LIBERALS are fond of brow-beating the Churches about sectarianism and disunity. These twin evils, they say with some justification, are harmful to society because they set one group against another and because sectarianism is, at the very least, uncivil.
It now transpires that all this liberal bleating about sectarianism and disunity was exactly that, bleating. But it was also hypocritical because when it suits their agenda liberals are very inclined to use sectarian language of their own and have no hesitation adding to the already deep divisions between the Churches.
Quinn is telling it like it is. Events have proven that liberal talk about unity and diversity is little more than talk. When they have the power, libchurchers divide the church and insist on uniformity. See the actions of the recent Church of England Synod.
There are liberals more honorable than that. But they aren’t running the show.
Here’s clarity for you! And clarity of a simplicity and brilliance that makes sense of what seem (and are, by standards of what actually is for human benefit) to be nonsensical, arbitrary actions and words, and even societal and individual self-destruction, in the name of liberal ideology.
The classic liberal and today’s “liberal” activist are not the same breed. Activists want to win and care little that their activities may cost another’s liberties.
The relevant (and now, obviously, disowned) language of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral:
[blockquote] That this Church does not seek to absorb other Communions, but rather, co-operating with them on the basis of a common Faith and Order, to discountenance schism, to heal the wounds of the Body of Christ, and to promote the charity which is the chief of Christian graces and the visibile manifestation of Christ to the world. [/blockquote]
Yes, yes, I know. “See? “…discountenance schism! Stop the realigners! End the border crossings! The one true ancient…uh…oh dear…”
That’s right – the source of unity in [i] “common faith and order” [/i]
Just a quick reminder to the author that this solidly orthodox Anglican supports womens ordination for reasons biblical, historical, and gospel-alal?
#5……
I’m curious as to where you’ve found “reasons biblical, historical, and gospel” to support your position. The diaconate is the only position of which I’m aware that has such support. Could you please expand on your thoughts?
Barry
Honestly?… no I would rather not. At least not here. I have found that it is a no win situation for me to make argument in the blogosphere because obviously a weight of tradition is against me and so my (“my” it sounds so individualistic, there are real grown ups that think these things, if I have a thought it is not really an original one) exegesis, history and theology are more nuanced (not very, I am still a kid!) than can be conveyed here. One has only to quote that “women should be silent” or some other such verse and because that person ‘tells the plain sense of scripture’ they automatically win. Not only that but often people only say they want to converse or listen but really they want to pretend to take the argument in so as to appear more gracious when they tell me what those verses ‘really mean.’ I am not saying you are like that, I don’t know you how could I!? Even if you are not I would prefer not to here. If you are genuine and really want to interact my address is
A D Hunt
421 Broadway St NE
Minneapolis, MN 55413
USA
[i] This is not a thread on WO. Continued discussion will mean deletion of the comment. [/i]
I think the gay members of the TEC need to consider this history. When the next “new thing” comes along which means ditching them, do they really think the liberals will stand beside them.
What, for instance, if “unity” with Islam — which seems high on their agenda — comes at the price of agreeing that homosexuality is a sin?