tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726867.post819053287037416577..comments2008-05-13T09:48:56.158ZRaspberry Rabbithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00813644230683029700raspberry_rabbit@yahoo.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726867.post-29002304956655697432008-05-01T19:07:00.000Z2008-05-01T19:07:00.000ZDan, you can't preach about "dishonour" when the ACC has continued to flaunt its "radical inclusivism" in spite of Global Anglican objections. <BR/><BR/>If Ingham is wise, he'll let Shaughnessy go with the building intact (not that I expect it). The truth is St. John's Shaughnessy were already gone years ago, or rather, the Diocese of Westminster was. <BR/><BR/>So, bring on the Cone! This is what liberal schismatic theology accomplishes...David MacKenziewww.regencychurch.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726867.post-7345436269452344442008-02-22T20:05:00.000Z2008-02-22T20:05:00.000ZCanadian law is pretty clear that one cannot "buy, sell or transfer" a parish without the bishop's permission. The "Diocese of New Westminster Act" dating back to the 1870s makes such a statement, which forms the basis of every parish's association with the diocese.<BR/><BR/>If that law is upheld the leaders of this parish will be out on their rears and the parish itself poorer due to legal costs. I have to wonder how informed the laity were about the consequences when they voted.<BR/><BR/>Even if Bishop Ingrahm has a "unitarian, relativistic worldview" as charged above, then he should be put on trial for heresy and found guilty or innocent by an ecclesiastical trial, rather than separation. <BR/><BR/>But the stated issue according to these parishes is whether same sex unions are permissible in the Anglican church, not Bishop Ingram's alleged theological views. <BR/><BR/>This action also speaks to the issue of whether the alleged sin of a diocese or ACC following a process that led to the approval same-sex blessings justifies the very real sins of theft of property, bearing false witness against opponents or the breaking of vows and contracts. I can't find where Jesus says two wrongs make a right in any of the Gospels and he seemed pretty clear on how we are supposed to treat enemies. Instead a rather relativistic form of morality itself seems to have driven this conflict throughout the Anglican church. At least the conservatives who left over divorced and women's ordination left the church honourably.toujoursdanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08106158181662408311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726867.post-37761495881818107742008-02-17T12:53:00.000Z2008-02-17T12:53:00.000ZDavid<BR/><BR/>I'm sure that the opinion from the independent church side of things is that such decisions are right and proper when situations of conflict arise. It's how independent churches spread out - part of their world view. <BR/><BR/>Blessings<BR/><BR/>RRRaspberry Rabbithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00813644230683029700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726867.post-57005374926021940432008-02-16T23:59:00.000Z2008-02-16T23:59:00.000ZPersonally, I think St. John's Shaughnessy has made the correct decision. And their choice shouldn't be dismissed by accusations of being a wealthy, uniform theologically, or "discontented" group. What cause have Christians to be "contented" with this world, anyway? And, to be fair, anyone whose bothered reading Michael Ingham's book "Mansions..." will know it is functioning out of a unitarian, relativistic worldview rather than a Christian one. It's time to separate. If Michael Ingham is right, then let the Lord bless his socks off. If Essentials is correct, then let the Lord honour those faithful enough to make the good confession.<BR/><BR/>But one thing is becoming increasingly obvious. Liberal theology and Biblical Christianity are completely incompatible. J. Gresham Machen was right...<BR/><BR/>Grace to you, in Christ Jesus,<BR/><BR/><BR/>Pastor David MacKenzie<BR/>Regency Christian Church<BR/>Devon, Alberta, CANADA<BR/>www.regencychurch.comDavid MacKenziewww.regencychurch.comnoreply@blogger.com