jump to navigation

Victoria Matthews confirmed as new bishop of Christchurch: CEN 3.20.08 p 6 March 21, 2008

Posted by geoconger in Anglican Church of Aotearoa New Zealand & Polynesia, Anglican Church of Canada, Church of England Newspaper.
trackback

victoria-matthews-handout-photo.jpg

An American and a Canadian have been appointed bishops in the Anglican Church of New Zealand. On March 16, the Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia confirmed that the former Bishop of Edmonton (Canada), the Rt. Rev. Victoria Matthews had been elected Bishop of Christchurch, and that the Dean of Dunedin, the Very Rev. David Rice, was elected Bishop of Waiapu.

Currently bishop-in-residence at Wycliffe College, Toronto, Bishop Matthews (54) served as Bishop of Edmonton from 1997 to 2007, and came second in the race for Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada at its General Synod last June.

The Primate of the church in New Zealand, Archbishop Brown Turei said he looked forward to welcoming Bishop Matthews into the church of these islands. “I’m sure that, with all her experience, she will make a good contribution to our life and witness.”

News of Bishop Matthews’ proposed appointment was leaked midway through the election process. In New Zealand, bishops are elected by a diocesan synod. The bishop-elect’s name is then sent to the House of Bishops for confirmation, and then to the General Synod for confirmation. Only after all three bodies have endorsed the choice, is the name announced.

The New Zealand Church dismissed assertions that Bishop Matthews would be a
“controversial” choice. “Despite media speculation, Bishop Matthews is careful and moderate on controversial issues such as the blessing of same-sex relationships. Indeed, she is known internationally for her theological orthodoxy and her resolve to maintain unity,” the statement announcing her election said.

“Speaking personally, I think a number of things stand in the way of blessing same-gender marriages or unions,” Bishop Matthews said in the New Zealand statement.

The church needs to decide whether gay marriage is a “faithful development of the Christian doctrine of marriage,” while also reconciling clashes between diverging “personal and corporate conscience.”

“By taking the time to do the theology thoroughly and well, we will ease the acceptance of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. To be impatient is to risk even further hate and violence against those we have ignored for too long,” she explained.

Born and educated in the United States, Bishop-elect David Rice emigrated to New Zealand ten years ago and was received into the Anglican Church after serving seven years in the Methodist Church in America. The Dean of Dunedin for the past six years, Bishop-elect Rice stated he was pleased to become bishop “of a moderate to liberal diocese. If anybody looks at my track record, they’ll see that’s a very good fit.”

Advertisements

Comments

1. Mark Purchase ThD PhD - January 26, 2009

A “controversial” choice because from her own words Matthews wants more practicing homosexuals “in the church” and with “blessing” (p.11 Weekly Challenge 31/3/08). The “church” might “dismiss” this but they are her words.

Matthews needs to realize there should be no “acceptance” of homosexuality. This is not about the ‘acceptance’ of a race, skin colour or nationality. If we walk around a public place (ie supermarket or street) homosexuals are not distinguished by skin colour or race etc. No, this is not about the ‘acceptance’ of people, but the ‘acceptance’ of a practice.

Something that would be against children, all evidence shows male & female parents are best for children. If infants lack good role models, or have same sex parents, their brain is unable to grow and distinguish or learn the fundamentals. That is, things impossible to be taught by dictatorial instruction. We cannot have kids grow-up confused, ignorant of natural relationships between male and female. Or we will loose the fundamentals of a decent society.

We will have children living their youth in shame and embarrassment with “parents” who are anything but normal. And we will have children modeling the behaviour of adults. Are we prepared to ‘accept’ that kind of behaviour among children from generation to generation?

This would also be against marriage. No ‘church’ should interfere with the institution of marriage unless to strengthen it. The biblical pattern of marriage remains the only acceptable one to base marriage on. It’s no good for anyone to promote dead-end relationships that by there own commitment have no fruit.

There are a thousand reasons why this is something we should not ‘accept’. If we accept this practice or habit, in the end we must also encourage it. The males of this practice don’t need that they will always push the boundaries. As Labour’s Lianne Dalziel said “80% of child sexual abuse is from male homosexuals” (2/12/04. Parliament House). The end result, a generation cycle exhibiting similar behavior.

Sure, standards have changed over the years but that is no excuse. Today with the Broadcasting Standards Authority “brutal sexual violence and necrophilia” are now considered ‘entertainment’. The end result is normalization and legitimization. This slide into immorality over the years has slowly become uglier and uglier. Like a spiritual darkness.

The Spirit of the Age means we are not even allowed to think something is wrong these days. So sodomy, once unlawful, is welcomed in churches once bastions of purity. As one politician once said, “I’ve got a right to think that sex with another male is unhealthy and violating. I’ve a right to think that”. (Investigate Mag.). Even the word ‘gay’ is a lie. It should be “homosexual”. Such people are not necessarily ‘happy’, so why not ‘think’ and use the correct language?

And finally, the problem with “ordained” homosexual clergy is that they develop their own agenda. They criticize objectors, become militant, and preach their sermons by example. So they encourage all to embrace their life style. Yet they are in relationships which are after all, ‘outside marriage’, wrong biblically, theologically and constitutionally to start with.

Consistency demands that churches must either bless and encourage such relationships or condemn, because “acceptance” leads to endorsement.
Disagree? Let me know why, mpp@xtra.co.nz

Mark Purchase


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: