2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

The issues have nothing to do (directly) with inclusiveness, gender, sexuality or, with relating to the world.  It is a misunderstanding of the case for some to suppose that they did, at least as the case is viewed by the members of St. Matthew's Anglican Church.  But, these truly are not the key issues.  The members of St. Matthew's Anglican Church have made their decisions, individually and corporately, because of one primary reason:  a difference with the Episcopal Church of the USA over the nature and authority of the Bible and with how the Bible is to be interpreted and applied in daily life.  Interpreted, first, so that we may know what is the 'once for all delivered to the saints faith' (i.e., that we might know cognitively what God intends for us to mean when we identify ourselves with Jesus Christ, to say that we believe in Him and, in believing, have Life in His name; to call ourselves Christians and have it mean for us precisely what it meant for those believers in Antioch who first were called by that name) and applied, secondly, so that might have a compelling and meaningful answer for ourselves individually and corporately to the question, "How shall we then live?" This is, as I as a member of St. Matthew's Anglican Church understand it, the general point of divergence with the Episcopal Church USA and the one from which any and all other particular points of disagreement derive.

This needs saying, too.  The inclusiveness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is always on God's terms, never on humanity's variations and adjustments.  The invitation to rest is given to all who are weary and burdened.  Not all who are weary and burdened accept that invitation, perhaps in part because they do not want to take the yoke and receive the learning that are also part of the promised package.  The results of one's response to that invitation are quite different from each other, depending on which response we make.  It is only when the invitation is accepted as extended, that rest is given.  Were it otherwise, the invitation and the promise attached to it would be just a meaningless sham.  If that point gets lost in the preaching, then it is no longer the Gospel of Jesus Christ that is being preached. 

Respectfully submitted by,

Rolland Withrow

Clackamas

posted 3 years ago
view in context