Pro-sodomy Episcopal bishop says "Schism is a greater sin than heresy"...

Like all the mainline denominations, Episcopalians are fighting over whether or not sodomy is sin, as well as whether sodomites should be elevated to rule as bishops. Interestingly, some of the most aggressive advocates of sodomy are not yet ready to see sodomites become bishops, not because they are unrepentant in their sin, but because of a broadly shared concern that electing another sodomite to the bishopric will split their Anglican communion worldwide. The Africans have made it clear they won't stand for it and many biblical Episcopalians here in these United States are threatening to leave the denomination.

This is the context for an article that ran in the May 5, 2006 New York Times titled "Episcopalians Divide Again Over Electing Gay Bishop" in which Bishop Kirk S. Smith of the diocese of Arizona is quoted saying, "My No. 1 directive as a bishop is the unity of church, because schism is a greater sin than heresy."

The bad bishop is, of course, an advocate of sodomy, as well as of sodomites being promoted to the office of bishop. But recognizing the divisiveness of his position, he thinks it's better to delay electing a sodomite to the bishopric for a few years. "I think everyone will breathe a sigh of relief if it's not a gay candidate, and that's sad." Thus, Bishop Smith says it's a "heresy" to call sodomites to repent and to oppose their elevation to the office of bishop.

But the true believer knows there can never be peace or unity where the doctrine of Christ or the holiness without which no man will see God is despised. If a man in the church in Galatia continued in his error, demanding Gentiles be circumcised and men earn their salvation, Paul called down God's curse upon him because he was opposing the glory of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ. "Let him be anathema!" Paul says.

And clearly Paul would remind those who advocate sodomy today of the great separation of fire and brimstone God rained down on Sodom and Gomorrah because of their sexual perversion...

He would warn the Episcopalians that "these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things" as those consumed by the wrath of God in the Old Testament did. (1Corinthians 10:6ff.).

Schism is a greater sin than heresy? No. Where Jesus Christ is not honored and His righteousness is spurned; where God's authority is cast off; where evil is called good, and good, evil; where prophets and priests cry "Peace, peace!" where there is no peace; there is no Church.

Schism is a greater sin than heresy?

Yes, this is mainline religion. Deny the historicity of Adam and Eve; deny the Fall; deny original sin; deny the abiding authority of God's Moral Law; deny the Virgin Birth; deny the deity and sinless life of Jesus Christ; deny the substitutionary atonement; deny the Divine inspiration of Scripture; deny the exclusivity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; deny the eternity of Hell torments; and what is heresy?

In such a godless human organization, all that's left is mans' search for transcendence and his sharing the journey with others engaged in the same enterprise. Among such men, the only truth is the need to get along with one another. It's really not at all that one sin is worse than another, but that there's only one sin left--not getting along with one another.

My only question is how on earth followers of Jesus Christ can continue to claim to be in Christian fellowship with such men, attending presbytery meetings and sharing the Table Fellowship of our Lord with them while knowing full well that, across their denomination, the Sacraments are not rightly administered, the Word of God is not rightly preached, and discipline is dead.

Comments

I think denominations that elect men to positions where men are called Bishops or any other "elevated" position (i.e. cardinals, etc. are prone to adhere to man's laws instead of God's anyway. Such positions only create pride, power mongering and distorted views of man's "righteousness".

Such stories from these denominations never suprise me.

"Schism is a greater sin than heresy."

The funny thing is that "schism" and "heresy" are one and the same. That's like saying, "Theft is a greater sin than robbery."

Of course, the word "heresy" over time has come to mean false doctrine itself. But its original meaning was schism that was caused by false doctrine.

It is only in an environment where false doctrine is completely overlooked that a bishop could say, "Schism is a greater sin than heresy."

Dear Tim:

Your last question is correct. I have grown tired of talking about the courage of conservative Anglicans (Africans included) calling for a split from their fellow Anglicans, many of whom have become heretics and not recently.

They should have split long ago and were wrong not to do so. Apparently they could not discern the way things were going. So let's not call them courageous, when fuzzy-headed and lacking in courage might be more appropriate.

They keep drawing lines in the sand and saying, "if you cross that line, you're going to make me mad." Then when the liberals cross that line, the conservatives say, "okay here is a new line. I'm going to be gracious. If you cross this one, I'll leave." The liberals cross the new line and the conservatives say, "okay, now I'm really mad, but I'll give you another chance. Please don't cross my new line or I might really have to leave. I don't want to be divisive, but you're really pushing me."

This is courage? This is discernment? This is graciousness? This is being divisive?

Follow the money.

Greed is at the heart of the desire to keep the church "unified" - a desire to keep members - but more importantly to keep those members' tithes & offerings.

You can't serve God and Mammon - which is why one article I read years ago made the observation that if you see pickup trucks instead of Lexuses in the parking lot you are more likely to hear fire and brimstone from the pulpit.

I can only savor the irony of the Episcopalians condemning schism. If they meant that, they'd still be Catholic.

What an idiotic thing to say. Schism is not just a division in unity; it is an _unwarranted_ division in unity. And heresy is precisely the thing that does warrant--and even demand--division. In other words, if heresy is involved, there is no true possibility of schism, and if schism is involved, then the two sides must be in essential doctrinal agreement. There is never an instance in which one may weigh heresy against schism to determine the less evil path.

Add new comment