| | A few years ago, I didn't get nearly as worked up as others about the consecration to the Episcopal bishopric of an open, practicing homosexual. In my view, it was the logical outcome of a process that had begun many years earlier with the dilution of Biblical authority, followed by backpedaling on the virgin birth and the resurrection. Once you give up those central doctrinal issues, it really doesn't matter if the pastor is wearing a skirt (literally or even figuratively). Ed Veith writes about the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent BBC interview in which he inarticulately and unhelpfully deconstructed pop versions of the Christmas story.This doctor of theology, this head of the state church addressing his national flock, went along even with a comedian who equated belief in God with a belief in Santa Claus. The Archbishop had an opportunity and a forum to witness to the Christian faith, a chance to explain the doctrine of the Incarnation–which I suspect many Brits have never heard of–but he totally wimped out.
Anglicans of the world: Your problem is not that you have homosexual bishops. It is that you have bishops who deny the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and even sometimes the existence of God. You have bishops who are Druids and syncretists. You have bishops who want to conform to the world rather than teaching God’s Word. (I’m not saying the Archbishop of Canterbury is completely this way, though he is a Druid and is way too concerned about being accepted by Ricky Gervais.) It isn’t so much that Anglicans need heterosexual bishops; first of all, they need Christian bishops. |
| | Posted 12/21/2007 8:43 AM - 13 Views - 0 eProps - 0 comments
- recommend
  - recs0
- share
- email
 - sent0
|
