Yesterday I had the privilege of joining Neil Johnson’s 20Twenty show on Vision Radio to discuss my upcoming talk at next week’s Church and State Summit.
Here’s the audio of that discussion along with a couple of promo videos for next week.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download Subscribe: RSS
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
This Post Has 10 Comments
Thank you so much David. I found this interview incredibly helpful, as a church worker, as an Anglican and as a Member of General Synod.
David, you have cut through all the sophistry about love etc. and shown that the basic issue is whether we are prepared to accept the teachings of Jesus as revealed in the scriptures, or not. The woke, liberal apostates cannot stand against the Lord Almighty.
As David said to the radio presenter, there is currently a battle going on for the soul of the Anglican Church in Australia. I agree. I say the battle is caused by Parliament’s decision to define legal marriage in Australia as “the union of 2 people” which, prior to that change in 2017, was “the union of a man & a woman” which just happens to be Christ’s teaching, according to the Bible.
“Progressives” in the Uniting Church have taken Parliament’s deliberately ambiguous definition as an invitation to write a new marriage liturgy to marry same-sex couples in church (if a minister wishes to use it).
I’m unsure of the exact requirements for priestly ordination in the UCA, but I’d be amazed if personal fidelity to Christ’s teachings was not on the list.
To be continued..
“Progressives” in the Anglican dioceses of Wangaratta & Newcastle have taken Parliament’s definition as an invitation to write a new liturgy invoking God’s blessing on the civil marriages of parishioners in their churches, including the civil marriages of same-sex couples (if a minister wishes to use it). Ditto the comment about UCA priestly ordinations.
I don’t think “heretic” is too strong a word to describe the divisiveness of “progressives” in either Church.
Of course if Church “Leaders” had objected to “the union of 2 people” before it became the law (by perhaps suggesting “the union of 2 people or the union of a man & a woman”, as an alternative) no Australian Christian Church would have split (occurred in the UCA, about to in the ACA).
To be continued..
In the podcast Rev Ould doesn’t say if he is attending the ACA General Synod meeting in May/June. If he is, I hope he will ask attendees to decide if the ACA’s 2015 decision to continue representing God & the Commonwealth in marriage ceremonies, even if the government ever legislated same-sex marriage, was a sound idea or not. (The ACA would not be in today’s position were it not for that 2015 Sydney Synod decision).
If he’s not going, perhaps David could suggest an attendee willing to take a petition along those lines to the meeting? (David, you have my email address if you would prefer to discuss this privately).
What, your Church is embracing heresy and you’ve got nothing to say when Synod is postponed again and the heresy is allowed to go on flourishing indefinitely? This is what happens, when, despite all the big talk of evangelicals, they fail to defend the teaching of the Christ and his church. You can, also, look, assuredly, at ACNA and GAFCON, for to see the cracks in the wall.
Chris, I agree the further postponement of the ACA General Synod is deplorable. The last one (the 17th) was held in September 2017 & the 18th is now put off until ”most likely 2022” according to the Anglican Primate (Head Bishop). To blame Covid for the latest delay is pathetic.
The Anglican Bishops know they were out-maneuvered by a wily government chasing gay/lesbian votes when they passively accepted the new legal definition of Australian marriage as the deliberately ambiguous ”union of 2 people” when, prior to December 2017, it was the ”union of a man & a woman” which is Christ’s definition.
The Bishops could have told the government that if their new definition became the law they would stop using the Marriage Act & offer religious marriage ceremonies only. Or they could have asked the government to change the legal definition to ”the union of 2 people or the union of a man & a woman” which would have allowed them to continue using the Act to marry opposite-sex couples in combined legal & religious ceremonies which the church has been doing since 1788 in Australia.
But they did neither of those things, which is what I mean by ”out-maneuvered”.
These continuous delays to holding the 18th General Synod are simply because the Bishops cannot find the internal fortitude to admit their 2017 error to the lay attendees of that meeting.
Until they do, & the ACA cannot move on without that concession, the church will stumble its way towards Australian irrelevance, congregational decline & bankruptcy.
Paul, I suppose the bishops “could have told the government that if their new definition became the law they would stop using the Marriage Act”, but why would they have wanted to do that? As far as the Government is concerned, it has had no intention of requiring Ministers of Religion to marry two people who were not male and female notwithstanding the amendment of the Act.
It is misreading events to say that the bishops “were out-maneuvered by a wily government” seeking the votes of homosexuals. The only out-maneuvering going on is that taking place within the ACA where no doubt the opposing parties would both be horrified at the thought that the Church might possibly “stop using the Marriage Act & offer religious ceremonies only”. Personally, though, I would commend the idea absolutely!
Why would the Bishops tell the government that if their new definition became the law they would stop using the Marriage Act? Have a guess Chris. Because the new definition is not Christ’s definition, perhaps?
In the event they lacked the fortitude to tell that to the government which, in turn, emboldened Wangaratta & Newcastle dioceses to write a liturgy invoking God’s blessing upon the existing civil marriages of same-sex couples in their churches.
I guess God is equally appalled by the Wangaratta/Newcastle ‘progressives’ as He is with the gutlessness of the Bishops.
Well, Paul, I suppose the correct response to you is to say that you are being somewhat naive if you think that bishops of an institutional church would be inclined to follow the way of Christ. It does not matter how conservative the bishops in question may be; conservatism has nothing to do with following Christ. Likewise being “orthodox” as distinct from being “revisionist” has nothing to do with being a follower of Christ the Redeemer.
I’d say that most of the opposition to homosexual marriage that you find in the ACA is motivated by what is a very miserable social conservatism. It has nothing to do with being faithful to Christ who is the bridegroom of his church. Those who are faithful would simply not abide what takes place routinely in the ACA. I refer in the main to blasphemy, unbelief, and wickedness.