Is any other point of view offered on this issue? Of course not. That would be too complicated.
Does the story even mention any other doctrinal issues facing the Anglican Communion, issues that have been given some ink in ”” to cite one prime setting ”” The New York Times? No, that would be too complicated.
The point of the story, after all, is that this woman should not be defined by her sexuality. That is a great and appropriate journalistic goal. So, what is her stance on other crucial issues, doctrinal issues, that are causing cracks in the Anglican Communion? How would she describe her Christology, her view of the Virgin Birth, the historical reality of the Resurrection, the question of whether salvation can only be found through belief in Jesus, the nature of biblical authority? Issues of gender and liturgy? Or is her sexuality all that matters?
Has she written or said anything on these issues? What about during the selection process in Los Angeles? Are there critics in Maryland or California ”” or in other parts of the world, like England ”” who have studied her life and work and might be able to offer insights, as part of a journalistic process in which the views of both sides are quoted accurately and with empathy?
It’s typical mainstream (liberal/progressive) reporting. That is one sided and propagandist.
“Last month, some 130 Anglicans from 20 provinces endorsed a document encouraging one another to reconsider their relationships with The Episcopal Church and condemning the western church body for pursuing “an agenda of their own desire in opposition to historic norms of faith, teaching and practice.””
http://sg.christianpost.com/dbase/church/2517/section/1.htm
All they had to do was read, but nooooooooo! That would have required research. Far too much trouble about buggery!
I loved the lampooning of the lame report in the Baltimore Sun. I especially liked Terry Mattingly’s effective use of the regular refrain, [i]”That would be too complicated.”[/i] Marvelous mockery. And the Baltimore paper thoroughly deserved it.
David Handy+
[b][i]1. Br. Michael[/i][/b],
Your assessment is correct, although incomplete in my view, in failing to address the fundamental irreconcilability of [i]progressivism[/i] with faithful Christianity. Allow me to explain.
[i]Progressivism[/i] starts from the assumption that humanity is continually, at least in the aggregate, making progress, [i]i.e.[/i], we are becoming more knowledgeable, more capable, more of everything that is good. This must be so, because the individual who believes this has himself to offer as living proof of the assertion. Where does such an assumption inescapably lead? If the assumption is correct, then it must be the case that we are becoming ever more capable of analysing those societal constructs which we see as troublesome, unfair, unworkable, or, in other words, not desirable. Since we are now smarter than those who have preceded us, we must be approaching, if we have not already attained a state where we can design a solution to any of the problems that beset humanity which are not beyond the scale of our understanding (this last rules out, at least for the present, the ability to defang natural disasters—earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, and so forth). But, clearly we can design laws which will usher in a new era of peace and love, wherein all can achieve their full potential.
But notice what that implies, namely that we no longer need God, nor God’s revelation, because we are now, or soon will be, always and everywhere able to discern good from evil. Which is exactly the temptation that was offered to our first parents by the serpent in the garden of Eden. If we eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, we think we can be like God, knowing Good from Evil. [i]Progressivism[/i] is neither more nor less than an enthusiastic and headlong rush to embrace original sin as our [i]modus operandi[/i]. And if we do so, then we will have little problem in convincing ourselves that we are doing it out of love for humanity, for the good of all, including those who are not yet smart enough to understand what great and wonderful blessings the human-designed future will hold for them. Just as the “majority party” in Russia did in 1917, and the Italian party whose icon was the Roman [i]fasces[/i] did in the 1920s, and the NSDAP did in Germany in the 1930s, and the list potentially goes on and on.
History, particularly modern history, makes it abundantly clear that once you assume that “we have grown in understanding” beyone our forebears, you have surrendered to original sin. If anyone does not believe that what I have written is so, let them provide three examples of publicly prominent [i]progressives[/i] who put forward their ideas as suggestions to be adopted voluntarily, as opposed to being imposed upon all by means of the state and, if necessary, its police powers. I would humbly suggest that three such people cannot be found, because, in order to be a [i]progressive[/i], one must first become a true believer in mankind, and once one has done that, one has, effectually, abandoned one’s belief in God as the ruler of creation.
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
#4, wonderful expose. Thanks.