Posted on 03/16/2005 9:41:26 PM PST by sionnsar
ECUSA's House of Bishops today:
We believe that the Covenant Statement we have made has been achieved under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Our Covenant expresses remarkable convergences among us during these days and emerged from our mutual desire to speak as one House embracing widely divergent points of view. We sensed a profound solidarity and willingness to bear one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2).
Frank Griswold, a couple of days ago:
The deliberations were not without stress. In remarks at the opening of the meeting, Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold identified by name six Episcopalians for having detrimentally influenced the course of the recent primates’ meeting in Northern Ireland [TLC, March 20].
The devil is a liar and the father of lies and the devil was certainly moving about Dromantine, the site of the primates’ meeting in Northern Ireland, the Presiding Bishop said, according to accounts from several bishops who spoke to TLC on the condition that their names not be revealed. The primates were “out for blood,” Bishop Griswold told the bishops.
The Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh; the Rev. Canon Bill Atwood, general secretary of the Ekklesia Society; the Rev. Canon Martyn Minns, rector of Truro Parish, Fairfax, Va.; the Rev. Canon David Anderson, president of the American Anglican Council; the Rev. Canon Kendall Harmon, canon theologian of the Diocese of South Carolina; and Diane Knippers, president of the Institute for Religion and Democracy, were singled out for opprobrium by the Presiding Bishop for their behind-the-scenes roles at Dromantine.
Not present during the Presiding Bishop’s remarks, Bishop Duncan was allowed a point of personal privilege to respond to the Presiding Bishop’s charges. Bishop Duncan told the House of Bishops he had not manipulated the global south primates nor used nefarious means to influence their deliberations. After Bishop Duncan finished, Bishop Robinson said, “I don’t believe a word of what you said. I just can’t believe you,” and repeated the charges of inappropriate meddling that had been leveled by the Presiding Bishop.
Must have been a really interesting meeting, what with the Holy Spirit and Satan battling it out and all. I think I'm past the point where this sort of contradiction bothers me very much. As just about everyone who's been following this story knows, it happens on a regular basis and I guess it's to be expected in a "church" that takes its orders from the culture. As I wrote at the start of the Current Unpleasantness:
Regular readers of this journal know of my increasing discomfort and dissatisfaction with the church into which I was born, the Episcopal Church, and with Anglicanism in general. My qualms did not begin with the emergence of the issue of homosexual bishops. They were probably born in 1976 when the Episcopal Church turned the Book of Common Prayer, a book which even the Roman Catholic William F. Buckley recognized was a literary and devotional masterpiece, into the damp, politically correct squib that it is today.
Although I could hide behind the congregationalism of American Protestantism and see no further than my parish’s walls, the church’s PC evisceration of the hymnal in 1979 and the toleration of non-Christians like John Shelby Spong and William Swing in its hierarchy only increased my worries although I came up with many an evasion to deal with them. But I could not articulate exactly what it was that concerned me. I can now.
To put it bluntly, my church is nuts.
The liberal wing of the Episcopal Church has no abiding principles of any kind. None. It is certainly not motivated by the Bible. When the Scriptures get in its way, they are higher criticized out of its way. It is not motivated by any allegiance to tradition. And, given the decisive vote against it at the last Lambeth Conference, it is certainly not motivated by denominational loyalty.
The Episcopal Church has become an entirely political organization pursuing entirely political goals. It will say whatever it thinks it has to say, even if it flatly contradicts something it said a month ago. And it has about as much interest in the afterlife as the Unitarians.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. I would only note that as a body, this may be well on its way to being true. Which does not diminish in any ways those who are remaining and fighting.
"The devil is a liar and the father of lies and the devil was certainly moving about ...the site of the primates’ meeting...the Presiding Bishop said..."
Liberal Interpretation of the Devil, according to Elaine Pagels (http://www.2think.org/hii/pagels.shtml):
"It wasn't until New Testament times and later that the concept of an evil being who is actually called 'Satan' or the 'Devil' or 'Lucifer' evolved. It is interesting to see how these concepts have continued to persist throughout religious and political history with groups stigmatizing others not in their group (whether it be religious, political, racial, etc.) as being 'of the devil'. Dictatorships and other authoritarian organizations always need an external enemy to bind their followers together."
Is Bishop Griswold now admitting that there really is a devil?
"Elaine Pagels"
The woman is both an idiot and a heretic!
Liberal "Chrisitans" are superstitious (Griswold calling opponents possessed by demons) and rascist (Spong calling African opponents superstitious tribalists) when convenient
RE: Elaine Pagels, been reading Phillip Jenkins THE HIDDEN GOSPELS, How the Search of Jesus Lost its Way, a withering assessment of the frauds these Jesus Seminar types are
"Liberal "Chrisitans" are superstitious (Griswold calling opponents possessed by demons)"
On the contrary, it is precisely because Liberal "Christians" do not believe in a real, tangible Evil One and demons that they have brought so many Christian Churches to the pass they are in. The Greek of the Our Father ends "apo to poiniero", "from the Evil One" not "from evil". The heresiarch Griswold was using the language of Christianity to mislead the Faithful, something he and his fellow travellers, and the Evil One, are quite adept at.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.