Anglican Church in North America apologists are keen to assert that the gay debate is merely a "symptom" of a broader rejection of "orthodox Christianity." When pressed as to what other doctrinal revisions have given offence, however, they are quite vague, yet they get huffy at the suggestion that their raison d'etre is homosexuality, almost as if they are sheepish about the unpalatability of their preoccupation with the domestic lives of their fellow Christians.
The most recent change before same-sex blessings was the ordination of women, and that was nearly 40 years ago, with a plethora of Continuing groups catering to the disaffected. When I pointed this out, a moderator at the Essentials blog protested that she wasn't even alive when TAC et. al. were formed! (I wasn't alive in 1534, but I managed to find my way to Anglicanism nonetheless).
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
About Me
Ordo (beta)
Click here to view online
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(82)
-
▼
February
(22)
- TRM Ordo Summer 2010
- TRM Ordo June 2010
- TRM Ordo: Editorial Notes
- TRM Ordo Easter 2010
- Request
- BCP and BAS
- Observation
- On Just War
- On Exegesis
- The Rose Maniple Ordo
- The Prayer of Humble Access
- Radner on Haller
- Observation
- More coverage of Accession Day
- The Lord Bishop of Winchester and the Ashworth motion
- A modest proposal
- The Accession Service
- Encore
- Yet more photos
- Still more photos
- Further photos from Candlemas
- Candlemas photos
-
▼
February
(22)
5 comments:
Many that I've talked to do, in fact, have an instant response when asked what this is a symptom of, and the response is the authority of the Scriptures. They're for a plain reading of Scripture and homosexuality flies in the face of it.
When they get vague and huffy is when I point out that they're willing to use all sorts of creative readings for the divorced (especially divorced clergy) and a host of other points on which the *NT* is quite clear...
1) We all interpret the text--nobody reads it flat,
2) if they're going to read it one way for themselves, they need to read it the same way for others,
and 3) OLASJC's harshest words in the gospel are for religious hypocrites.
Next time they tell you that homosexuality is not the deciding issue for them, send them to this link: http://www.cafepress.com/sk/ACiNA
That really shows what preoccupies them.
Derek: yes, the authority of Scripture inevitably turns out to mean agreement with their understanding of Scripture.
How zealous we are to deplore the sins to which we are not ourselves susceptible. How much more agreeable than to work out our own salvation.
I have to say that even I dislike some of the recent church trends that fall under the heading "liberal", such as skipping the confession, open table or any hymn written by Graham Kendrick.
The difference is that when I confess I'm happy to be absolved by an openly gay woman...
The other thing they will do, when pressed, is point to some particular incident (ie, the "Muslim Episcopal Priest") and pretend that sort of thing is standard operating procedure in TEC or ACoC.
I once had an exchange with a commenter on a normally reasonable conservative blog who claimed that the Millennium Development Goals had replaced Jesus. (No, seriously.) His "evidence" was a picture of a eucharist held in a hotel meeting room, obviously at the end of a synod or other set of meetings, where the MDGs were on a poster behind the presiding celebrant.
Post a Comment