A strange statement coming from someone who is responsible for repressing thousands for their religious beliefs, by using the legal system to sue 5 dioceses, dozens of parishes, and in those locations where the law has allowed it, the entire leadership of dioceses and parishes. Using every means at her disposal to impoverish those she does not agree with. She is responsible for deposing hundreds of priests and bishops. The hubris by which she wraps herself in moral superiority is truly astounding.
Many of these have their very own individual entries. Sadly, metrophilia does not.
It’s interesting, though, that the PB has never made a doctrinal statement (not that she has the authority to do that) renouncing Lambeth 1.10. In fact, her statement, as is typical for TEC, makes no direct mention of homosexual practice.
I hate to break this to the Presiding Bishop, but Jesus says there will never be peace on earth until He returns. The Antichrist, however, will trick people into thinking he has brought peace on earth.
I agree with Archer above, only I’d call it Exhibit #847 of why I left TEC after over 20 years of ordained ministry. The PB is totally clueless about what the real gospel is, and has fallen for a lie from the pit of hell about what constitutes real good news for humanity.
Notice is particular her sloppy and yet highly revealing use of the phrase “God’s children.” That gets to the heart of the problem. For her, all people without exception are “God’s children.” Now if she’d said that all humans are God’s CREATURES, and therefore infinitely precious to him, that would be right and proper. But her careless use of language is very telling, for she vainly imagines that there is no difference between considering everyone a creature of God and a “child” of God.
For Paul and John in the NT, there is all the difference in the world between the two states. For the Pauline and Johannine writings, only believers in Christ are truly God’s children, whether they be such by adoption (as for Paul), or by rebirth (John). Indeed, as John 1 makes clear, even the Jews, chosen people (and forever cherished) though they may be, are not to be considered God’s children, as such. Recall those famous but still startling words:
“He came to his own people, and his own received him not. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave the power to BECOME children of God, who were born not of human will…but (born) of God.” (John 1:11-13)
The dramatic and stark difference between being merely God’s creature and being, as well, God’s child, is the difference between being saved and being damned, between eternal life and eternal damnation. It really does come down to that in the end.
But the PB, as a universalist and a radical pluralist who publicly eschews and denies such an “exclusive” and “bigoted” viewpoint, perfectly embodies and exemplifies the kind of Liberalism that the great Neo-Orthodox theologian Richard Niebuhr skewered brilliantly back in 1937 in a classic one-liner. Niebuhr’s summary of the problem with Liberalism is spot on, and +KJS fits it perfectly.
In the immortal words of the late, great Yale Div. School prof, Liberalism is best understood as teaching how:
“a God without wrath brought men (sic) without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”
Yep. That’s the PB all right. And alas, that jibe also applies to most of the leadership of TEC these days. Sad, but true.
David+ Fantastic comment in #5. Thank you for highlighting how that belief that we are “all God’s children” reveals a serious theological error. It’s a good reminder to us all that words matter.
Such encouragement is always appreciated. Alas, there are even conservative Anglicans who fall into the trap of using the phrase “children of God” in the same careless, misleading way that the PB does.
#7–This is a major failing of mainline Prostestism going on since the late 19th century, teaching essentially that we are all going to Heaven. Of course, if that’s true, why bother to go to church or do anything else.
Reason No. 326 of why I left.
A strange statement coming from someone who is responsible for repressing thousands for their religious beliefs, by using the legal system to sue 5 dioceses, dozens of parishes, and in those locations where the law has allowed it, the entire leadership of dioceses and parishes. Using every means at her disposal to impoverish those she does not agree with. She is responsible for deposing hundreds of priests and bishops. The hubris by which she wraps herself in moral superiority is truly astounding.
The same can be said about the other paraphilias. There are lots of “sexual orientations,” after all.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paraphilias
Many of these have their very own individual entries. Sadly, metrophilia does not.
It’s interesting, though, that the PB has never made a doctrinal statement (not that she has the authority to do that) renouncing Lambeth 1.10. In fact, her statement, as is typical for TEC, makes no direct mention of homosexual practice.
I hate to break this to the Presiding Bishop, but Jesus says there will never be peace on earth until He returns. The Antichrist, however, will trick people into thinking he has brought peace on earth.
I agree with Archer above, only I’d call it Exhibit #847 of why I left TEC after over 20 years of ordained ministry. The PB is totally clueless about what the real gospel is, and has fallen for a lie from the pit of hell about what constitutes real good news for humanity.
Notice is particular her sloppy and yet highly revealing use of the phrase “God’s children.” That gets to the heart of the problem. For her, all people without exception are “God’s children.” Now if she’d said that all humans are God’s CREATURES, and therefore infinitely precious to him, that would be right and proper. But her careless use of language is very telling, for she vainly imagines that there is no difference between considering everyone a creature of God and a “child” of God.
For Paul and John in the NT, there is all the difference in the world between the two states. For the Pauline and Johannine writings, only believers in Christ are truly God’s children, whether they be such by adoption (as for Paul), or by rebirth (John). Indeed, as John 1 makes clear, even the Jews, chosen people (and forever cherished) though they may be, are not to be considered God’s children, as such. Recall those famous but still startling words:
“He came to his own people, and his own received him not. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave the power to BECOME children of God, who were born not of human will…but (born) of God.” (John 1:11-13)
The dramatic and stark difference between being merely God’s creature and being, as well, God’s child, is the difference between being saved and being damned, between eternal life and eternal damnation. It really does come down to that in the end.
But the PB, as a universalist and a radical pluralist who publicly eschews and denies such an “exclusive” and “bigoted” viewpoint, perfectly embodies and exemplifies the kind of Liberalism that the great Neo-Orthodox theologian Richard Niebuhr skewered brilliantly back in 1937 in a classic one-liner. Niebuhr’s summary of the problem with Liberalism is spot on, and +KJS fits it perfectly.
In the immortal words of the late, great Yale Div. School prof, Liberalism is best understood as teaching how:
“a God without wrath brought men (sic) without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”
Yep. That’s the PB all right. And alas, that jibe also applies to most of the leadership of TEC these days. Sad, but true.
David Handy+
David+ Fantastic comment in #5. Thank you for highlighting how that belief that we are “all God’s children” reveals a serious theological error. It’s a good reminder to us all that words matter.
Thanks, Karen B.
Such encouragement is always appreciated. Alas, there are even conservative Anglicans who fall into the trap of using the phrase “children of God” in the same careless, misleading way that the PB does.
David Handy+
#7–This is a major failing of mainline Prostestism going on since the late 19th century, teaching essentially that we are all going to Heaven. Of course, if that’s true, why bother to go to church or do anything else.