“A bit of a rant” he calls it. Read it all and notice carefully where the argument really lies.
“A bit of a rant” he calls it. Read it all and notice carefully where the argument really lies.
Wow…talk about a circular argument. So many non sequiturs…so little time.
Sigh…to think the Church used to have substantive theological debate..
This is the same argument our former rector used in 2003–its one bishop in New Hampshire; it has nothing to do with us. All the hoop de doo will blow over in 6 months (he really said that). First, a bishop is a bishop of the WHOLE church, not just one diocese. Second, to say it has no effect on other dioceses is idiodic. Look at the plummeting numbers in TEC post 2003. And in Upper SC in 6 years we have gone from a conservative, orthodox diocese to one that just elected a bishop who probably would have be inhibited for his beliefs 25 years ago. And many individuals have been treated with down right contempt for even pointing out there is a problem. Scott Gunn, is essentially full of you know what.
What’s worst is the number of people who find this irrational nonsense erudite. Look at the folks there praising the article – including a TEC bishop from Arizona.
-Jim+
So, 30 something years of the listening process, and he thinks that if you don’t agree with him it’s because you’re afraid (and ignorant and bigoted). How much longer will I have to listen to them before they understand me?
Gunn just cycles randomly through all the “arguments” [sic] we’ve heard before, I suppose wondering which ones will stick.
To take the first one, of course let a member of the KKK be elected bishop and suddenly the “distant realm” is ultra important — Scott would suddenly proclaim that a bishop must be the bishop of the whole church.
Heh — argument disappears in a puff of inconsistency.