Skip to main content

Deposition of Bishop Robert Duncan

As you know, for the past five years, the global Anglican communion has been in crisis over sexuality. I said in a previous post that the crisis is really a clash between two churches, with two different missions: one driven by culture, determined to marginalise the Bible; the other driven by the Bible, determined to challenge culture.
The battle between the two churches has reached Episcopalian proportions.
Robert Duncan, the Bishop of Pittsburgh, has led the conservative Anglicans in the USA, who are opposed to the denomination's official policy of sexual permissiveness. On Thursday Sept. 18, he was officially deposed from his office in The Episcopal Church ("TEC"). He remains a Bishop with the Province of the Southern Cone, in fellowship with Archbishop Gregory Venables, who has also been an outspoken defender of a Biblically orthodox stand on sexuality.
This deposition was carefully planned by the Presiding Bishop of the TEC, Katharine Jefferts Schori. The first woman Primate in the history of Anglicanism, she has been instrumental in advancing the agenda of sexual permissiveness within the Anglican church in the USA. As far as I know, her actions have been totally within the letter of the law (but I'm no expert on American Episcopal canon law!). But this deposition indicates that the American Episcopal hierarchy is implacably hostile to anything remotely resembling orthodox, Biblical Christianity. They are totally unwilling to compromise their mission of radically revising the Christian faith to make it palatable to (post?)modern culture.
The Sydney Anglican diocese has supported Bishop Duncan. A website has been set up for further expressions of support. This is what Mouneer Anis, Archbishop of Jerusalem and the Middle East, had to say:
It is with great joy that I welcome you alongside the ranks of St. Athanasius who, as Bishop of Alexandria, was deposed and exiled from his see. St. Athanasius did not waver and stood firm. History proved that his stance for orthodoxy was not in vain. I trust it will do the same for you! So please count it as honor my brother.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another.  Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else.  The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...

A better understanding of nonbelief

The Nones Project is an ongoing study into the belief systems of people who call themselves non-religious. A few weeks ago one of the project leaders,  Ryan Burge  of Washington University,  posted some really interesting preliminary results  on his Substack.  1. We've probably heard of people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNRs). SBNRs were "the largest group of nones" in the sample. They believe in the supernatural realm but not necessarily in "a God." They are "deeply skeptical of religion but highly interested in spirituality," therefore individualistic and anti-institutional.  2. But this study differentiated SBNRs from people they called Nones In Name Only, NiNos. They different to SBNRs by being religious about their spiritual. They believe not just in the supernatural but in "God." And they tend to engage in traditional communal religious practices while SBNRs practice individualised eclectic bespoke spiritual practices. The s...

Wax and Wright on the definition of "mission"

Trevin Wax has written a clear, simple, and charitable introduction to a debate about the nature and boundaries of the kinds of Christian activities that validly should be called "mission." In brief:  Should we use a broad definition, where "mission" encompasses all the various purposes which God calls Christians and the church in general to perform, e.g. being ethical at work; general acts of care and charity; standing against systematic oppression and working towards justice instead? If so, "evangelism" is only one part of the church's mission - a central, necessary, and irreplaceable part, but only one part nonetheless. The latter kinds of activities don't save anyone for eternity, but they do genuine good in this world which please God. And that kind of good makes a real difference in many parts of the world which have not benefited from the kind of Christian moral transformation which the West benefited from - the kind of moral transformation...