Thinking Anglicans

some reactions to Wheaton

Updated Saturday morning

Among the interesting comments so far…

Jan Nunley reminds us of some earlier news events in Everything old…

In particular, she links to Dissident Episcopalians Meet to Discuss New Church, which is dated 1977.

Update Jan has more, in I found another one….

Jeffrey Weiss at the Dallas Morning News suggests the new ‘Anglican Church in North America’ isn’t actually Anglican, in fact he says:

At this point I put these folks in the same basket as the women who claim they’re Catholic priests, Christians who say they are “Messianic Jews” and Mormons who say they are Christians.

Ian Douglas asks Why do we call them traditionalists?

Paragraph 154 of The Windsor Report clearly states: ‘Whilst there are instances in the polity of Anglican churches that more than one jurisdiction exists in one place, this is something to be discouraged rather than propagated. We do not therefore favour the establishment of parallel jurisdictions.’

Update Jeff Sharlet has Anglicans Toot Somebody Else’s Horn.

5
Leave a Reply

avatar
3000
5 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
Ford ElmsRobert Ian WilliamsDeacon Charlie Perrinchoirboyfromhellbadman Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
badman
Guest
badman

The new body is, quite simply, incoherent. It is amazing to see Bishop Iker at the press conference answer the question “Q. I’m still unclear: Why did you do this?” as follows:- “Bp. Duncan: There is the field of traditional morality i.e., marriage. In the doctrine of marriage, the Christian Church and the New Testament describe marriage as lifelong union, likened to Jesus and his church. This union cannot be broken. TEC has been unwilling to hold to that standard.” Yet his chosen Primate, Venables of Southern Cone, affirms divorce (contrary to explicit words of Jesus) like this: “I believe… Read more »

choirboyfromhell
Guest
choirboyfromhell

Very good set of quotes Badman, especially -Duncan: “There is the field of traditional morality i.e., marriage. In the doctrine of marriage, the Christian Church and the New Testament describe marriage as lifelong union, likened to Jesus and his church.”

So this begs the question, why are they fighting so hard to withhold that “doctrine” from a significant population?

Deacon Charlie Perrin
Guest
Deacon Charlie Perrin

Ah, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

God gives us so many opportunities to live the Gospel message in our Lord’s summary of the Law. Love God. Love your neighbor as yourself. And Jesus’ New Commandment: Love one another as He has loved us. (And He loved us to the point of going to the Cross for us).

We pathetic creatures fail more often than we succeed.

Is God laughing at our stupidity, or sighing in frustration?

Robert Ian Williams
Guest
Robert Ian Williams

Plus the fact the ” break away non TEC Diocese of Fort Worth ” is riddled with divorced and re-married ex Roman Catholics!

The conservatives cannot agree as to what constitutes heterosexual sin..so they skirt over it!

Logs and beams I think!

Ford Elms
Guest
Ford Elms

“divorced and re-married ex Roman Catholics!” Sarcasm alert. So what? First of all, they’re straight. Second of all, we declared remarriage after divorce no longer a sin long enough ago that it has ripened to “orthodoxy”. Based on the equation of Evangelical Christianity with “orthodoxy”, I used to think that ripening process took a couple of centuries, but it appears a few decades will suffice. Third, any Evangelicals in Fort Worth would rejoice at souls being saved from Rome. Fourth, conservatives seem utterly blind to their blatant hypocrisy, so likely are constitutionally unable to understand your point. I mean, look… Read more »