHURCH. They can be in charge of building projects, but they CANNOT BE PRIESTS OR BISHOPS. The truth, however is that polygamy is dying. A new generation of men and women is more interested in learning and education. It is a myth to say the church endorses polygamy as a lifestyle.” --Rt. Rev. Ikechi Nwachukwu Nwosu, Bishop of Umuahia in Eastern Nigeria

I simply see this as the church affirming that the Bible presents monogamy as the plan which conforms most closely to God’s ideal for marriage, as well as a office requirements presented in the New Testament. Personally, I also think the polygamy aspect has been over played by the liberals, but now it’s on less card for them to wave.

Multiple wives is a status symbol in African cultures. Therefore it must be obvious that “polygyny” is not a Christian practice. Christians don’t seek worldly status.

It would seem that ++Akinola is only acknowledging what the rest of the world knew, but which he denied. I am proud of him for taking this stand. What is sad is that he has done so on the eve of TEC voting in a polygamous Gay family… that would be VGR, his lover VGR, VGR, VGR, and his other spouse.

” . . . only acknowledging what the rest of the world knew, but which he denied.”
No, I believe he denied there were BISHOPS who were polygamous. Why would that be inconsistent with this announcement?

I thank God for Abp Akinola’s willingness to enforce moral boundaries, thus being a faithful steward of Holy Scripture and the sacraments.

This is off-topic. I’ve been closely watching the Anglican crisis for over four years. I recently asked myself, In hindsight, what was the watershed moment for the future of the Anglican Communion? I think it was the moment that Nigeria and Uganda refused to accept TEC money.

The true contrast between Nigeria and TEC is not polygamy and homosexuality but polygamy and divorce. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I am pretty sure Nigeria does not allow clergy to be divorced and remarried. This is the case in Uganda. Strong prohibition of divorce and remarriage can tempt people to enter into loose extra-marital relationships (the most common form of polygamy). By contrast, serial polygamy - divorce and remarriage on demand - became the law of TEC after 1973, all the way up the chain of command, and is arguably the root of all the disorder that followed. VGR is in this sense truly a polygamist as well as a narcissist.

“We cannot claim to be a Bible-believing church and yet be selective in our obedience.””

Okey dokey…
No more shellfish
No more clothing of mixed fibers (my fave)
No more lying with your wife when she’s in the midst of her cycle
(Shall we go on, O Nonselective Leader?)

There, that should cleanse the impurities out of our church and now we pure, nonselective “orthodox” can do what...?

PLEASE TRY to come up with something new and not rehash old, boring, and fallacious arguments inconsistent with the NT or Christianity.

PLEASE - it is like reading the same Burma Shave Ad for about 150 times. Boring, useless - and ultimately of no eternal import.

If this is the best you can do… you might reconsider the saliency of your arguments.

Acts 10:9-16 takes care of the first, and the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 take care of the rest of your OT examples. Note, however, that the Council specifically continued for Christians the OT standards on sexual immorality (ESV translation), so it’s not possible to use the Council as teaching a “new thing” to defend changes in this area.

I think I understand your underlying concern, although you may have expressed it poorly. For instance, you could have cited some NT texts that hardly anyone regards as binding these days, such as the necessity for women to wear some sort of head covering in church (1 Cor. 11), the command for them to keep silent in church (1 Cor. 14:34-36) and so on.

But the flippant and derogatory dismissal of the Levitical ceremonial code strikes me as seriously irreverent and wrong-headed. Besides the points other responders have made above (#18-20), it’s worth noting two things about the status of the ritual purity laws in the Old Covenant.

First, our own Anglican tradition clearly distinguishes between the obsolescence of the Priestly ceremonial laws and the ongoing validity of the moral laws. See Article VII of the 39 Articles.

Second, it always amazes me that liberals and seculariwsts can be so cavalier in writing off virtually the whole book of Leviticus, ridiculing its obsessions with ritual purity and preserving the natural order of things (as seen through ancient Near Eastern eyes) as petty nonsense. I always point out to such people that the famous command, “Love your neighbor as yourself” is found ONLY in Leviticus (it’s Lev. 19:18) in the OT. And it happens to be sandwiched midway between the two prohibitions of homosexual behavior in Lev. 18:22 and 20:13. At the very least, this illustrates that the Priestly writers were not merely concerned about ritual matters. They also cared about the weightier matters of justice and moral uprightness (evident especially in the “Holiness Code,” Lev. 17-26).

Frankly, it’s your flippant attitude that bothers me. It’s unworthy of any Christian, and especially inappropriate for a priest.

Remember what 2 Tim. 3:16 asserts, “ALL Scripture is inspired by God and useful...” And yes, that even includes the least promising parts, like the ritual laws in Levitucus and scattered around in Numbers 1-10 etc.

A very astute point, sister. I agree with you. That sacrificial and principled refusal to take tainted TEC money may indeed have been the tipping point.

Or perhaps along the same lines, the firm refusal of several leading GS primates (including but not limited to Nigeria and Uganda) to share communion with a heretic like ++Frank Griswold or Katherine Jefferts Schori has a fair claim to being the decisive turning point. Enormous pressure was put on them to soften up at various primates’ meetings (by Cantaur and others), but they have held firm and refused to compromise. Thanks be to God!

Show me a Christian that does not “pick and choose” their scripture, including Abp. Akinola. That was Wayne’s point. I don’t believe we sanction stoning disobedient children to death anymore. And most Christians have no problem with usury, even though it is clearly not allowed in scripture. You disregard certain passages of scripture, just like every other Christian.

And those outside the Church know that we all “pick and choose.” They find our claim that “the Bible said it, I believe it, that ends it” to reveal a lack of intellectual integrity, as it is simply not true.

Regarding the accusation of being “flippant and derogatory,” do you read this site often? The place where our spiritual leader is referred to as “her Squidness”? The same place where there was recently an attempt to connect homosexuality to cannibalism? If you want a definition of “derogatory,” I’d suggest those kinds of ideas might be better examples than Wayne’s rather civil thoughts.

Aren’t you one of those who recently broke your ordination vows? I hardly think you are qualified to judge what is appropriate or inappropriate for a priest.

FrJake—Aren’t you the one who banned all “Network” types from your blog? Yet, some how you feel free to comment here… boy “I hardly think you are qualified to judge what is appropriate or inappropriate for a priest.”

RE: “I don’t believe we sanction stoning disobedient children to death anymore. And most Christians have no problem with usury, even though it is clearly not allowed in scripture. You disregard certain passages of scripture, just like every other Christian.”

Shellfish argument, which the 39 Articles already addresses in crystal clear and lucid terms. Already copiously answered multiple times on multiple blogs for the past four years, as FrJake is well aware. So that’s just a “throw away” line to fill comment space. ; > )

RE: “The same place where there was recently an attempt to connect homosexuality to cannibalism?”

Actually it was an attempt to point out the correlation in first-world countries—and the attempt was achieved. Rankled, I’m sure.

RE: “I hardly think you are qualified to judge what is appropriate or inappropriate for a priest.”

Actually neither side is “qualified” to judge the appropriateness for a “priest” on the other side. Those who do not share the same gospel hardly have any interest in claiming that the proponents of the other gospel are engaging in “appropriate” or “inappropriate” behavior. The definitions of the words will be opposing and mutually exclusive, based on the opposing and mutually exclusive foundational worldviews that the two sides believe.

It’s a bit like my claiming that, oh, you know, the regime in Burma is engaging in “appropriate” or “inappropriate” behavior—sin, maybe, but not “appropriateness”.

Those who don’t share the same space in worldview can’t really judge the “appropriateness” of the other. What will be “appropriate” for the one side, will of course be entirely “inappropriate” for the other.

So Jake, shall we condone polygamy then? Seeing as how sexual activity isn’t really such a Big Issue, and All Forms of Love are Equal, and all that matters is that they’re Consenting Adults, then maybe we should just Get On with the Real Business of the Church and all that?

Usury is illegal, and no Christian I know “has no problem with it”. Lending money at interest, on the other hand, is at least debatable in the Bible (see the Parable of the talents.)

Most Christians do have a problem with promoting a creepy form or stalking, like Father Terry Martin (AKA Fr. Jake) promotes. And most Christians have a problem with consistantly accusing people of crimes like murder, assault, and theft without any proof like Father Terry Martin (AKA Fr. Jake) does. The Bible is crystal clear on bearing false witness, and most christians have a problem with this activity.

But then again, Fr. Jake/Fr. Terry Martin does not agree with “most Christians” on most things.

They’re just upset because their last excuse for unsubstantiated mudslinging has been removed. Now all they can throw at the GS is the gnat of “border crossings”. What a way to live, eh? “Refuting” people by ignoring their testimony and frantically trying to dig up dirt, as Crew tried to do with Orombi. Talk about Pharisaical. Ignore ‘em.

There is all the difference in the world between those who aim at obeying ALL that the Lord commands us (remember the Great Commission at the end of Matthew holds up that ideal) and who inevitably sometimes fail (as we all do in our own ways), and those who don’t even try. There are some serious underlying issues here that are worthy of serious discussion, because we all do operate with a certain “canon within the canon,” whether consciously or not. And yes, we do SELECT that inner core that we highlight and choose to focus on, which relativizes some biblical texts in the light of others that are deemed more central and weighty.

But the derogatory comments both you and Padre Wayne have made above militate against such a serious discussion. I’m not denying that many of us on SF indulge in some flippant and occasionally inappropriate language too (myself included). But such flippant remarks are seldom made here about God’s Word written, the Holy Scriptures, which is my point. It’s one thing to make snide remarks about a fellow Christian (or ex-Christian perhaps). That’s regrettable, of course. But it’s much more serious to make irreverent and blasphemous remarks about God himself and His Word. That’s inexcusable.

And as for the final parting shot in your comment above, I’m not sure exactly what you have in mind as evidence that I’ve somehow violated my ordination vows. It’s true that I currently attend non-TEC churches, mostly Eternity Anglican in Richmond (affiliated with Uganda) and lately the large, flourishing AMiA church my children attend in Wheaton, IL, Church of the Resurrection (ASA well over 700), while I’ve been visiting them. But I am technically still within TEC. I am a priest in good standing in the orthodox Diocese of Albany.

Now I do openly support the CCP. I do openly advocate the need for a New Reformation, i.e., for new wineskins to replace the inadequate ones we currently have. I have publicly called the PB a heretic and an “ex-sister in Christ” and similar harsh things, but I would not consider any of those things as inconsistent with my priestly vows.

This is rich:
http://telling-secrets.blogspot.com/
The Swan of Newark schooling Abp Akinola on the differences between polygamy and homosexuality.

Oh, the Swan’s always good for a laugh. She’s just so predictable: you know what you’re going to get every time. Some self-righteous strutting and preening, interspersed with lofty disdain, pitying condescension, a few juvenile attempts at snark, all tied up neatly at the end with a flourish and a moral: Ah, would that all were as nice and enlightened as I, the Swan of Newark, am! But alas, this is an Imperfect World, and ‘tis my fate to endure the Folly of Those Who Are Not Like Me with patience and a sorrowful smile!

What holier than thou, patronizing, etc. twaddle you linked to, Pilgrim. I especially liked how complex gender is compared to how cut and dried “misogyny” is ("It’s what I say it is, fool.") Is she the source of all the ubuntuing that’s going around in TEC, or is just catching the prevailing wind?

Though the wind that comes to my mind when reading anything by Elizabeth Keaton is usually the familiar passage in Ephesians 4:14 that talks about people being “blown to and fro by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming.” Not that Ms. Keaton is so crafty herself. She’s just not that smart. But she has swallowed the lies of the Father of Lies hook, line, and sinker, and passes them on so sincerely, absolutely sure that she is on the cutting edge of the prophetic call to social justice. Blah. Blah.

Catching the wind. I want to say, “Let’s see: your diocese has decreased ASA by 14% between ‘04 and ‘06, and ABp Akinola has increased his province by how many millions in the same timespan?
So which message sounds more authentic to the people in the pews: yours, or his?”

Fr. Handy, I was not being “flippant” toward Holy Scripture. I pulled a few favorite abominations to point out how +Akinola can hardly say of Nigeria “We cannot claim to be a Bible-believing church and yet be selective in our obedience...” and to show that he, like many of us, chooses the Biblical injunctions to follow. I am never “flippant” toward Holy Scripture. I may laugh—the Bible is full of humor! But I am not disrespectful.

Since you dismiss the shellfish and mixed-fiber Levitical law in favor of the New Covenant, let us see no more references to OT injunctions against homosexual activity. Stick to Paul, who indeed said that women should cover their heads in church and fergoshsakes be quiet! (Does that include Sarah?

)

RE:“Since you dismiss the shellfish and mixed-fiber Levitical law in favor of the New Covenant, let us see no more references to OT injunctions against homosexual activity.

Well, I don’t know about you, but when God told Peter not to call unclean what the Lord calls clean ... you may be braver than I ...

RE:“Stick to Paul, who indeed said that women should cover their heads in church and fergoshsakes be quiet! (Does that include Sarah?)”

Sarah is a proper lady, from South Carlina! HOW dare you compare her to one of those hussies in Corinth! I tell you, if I had not given my life to Christ that it’s not longer my own, I might introduce you to another fine custom of defending a ladies honor, Sarah does not interrupt her worship service, it’s after the benediction that we all better watch out.

Funny, I was always under the impression that when there was a question about the true meaning of Biblical witness, in the end, “the voice of the Church succeedeth.” (Some guy named Hooker.) And that we are called to believe the whole (catholic) faith as “quod umbique, quod sempre, quod od omnibus creditum est.” (Sume dude named Vincent.) Sounds like when the Church has said for 2000 years that the ceremonial injunctions are null and the sexual ones are to be followed as Jesus commanded (you know - go back to Genesis & stick with it) that we as prople who do Scripture, Reason and Tradition (Anglicans, you know) really ought to go with it. I’m just sayin’…

{Yawn} I would take reappraisers sooooo much more seriously if they didn’t act like these were new issues that the Church had never noticed before. Their chronilogical snobbery is showing, and it isn’t pretty.

Thankfully, we have leaders like Akinola, who, when his sheep starts getting out of line, he discilines them that they might be better diciples. What a novel concept in a Christian leader. (Well, at least in the West...)

I hope you’ll pardon me for finding even this last repost of yours less than serious. Now certainly, in tense, conflicted situations, humor can indeed act as a lubricant and reduce the friction. But the comments that you and Fr. “Jake” have made on this thread are hard to take seriously. You seem to delight in knocking down “staw men” of your own imagining.

May I remind you that there is a whole lot more in the OT that is relevant to the issue of determing the current moral status of homosexual behavior than just the two flat prohibitions in Lev. 18:22 and 20:13. Not least, of course, there is the important story of the judgment of wicked Sodom and Gomorrah in Gen. 19 (which after all is how “sodomy” got its name). Naturally, I’m quite familiar with the liberal attmpt to dismiss this tale as irrelevant (Bailey etc.), but in the light of Jude 7, this is just impossible; it’s ruled out.

Then there are all the fleeting but caustic references to the so-called male “cult prostitutes” in the Deuteronomistic tradition (Deut. 23:17-18; 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12 etc). I assume you’re familiar with those passing mentions of men who serviced other men (not women), and not mainly for pay as “prostitutes” but who acted as representatives of the (fertility) god of the shrine so that sex with the cultic rep was like union with the god in question (Baal, Asherah etc.). Needless to say, the D tradition is extremely critical of such an obscene practice.

In other words, (and as a liberal I assume you accept the standard source analysis of the Pentateuch in terms of the J, E, D, and P traditions), that means that homosexual behavior is roundly condemned by three of the four ancient sources: J (Gen. 19), D (Dt. 23:17-18 and all those refs in 1 Kings), and P (Lev. 18:22 and 20:13).

And that is not to mention all the relevant NT texts, the primary of which is Romans 1:24-27 of course, but would also include many others besides 1 Cor. 6:9-11 and 1 Tim. 1:10 which happen to mention the subject explicitly. Namely, all the generic condemnations of “porneia” must be assumed to condemn homosexual behavior as well as all other forms of sex outside of marriage, until proven otherwise. And includes the teaching of Jesus himself, e.g. in Mark 7:21-22. And it would include an important passage like Eph. 5:3-6.

Any SERIOUS argument to dismiss all of these texts, and others like them, must do more than cast irreverent aspersions on the Bible as a whole by pointing to some of its most archaic features (like the command for women to wear head coverings in church). And unfortunately, it seems to me that this is exactly what you have done.

Fr. Handy,
WOW! BAM!!!!! I went to each and every one of the scripture references you mention in your above post. I marked & highlighted them. I just wonder?????..... do these liberal reappraisers really even read and digest the whole Bible? I mean its right there! How much more plain can it be!? If a simpleton like me gets it.....what’s the mental block they are having? Or maybe it’s an obedience issue? It seems like they really want to keep control over their own life and to give it up totally to a God that requires us to leave and give up things that we really think we want and need when in fact is harmful to us, just doesn’t seem all that much fun! In other words, “No one or God is going to tell me how to live my life and what to do and not do! I know what’s best for me!” To rely solely on God nd be obedient is not on their life’s menu! Sad really!

Great references Fr. Handy and if nothing else I paid attention, read and marked the passages for reference. Thank you!
ODC

You’re welcome. That’s one of the values of blogs like this; we can all learn from each other. I certainly learn a lot from other people here at SF.

For much too long now, liberals have been claiming that only “seven verses” of the Bible, and rather marginal ones at that, stand in opposition to normalizing homosexual behavior. It’s patently untrue, but even though people like Dr. Rob Gagnon or me keep pointing out how numerous and consistent is the biblical teaching about sexual ethics and marriage, they still don’t get it. That’s frustrating, but it keeps happening time after time.

But God provides encouragement to keep at it, especially when faithful laypeople like yourself are helped by it. After all, the special joy and call of clergy and biblical scholars is to equip the laity like you for your ministries (Eph. 4:11-12). I’m glad if you feel better equipped now.

And there in San Joaquin, you need all the ammo and weapons that you can find. Go get ‘em, tiger!

Reader beware! Taking African newspaper reports at face value is not a wise proposition.

This is not a new story. The letter cited by the Nigerian newspaper is the pastoral letter from the March house of bishops meeting of the Church of Nigeria.

Also, the Church of Nigeria is not saying anything that it has not been saying for years.

©2008 Stand Firm, LLC. All rights reserved. Permission to copy and distribute free of charge is granted, provided this notice, the logo, and the web site address are visible on all copies. For permission for use in for-profit publications, please email contact@standfirminfaith.com.