Posted on 01/22/2007 10:01:41 PM PST by sionnsar
Check out the Retropalian, and especially this piece:
In the Summer of 2006, as TPECUSA changed it’s name to just TEC, it also overwhelmingly voted, 90% to 10%, a bishop of curious theology to it’s top see - that of Presiding Bishop. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the words heresy and apostasy don’t encompass the new Episcopal theology. But these two words are a good starting point. It can be said, accurately, that the new Presiding Bishop professes five anti-orthodox, perhaps anti-Christian, “heresies” (see post 1).
Now, how could a Bishop be “guilty” of all THAT, you ask. I’ll try to be brief. The argument advanced by those in favor of “blessing” homosexual behavior has six steps / components:
1. Homosexuality is a genetically/biologically predetermined trait/predisposition.
2. God is Creator
3. God as Creator has Created all things.
4. God has called all created things good.
5. Homosexual desire is created by God
6. Homosexual desire and behavior is, therefore, good.*
* 1-6 Again, Matt Kennedy
A case (as from Pelagius himself) has been advanced by KJS that goes like so:
If one looks at nature, there are many, many instances of same-sex behavior. Ignore that they’re rare, a small percentage. Since they exist, evolutionary theory would hold that this has some benefit, or doesn’t have an evolutionary detriment. On the assumption that all creation is good, then these instances must be taken “quite seriously”. Kennedy points out that “This argument necessarily rests on the Pelagian concept of a pristine created order. By way of contrast, the biblical doctrine of the Fall means that Christians cannot assume that “inborn” or “natural” desires and/or behaviors are necessarily “created” desires and/or behaviors. “Natural” desires and behaviors are measured by the standard of God’s Word in order to determine whether they are consistent with God’s created order or consistent with the fallen nature. This requires submission to divine revelation over and above human reason.”
The Marcionistic facet is embodied in this KJS quote: (Fall 2003 Diocesan Newsletter) “KJS: As Anglicans, we have always asserted that we listen to three primary sources of authority to scripture, to tradition, and to reason. The debate which has risen to the level of the Anglican primates has its roots in putting different emphasis on those three sources of authority. The Episcopal Church’s General Convention acted last summer out of a sense that reason and a broad reading of the Great Commandment required a different conclusion about matters of homosexuality than did strict adherence to seven passages in scripture which seem to speak against it. The other wing of the church says that those seven passages have ultimate authority, and therefore “we will obey the Bible.”
Human reason trumps history and scripture? To what extent? Where does this end?
The Pluralistic facet is illustrated by KJS’ interview with Time magazine this last July:
“Time: Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven?
KJS: We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box.”
And the Universalist facet?
“KJS: What happens after you die? I would ask you that question. But what’s important about your life, what is it that has made you a unique individual? What is the passion that has kept you getting up every morning and engaging the world? There are hints within that about what it is that continues after you die.”
No mention of sin, faith, hell. Just what makes YOU UNIQUE. I guess that mundane folks would go to hell were there one in her theology.
Lastly, Gnosticism. In a report on religion, KJS gave the following answer:
“Stephen Crittenden: I guess we should just dwell on it a little bit more because it’s not an idea we hear very often. What is it a metaphor for, Jesus as mother?
Katherine Jefferts Schori: It’s a metaphor for new creation. When we insist that the Christ event in the death and resurrection of Jesus brings a new possibility of life, a new kind of life to humanity, it is certainly akin to rebirth. When Jesus says to Nicodemus You must be born again from above, what might he mean? I think it is a way of the gospel is saying that Jesus is a venue, an event, an experience, and an instance in which life is renewed, in which every human being as access to new life.”
A “venue”. An “event”. Not a savior, messiah, nor son of God. Why not? What’s the matter with that?
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. Thanks for the reminders
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.