Episcopal Church: Is it becoming a safe haven for gay activists?
Unhappy with simply going away after shamefully embarrassing the State of New Jersey and his family back in 2004, it's been reported that former NJ Governor James E. McGreevey, the man who engaged in a same-sex affair while serving as NJ's governor, is seeking a possible new career-- in the Episcopal Church as a priest (or pastor). McGreevey, who is a member of St. Bartholomew’s (Episcopal) Church in Manhattan is actively involved in the Episcopal Church's discernment process, which is the step prior to entry into seminary.
The Episcopal Church continues to be a attraction for gay activists, particularly since the consecration in New Hampshire of open homosexual, Gene Robinson, to the leadership post of Bishop. McGreevey, a former Roman Catholic recently turned to the Episcopal Church, noting the ECUSA's open stance toward gays and revisionist doctrine which dismisses traditional Biblical teachings that homosexuality is a sin in defiance of God's word.
+
As I've stated in columns before, the trend of this sort of thing is yet another black eye on the Episcopal Church in the United States. What other denomination would put gay activism and liberalism ahead of traditional moral doctrine and Christ's teachings? Only the Episcopal Church, it seems, would consider a morally corrupt creep like McGreevey, who damaged his own family and resigned in disgrace as someone who is worth adding to their ranks.
Here is another good article on the matter at David Virtue online with some great quotes on the matter of why such characters are flocking to the Episcopal Church for safe haven.
+
It's becoming increasingly apparent that the Episcopal Church has decided to take a new direction, going beyond opening its doors to morally bankrupt homosexual activists to now -- promoting these characters as leaders of the church. It's beyond disgraceful, its sickening. And the Church's leaders don't seem to care that they are losing conservative or mainstream members in the midst of its morality crisis. It's more reason to hope that the Anglican schism come soon, and parishioners will have a choice between the immoral ECUSA and the Anglican Communion.
+
And as the crisis widens, it's hopeful that a new American Anglican Church, in full communion with Canterbury, will arise in America - leaving behind an eroding, defunct, now new age Episcopal Church and its left wing activists to ash heap in time. And one day all of this will be a time honored lesson that some things are sacred, and those who try to tamper with the Scripture and God's Church will fall in disgrace, and face eternal torment.
6 comments:
Out of sheer curiosity, if you had never read the bible or gone to church, what would your stance be on homosexuality? Are you so very against it because of a religious stance, or is that a convienient high ground from which to do battle?
I most certainly attend church and have read the bible often which is clearly WHY my stance is what is is. I'm going to assume you've not read it or you wouldn't be asking. Church attendance means nothing if they aren't preaching what is IN the bible. Convenient high ground? More like the moral high ground.
I understand clearly that you have religious reasons for your opinion. I understand that you feel anyone IN the church should be preaching the bible, as it stands. (until the next revision, or course.)
I was asking you to consider what your thoughts might be if they were not dependent upon the idea that a group of men had divine inspiration thousands of years ago.
If God suddenly sent a shining rainbow "You're Gay and It's OK!" message to the earth, would you then be happily pro-gay? Or would it still be wrong to you?
Try not to assume anything. Your inability to read my comment should in no way allow you to assume that I hadn't read the blog post I commented on.
I didn't say anyone in the Church should be preaching the Bible. As for what you ask here, would take much longer than a few paragraphs to address.
But since God isn't going to send a rainbow with such a message, its not even a hypothetical worth considering. God sets the "laws" and we are meant to follow; Christ sets the example in the NT and we are meant to follow.
And by the way, I concede that I did read your item too quickly, I was trying to do too many things at once. I think the last sentence in that posting is what got my attention. The first sentence is hard to answer in that had my views not been learned in Church, it would have been learned in school, community, politics and other places. The views I hear tend to equate what I believe without the moral overtones and ref to scripture.
***had my views not been learned in Church, it would have been learned in school, community, politics and other places***
I'm so sorry. I expect institutions to reflect a narrow, controlling atmosphere, but I had hoped that modern communitites and schools would be more inclusive.
I read some of your other posts and found that you have two young children. I hope that they will find a community and a faith that will accept them however they are... race, age, sex, and sexual origin included.
You'd needed apologize. Controlling atmosphere? Are you anti-institution? Institutions are the basis for civilized society.
"Modern" Communities? You might hope for that (particularly if you are justifying a unique position or perhaps - your own), but most of us hope for a common set of standards that govern what is right and what is wrong or moral and immoral. And the natural order of things.
Inclusive? Inclusive of all behaviors, regardless of the dangers to individuals and society? There has to be a limit.
Getting back to my article.... The Episcopal Church is being overrun and is shifting away from its purpose. It's not serving as the Lord's House based on scripture, but by revisionists who are disregarding scripture for their own opinions.
Post a Comment