Anglican Down Under: Has Gerald Bray lost the plot?
I don’t usually link to Down Under, in large part because the blogger makes a habit of enforcing his commenting rules unequally against conservatives, while allowing revisionist activists to prattle on in violation of his commenting rules. He also continues to promote the false notion that revisionist activists still believe the Christian Gospel and should be treated as members of the Church, even while they also do great violence to the sacraments in general, to marriage, to Christian anthropology, to Holy Scripture, to authority in the Church, and the theologies of the Fall, sin, repentance, redemption, and transformation. He or she has had to violate and twist all of those things in order to cling to his false teaching and promotion of sex acts between men or women.
Nevertheless, there are some excellent comments in this post on Gerald Bray’s also-excellent and refreshingly clarifying article on the women bishops vote in the Church of England. The comments really serve to highlight the distinctions among certain evangelicals and I think they’re important.
To put this into personal terms: I am opposed to women’s ordination and have always been so. I accept that other evangelicals may still be evangelicals and believers and yet support women’s ordination, as long as they 1)use Holy Scripture [however poorly], tradition, and reason to make their cause and 2) acknowledge that those who are opposed to women’s ordination deserve coherent protection for their stance. Unfortunately, there are evangelicals who support women’s ordination who do *not* do either of those two things, or who maintain one and not the other. This is unacceptable and Bray makes the point incisively.
The discussion on the different types of evangelicals is quite interesting and I commend the comments to you.
Nevertheless, there are some excellent comments in this post on Gerald Bray’s also-excellent and refreshingly clarifying article on the women bishops vote in the Church of England. The comments really serve to highlight the distinctions among certain evangelicals and I think they’re important.
To put this into personal terms: I am opposed to women’s ordination and have always been so. I accept that other evangelicals may still be evangelicals and believers and yet support women’s ordination, as long as they 1)use Holy Scripture [however poorly], tradition, and reason to make their cause and 2) acknowledge that those who are opposed to women’s ordination deserve coherent protection for their stance. Unfortunately, there are evangelicals who support women’s ordination who do *not* do either of those two things, or who maintain one and not the other. This is unacceptable and Bray makes the point incisively.
The discussion on the different types of evangelicals is quite interesting and I commend the comments to you.
No comments:
Post a Comment