February 28, 2017

December 7, 2009

Mohler: When “Gracious Restraint” Fails

Mohler, once again, nails the issue and exposes how Williams’ approach has failed us:

In a statement released after the election of Rev. Glasspool as bishop, Archbishop Williams stated that her election “raises very serious questions not just for the Episcopal Church and its place in the Anglican Communion, but for the Communion as a whole.” He concluded by stating: “The bishops of the Communion have collectively acknowledged that a period of gracious restraint in respect of actions which are contrary to the mind of the Communion is necessary if our bonds of mutual affection are to hold.”

That is the language of a man who—judging by his words—is far more committed to affection than to truth. His continuing calls for “gracious restraint” have only earned him the anger of both liberals and conservatives. The liberals are frustrated, to say the least, that Williams appears to lack the courage of his own convictions. Conservatives see his continual refusal to act against the rebellious Episcopal Church as evidence that he does hold those convictions, but is simply biding his time.

Here is a great lesson: We cannot reduce a question of truth to a question of process. The real question that confronts the Anglican Communion is whether their churches will bless homosexuality. Liberals see this as the necessary liberation of oppressed human beings from prejudice. Conservatives see the blessing of homosexuality as a direct rejection of Scripture, a violation of Christian tradition, and an act of rebellion against God.

“Gracious restraint” will not hold back strong conviction, as the actions in Los Angeles make clear. The conservatives and the liberals agree on this much—“gracious restraint” is no excuse for violating conviction on a matter of this significance.

Share this story:

Recent Related Posts



H815 still has no announcement

[1] Posted by midwestnorwegian on 12-7-2009 at 11:37 PM · [top]

TEC would not be in this position right now if it’s leadership APPROVED the word “restraint”.... as in “self-restraint”.  In all it’s applications.

And in the last 3 and maybe 6 years, when could any honest person have applied the word “gracious” to ANYTHING TEC has done as a national body?????

[2] Posted by Goughdonna on 12-7-2009 at 11:42 PM · [top]

I do believe that Our Lord and God asks gracious restraint from us all, as a minimum. If the request doesn’t work, there are CONSEQUENCES, Dr. Williams!

[3] Posted by A Senior Priest on 12-8-2009 at 12:06 AM · [top]

TEC doesn’t know the meaning of restraint….gracious or otherwise.  They just don’t care!

[4] Posted by Cennydd on 12-8-2009 at 12:12 AM · [top]

The bishops of the Communion have collectively acknowledged that a period of gracious restraint in respect of actions which are contrary to the mind of the Communion is necessary if our bonds of mutual affection are to hold.

As an outsider, I have to conclude that by these words Dr. Williams is quite clearly implying that the morality of homosexual activity is an open question in the Anglican Communion. When you talk about “a period of gracious restraint” and actions which are contrary to “the mind of the Communion” you’re certainly not acknowledging that the actions in question violate Divine Law, for that would be analogous to characterizing a shotgun murder as a noise ordinance violation.  In light of Dr. Williams’ apparent inability to characterize homosexual conduct and approval of such conduct as sinful, isn’t Bishop Bruno really correct in seeing this as a justice issue?  Whether Bruno’s comments about the Episcopal Church’s canons are correct or not, I think the LGBT community in the TEC has a real grievance if Dr. Williams cannot articulate any basis for his displeasure other than an invocation of the “mind of the Communion.”

[5] Posted by slcath on 12-8-2009 at 12:47 AM · [top]

You’re right, Silver Lake. Williams is trying to substitute the “mind of the Communion” for the “Magisterium” and it just doesn’t work for TEC. If he had a Protestant bone in his body he would articulate the Bible as a basis for his displeasure.

[6] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 12-8-2009 at 03:28 AM · [top]

Dr. Mohler has it almost right.  A slight correction, what TEC has shown is not gracious restraint, but rather (antonymous) graceless/churlish self-indulgence.

[7] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 12-8-2009 at 04:24 AM · [top]

Isn’t it wonderful what a clear mind and conscience that living according to the Commandments and Scriptures can produce?  Why you can actually understand every word. 

There is none of the subtlety and nuance or the serpentine arguments and persuasions that Rowan Williams’ writing and speech contains against the plain truth and reason of Scripture.  God always presents a clear choice between His good way or evil, which is a choice between life and death.  Moreover, God pleads with us to choose life His way…so that He may bless us and be in fellowship with us.

[8] Posted by Floridian on 12-8-2009 at 06:30 AM · [top]

‘Gracious restraint’ has a face that is more subtle, devious, sly and intentional than dithery, inept, reticent, staid and polite. 

If a picture is worth a thousand words, here are two thousand:


[9] Posted by Theodora on 12-8-2009 at 07:12 AM · [top]

Theodora (#9) I confess that I absolutely LOVE Rowan William’s eyebrows! The only pair of eyebrows that I have ever seen to rival Rowan’s are, ironically, the eyebrows of Abp. Robert Duncan.

I have often thought that it might be interesting to actually get the two men together and then, using a ruler, determine which of them actually has the longest eyebrows.

My casual observations have led me to conclude that Abp. Duncan’s eyebrows are, in fact, longer than Rowan’s—but I would still like to verify that using a precise instrument of measurement.

More on topic, I agree with Mohler in substance. But I also think that he is, to some degree, reading Rowan’s words as if they were written by an American. British English and American English remain two very different dialects of the same language. Coming, as they do, from a British academic, Rowan’s words can only be seen as a relatively strong rebuke to the Diocese of Los Angeles.

The use of the term “gracious restraint” is clearly set in the PAST. He is not calling for a new period of gracious restraint. He is pointing out that the Diocese of Los Angeles (and, by extension, TEC) have now obviously ignored the Communion’s call for restraint.

Rowan’s use of the term “bonds of affection” is deliberately employed in his latest statement as a way of saying that if Glasspool is consecrated, there will be NO OFFICIAL OR ORGANIZATIONAL STATUS accorded to TEC, within the institutional mechanisms of the Anglican Communion.

Translated into American English, what Rowan has said is simply this: “If this woman is consecrated, TEC will no longer be recognized to be in communion with Canterbury.”

Whether he makes good on this theat remains to be seen, of course. But the fact that he has issued this threat seems to me to be a pretty good thing. Certainly, it must please the ACNA, as it seems to clear the way for them being acknowledged to be the “authentic” Anglican franchise in North America. My guess is that the folks at 815 don’t really care too much, one way or the other. Which is fine by me. At least we may finally get a bit of clarity, as far as these things go.

[10] Posted by bluenarrative on 12-8-2009 at 09:41 AM · [top]

#10, if I had a dime for every time I’ve read that British/American English explanation (almost always coupled with a prediction that THIS would be the last straw that would rouse Ol’ Busy Whiskers to decisive action), I’d retire today.  The undeniable truth of the matter is that at every juncture where Rowan Williams had a clear provocation from TGC, he tugged his beard and demurred.  At every point where the Primates had the opportunity to act, Rowan Williams did everything in his power to undercut them.

Don’t read this man’s lips, watch his feet.  That is what will inform one of his true character.

[11] Posted by Jeffersonian on 12-8-2009 at 10:04 AM · [top]

It’s clear that some in TEC are so blinded by sin that they cannot see what they are actually doing. That, of course, is the very nature of sin.

In this case, I suspect that the Bp. of LA, the PB, and others, don’t really care whether TEC is part of the Anglican Communion. That, of course, is the very nature of schism.

[12] Posted by Ralph on 12-8-2009 at 10:31 AM · [top]

Translated into American English, what Rowan has said is simply this: “If this woman is consecrated, TEC will no longer be recognized to be in communion with Canterbury.”

We need some world-renowned Rowan scholar/exegete/interpreter/translator to research AbC’s latest and see if #10’s analysis holds water.  Stat.

[13] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 12-8-2009 at 11:00 AM · [top]

4.0 as always from Al Mohler. 

“The real question that confronts the Anglican Communion is whether their churches will bless homosexuality”.

Personally for me the issue has always been “acts” rather than orientation.  I think it’s important to distiguish between the two. 

But Mohler calls the AB of C on all the dithering double-standards and “silence means consent” M.O. 

It’s high time to get off the fence, Rowan, and halt the TEC march-on.  At the least, the world is not ready for this and all the whining cries for “justice” are misplaced…no Christian has the right to arbitrarily, at will, redefine the sacrament of marriage as it is currently defined.  So thus, those who violate the definition with sex acts OUTSIDE Christian marriage are living in a state of perpetuated, known sin and should not be ordained to the priesthood or consecrated bishop, either. 

If some don’t like that, they can either change their behaviors or take a vow of celibacy to get ordained or consecrated, and that would include not residing at the same residence as their partner, boyfriend, or girlfriend. 

Methinks you’ll have to tow the traditional line or the Global South and all the rest of the reasserters will walk, with the whole Communion degenerating into chaos.

[14] Posted by Passing By on 12-8-2009 at 11:07 AM · [top]

#13 - The Official Translation of Rowan Williams’ emissions always comes from 815/KJS/TEC.

[15] Posted by Floridian on 12-8-2009 at 11:09 AM · [top]

We’ve had six years to watch what Rowan Williams is actually doing instead of being distracted by the pretty assistants and flashing lights.  Elizabeth Kaeton certainly has, and you can bet she’s not alone.  She asks why anyone would not consent to Glasspool’s election, and says plainly: “We have already seen that we will not be kicked off the Anglican Island as punishment for our actions…”

No kidding.  I’m surprised “gracious restraint” meant anything to anybody but the most gullible and/or credulous among the mainstream Christians remaining in ECUSA.

It’s tedious to, once again, go through the process of: ECUSA spits on the Christian Faith—> various Anglican eminences trot out statements of “grave concern”—> nothing happens—> ECUSA does it again.  You can see that the deconstructionists aren’t even bothering to play the game any more, other than to use it as an excuse to insult, in only a fraction of the blog comments as we would have seen in the past, Rowan Williams in the coarsest terms possible.  Sad.

[16] Posted by Phil on 12-8-2009 at 11:12 AM · [top]

Jeffersonian (#11) I agree with you completely—what is important is not what the man SAYS, but what he DOES… And, up to now, he has dine NOTHING. Actually, to be more precise, he has done rather a lot, but it has all played into the hands of the Revisionists.

All that I was trying to say is that, in my opinion, Cantuar’s latest statement is the strongest admonition issued to date. Make no mistake about it—the statement is a very clear and precise THREAT. I very much hope that he makes good on this threat. But, at the same time, I recognize that (given his past history) there is a fairly good chance that he will do nothing except waffle a bit more.

Long ago I learned, through very painful circumstances, that one should NEVER issue a threat that one was not prepared to FOLLOW-THROUGH on. In fact, it is always better to not make a threat in the first place than to make an empty threat—the latter (an empty threat) only further emboldens your adversaries, and inevitably leads to escalated hostilities. I pray that Rowan Williams understands this.

To say that Rowan Williams did “everything in his power” to undercut the Primates is somewhat hyperbolic. Certainly, the net effect of his words and actions did, in fact, undercut the Primates ability to mount a united opposition towards TEC’s revisionist agenda. But I seriously doubt that Rowan self-consciously set out to do this. My suspicion is that Rowan’s problem with the Primate’s agenda was more one of STYLE, rather than of substance.

A lot of people do not agree with me on this, but I see Rowan as well-meaning but somewhat inept fellow. There are fuzzy edges to a lot of his theology, to be sure, and he has been infected with a lot of the ideological viruses that beset the contemporary world. But, I think he means to do well and that he tries to honor historic Christianity.

[17] Posted by bluenarrative on 12-8-2009 at 11:18 AM · [top]

Gracious restraint my foot…

The ABC SHOULD just come out and say “Holy Scripture defines homosexual behavior as sin.”  Instead, he turns on the waffle iron.

I will not judge him, in that maybe God has told him to try to keep the church together.  But c’mon, say what you mean and mean what you say.

[18] Posted by B. Hunter on 12-8-2009 at 11:26 AM · [top]

BTW, I believe that folks like Schori et al really believe in their hearts that those who engage in homosexual behavior should be a protected minority.

However, they are deceived.  God has spoken on the matter not only in Holy Scripture, but through His creation - the obvious design of men and woman.

[19] Posted by B. Hunter on 12-8-2009 at 11:29 AM · [top]

#17, I don’t think my characterization of Rowan’s actions is at all hyperbolic.  His actions, as opposed to his words, have been consistently defensive of TGC and frustrative of orthodox Primates’ efforts to sanction TGC.  Do it once, and one can see ineptitude or foolishness at work.  Do it repeatedly and something more malicious is at the core.

#19, I think gays should be a protected minority, too, insofar as they should not be subject to assault, expropriation or be denied civil government protection.  But Team Schori has gone way, way past that.

[20] Posted by Jeffersonian on 12-8-2009 at 11:42 AM · [top]

PassingBy, #14

To be clear, the concept of ‘orientation’ is an invented agenda apologetic term that denotes a conditioned or learned response and a sense of identity, that is changeable through re-learning and therapy.  Our sense of identity and our responses change throughout our lives as we change in relationship to God and other people and events.  Human identity is a fragile complex learned behavior and can be disoriented by subtle influences and interactions with others over time.

In Scripture, the idea of same-sex orientation, or an orientation (weakness, desire) toward adultery or alcohol, theft, gambling, etc., would be considered a disorientation.  This is the state in which one’s desires, (sense of identity, belonging, trust) are *turned away from* God either rebelliously/willfully or seemingly without choice (due to early childhood events, modeling, broken attachments and relationships, words and acts of another person broken or abusive relationships with peers and/or others, and the resultant misbeliefs and deceptions that accompany these traumatic relationships and events).  All disorientations are states of being turned away from or not surrendered to God, rather than toward Him and submitted to Him. 

Our misbeliefs and/or misdirected desires, (conditioned responses) are fortified by cognitions/thoughts/beliefs (messages absorbed by a child’s mind) and spiritual ‘strongholds and high things that are exalted against the knowledge of God’ (alias the evil spirits that oppose God) II Corinthians 10:5; Romans 1:18-32

Christians should not label anyone or even themselves by the agenda words:  gay, lesbian, straight, orientation, etc.  These are invented concepts that are not recognized in Scripture.  See I Corinthians 6:9-20

God does not discriminate against or exempt anyone on the basis of our desires and feelings.  We are all disoriented, but God is able to reorient, redeem and restore all of us to Himself.   

God can change our disorientations, misdirections and misbeliefs.  As we learn wrong ways of responding and relating, we can learn new ways through absorbing and ingesting His Word, The Eucharist, Worship, Prayer, True Fellowship and the Priesthood of Believers…sometimes needing and receiving priestly help through counseling, spiritual direction, therapy, prayer ministry, we are sanctified and transformed. 

God changes what is in our hearts through healthy holy relationships with Himself, with counselors, priests, friends and other relationships within Christ’s Body, the Church. 

Thankfully, there are now many ministries that are training the church to respond and minister in love and to provide safe sanctuary of family and fellowship for the courageous and honest souls who are coming out of the homosex lifestyle - both the behavior and the orientation. 

God offers much more than affirmation of sinful unhealthy dangerous orientations and behaviors.  For some church leaders and bodies to mislead people to this way is the most evil deception and scandal of all the ages of the Church, beyond the Inquisition, the Crusades (in which the western church attacked the eastern church) and all other Persecutions of the church upon other Christians.  This and approval of abortion are actually an affirmation of the worst kind of slavery - slavery to sin and death which has eternal consequences. 

God offers freedom from both the orientation and the behaviors; He offers His Life, Love and Truth, His power, His own Body and Blood to give us abundant life of freedom, righteousness peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

[21] Posted by Floridian on 12-8-2009 at 12:07 PM · [top]

We cannot reduce a question of truth to a question of process

This is the money quote because that is exactly what the ABC has done. It has never been about Scriptural truth. It has been about Hegelian truth arrived at through process. His argument is that TEC has been impatient not that it is wrong. TEC however is operating in a behavioral mode that practice sets precedent and precedent forms belief. They are attempting to change hearts and minds through action and legislation. Does this sound familiar? It should they are using the playbook of the Civil Rights movement. That’s why “Justice” is the mantra.

[22] Posted by Fr. Dale on 12-8-2009 at 01:29 PM · [top]

#5 - that’s always been the case and one reason why I left the Anglican Communion. The Windsor report, section 134 says, “the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges.” The AC has always been open to accepting homosexual activity as holy at some future date. TEC knows this and is pressing for a new consensus. And by the way, TEC declined the invitation and of course, there were never any consequences for doing so, other than waiting for the new consensus to emerge.

[23] Posted by Festivus on 12-8-2009 at 02:03 PM · [top]

#22 - here is RW’s mode of operation from The Siege of Thessaloniki in 904:

But some, in whose hearts the flame of courage had not been entirely extinguished, decided while waiting for the enemy to make some preparations to defend the wall and repel their advance. These consisted of pitch, firebrands, quicklime and other flammable substances got ready in earthenware vessels for possible use against ships riding at anchor, the idea being to hurl these objects in their midst and put them out of action.

So how’d the planning go?

Nevertheless, these were the actions and decisions of bewildered men. Already the light of day was dissolving the darkness of night, when to and behold! The ships, distributed at several points according to their equipment, crashed against the wall, presenting to the eyes of all a novel and extraordinary spectacle. Each pair of ships brought along its own ingeniously constructed wooden turret, which hugely overtopped the structure of the fortification and held aloft its freight of barbarians leaping up like frenzied bulls and threatening everybody with destruction…. But those who were smitten with cowardice and in their utter helplessness lacked the strength to even consider the experience of misfortune let themselves down gradually from the wall and fled to the mountainous part of the city, giving further encouragement thereby to the enemy.

And finally…

... when the barbarians saw that the entire wall had been cleared and that the mass desertion of its defenders now guaranteed their safety, they sallied forth eagerly from the ships, leaped down on to the battlements and set fire to the gates, thus signalling to the other ships that their mission had been accomplished…. Once these barbarians were inside, they slew all those whom they found writhing about on the ground in the vicinity of the wall, regardless of whether they found them prostrated…

[24] Posted by Festivus on 12-8-2009 at 02:18 PM · [top]

Festivus #24, that is the post of the day.  And on target, too.

[25] Posted by Phil on 12-8-2009 at 02:59 PM · [top]

That is the language of a man who—judging by his words—is far more committed to affection than to truth.

Actually, I think RW is far more committed to the survival of the institution (and especially the CoE) than he is for affection.  The CoE stands at the pinnacle of the AC; the last vestige of the British Empire.  TECs actions threaten to destroy both the Communion and the CoE.  The prevention of this outcome is I think is RWs ultimate objective.  He wishes to save the AC for the CoE, and the CoE for history.  But I think he has already failed at both endeavors.  The task requires irreconcilable differences to be held in perpetual stasis.  Such cannot be done.  The attempt was doomed from the start.


[26] Posted by carl on 12-8-2009 at 03:01 PM · [top]

Dr. Mohler’s article here brings a breath of fresh air to the situation.  He is direct, clear, and focused.

Compare this to the dithering of Rowan Cantuar and others of his ilk in the Anglican milieu.  Statements from him and those like him remind me of someone trying to eat Jell-O with a knife: once you get it close, the Jell-O moves.

The Anglican Communion spent two generations investing in this sort of blather.  The leadership of Rowan Williams is the result of that philosophy.

Anglicanism: A Great Idea in 1600…


[27] Posted by FrJim on 12-8-2009 at 03:04 PM · [top]

For all the alleged dialectical differences between written Briticsh productions and American productions, I have to observe that a written “No” in either language remains “No” in either language.  What Rowan has never said is “No” to ECUSA, then TEC, then GCC, and now EO-PAC/gaychurch.  Whatever else they have done, the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC/gaychurch-ites have said “No” to traditional Christian teaching and mores and doctrine and the ecumenical bodies.  You have to give ECUSA/TEC their due.  You have to give Rowan his due - “the man cannot say no.”  Perhaps they’ll put it on his tombstone or columbarium (assuming cremation doesn’t affect the net CO2 production, of course).

[28] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 12-8-2009 at 04:17 PM · [top]

Floridian #21—

I am not saying that “orientation” cannot or should not be changed. 

I AM saying that, personally, I can live with a bishop who may consider his/her orientation to be gay, yet has taken a vow of celibacy much easier than I can live with a “bishop” who is active and proud of it. Frankly, the latter I CANNOT live with. 

Your post was lovely and well-thought-out. 


PB grin

[29] Posted by Passing By on 12-8-2009 at 08:09 PM · [top]

Thank you once again, Dr. Mohler.  You are correct that this is a matter of truth and falsehood and that such a matter cannot be reduced to process. 

I have never bought this “Englishmen speak with such nuanced language” argument with which some defend the limp and ineffective statements of the Archbishop of Canterbury. There are many Anglican Christians residing in England in our time who speak with great clarity to defend Bibllical truth. Dr. N. T. Wright’s statement after TEC’s 2009 convention comes immediately to mind.  Dr. John Stott is at the top of the list of Anglicans who know and love the Lord and have no problem speaking His truth to our world which is such desperate need of hearing it. Dr. Chris Sugden is another leader who has no problem in this area.  Rowan Williams, on the other hand, so far, cannot be counted among this group.  This is not a judgement of where his heart of faith is with regard to the Lord, who alone knows such things; it is simply an observation of what he has said and done.  He has had many chances to be a Christian leader and stand firm for the Biblical faith of the apostles and martyrs, but has failed to rise to any of them—-tragically. 
His past behavior is more than likely the only true predictor of what his future behavior will be. The fallen leaders of TEC are counting on that. 

Thanks be to God for all those like Dr. Mohler and all the leaders of GAFCON around the world who have no problem standing up for Jesus and courageously speaking His truth in love to the 21st Century world.  It is no less the answer for all mankind than it has been for 2,000 years.

[30] Posted by BettyLee Payne on 12-8-2009 at 08:47 PM · [top]

And by the way, if RW was not waiting for a new consensus to emerge, he would have backed the stronger language of DAR. Yet he has continually backtracked to Windsor as the expressed agreement of the AC.
RW will not change, and the AC in the northern hemisphere is well on its way to becoming nothing more than a Unitarian Universalist, Metropolitan Community Church.
In the Southern Hemisphere this is not the case. I eventually see a formal recognition of the trajectory by the Northern Hemisphere Anglican orthodox and the Southern Hemisphere leading to a split from the historical seat of Anglicanism. When that occurs and the Holy Spirit leading, I would return.

[31] Posted by Festivus on 12-9-2009 at 07:30 AM · [top]

There are apologists for the ABC that say that he is an excellent leader or that say he has no authority. I am not an apologist and believe he has not demonstrated leadership that reflects the mind of the communion even though he said he would at the time of his installation. He has missed opportunities for definitive action time after time and impeded the other instruments of unity. He is an enabler for the revisionists, buying them an inordinate amount of time to get out an unacceptable message and allowing them to continue to innovate. His leadership has allowed a divisive issue to become an inoperable cancer that will eventually spit the Anglican Communion. By steering an orthodox course, the Bishop of Rome has been indirectly a better leader for the Anglican Communion.

[32] Posted by Fr. Dale on 12-9-2009 at 09:12 AM · [top]

Let me back up BettyLee’s #30 witha hearty Amen, and an elaboration.  There were two lines in this brief Mohler piece that struck me as especially memorable and incisive.  They are related, and I couldn’t agree with him more about both of them.

1.  “‘Gracious restraint’ will not hold back strong conviction…”

2.  “We cannot reduce a question of truth to a question of process.”

So true.  Significantly, the ABoC only talks about process, NEVER about truth when it comes to homosexual behavior.  He has never publicly repented for his erroneous teachings about the possible legitimacy of some homosexual behavior.  Nor has he ever publicly repented for his notorious and inexcusable scuttling of the crucial Dar es Salaam accord reached by the Primates back in Februrary 2007 when he summarily declared that the universally assumed deadline of Sept. 30th, 2007 wasn’t actually a deadline after all.  For a guy who repeatedly asserts that he has no authority, that was an astonishingly audacious and totally unjustified assumption of the prerogative to overrule the other primates.

Alas, I’m afraid I must agree with Jeffersonian (#11 and 19) against bluenarrative above (#10 and 17).  Perhaps they aren’t really that far apart (as bluenarrative’s fine #17 suggests), but I can’t agree with him that Cantaur’s statement contains any real threat.  It’s too ambiguous for that, as always.  Given his past behavior, the only reasonable conclusion is that he’d like to APPEAR (in the eyes of hopeful conservatives) to be making an implied threat, without actually ever making one at all.

But fortunately, the whole matter may be escaping even his ability to control, delay, and thwart the process of discipline.  The election last weekend in LA has brought the fateful day of reckoning significantly closer.  The long-expected “train wreck” in slow motion has now sped up and is now more imminent and less avoidable than ever.

Sometimes outsiders see things more clearly and objectively than those of us inside Anglicanism.  Al Mohler is spot on, as usual when analyzing Anglicanism’s foibles. 

Bottom line: Theological truth trumps ecclesial process.  By a country mile.  Every time.

David Handy+

[33] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 12-9-2009 at 03:42 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.