There’s this geezer from the Reform group within the Anglican Church, Rod Thomas, who detests poofs and women. Well, he wouldn’t put it that way, but, when he wants people to answer to conservative bishops who detest poofs and women instead of the nearest bishop if he happens to he “progressive”, you kind of get the impression that he’s a bit that way inclined himself.
And just what does he mean by “progressive”? Someone who recognises people’s rights and dignities, and sees women as equal to men, and sees gays as loving people who are as driven to form relationships as hetties are? That’s progressive, is it, Mr Thomas, you moron? Not just being compassionately human? Hmm? Well?
Pink News carries the story today of how he and his detestable, hateful ilk “believe in being part of an Episcopal church for good theological and pragmatic reasons”. He goes on to say:
However, where the teaching and actions of a bishop promote an unbiblical way of thinking, then we simply have to look elsewhere for a bishop.
If we fail to do this then our congregations will not see us taking New Testament teaching seriously and the process of accommodation will continue.
Read more in this Guardian story.
This got me to thinking. If a church that was once one can become two, where does that leave the eternal verities? Who is right? They can’t both be right.
Doesn’t that, then, make them question who is right in the wider world of religion? Is Islam the right path? Are its cosmology and ontology factual? Judaism? Buddhism?
Again, I emphasise, only one can be truly right. So what exactly does the Bible say about it? And, if it’s left to the interpretation of mere mortals, where has gone the assertion that it is the inviolable word of God?
Religionists of all hues have a lot of questions to answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment