The Cathedral Dean of the Diocese of Niagara thinks those who oppose abortion cannot be Christians:
Here he is reacting to the recently signed Alabama law making aborting unborn babies a felony:
As a Christian myself, it is a shameful embarrassment to see the word Christian attached to those who would support Alabama’s outrageous law. What is Christian about being anti-abortion or maliciously ‘pro-life’?
Here is the tweet:
I am just as much at a loss to understand how being pro-life could be “malicious” as I am to reconcile dismembering babies in the womb with being a follower of the Giver of life. If anything is a “shameful embarrassment”, it is the Dean’s repulsive tweet.
The Canaanites who sacrificed their children to the god Moloch look almost benign in comparison to the contemporary equivalent. At least they thought they were appeasing their god; we sacrifice to appease our sense of convenience.
I agree with Wall about one thing: his Christianity is not mine.
Diocese of Niagara, bow down to your god:
Just further proof that the Diocese of Niagara and other diocese with apostate leadership have abandoned any semblance of Christianity. For these apostates anything is acceptable if the world view agrees.
As hard as I try, I can’t think of one thing that is Christian about abortion. I can, however, find many references in the bible about the sanctity of life, from conception to natural death. You remember the bible, don’t you Peter?
Abortion is murder plain & simple
It’d been rewritten in a certain way to ok it & make it seem that’s it’s not murder
Now that it’s made to look like it’s not murder but it still is
One of the 10 Commandments is Thou Shalt Not Kill
It’s a live baby in the womb plain & simple
If not it means the woman can’t produce & there’s nothing there & they have to adopt
Peter Wall’s wordings:
Shameful
Embarrass
Malicious
It’s like other wordings used today:
Offensive
Politically Incorrect
“One of the 10 Commandments is Thou Shalt Not Kill” is not quite true to the Hebrew. There is a technical term used, not the normal word for ‘kill’, but one that means ‘murder’. Killing may be accidental, murder is the deliberate elimination of the inconvenient person.
Thank you, Dr. Turner. Your comment is apropos.
The Dean of Niagra’s comment is monsterous and he is a clerical disgrace.
Diocese of Niagara Cathedral is where Peter Wall is the Dean
So, how many -young people in the pews?
I don’t think too many
Probably die hard little old ladies who’ve been attending the same place for the last 40 years or so
They’ve been doing it for so long they can’t stop attending the same Church
They probably don’t agree but just keep attending anyways
They stay quiet & tolerate
Peter Wall. Nice guy. No theology. Vacant attic. Useful idiot.
I think the battle between liberals and conservatives is one between misguided love and neglected holiness. He would view his response as the accepting, tolerant, loving, and therefore “Christian” one. But love disconnected from holiness and the uplifting, saving action of the gospel is something less than divine love. When the revelator soared into heaven the angels were not crying “love, love, love” (that was John Lennon) — they cried “holy, holy, holy”.
This is an idea I need to explore more. I’ve readily understood the liberal appeal to God’s unbounding love, but there’s a balance missing, which I usually countered with: God’s coming wrath against sin. Wrath and holiness go together, but holiness is seemingly a more positive character quality, while wrath is an outcome of holiness in the face of sin…
We need to use the proper references. Currently the so-called liberals are more correctly called apostates and the conservatives hold to the truth and authority of Scripture. The terns liberal and conservative might well refer to politics but there is only ONE WORD.
The Divine Prototype for all Christians with respect to the sanctity of all life is the Conception and Birth of our LORD Jesus Christ, + John ch.1 “The WORD made flesh”; this sanctity netzer/rooted + Isaiah 11:1 in The Torah’s Sacred teaching which He professed to uphold; and to be upheld + Matthew 5:17
“Think not that I AM come to destroy The Law, or The Prophets: I AM not come to destroy, but to fulfill”.
Countering this has been the lawlessness of “the prince of the power of the air” + Ephesians 2:2:the Pharaohs, the Hamans, the Herods, and, yes, the Hitlers of history.
No ‘choice’ for the conscience active Christian there.
As the saying goes: first as tragedy, then as farce. There is something deeply tragic about Anglican silence on abortion. In 35 years of attending an Anglican church I never heard the word “abortion” once from the pulpit nor from the lectern during announcements (but something pro-LGBT*-ish was worked into sermons a few times a year). One might, at a stretch, understand the reluctance to break silence on the grounds that some fraction of the congregation could have either had or else condoned an abortion. For the pendulum to swing further, beyond silence to a public pronouncement, by a cathedral dean of all people, that abortion conforms with the tenets of Christianity is beyond tragic; it is farcical. It brings to mind that extremely ugly assertion: “if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament” (Gloria Steinem). I would not be surprised one bit to read sometime in the future of an Anglican church somewhere, likely with the nihil obstat of a bishop, taking the first step towards making abortion a sacrament, e.g. something like a celebratory blessing.
Here you go. From 2009. Abortion is a blessing.
https://www.catholic.org/news/national/story.php?id=32962
Here’s a excerpt from a 1st century Christian writing called the Didache or the teachings “You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not
commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you
shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not
murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born.”
Yes. The Early Church often fell into legalism but its rules were not usually wrong in themselves. As I said in a recent sermon on Mt. 5: 27-32, “Nobody was thinking for one moment of a sex-ethical free-for-all. That I can say with some authority has nearly always privileged the male orgasm, and is seldom if ever in the best interest of women and children. As a First Century Jewish Rabbi, the Lord Jesus was of precisely the same mind as Moses and His Apostles about child-sacrifice, child-molestation, rape, seduction, bestiality, incest, transgender imaginings, co-habitation out of wedlock, adultery, denial of conjugal rights, wife-beating, sadism, abortion, infanticide, polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, homosex, self-stimulation, prostitution of either sex, pimping, the making, viewing or purveying of pornography, or any other things of that variety that you and I may do or think of doing. His mind, far from being open, was completely closed against all these aberrations or deviations from the monogamous opposite-sex norm with children as the normal product. His Church inherited all these convictions, and right through to the Fourth Century was life-and sex-affirming. She refused to baptize what the Lord did not affirm. There was only one area of sex-ethical wiggle-room, the question of whether divorce and remarriage were ever legitimate.”
There is a vital distinction between abortion and infanticide on the one hand and contraception on the other which is not always understood. When I arrived in this country in 1966, married and in my late 20s, I found to my astonishment that the latter was still illegal and that even my gynaecologist was not supposed to give me any counsel or information about it. It is not completely inaccurate to say of Canada that contraception being wicked we have abortion instead. So it was necessary to say in my long ‘Dialogue with Hugh’ in my volume Holy Homosex? https://www.amazon.ca/Holy-Homosex-Priscilla-D-M-Turner/dp/1482347865 :–
Until a few decades ago the whole Judaeo-Christian tradition condemned it: the problem had always been to keep the population up, and it was assumed that Scripture said the same. Meanwhile as TB of the ovaries vanished from the Western world, ethicists were forced to rethink the ban. It could be said, and still is said in one very significant Christian denomination, that the fact that there is nowadays not a peep out of anyone about its use in Christian marriage is simply a measure of how wickedly self-indulgent we all are. Except that God in His wisdom said nothing at all about it, but rather instructed married people to meet each other’s needs lest worse befall them. And yes, sundry methods, including intrauterine devices, were known to the ancient world.
The Early Fathers, always required reading for Anglicans (they were what Hooker primarily meant by Tradition), were eloquent against contraception on the ostensible basis of two Old Testament texts. They were eloquent against same-sex relations on the explicit basis of the Leviticus and other texts. They were also eloquent against abortion, about which there are strictly speaking no texts at all: they said that it was murder, involving the destruction of a person made in the image of God; it was not far from their minds that it was nearly always fatal to the mother, who was in the same category. The need to keep the population up was not a minor consideration to them in any of these judgements; but they can be shown to have been unbiblical in only the first case.
Timely submission:
The same “mind” of the Apostles and Moses as theirs was that of our LORD Jesus Christ, Who in and by Himself, was, is, ever shall be The Eternal, Holy, Infallible WORD of GOD + John 15;+ Luke 24.
such Mind is not permissive, in thought, word, or deed, of any Biblical defined sin;this prohibition needful as the ACC-influenced (from Canon to Editor to Pulpits to Colleges in the PCC) PCC has marked out four ‘Pathways’ for abiding in sin (v. ‘Report of Former Moderators’, May 21, 2019 PCC);the professed orthodox first pathway still not answering the question of suspension of spiritual discipline mandated by 2018 GA;
all this in preparation for the 2019 GA vote on homosexuality and marriage of homosexuals. The warrant? “homosexual orientation is not a sin” – Roman doctrine that has and is reaping its own whirlwind of multiplied sins.
All this to be put to a “vote” by “preferential ballot” – the same procedure, comes the assurance, used in selecting the Moderator-assuming the Moderator is Biblical. Six, by attestation by signature to an ultra vires anonymous online letter of LGBTQ Protest, July, 2014, et seq. of the fourteen on this Conclave, are not, inclusive of him of 2018; or she of 2019.
What is more, by Presbyterian polity, once the third mark of the true Church was suspended in June, 2018, nothing thereafter is in good and regular order; it is all ultra vires.
That makes for a lot of carbon footprint for carbon footprints.
Strictly speaking homosexual orientation is not a deliberate sin, but it is certainly wrong. Sin enters in when we let our wrong thinking turn into action. This is a very old pastoral distinction and one which I believe we find in Rom. 1.
On a side note-ot Priscilla Turner- I always look forward to your responses-you can put down in words what I think-but couldn’t write down as well as you- I am sorry for you and me- all of us that have been demonized by our “church homes”- me, after a life time of membership/attendance/building/cleaning!- and friendship- I’m still in shock after 3 years since my “gentle expulsion”- but-again- thank you for your comments-nice to know we aren’t alone out here
Thanks for your kind words and your fellowship.
Actually I am still hanging on in a small conservative parish in the renegade Diocese of New West which my late husband and I joined in 1986. It is my base for fighting the good fight. “We shall overcome!”
Thats so nice to hear- that there are a few parishes out there that you can feel comfortable in-