newspeak at it’s finest

this, from Louie Crew – a submission to the Eames Commission

“Who shall shape our unity?” Whose voices shall contribute to the overall ecclesial structures that govern our life together? How might past expressions of Anglican Christianity be different had the response of Onesimus on slavery or the responses of the Corinthian women prophets on the roles of women been preserved for posterity? Our leading ancestors in the faith to their detriment and to ours too often failed to solicit or to preserve reports inconsistent with a developing “universal” consensus.

Think about that for a minute. Here’s what Louie is actually saying:

“Christianity might have turned out differently if we’d listened to what the slave Onesimus was saying (i.e. his plight of being in slavery – read “you’re treating homosexuals the same way that slaves were treated”) or allowed the Corinthian women prophets (who Paul, amongst others, had to correct and limit in their use of their gifts).

The Apostle Paul was a narrow-minded megalomaniac who never listened to anyone else. He should have put everything to a vote.”

Leave a Reply

This Post Has 3 Comments

  1. prester_scott

    Bottom line: implicit denial of the inspiration of Scripture.

    And if no Scripture, no Christianity.

  2. detroitfather

    a narrow-minded megalomaniac

    Well, there is one of these named in this post, but it is not the Apostle Paul!

  3. wrytrz_instnkz

    Yea, Paul’s mind is definitely narrow…just like the road he was on (which I happily follow)

    Matt. 7:13-29/ Luke 13:24-27

    just proves, we gotta be more vigilant; constantly on the look-out for humanism coupled with heresy, disguised as doctrine.

    simply outrageous.

Leave a Comment - but please pay careful attention to the house rules