I repeat that you evidently don't understand what God teaches us about masculinity in Scripture as well as in Nature. Why that is, what ulterior motives and theological 'objectives' guide your decision to disregard these two Lights, I cannot say. Even in the new reply you weren't able to speak of masculinity except in terms of caricature. How then can you understand what God means by being called Father? How can you understand what God means by man being made in the image of God and woman being made in the image not of God, but of man?
We do not desire recognition or inclusion in groups who have walked away from Christ such as yourself. You represent post Christianity something which we do not desire
Presumably not. But then I imagine you would say that neither does my Vicar, or the Archbishops of Canterbury, Wales and Armagh.
Well, what are you doing on an Anglican Forum? I haven't walked away from Christ. Well, yes, I did in 1966, but He looked after me when I was still far off, and I'm back with Him now. Thank God. I do hope that you are not accusing the Church of England of having "walked away from Christ". That would indeed be a derogatory comment.
Archbishop of London, Richard Chartres does. There are many others. Because of the liberal mafia it's hard to tell who's for it and who is against it, and the jobs of Canterbury and York are to shepherd these people since they aren't Popes who can just impose their views. And at the end of the day I don't see your point at all. We are talking about absolute right and wrong, not what some people can temporarily mistakenly view.
Are you saying that the Bishop (not Archbishop) of London understands masculinity better than three Archbishops?
I honestly think you're importing some sort of quasi-Romanist theology here, that we've never had. We don't hold that the individual clergy have some sort of a higher insight into truth than anybody else does. That is why the laymen who defeated the Female Bishops bill had more insight into the truth than the Clergy did. And actually, now that I think about it, this is enshrined in the Synod of the Church of England: laymen have their own separate house and through their actions alone a law approved by the priests and bishops can still fail. Only in the Roman church do the clergy account for eveything and the laymen are held to lack that extra bit of divine insight into truth.
Because I am Anglican, not a pretending liberal. You think you came back but never did. Anyone who throws Scripture and Tradition under the bus has
i) I am an Anglican of the liberal catholic persuasion. ii) Are you saying I'm not an Anglican? That I'm some form of apostate? iii) That rules me out. I haven't thrown scripture and tradition under the bus.
Archbishop Welby hopes we'll open the way to women bishops within two years, as do the great majority of CofE Anglicans.
Hi Gjoll, I gavea bit of thought to the whole background check thing and whether or not it was biblical. I was reading the NLT version of 1 Timothy 3 tonight and verse 10 struck me as being salient on this point. St. Paul directs Timothy to investigate candidates prior to ordaining them as deacons. church leaders are to be blameless, thus criminal background checks seem like a pretty practical and helpful tool in this regard. Remember, we are to be meek as doves but wise as serpents, especially in this age of fraud and criminality.
Well, the short answer is, "I don't". But remember, your accusations and criticism are pointed not only at me, but at the great majority of CofE clergy. Have you ever heard the expression, "everyone's out of step except our Johnnie"?
Is this discussion that denigrates one of the major strands of worldwide Anglicanism accepted within the terms of service for this forum?