Riveting Revisionists, Ridiculous Revolt or Reform?

 Recently, I was watching a group interview with members of GAFCON and ACNA speaking about the creation of a new, Independent Anglican Diocese info Australia (Diocese of the Southern Cross).  A theme which kept recurring in the discussion they engaged in was the term and references to "Revisionists" and "revisionism".  At face value, to anyone who holds Sacred scripture as the groundwork of our faith, that sounds like a terrifying concept- who would dare try to revise holy writ?  And I think that, that is to an extent what the bishops of GAFCON and ACNA were going for- the shock factor of others attempting to revise what the scriptures teach.  However, as Anglicans, it is an intriguingly odd notion to accuse anyone else of attempting to revise teachings; when the revision of teaching itself is the cause for the Anglican Communion's very existence.  Had it not been for Henry VIII and Cranmer changing the foundational teaching of the church's independence and making it subservient to the crown, the English Reformation would never have taken place.  

Those facts aside, however, let us focus on the modern notion of revisionism.  Many GAFCON and ACNA bodies argue that accepting gay clergy or couples is "revisionist", yet happily allow women to serve as deacons, priests, or even bishops.  Obviously revising the teachings on ordained ministers is permissible then, but only when independent Anglican bodies do it?   Well, what about the teachings on divorce, remarriage, and multiple marriages?  Sadly, most Anglican bodies choose to pass by those without spending too much time on them.  Truthfully, I think  that the division here can be summed up fairly simply: 

 Mainstream Anglican Communion-  More gays and do away with anything resembling tradition.

GAFCON/ ACNA-  No gays, and make up things we claim are tradition so we can claim to keep them.

Same-sex people are not the problem really, but institutionally-minded clergy who care more about power and appearances than divine truth or salvation.  The trouble with reading the Bible at simply face value is that we miss the nuances and deeper meanings that it has for us, which we can carry on into our own lives and communities.  The scriptures hold a number of elements that no one would teach or enforce as "Christian morality" today (I.e. St. Paul's injunction for slaves to be obedient to their masters as though they were Christ), but does doing so make us "revisionists"?  

What makes a person a revisionist is not "the gay thing" at all.  What makes a person, a church, a teaching "revisionist"- is the denial of what is the eternal truth of the faith: Christ's necessary, and essential place.  To teach against the necessity of baptism before receiving Holy Communion, to teach against the ordained ministry, to teach against the actual, physical presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar, to teach that all religions are true and can lead people to God and heaven:  THESE are revisionist teachings, for they undermine the divinity and very essence of the Christian faith.  Those who insist that change or 'adaptation' can be made to the sacraments of the church for the sake of 'social justice' or some other idiotic modern heresy, are the ones who are the true revisionists of the church; as though the TRUE church only began when they themselves entered the fray.

If your church holds the Bible as its foundation and Christ as its head; well and good.   If however your church teaches that man alone is the answer and holds 'unity and diversity' as its goal, then run far away.  Those who deny the authority and kingship of Christ and his essential, necessary role in mankind's salvation ONLY THROUGH HIM; are the revisionists who seek to destroy the church.  I would much rather see a gay man sincerely working on his salvation with and through Christ alone; than a gaggle of bishops bickering over whether "Father, Son and Holy Ghost"  should be replaced with more 'inclusive' language. 

Here Endeth the Lesson.