From the Bishop of Central New York

"If only in the Church we had more dialogue, even argument, even convention resolutions and biblical wrangling over these matters of justice which seem most important to Jesus, then perhaps I could take more seriously and be more tolerant of our seeming fixation on matters of sex." 2005 Diocesan Address

Fixation on matters of sex? Did the bishop really say that? Yes, in his convention address, he said that. Now, let us ask, over the last 40 years, who in ECUSA has been fixated on sex? Of course, it has been liberals, like our bishop, led by Integrity, the homo-sex lobbying group in ECUSA.

Let's consider the words "take more seriously." Is this an admission by the bishop that he doesn't take orthodox Christians seriously? There have been convention resolutions and biblical wrangling on human sexuality for many years now. As has been said frequently since the General Convention 2003, the dialogue and arguments came down to the Anglican Communion telling ECUSA not to proceed with the consecration of VGR or the blessing of same sex unions. Our bishop voted for both of these. Possibly he was in his not taking orthodox Christians seriously mode when he voted against the express position of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates, the Lambeth Conference and the Anglican Consultive Council. What point is there in dialogue when one side (the liberals like our bishop)do not listen - do not even take us seriously?

Of course, his statement is meant to show everyone how human sexuality is really not that important in the larger scheme of things. So, I ask, why did he create the present furor by voting for something that the church has not accepted, given that it is not that important? Why not just tell his glbti friends that their issue really isn't so important that we need to split the church over it right now? The answer is that homo-sex was just the next piece in the great liberal agenda, and the bishop wasn't going to vote that down.

Last year, the bishop's swipe at orthodox came under the heading of "temple Christianity." It was a misrepresentation of orthodox Christians, but I guess that some liberals believe that factuality isn't necessary when you can take a shot at your opponents. Which begs the question, why is it that liberals feel they must take shots at conservatives? I thought the Church was in this world to do battle against sin, evil and the devil. Oh well, live and learn.