The dishonesty of Adams

In the interview in the Syracuse Post-Standard posted below Bishop Adams claims that the controversial actions of General Convention don't change anything. This statement is about as dishonest as it comes as can be seen by the reactions of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Integrity (the homosexual lobby in pecusa) and the New York Times. No, these votes have changed the stance of pecusa and will have ramifications for pecusa with the Anglican Communion.

If Adams is right, why did over two dozen of his colleagues in the House of Bishops sign a minority statement? Why did the titular head of the Anglican Communion, Archbishop Rowan Williams, express his dismay at the actions of General Convention that Adams says change nothing? Why do Integrity and the New York Times say that the actions of GC09 are decisive?

Before I make one more point, let's once again clarify that this is not about person's of perceived homosexual orientation. This is about sexual sin not sexual orientation, as Adams knows but chooses to obfuscate.

Toward the end of the interview Adams talks about the civil rights movement. I thought the man was called to be a bishop, but apparently in his mind his role is one of a civil rights activist. Those episcopal vows about guarding the faith and our Lord's words in the Great Commission apparently take a back seat to secular issues that contravene the Christian faith according to the Bishop of the CNY. With such leadership is it any wonder that the DCNY is in such bad shape? With declining membership and falling revenue how long will the DCNY tolerate such poor Christian stewardship of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?