Wow, what a bunch of convoluted nonsense.
We are not part of a global “church” if that means any organic accountability.
But congregations that are not subservient to TEC are “congregationalists” and that is bad.
But we are part of a global something or other.
Irresponsible people who expect others to support them by being responsible.
So many metaphors, so little time…
there is nothing new here. This is simply a Bishop who has decided that a “new thing” is in the wind, it will undo centuries of injustice and that it’s acceptance is a foregone conclusions. He (or is it a she?) even went so far as to criticize the Pennsylvania legislature for wanting to strengthen the existing definition of marriage through a constitutional amendment with the sad phrase “We’re not through talking about this yet, don’t prematurely close the door!”.
Does the evil of secularism know no bounds? Apparently not.
I hate to comment when I didn’t follow directions but I just couldn’t wade through that much floodwater and all the floatsum therein.
The Right Reverend Nathan D. Baxter, D.Min. S.T.D., D.H.L., D.D doesn’t hold a candle with those great lights speaking at GAFCON. When I listen to the clear and powerful truth comming from Jerusalem I can’t keep the tears from my eyes – all joy, believe me!
Terrible theology. But this is TEC at the core. Lack of funds can’t possibly be because there isn’t anything worth “paying” for. Nothing will change the direction. Toward or away from this non Christian formation. And many more will be (are) away!
There are eight questions in the baptismal covenant; during what I confess was a very quick read, I only saw two mentioned: the last two. Questions one through six have a lot to say, but I can’t remember the last time I read one of these addresses from the dominant power clique that mentions things like: belief in the Trinity, breaking of bread, apostles’ teaching, prayer, sin and repentance, and the evangelical duty of the Church. Am I missing it?
Reading from GAFCON is like a drink of living water compared to the dreck that comes most of the time in TEC.
Nice use of scriptural quotations in the address of the person holding the chief teaching office . . . sure, go ahead, click to the .pdf, we’ll be here when you get back.
Didn’t find *any* you say? Not one? Oh, go back and check again in the 11 page document . . . .
No? Not a single one? Even in a secondary quotation? Maybe the theme for the diocesan convention or mission theme is a Bible verse? Wait, wait, come back — we’re really sorry, we’ve been snipe hunting you.
You don’t know what a snipe hunt is? Mmmmmm . . . sure, OK: take this bag, and we’ll go look for a wide, grassy field . . .
By the way, on page 8, there is a “there” error where it should be “their.” Or maybe he just wants to make sure that Neanderthals who disagree with full marriage equality are seen as people who make grammatical errors, confirming their status outside the Elect (or are there still any Calvinists in TEC?).
I’m not normally that picky, but if he’s gotta lead with a poker hand of degrees and a bushel basket of popculch quotes, leavened with a few handy Prayer Book cites and not a word, not even a breath of Bible reference, i like to point out he ain’t grammaticalish.
Wow, what a bunch of convoluted nonsense.
We are not part of a global “church” if that means any organic accountability.
But congregations that are not subservient to TEC are “congregationalists” and that is bad.
But we are part of a global something or other.
Irresponsible people who expect others to support them by being responsible.
So many metaphors, so little time…
there is nothing new here. This is simply a Bishop who has decided that a “new thing” is in the wind, it will undo centuries of injustice and that it’s acceptance is a foregone conclusions. He (or is it a she?) even went so far as to criticize the Pennsylvania legislature for wanting to strengthen the existing definition of marriage through a constitutional amendment with the sad phrase “We’re not through talking about this yet, don’t prematurely close the door!”.
Does the evil of secularism know no bounds? Apparently not.
Despite this, we must KTF!….mrb
I hate to comment when I didn’t follow directions but I just couldn’t wade through that much floodwater and all the floatsum therein.
The Right Reverend Nathan D. Baxter, D.Min. S.T.D., D.H.L., D.D doesn’t hold a candle with those great lights speaking at GAFCON. When I listen to the clear and powerful truth comming from Jerusalem I can’t keep the tears from my eyes – all joy, believe me!
Don
Terrible theology. But this is TEC at the core. Lack of funds can’t possibly be because there isn’t anything worth “paying” for. Nothing will change the direction. Toward or away from this non Christian formation. And many more will be (are) away!
There are eight questions in the baptismal covenant; during what I confess was a very quick read, I only saw two mentioned: the last two. Questions one through six have a lot to say, but I can’t remember the last time I read one of these addresses from the dominant power clique that mentions things like: belief in the Trinity, breaking of bread, apostles’ teaching, prayer, sin and repentance, and the evangelical duty of the Church. Am I missing it?
Reading from GAFCON is like a drink of living water compared to the dreck that comes most of the time in TEC.
Nice use of scriptural quotations in the address of the person holding the chief teaching office . . . sure, go ahead, click to the .pdf, we’ll be here when you get back.
Didn’t find *any* you say? Not one? Oh, go back and check again in the 11 page document . . . .
(snickers, giggling, whispered “should we tell him?” sudden attentiveness . . .)
No? Not a single one? Even in a secondary quotation? Maybe the theme for the diocesan convention or mission theme is a Bible verse? Wait, wait, come back — we’re really sorry, we’ve been snipe hunting you.
You don’t know what a snipe hunt is? Mmmmmm . . . sure, OK: take this bag, and we’ll go look for a wide, grassy field . . .
By the way, on page 8, there is a “there” error where it should be “their.” Or maybe he just wants to make sure that Neanderthals who disagree with full marriage equality are seen as people who make grammatical errors, confirming their status outside the Elect (or are there still any Calvinists in TEC?).
I’m not normally that picky, but if he’s gotta lead with a poker hand of degrees and a bushel basket of popculch quotes, leavened with a few handy Prayer Book cites and not a word, not even a breath of Bible reference, i like to point out he ain’t grammaticalish.