Reading his various posts and comments, I feel that I am witnessing a mental breakdown. In place of faith and orthodoxy, he would impose political ideology, which is an idolatrous form of sinful loyalty. It seems that the church he wants to rule over would be just as bad as the Episcopal Church has become, that is, committed to being on one of the two wings of political partisan idolatry: They’re on the extreme left, he is on the extreme right, but it is two wings of the same dragon, as I have been saying for the better part of 30 years. And then he accuses everybody who disagrees with him, at least by implication, of being a homosexual. At least that’s how I read his use of the word “lavender.” It’s an old trick. The Soviet officials always used it against anyone who opposed communism, that is to say their power.
As did the ancient Romans: it was a common feature of politics in the Republic to paint your enemies as political traitors and sexual deviants (i.e. "commies" and "queers").
There's a certain grandiosity in play here as well: I will be the man who Saves Anglicanism From Itself! Good luck with that, matey.
What confuses me is what he is (not) saying ++Jones has done. If it is so objectionable and wrong please give us the details to evaluate for ourselves. I would like to know what it is that is going on with the merger which causes people such distress.
When I visited his Facebook page some days ago to see for myself, I concluded that this user is unstable mentally and talks too much for a bishop. It is surprisingly bewildering how few funny and unreliable characters are elevated to the ranks of the Ecclesiastical polity.
The utopia he champions is neither clear nor will it attract people like Calvin. All the same, I propose that the Continuum should master the art of looking before she leaps and I'm no Giffin to impose this unsolicited advice.
Reading his various posts and comments, I feel that I am witnessing a mental breakdown. In place of faith and orthodoxy, he would impose political ideology, which is an idolatrous form of sinful loyalty. It seems that the church he wants to rule over would be just as bad as the Episcopal Church has become, that is, committed to being on one of the two wings of political partisan idolatry: They’re on the extreme left, he is on the extreme right, but it is two wings of the same dragon, as I have been saying for the better part of 30 years. And then he accuses everybody who disagrees with him, at least by implication, of being a homosexual. At least that’s how I read his use of the word “lavender.” It’s an old trick. The Soviet officials always used it against anyone who opposed communism, that is to say their power.
He’s obviously paranoid.
- Fr. Hart
As did the ancient Romans: it was a common feature of politics in the Republic to paint your enemies as political traitors and sexual deviants (i.e. "commies" and "queers").
There's a certain grandiosity in play here as well: I will be the man who Saves Anglicanism From Itself! Good luck with that, matey.
What confuses me is what he is (not) saying ++Jones has done. If it is so objectionable and wrong please give us the details to evaluate for ourselves. I would like to know what it is that is going on with the merger which causes people such distress.
As a common layperson currently in the ACC this causes me no end of distress.
I have neither the time, nor the mental horsepower to figure all this out.
I need "The one Holy and Apostolic Church" to lead me in my "senior" years.
All I see is a bunch of egos and clergy bickering amoung all churches and denominations.
I think what most of us common folks realy need is some help with redemption and salvation before we pass on.
These folks are more concerned with separating the pepper from the fly poop than they are with our eternal souls.
Maybe Sola Scriptura is the correct way since none of the learned leaders can come to an understanding of the way and the truth. Rant finished..
Anti-woke. Pretty self-explanatory. Sounds like a good basis for a church.
When I visited his Facebook page some days ago to see for myself, I concluded that this user is unstable mentally and talks too much for a bishop. It is surprisingly bewildering how few funny and unreliable characters are elevated to the ranks of the Ecclesiastical polity.
The utopia he champions is neither clear nor will it attract people like Calvin. All the same, I propose that the Continuum should master the art of looking before she leaps and I'm no Giffin to impose this unsolicited advice.