The first sentence of their article says it all: "Sydney’s Standing Committee has announced its support for the Diocese of San Joaquin as it realigns itself with the Southern Cone." Anyone feeling especially masochistic can read the rest here.
The really hypocritical thing about it all is that given Bishop Schofield's past (as researched by the brilliant Lisa Fox at My Manner of Life) there is NO WAY the schismatic trouble-maker could ever have been ordained in Sydney, let alone enthroned in the purple he clearly finds so becoming. The response to any application from +Schofield would be pretty much as that so many others have recieved...
"We appreciate your request for consideration, and fully understand that your past has been forgiven, which was, in any case, a long time ago. Still, given your circumstances we cannot believe it is right or Biblical for you to proceed in ministry.
The Archbishop thanks you for the interest you have expressed, and wishes you all the best for your future."
Is it really surprising I get angry sometimes?
4 comments:
You are angry, I am ropeable. It is so hard to remain Christian and Anglican while living in this diocese. Thank God for St James, King Street and some other beacons of light in this evangelical darkness. On another forum, I have just been told of yet another young man who lives in LA so near San Joaquin and he is described "while gay as a goose is also a born again Evangelical Christian with a full load of guilt and self loathing." I know from my own life and sadly the life of friends of my youth the irrepairable harm these teachings are creating. Some committed suicide, most left the church, only a few by the Grace of God survived to find a church which is accepting and shows the true Love of God.
Yes Brian, you're absolutely correct. Thank God indeed for the few brave islands of the Spirit which remain, and which hace not and cannot be crushed.
When I stop and think about the rivers of blood these unbibilical fanatics have shed in the name of their twisted version of what they claim is Evangelicalism (but which is in reality light years away from the noble aims of their 18th & 19th century Evangelical forebears), the only parallel I can think of is the Pharisees - "scouring land and sea to find a single convert, and then making them twice as fit for hell as they are themselves".
That they can support the schism, along with all the pain that follows it, as well as the self-loathing, shame and guilt which accompanies the schismatic's teachings - all while being fully aware that they would never for an instant tolerate the schismatics' ecclesiastic practices in Sydney is nothing more than disgusting opportunism. That they can also applaud +Schofields' words and actions, even though they are obviously driven by personal issues for which the Sydney power-mongers would have no hesitation in rejecting +Schofield should he wish to move here is revolting hypocrisy at its worst.
Yesterday evening I had the privilege of talking with someone who'd known and worked for +Jensen for many years, but whom now by the grace of God has repented of the harm and viciousness he once embraced. He told me of how in his last meeting he'd told Jensen of how he'd always believed him to be a man of integrity, but now understood that this had been a terrible deception. To the Archbishop's face he said "I now realise you have no integrity whatsoever."
Archbishop Jensen made no reply. He couldn't. The sad thing is, as this person noted, +Jensen isn't the worstof the foul hands controlling the machine either.
What's *really* surprising is that you clearly maintain a strong sense of faith.
I find a certain delicious irony in the hypocrisy of Sydney. After all, they accuse TEC of un-Anglican "innovations," yet have moved toward lay presidency and persecution of Anglo-Catholics.
Prayers for all of you, Alcibiades. Your faithful witness is an example for all of us who do not face many obstacles to the practice of our faith...
Barf. Double Barf. Barfola. UpChuck City.
Post a Comment