This submission is a response to the invitation to comment “on whether the structural changes proposed will allow the opportunity for faithful Anglicans to remain engaged in an ongoing fair and robust debate on human sexuality in this church; and at the same time accomplish a balance along the theological spectrum, between those who wish to conduct blessings of same gender relationships and those who do not.”
The foundations of this response are as follows: Firstly, four years of a Theology Degree at the University of Auckland School of Theology, double majoring in Biblical Studies and Christian Thought and History. Secondly, a year’s residence as a post-grad at Laidlaw College. And thirdly, seven years of prison ministry. Freedom Prison Ministry worked reintegrating former sex-offenders into society. It turns out these were primarily those who could be classified within the LGBT+ spectrum, and most claiming a Christian faith (Christian being as defined by my UoA School of Theology lectures). The School of Theology, which teaches the legitimacy of the Queer hermeneutic, was also attended by Eugene Sisneros, and I attended his 2013 Human Rights trial. Notes taken during this trial (with permission of the court) will form the basis for some of the following points. In the interests of full disclosure, I have flatted with, worked with, studied with, socialised with, and dated, many members of the Auckland LGBT+ community over the last 30 odd years, including some currently prominent Anglicans. I’ve also had some quite unpleasant experiences, especially during early adolescence in the ‘80’s. As a single adult frequenting the LGBT+ community events, nightclubs, and the like with female friends, I can resist the logic of their pick up lines. But children and young teens do not the skills necessary to understand exactly what is happening. Grooming. Especially when older respected men are offering future positions of power and influence, along with word travel, all the while saying that homosexual activity is what ‘real men’ do.
Parts of this submission will form the basis for an upcoming book on the history of the sexual abuse of children within the churches of New Zealand. This book will provide a case, and a call, for a Royal Commission into clerical abuses, as per the Australian Royal Commission model. Only after this report will the church regain the credibility that it has lost due to it’s own hypocrisy. Academic style references, including scripture references and references to class and court notes along with other published materials, have been removed from this submission for the sake of brevity. An online copy of this submission is available at https://christianity666.com/submission-motion-29/.
Preamble: to a reply to Motion 29.
Just as the Genesis toledotes were revolutionary in their various times, so the Law of Moses was when it was originally written. Revolutionary in that the Law of Moses created a model that was entirely new within the world at the time, yet still emphasised the holiness of God, and man created in his image. Within Genesis it was revealed that there was only a singular God. This God valued human life, which was made in His image. Being in His image, this life was sacred, holy, just as God was holy. One seventh of man’s life was supposed to contemplate this, and pass this teaching on. God provided food, shelter, education and laws for this new man life. This life was separated into male and female. And when male and female came together, they created life in their image, just as God had created life in His. And they were as God to that life, responsible for providing food, shelter, education and laws. God’s character was revealed as being just, but merciful. Within the Laws of Moses God totally reformed the human sexual experience of the time, based on his earlier revelations. God banned the use of the fertility gods (household idols/dildo’s), prostitution, etc., and ensured that relationships were again based on the spiritual bonds that matched the physical bonds that each couple made. Once again, mothers and fathers became the centre of their child’s life. Therefore, not only did he put a stop to prostitution, child sacrifice, and the premature deaths and diseases that went with the industry, but the spread of diseases was also halted. God prevented clients from creating hilltop shines to their former hired lovers, and banned other women from seeking work there. His laws acted to stop the spread of diseases and preserve life via a family structure based on a physical bond that exemplified the spiritual realities of the sanctity of life and the holiness of God. Commonly allowable practices of the time were specifically again outlawed, including sex with ones own close family, rape, consensual heterosexual casual sex, animal sex, and same sex relationships. Sex was to be a process of KNOWING one’s spouse. Knowledge comes from communication, and the knowledge that one’s spouse is also in the image of God, of course produces trust, understanding, forgiveness, which results in intimacy, etc, and eventually, a true love.
It is important to recognise that this Motion 29 document has been created in an environment that supports the LGBT+ community/queer theologians goals, and this affects this Motion 29 document it in the following ways:
1. This document is a direct entry point into indoctrinating children with the LGBT+ agenda. If, as supporters of the LGBT+ community claim, people are “born that way”, then, as per CIT/UoA lecturers, children should be encouraged to experiment with different sexualities so they can chose a gender for themselves. After all, how do children know that they don’t like any sexual experience if they have not tried it? As genders are fluid, according to LGBT+ supporters, it’s OK for children to change genders if they do not like their experiences they are having. We should not judge them, and we have no right to make this choice for them. These arguments mimic the arguments used, and the resulting legal educational developments, that we have seen overseas. My transvestite Laidlaw counselling flatmate, in his second of year residence there, took pride that, along with his childrens ministry involvement, he sat in class with their pet rat padding out his bra while training to be a primary school counsellor. This sort of ideology, and it’s supporting theology, is a total assault on God who claimed to have made man in His image, and then separated us into male and female.
2. Discussions around this report currently use terms which limit the outcome to either acceptance of Motion 29, or more church splits. These two outcomes is not necessarily the case, but discussions led in this manner work to gather a false support for Motion 29, because no one wants any further church splits. The bishops support of the LGBT+’s agenda have already caused many clergy and parishioners to leave the Anglican church, as witnessed in my own parish. Even several years after the first split, I still regularly hear the hurt of those who left after our Bishop abandoned both the Word and Canons. Other organisations do not have the heritage that ours does, and many of us were both born into the Anglican communion (from families whose descendants first formed the Church in NZ) and then chose to follow our faith heritage again as adults. To me, their vocalised hurt seems to be the equivalent to the hurt of a child abandoned by their parents. Nothing appears to be able to console them.
3. Discussion from the pulpit often defines the desired changes in terms sympathetic to the LGBT+/queer theologians cause. An example is that the LGBT+ community have termed themselves as “marginalised”. The reality is that the LGBT+ community and their sympathisers have firmly entranced themselves in the NZ church for decades, both in religious leadership, and in key academics positions. As such they have had control over aspects such as church history, religious education, religious teaching institutions, etc. They sincerely belief they alone have the only truth. Often no discussion is allowed. Our education system has been promoting LGBT+ for decades. Even in worldly positions, I know of company directors, lawyers and politicians who are LGBT+, and extremely wealthy. They are not ‘marginalised’ in any respect. They have control of large parts of the media, this is not a marginalised group by any definition of the term. An example would be Peter Lineham who set himself up as the self-appointed authority for the Destiny Church movement, to be the lens through which the media view Tamaki’s ministry. He personally dictates what is known and what is hidden. Other LGBT academics also use Lineham as the go-to marker for assignments, determining which are publishable. This is not a marginalised man, but one exercising media and academic power and authority over the nation. Another example would be the academic sources used at university level. English homosexual historian Daimaid MacCulloch is used as text over 3 years by NZ closet homosexual (a “lapsed Catholic” in his own terms) Nick Thompson, post-grad supervisor of UoA School of Theology. Important aspects of our Anglican heritage, and especially our prayer book, are hidden, while inconsequential aspects are emphasised as reasons to abandon our Anglican heritage. (This is a vital point to be elaborated on in the book).
4. The marginalised, those without a voice, they are are those who have been sexually violated by the LGBT+ priests/secular community here in Aotearoa. They are those boys and men who have been drugged and abused as children, teens or adults, by other men, and those girls who have been violated by other women. The marginalised include those men in prison who have been anally raped by other men, kids whose mothers have let them be violated because they think it serves them right, those women violated by objects by their fellow prisoners. The marginalised include children whose mothers thought they didn’t need a male role model or purposely separated them from fathers for their own financial gains. The marginalised include men battered and abused by women. Immigrants seeking refuge from this abusive behaviour overseas within NZ come here to find the Church attempting to normalise it. THESE are the marginalised of society that the church has left without any support. They become the rebellious repeat offending criminals, they are are the suicides that make us amongst the worst in the world. We do not hear any messaging defending these people in our churches. We do not hear any sermons asking us to seek out these people and support them!! And these are the ones who go on to become members of the LGBT+ community specifically because there they find voice to their pain, against society and agaist the church which was the basis for this Western society in which they live. With motion 29 (also motions 1 and 30) many seek to get revenge on the church that has allowed the abuse/abandonment/neglect/pain that cause them to reject the oposite sex are equally in the image of God, as they are, and that children have a divine right to a mother and father at home.
5. This highlights another aspect of the discussion that is not immediately obvious; the primary trademarks of the LGBT+’s is deceit and hypocrisy. Homosexual priests/vicars are never openly honest about their own behaviour, and they never feel the need to be so because it reveals their hypocrisy. Queer theologians frame the scriptures against hypocrisy to academically support their own agenda. With total disregard to what they term as the Old Testament god, they claim the New Testament god is a different god, or that the scriptures are not an accurate historical record anyway. Queer theologians also disregard the New Testament, saying it is irrelevant culturally to today’s society. (This was 4 years of my degree!) An example is where Jesus teaches that men must not judge until they have overcome that sin themselves (ie: do not be a hypocrite), queer theologians stop reading after the first 3 words “do not judge” and ignore the rest of our Lord’s speech. And where Jesus says to the women caught in adultery without any witnesses that he can’t condemn without witnesses, queer theologians ignore his command to ‘sin no more’ a the end of the paragraph. They will deny the paragraph is even the words of Christ, but quote it as Gospel to reinforce their DO NOT JUDGE doctrine. Those holding to queer style theology will readily admit that they do not believe in a literal death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Only a spiritual one as the record we have was not written down until the time of Constantine, so they claim. Holiness equates to a satisfied sexual fulfilment, something that can never be gained. The face to face academic deceit at both University of Auckland and Laidlaw demonstrate that there is zero tolerance for truth if it makes themselves appear to be biased towards supporting the LGBT+ community cause. At UoA, Post-grad/Doctoral supervisor Dr Nick Thompson answered negatively when asked directly if he was a homosexual in class due to his overt biases thought his lectures. At Laidlaw Stephen Garner and Jenny Mackie outright deny they know they have an extremely abusive transvestite studying counselling for their desired career as a children’s councillor in state schools. This blatant deceit at the highest levels of religious Academia cannot possibly be any sort of fruit of the Holy Spirit. (Again, more details and links to video’s will be in the book).
6. A large part of this deceit is that the LGBT+ supporters are saying this Motion 29 push is not part of the larger scheme of the secular LGBT+ agenda. The only way supporters can justify Motion 29 is using the what is known as the queer theological hermeneutic, which can be applied to any sexual sins and justify any extreme behaviours, including paedophilia. Queer theology is where academics pretend that the Bible is written especially for LGBT+’s, and therefore read Scripture as justifying their sexual preference. Queer theology is built on liberation theology, which itself is built on feminist theology, which resulted from the theology and simplistic histories that came form the Enlightenment period. These claimed the Jews could not write, so the Bible was all made up fairy tales. Queer theologians often do not believe in the literal life, or ministry, of Jesus, nor his death, burial and resurrection. Instead chose to spiritualise the Gospel records away in the style of the Enlightenment theologians. Dr Elaine Wainwright, noted feminist theologian, built the whole UoA School of Theology syllabus on a feminist reading of history that had illiterate Jews throughout the Roman Empire, and tax collectors who kept their records in their heads without writing anything down, in much the same way that the more civilised Pacific Islander’s and the savage New Zealanders (Darwin’s words) used oral traditions to tell stories.
7. The outflow of this LGBT+ friendly NZ academic environment is that there has been no education in NZ over the last 30 odd years that specifically teaches the pitfalls of Queer theology. Students are taught to accept Queer theology as being equally valid with any other form of Biblical interpretation, and are provided with no logical countering arguments. Students are mocked by their professors for suggesting the Jews of Jesus’ time were iterate. Today’s vicars and preachers are not equipped to deal with the arguments used, so ignorantly accept it, perpetuating the academic abuses. Many of the old school vicars have been bullied out of the church, as per the previous split within my own parish.
8. Motion 29 does not give any protection for those sexually and verbally/emotionally abused by partners, parents, LGBT+s, etc, or to those neglected or without biblical role models as children. While supporters of Motion 29 may claim that NZ law offers protection against abuse, NZ law obviously is does not work to protect people at the moment, and in some cases even works to help protect abusers hiding within churches, especially in current the justice climate. Motion 29 does not offer any assistance, but only seeks to normalise the abuse.
9. Motion 29 does not give any assurance that their supporters will not continue with the rest of the secular GLBT+ agenda – to fully sexualise and exploit children the same way that children are exploited in heathen countries. Parts of this agenda that were supported by UoA School of Theology/Catholic Institute of Theology lecturers include removing the legal age of consent (because men in parliament should never have control over what a women does with her body at any age), and promoting prostitution and abortion (again, because men should never have any say in what women do with their bodies). Patriarchal men can’t possibly know what it’s like to be a woman, so have no right to enforce archaic and sexist laws which revent women from flourishing. Also, polygamy was tacitly supported (because all religions worship the same God and other religions allow it so we can’t speak out against it). Faithful Christians should not be intolerant of bigoted. Queer theologians proclaim that God wouldn’t have made us capable of doing any activity that he didn’t want us to do, so we should experience every possible sexual experience. Embracing every possible sexual experience would then allow us to make an informed choice of our desired gender. Those who had not participated should not contribute because they do not know what it’s like. And this is why the LGBT+ community seek to target children at younger and younger ages. Because, according to themselves, how can children flourish in their chosen gender if they haven’t tried it? (Yes! One can’t believe one paid money to be taught this crap at a university level either! And when one asks Helen Bergin what medication she is on, she laughs it off and says that one shouldn’t discriminate against mental health suffers!) Any sexual preference can be justified with queer theology. Love is all you need, and the men of units 8 and 9 of Auckland Prison (Paremoremo) testify to this.
10. We can clearly see where Motion 29 is heading because the American LGBT community is leading the way – it was Americans homosexual supporters who immigrated to NZ’s St Matthews, and led the way here with their court case against the Anglican church with the authority of a UoA degree (as per the Human Rights Commission). Sitting behind their legal support team during the Human Rights proceedings, it was evident that they assumed that as soon as they won this case against the Anglican church, they could easily “get” the Roman Catholic church here in NZ. This was also the ultimate aim of the Catholic Institute of Theology lecturers who often openly expressed their hatred during classes against a Church that had historically persecuted witches and LGBT+’s.
11. Motion 29 takes no account of the purpose of the Church or liturgy. The church was to be holy, to be one in doctrinal and historical unity with previous saints, to preach the truth as revealed by God since creation, etc. The LGBT+ lifestyle cannot even be backed by any scientific findings as being any sort of reasonably healthy lifestyle. The extremely high suicide rate cannot be accounted for by bullying, and it is consistently high even within countries where next to zero public discrimination exists.
12. Statistics, often provided by one of the popular openly GLBT authorities, are skewed to suggest that the church needs to accept GLBT+ as normal to survive here in NZ. This was also the way forward presented at the 10th anniversary of the UoA School of Theology (which folded soon after). These stats do not take either a global perspective nor an accurate local immigration perspective. But, as per the Queer theologians agenda, are simply presented to back their case.
13. Because Motion 29 is framed by the supporters of the cause, the discussions do not give all of the options regarding the possibly results of any synod discussion. One option they leaves out is perhaps the most obvious one, and one for which not even an academic degree is required. The unspoken option is that the church does not split at all, but that the heretics should be kicked out, or at least disciplined. A true teaching of the history of the church, and the origins of the scriptures, should be taught, rather than the post-Enlightenment teachings that have led to the development this sexual heresy. As our Bishop rightly mentioned during the Human Rights trial, under Canon Law he can be ejected from his position by any members of his dioceses for his part in introducing and promoting this heresy.
With this background as to how we now have this Motion 29 document before us in mind, my submission for consideration to Synod of the document itself is follows:
Reply Submission to the text of the Motion 29 Document:
As per the request of the document (pages 5 and 15) this document is hereby submitted as requested.
My comments are as follows:
Page 5: “Our mandate was not to consider the differing theological positions or to interpret scripture on this point.” This highlights the knowledge that leadership and the LGBT+ supporters have that their position is indefensible canonically, scripturally and historically within the NZ Church setting. The early missionaries, Marsden, the Williams’s, and the entire congregation of early Maori saints would be trying to get down here and prevent this heresy from spreading if they could.
“The mandate talks of two integrities” If the supporters of the Queer hermeneutic had any integrity, they would have left the church and started their own, rather than attempt to continually manipulate scripture and history for their temporary own sexual pleasure and financial gain.
Page 9: “capturing institutional knowledge across the Anglican Communion to build a knowledge bank that all faithful Anglicans can draw on for ongoing debate” This would be of benefit as there is currently little support, next to zero, for those Anglicans who do not share any of the Enlightenment historical perspective or the resulting hermeneutics. Yet there is much historical material outside the Anglican community, from the Biblical period, proto-English language British period, and the early NZ period, that reinforces the heritage that has been handed down by our saints.
Page 10: “B. Enabling Amorangi and Dioceses” No. This divides the church to allow each to do what is right in their own eyes. This has never been a correct method of dealing with a sexual heresy that makes the church a mockery to unbelievers. There is amply scriptural examples to follow in such cases from those with whom Christ has ministered to directly.
“C. New Declarations” Following others into a heresy allowing sexual immorality has no scriptural or canonical precedent, and only invites God to turn his back on the Church. This leaves the Church without any of the promises of the Word.
Page 11: “D. Service of Blessing” Yes, while no one is perfect, and while we are all on a journey to become more like God in whose image man was made, we should also endeavour to be on side with the Church also. A commonly heard justification of gay marriage is that since we are all sinners, we should try an accommodate our sinful selves as much as possible in this fallen world. However, to seek a church blessing for my anti-scriptural immorality is without precedent. I cannot suggest that, if I still had an immoral porn addiction, I should band together with other such men and women and demand that the church support our porn addiction, although there would be a far greater percentage of porn addicts within the church than GLBT+’s. I should not ask the vicar to hold a ceremony to celebrate the joy I have when I think of, to use an oft referred to example, Janet Jackson and her snake. I cannot ask synod for the Prayerbook to include a centrefold of Janet Jackson and her snake so that I, and the thousands of others who also viewed that image decades ago, feel better about our sinful selves when we come before God in prayer and worship. No amendments to the Canons should be made.
“E. Immunity from Complaint” Not only does Scripture hold individuals directly accountable for the heresy’s they introduced during the early church period, but the Hebrew Bible also holds individuals accountable for the heresy’s they led God’s people astray with. The early missionaries were likewise held accountable, both by the believing church, and the unbelieving locals. Therefore, as there is no precedent, either within scripture, or the missionary and early native church, immunity cannot be permitted now. No titles should be amended.
Page 12: “F. Orders of Consecrated Life” The only orders that should be created is one that provides a time out temporarily for those current supporters of the Queer hermeneutic/ GLBT+ movement/ “indoctrination of children with sexual experimentation philosophy” to be separated from the rest of the church so as not to spread this heresy further. They would then have some time to decide if they did indeed want to follow Christ as he reveals himself in the scripture, or not. This temporary residence community would also be able to research the fallacies of the Enlightenment history, and how those fallacies have resulted in their heretical hermeneutic assumptions. It could teach an archaeologically backed history of the scriptures which shows their veracity. From this a non-Enlightenment history of the English Church, the formation of the prayerbook of the centuries before the eventual break away from Rome can be taught. There are many NZ authorities on our early history that do not include GLBT+ biases that will give an appreciation for our history also.
“G. 2016 Way Forward Recommendations” As there is much scriptural authority to support the withdraw of this document, I support this.
Page 14: “Human Rights Act 1993” This was tested at the previous Human Rights trial, without success. Any changes to our canons may leave us open to being sued. There is an ever growing body of ex-GLBT’s speaking out against the society/industry which legitimised their erroneous sexual preferences. At any time in the future, if the Church says that God supports any of the LGBT+etc sexual preference, and people decide that God is to blame for their poor choices which were sanctioned by the church, the church could be open to further lawsuit.
St Michaels, Henderson.