tsaphah

Anglican for 11 years

[tsaphah @26331to9]

The situation w/ Fr. Ben Sharpe suggests that the clergy of the diocese have the most control over what bishop they get. If the clergy are feminists, then they push for a feminist bishop. And liberal clericalism can rule even when the people favor the traditional. Clergy make their sheep smell like them, since sheep come & go, because we have options.

I've only heard that the canons need work because they are weak and it's easy for a parish to leave.

[tsaphah @26331to9]

On the cosmic level, they want gay, & if not gay then female priests will do, but they will settle for lady leaders pretending to follow the scripture, as they wear deacon as an inverted veil.

Though our priests read from 1 Cor. 11 every time they consecrate the bread & wine, they ignore the preceding verses about male & female. How telling.

Just like @Ozark_Anglican, again & again I see people standing on scripture against "WO to the priesthood". But they accept compromise when it comes to female deacons wearing the collar of authority & being licensed to preach. They will count that as orthodox as they submit & give their lady leaders (deacons supposedly) authority over men & titles like Archdeacon, Reverend & Pastor, like ADOTS.

[tsaphah @26331to9]

Well said. I grew up mostly non-denom. But now my wife & I are Anglican, even though I hate that word, because of how our cowardly bishops define it. Even so, more & more we are drawn to high church / Anglo-Catholic worship. The old me would say that we don't need the priest, the bells, the candles, the icons, the saints, the chant, the bread & wine, etc. -- because we ONLY need Jesus. I still believe that about Jesus, but I now realize that I need to be constantly reminded of this, and high church liturgy & the Daily Office says that to me louder than a low church amen. Maybe I'm just weaker than most.

[tsaphah @26331to9]

@vagentleman2, no, my definition of liberalism is fine. The Continuum left over feminism (WO) and the ACNA left over LGBT. Both involve a reinterpretation of scripture. Is one more or less progressive than the other? My niece wants to be a boy & dresses like a boy. Is that okay? If she becomes lesbian, is that okay? Gender and sexuality go together, yet ACNA is too intoxicated on woke to see it.

Foley allows women to wear collars of authority, preach, & have authority over men, and that is a liberal or progressive thing, for it did not start in Anglicanism until 1970.

[tsaphah @26331to9]

@scotchanglican, though you don't do theology much, I see you like Gen. 1:27. What it means to be male & female is defined throughout the Bible, & to reject that is to deface the image of God. Reinterpreting all the parts in the Bible about gender leads to doing the same for LGBT. It's a liberal thing to do.

[tsaphah @26331to9]

Yes, liberal. Feminists, not gay, though they legitimize gay. ADOTS has female deacons (against 1 Tim. 3:8-12) that preach (against 1 Tim. 2:8–15) and dress like men (against Deut. 22:5 -- clerical collars were for men until 1970). They call them Reverends or Pastors in some parishes, rather than deacons. Proof:

https://t.co/tIeng0TLNl

Is that not liberal?

[tsaphah @26331to9]

@WilliamWolfe No one. No one is exempt from a visit from the spirit of feminist pride. It's a cosmic thing.

[tsaphah @26331to9]

Even so, Paul would require the woman to wear a head covering, and this signifies that she is in the proper place. It's funny how often that is left out. The head covering liturgy is a remedy for so many of these issues, but feminists won't hear of it, insisting it is a cultural item. It's strange to claim that head covering is only for that time and space, yet the Words of Consecration for the bread and the wine that follow are universal.

[tsaphah @26331to9]

@tomascol Even that translation shows a woman should not be the head of a church.

[tsaphah @26331to9]

According to the ACNA, transitioning is also a "second tier issue". Like a female priest, a girl can be like a boy, doing boy things, wearing boy clothing. Then the girl takes it to the next level by taking boy hormones, gets her girl parts cut off and fake boy parts surgically placed to her body. Her lying female priest points the way as the congregation claps their hands.

[tsaphah @26331to9]

Mr. Sanger, we say things, and as a church speak out of both sides of the mouth. Since they both can't be true, this means the ACNA tells lies. The lies are ACTUALLY part of the gender spectrum liturgy that we embody as a church, for such a liturgy requires lies. And we are here: if a woman can now be a priest, she can also now be father, and therefore a man can be a wife. Call it a fallacy if you want, but demons don't care.

My niece wants to be a boy and dresses like a boy. Teens are taking puberty blockers and getting sex changes. Because gender does not matter. You can be what you want to be.

Mr. Sanger, you are a smart man, someone that is not a nobody. Can you not compel the C of B to exchange their future millstones for courage?

[tsaphah @26331to9]

Duncan, Foley & Wood are all pro- WO. Many pretend that Dobbs is traditional, but he has female deacons in his diocese, and his wife is ordained. Sure, from time to time they say things that sound traditional, but it's politicians' talk. The issue of WO is a worm that eats away at Biblical integrity.

[tsaphah @26331to9]

The list of women in Romans 16 is fine. Of course women are mentioned, they are more than half of the population. But it is NOT a list of girl bosses, like a Marvel Movie.

It's really not complicated. God calls the man to be head of household and church. It's who God wants us to be. Read all of these back to back, and listen to Jesus, Paul & Peter, & understand how it all fits synergistically, and stop being gay.

Mat. 19:4-6, 1 Cor.11:1-16, 1 Cor.14:31-38, 1 Tim. 2:8–15, 1 Tim. 3:1-12, Tit.1 :5-9, Tit. 2:2-5, Eph. 5:22-33, Col. 3:18-21, 1 Pet.3 :1-6.

[tsaphah @26331to9]

Again I point out, the ACNA marginalizes traditionalists, like Fr. Ben Sharpe. It's been going on for a long time and it finally happened in plain sight, to someone that is not a nobody. We see that the clergy are overwhelming liberal and they control the levers of the ACNA. Duncan, Foley, Wood & Dobbs are all pro-WO and they will tolerate traditionalists only to a point. What goes on at the diocesan level looks like the movie Conclave. The laity has no idea, but if they open their eyes they can see it now, thanks to Fr. Ben's courage and open honesty.

[tsaphah @26331to9]

Being progressive, even to a small degree, lets you be in the game. Ultimately, not only can a man with Biblical convictions like Fr. Sharpe NOT be bishop, he can do little else -- certainly that is the case on the diocesan level.

Notice that Duncan, Foley & Wood are all pro-WO. And we have Dobbs, who gets a traditional label, meanwhile he has female deacons and a wife that is ordained.

So, if one wants to get any traction, one must be like @AngAesthetics & find some angle useful in the agenda.

[tsaphah @26331to9]

Agreed. Many hold Bp Dobbs up, as if he is some bastion of orthodoxy, riding on a horse. Meanwhile, his diocese has female deacons that wear the clerical collar of authority, in clear violation of Deut. 22:5 -- they exchanged the woman's veil for a clerics' collar (worn by only men until 1970).

This truth about head covering from 1 Cor. 11 does not get the attention that it deserves. It's strange that we Anglicans make reference to 1 Cor. 11 every time we share the Lord's Supper, in our liturgy, in the Words of Consecration. So, clearly, Paul's words are universal and are not to be discarded, like stale bread.

[tsaphah @26331to9]

No to the mega model. And I prefer to not see things as transactional, but rather that we love Jesus enough to obey His commands. I embody love for my wife by doing what she wants me to do (obeying her commands) and don't see it as transactional, though an outsider might describe it that way. If I reinterpret what my wife wants, twist it to my preferences, and then do that... it doesn't please her.

[tsaphah @26331to9]

I have friends that are egal and don't want to push anyone away. The ones I know have trauma and they will sometimes unbury it and show me -- sometimes on purpose, sometimes by accident. But it's not dishonest to recognize that egals reinterpret scripture to accommodate their preferences, perhaps out of necessity due to the shape of their flesh, AND that both egal and gay have the same hermeneutics. Both have a thorn in their flesh.