Left coast cars take a step backwards. One more comedian in Congress. Defending the barracuda. Plus more.
(Page 3 of 3)
It is quite amusing to read Rev. Nolan’s sanguine notions concerning the “split that is not a split” within the Episcopal Church. It is especially entertaining when he is dismissive of the ACNA as just another breakaway group in a long list of breakaway groups from a number of larger religious bodies.
What, pray tell, is the Episcopal (Anglican) Church but a breakaway assemblage? What is the worst excuse in the world for separating from the Roman Catholic Church than switching allegiance from the Pope to the King so that King can divorce and/or murder his wife in order to marry another?
At least some new religious bodies come about because of honest disagreements over doctrine and the meaning of the Word of God.
The good Reverend is certainly right in his comments that the Christian Churches are constantly “engaged in doctrinal/moral self-examination.” But he is a little too glib in looking down his nose at those who are less than game for participating in the perpetual seminar for every “wind of doctrine” that comes down the pike. He seems to have little empathy or imagination by describing their motives as nothing more than “prefer[ing] final certainties in all matters.”
Rev. Nolan admits he himself is “dissatisfied with a number of matters of belief and practice in the contemporary Episcopal Church.” But he also counters: “However, it is within the life of the Church that effective remedies can emerge — after much discussion, debate, and discernment.” What Rev. Nolan leaves out is that these Christian-Socratic symposiums can get it wrong. In fact these exercises in “discerning the movement of the Holy Ghost” have got it catastrophically wrong hundreds of times in the past two thousand years.
Among Christians, there can be genuine disagreements yet the
fellowship holds them together. But there are decisions in
doctrine which are deal breakers. Some of our divines have
construed the plain sense of Scripture into enthusiastic
blessings for what it actually condemns. Clearly what is at the
bottom is a deeper disagreement over how Scripture is read and
used. What is troubling to “conservatives” is that if our
theologians, seminaries and leadership can see their way to
permit practicing homosexuals into the ministry and bless “same
sex” unions, what will they see their way to do in the future?
Worse, our theologians, seminaries and leadership may find the
next “development” distasteful, but they will find they have no
principle against it.
— Mike Dooley
Re: The July 2 edition of Reader Mail:
Good for you! At last, a 8-page reader mail. As a
subscriber and donating reader, we were about
to move on to other sites. I understand the costs involved
but what are the costs of almost eliminating this well loved
feature? Also missing is the interplay between various
contributors in the mail. Hopefully today is the start of
the ”return of mail.”
— Dick Grogan
Yorba Linda, California
The Editor replies: We appreciate Mr. Grogan’s loyalty to Reader Mail. Most readers, alas, prefer to respond in the Comments section of individual pieces, which wasn’t available back in Reader Mail’s heyday. We do what we can, but Reader Mail depends on you, the reader — and letter writer.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?