A Thumb in the Eye
The more I read about the new Episcopal presiding bishop, the worse the news sounds.
If the Episcopal Church of the USA were actually seeking a way to alienate the rest of the Anglican Communion and traditionalists in the United States, it couldn't be doing a better job. There's no denying that her politics, first, and her gender, second, is going to complicate the Episcopal Church of the USA's dealings with the rest of the world. That doesn't mean she wasn't entitled to be voted into the post -- only that it may have been a choice that was more designed to inflame than to unite.
Moreover, as the bio here points out, Bishop Schori was only ordained twelve years ago. It's not as though through dint of experience and work in the Church, she had distinguished herself over a substantial period of time.
So not only has the Church elected a Presiding Bishop that's an outspoken liberal who has pushed for official recognition of same sex blessings by the Church, it seems that they've gone out of their way to make the choice that's most likely to provoke confrontation, inside the Church and within the Anglican Communion across the world.
Here's hoping that those who, like John Danforth, have spoken out about the dangers of division, will speak out once more about the danger that a small leftist majority in the US will succeed both in driving traditionalists from their Church, and the Episcopal Church of the USA from the Anglican Communion. After all, it strikes me as unfair for revisionists to blame traditionalists for causing "divisions" when they are the ones who insist on ignoring the traditional teachings of the Anglican Church worldwide.
Update: When I wrote yesterday about "needless confrontation," this is what I meant.
If the Episcopal Church of the USA were actually seeking a way to alienate the rest of the Anglican Communion and traditionalists in the United States, it couldn't be doing a better job. There's no denying that her politics, first, and her gender, second, is going to complicate the Episcopal Church of the USA's dealings with the rest of the world. That doesn't mean she wasn't entitled to be voted into the post -- only that it may have been a choice that was more designed to inflame than to unite.
Moreover, as the bio here points out, Bishop Schori was only ordained twelve years ago. It's not as though through dint of experience and work in the Church, she had distinguished herself over a substantial period of time.
So not only has the Church elected a Presiding Bishop that's an outspoken liberal who has pushed for official recognition of same sex blessings by the Church, it seems that they've gone out of their way to make the choice that's most likely to provoke confrontation, inside the Church and within the Anglican Communion across the world.
Here's hoping that those who, like John Danforth, have spoken out about the dangers of division, will speak out once more about the danger that a small leftist majority in the US will succeed both in driving traditionalists from their Church, and the Episcopal Church of the USA from the Anglican Communion. After all, it strikes me as unfair for revisionists to blame traditionalists for causing "divisions" when they are the ones who insist on ignoring the traditional teachings of the Anglican Church worldwide.
Update: When I wrote yesterday about "needless confrontation," this is what I meant.
posted by LadybugUSA at 12:10 PM
3 Comments:
I used to think that theologically liberal denominations were always afflicted with shrinking congregations.
Yet the Census figures show that between 1990 and 2001, the total amount of people who identified themselves as Episcopal increased by 13.4%.
So if they're being progressive in their theology - it's certainly not affecting their current existence.
The new communism cannot succeed without destroying the authority of the family and religion. How better to destroy the authority of a church than from the inside? Challenge the authority of a religion and it becomes stronger. Give away the authority of the religion by supporting the very antithesis of it's core values and it will either reform or die. By gaining the positions of leadership, you also succeed in disowning those who would reform it.
Sexual drive is a very sneaky, very powerful key to destroying authority because it is so present in all of us.
Ditto -- Is the human brain a living thing that can change as time progresses or is it fixed from birth? Is it possible that the physical reactions of lesbians and homosexual men may have changed over time due to their behavior and their willingness to buy into gay culture? Can we say for a certainty which came first? Is it possible that what started out as minor differences became more pronounced? Without asking these kinds of questions, aren't the "scientific" researchers just looking for any shred of evidence that might promote a gay agenda? Also, if we are born with biological predispositions, must we give into them? Are we only our biology? See, religious people normally believe we are far more than that.
Not that any of what you posted was on topic, but I'm just asking.
Post a Comment
<< Home