It's because our Worthy Opponents figured out long ago how to sneak the nose of the gay agenda's camel under the tent of mainstream Episcopalianism: Frame it in terms of civil rights and post-modern notions of tolerance and inclusion, while playing the soft but insistent background music of oppression and marginalization. But what they haven't figured out is how to sell to that same mainstream the fact that their agenda - gutting 2,000 years of Christian teaching on sexual morality in order to devise a "Gospel" that bestows the blessings of the church on same-sex unions - at best allows, and at worst requires, a profound alteration of the lordship of Jesus Christ. There are complex reasons why this is so, but stated simply, it is because it is extremely difficult to assert on the one hand that the Scriptures don't mean what they say about sexual morality, and on the other insist that they do mean what they say about who Jesus Christ is. Leaving open all manner of possibilities for the former requires that one also leave open all manner of possibilities for the latter. This is why the orthodox side of this debate continually insists that the real debate is not about homosexuality, but Christology - who Christ is, why He came to earth, and the nature of His revelation to us.Read the rest here.
A Correct Way to Correct
17 hours ago
3 comments:
This is a terrible, terrible story. Why does anyone remain?
I suspect that it is the other way round.
It was not the abandoning of sexual morality that caused christology to be questioned, but the abandoning of christology that cuased sexual morality to be dropped.
Of course it makes confession so much shorter if I can simply say that so many of my sins are no longer sins. But If the one to whom i confess no longer has authority on earth to forgive sins, there is not need to confess even the few sins that remain.
I am delighted to see that you are taking interest here in the debacle that is contemporary Anglicanism. I am a Catholic revert from one of the break away Anglican churches. I came back to the church of my baptism when I met their future "priests" in one of their seminaries. After a protracted debate in which I was the only defender of the necessity of the creeds, it became clear to me that TEC was post-Christian.
Steve Hayes really has it right. They first abandoned Xt. and then his doctrine all the while claiming to be his church. Argh.
Post a Comment