Comments on: ACNA motion is ‘not attack’ on TEC

By: stuck in Toronto

stuck in Toronto — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:01:42 +0000

There was a time in this fair land when a man was titled “Priest” WYSIWYG. Sadly Kate, no more.

As with Elvis, we left the building. But until we see there is nothing left to save we must remain spiritually bound to our roots. Thanks to people like Malcolm that link is being stretched ever more taut. It will reach a point (if not yet) were St. Paul’s warning to Timothy will apply; “From such turn away”.

By: Kate

Kate — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:03:10 +0000

No, bishops sign with the cross in front of their names. Malcolm is a priest.

By: Frank Wirrell

Frank Wirrell — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 01:48:16 +0000

For No. 11 – Malcolm+
From his identification I must assume he is a bishop, active or retired. Yes indeed the background paper to the motion may have been an attack but the time has long since passed for senior clergy to attack – if that is the word you want to use – the apostasy that currently reigns within the ACoC. It is time for the clergy and laity to place their faith in our Lord and Saviour and not in the church. The church cannot be a Christian church if it insists on trading the God of the Scriptures for political expediency and social acceptance. If you are true to your vows you will take a position on the front lines on the war against apostasy.

By: Kate

Kate — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:35:20 +0000

He does, actually, click on his name.

By: Warren

Warren — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:12:33 +0000

Macolm, I recently got “beaten up” on Stand Firm, but your comment about “dissent is forbidden” is a lie. If you choose to argue with the majority position you need a thick skin, but you have grossly mischaracterized Stand Firm. Only those who engage in personal attacks or slander others get the boot from what I’ve seen. Please point me to a liberal Anglican blog/forum that permits the level of dialogue and exchange that you have enjoyed on this blog. I could only imagine what things would be like if you ran a blog.

By: Kate

Kate — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:58:22 +0000

Malcolm, you are seeing slander where there is none. What exactly in the background paper do you think is slander? I’ve even provided a whole new post, have at it.

By: Malcolm+

Malcolm+ — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:51:46 +0000

1. The original motion itself is not an attack. But the background paper provided in support of the motion is an all out assault. To speak of the motion as though the viscious and deceitful slander sheet had nothing to do with it is morally and intellectually dishonest.

2. Interesting comment from Gerry(10). Eph3:20s comments are hardly inflammatory, yet Gerry wants him banned as a troll. Nice to see that there are others here who don’t want to see their blog go the way of StandFirm and TitusOneNine where dissent is forbidden.

By: Gerry O'Brien

Gerry O'Brien — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:30:14 +0000

Seems to me that Eph3:20, is, much like the trol from Grand Falls-windsor, Nfld. having the same impact as Randy had….. Eph3:20 is just that, A TROL, nothing more and nothing less.
It seems to me that the esteemed moderators give thought to monitoring his comments more closely and indeed, deleting some.

By: Kate

Kate — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:38:32 +0000

We aren’t a breakaway sect. The ACoC and TEC are the ones who have broken away. We made new structures in order for us to remain Anglican and recognizably Christian.

By: Kate

Kate — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:36:19 +0000

Local option doesn’t work because the priest would have to send a same sex couple to a church that would marry them, which indicates, if not a tacit approval, at least aknowledgement that SSB is an “agree to disagree” issue amongst Christians, as WO is. That’s not acceptable.

We want to remain in fellowship with the worldwide Anglican Communion that haven’t revised themselves into oblivion. Does that make it a bit clearer for you?