Maybe the question for Bishop Schori and her fellow heretics should be: if homosexual practice is not sin, what is? And how do we know? Or is it a matter of “thus saith the opinion polls” and lobbying groups, rather than “thus saith the Lord”? With the bishop’s “doctrine” of inclusion, why exclude anyone? How about applying the religious equivalent of “open borders” and let everyone into the church, including unrepentant prostitutes, murderers, liars, thieves and atheists. If the Episcopal Church denies what is clearly taught in scripture about important matters like sexual behavior, why expect its leaders to have any convictions about anything, including directions to Heaven? How can anyone be sure, if the guidebook is so full of errors?
The leader of Anglicanism, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has promoted this doctrinal wishy-washiness. Williams, who has acknowledged ordaining a priest who is a homosexual, says he opposes cohabitation by heterosexuals because it has a harmful impact on family stability. But the same book that speaks against what we used to call “fornication” before such words died along with the accompanying doctrines, also speaks against the “sin” of homosexual practice. So how can anyone be sure one is true and the other not true, or the reverse, or neither, or both? And who is to say if the church leaders don’t know or are afraid to say because they might be criticized as “exclusive.”
The Episcopal Church isn’t the only denomination having trouble deciding what it believes. The Presbyterian Church (USA) has voted to “receive” a policy paper on sex-inclusive language for the Trinity. Instead of the traditional (and biblical) Father, Son and Holy Spirit, these liberal Presbyterians will consider using “Mother, Child and Womb,” or “Rock, Redeemer, Friend,” among others. Never mind what God calls Himself. These people want a name change without asking permission.
No wonder liberal denominations are losing members while the conservative ones are growing. The liberal ones don’t seem to care. Seeking only to be “relevant” they face condemnation from the One they are supposed to represent, whose attitude about such things is anything but “inclusive.”
Conservative Episcopalians are too few in number to stop the theological drift. If they intend to preserve their congregations without further theological seepage, they should “come out from among them and be separate.”
Must Watch: Senator Explains Why He Changed From Being a Democrat to Being a Republican | Katie Pavlich