My thoughts yesterday about the stunt by the Diocese of South Carolina delegation at General Convention drew some fire from some quarters. Here's a follow-up particularly for those who don't have steam coming out of their ears and can stand to look rationally at the current situation in pecusa. The bottom line is that for the most part you cannot trust liberals. They are so driven by ideology and many are so lacking in rational thought that honor and integrity are not even in the picture. What support is there for this statement?
First, you would have thought that conservatives in pecusa would have learned their lesson from the liberal hegemony's handling of women's ordination. Whether pro or con on w.o., look how the liberals brokered it in and what happened afterwards.
When it was brokered in there was a conscience clause that said that bishops who could not do w.o. in good conscience would be permitted to refrain from doing so. In 2000 or so that conscience clause was removed and pressure squads were sent into dioceses who weren't ordaining women. Is there anyone that really believes that the LGBTIQRSUVWXYZ issue will be handled differently? If so, consider the following exchange.
I was in a small group with a member of the Executive Board of pecusa. I commented to him on how I believed that it was wrong to give a conscience clause on w.o. and then remove it later. His response? I can't quote him word for word, but basically his response was we gave those people enough time. In other words, if they haven't yet seen that we (the liberals) are right, they are just obstinate or stupid.
Second, you would have thought that conservatives would have learned their lesson when the Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold lied to the primates at the emergency meeting in 2003. He took his lumps among the primates, he agreed not to participate in the consecration of VGR, and he came home and participated in the consecration of VGR.
Okay, that 's just two anecdotes. So, consider this. The church at least since the reformation has believed in the perspicacity of Scripture. What this means is that there is a plain reading of Scripture that is accessible to believers. Liberals don't believe this. If they did they wouldn't promote convoluted interpretations to Scripture passages that work against their preconceived positions.
Take Romans, chapter 1, for an example. The plain reading that the church has accepted for centuries (and still does except for liberals) is that same sex relations are sinful (Rom. 1:18-28). The convoluted interpretation of liberals is that same sex intimacy is only sinful for heterosexual persons. I suspect that deep down they know that this interpretation is convoluted so they do things like pull these verses out of the lectionary readings. You will not find the verses that so offend liberals from Romans 1 in any of the pecusa lectionaries.
If liberals will so egregiously handle Scripture why would anyone believe that they can trusted with lesser things? Having seen liberals in action on w.o., lying to primates, and more recently suing other Christians and congregations (again, contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture), why would anyone trust them?
Shepherds, that is bishops and priests, why would you have your people anywhere near others in a fraud of a church like pecusa that can do them so much harm?
Archbishop Peter Akinola at the Hope and a Future Conference in Pittsburgh presented a reasonable question, which was how can you be in the Anglican Communion Network and pecusa? They are incompatible. One serves Christ and the other serves the spirit of this age. What could be clearer from Scripture and observation?
No comments:
Post a Comment