Too little, too late.

This is part of the submission of ECUSA to the Anglican Consultative Council. The other part is a document freely available in the public domain. All I want to do, at this point, is draw the interested reader’s attention to one thing.

What is the basis of authority on which the case is made?

Take your time, work through the transcription. Ask yourself, what is the basis of authority on which the case is made?

Is it


Ultimately, what is the basis of authority on which the case is made?

I think once you see it for what it is, you’ll understand why ECUSA, as represented here, isn’t Anglican, let alone Christian.

Leave a Reply

This Post Has 12 Comments

  1. detroitfather

    I had a lot of guesses as to the ultimate basis of ECUSA’s truth: the American zeitgeist, inclusivity (hearing “many voices”), whatever is not in a Biblical proof-text, and finally — a denial that truth can even be known definitively.

    But, this sentence seemed to sum it up best:

    Anglicanism has been about not knowing the mind of God but in maintaining a conversation with one another.

    So, the epistemology of ECUSA is … well … humanism.

    We do not have the “mind of Christ” … instead, we pool our ignorance, until it becomes that one, great, and pluriform ignorance: the mind of ECUSA.

    A side note from this report: Apparently, as a straight male in ECUSA, I’m part of a tiny minority! As a straight male who opposes use of the new prayer book, the new baptismal covenant, WO, and Gene Robinson, all I can say is: Where are my minority rights, granted to me (apparently) by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King (that noted Episcopalian)? /sarcasm

    1. David Ould

      mate, can you IM me? or let me have your email address?

      there’s something I’d value your opinion on.


    2. jonny_darko

      I will leave this thread alone, with the following exception:

      Apparently, as a straight male in ECUSA, I’m part of a tiny minority!
      You can’t be serious. You really hurt your case when you overdramatize like this.

      1. detroitfather

        I’m simply going by what I read in the linked article.

        ECUSA parishioners, according to the article, are 75% female. That already puts me in a fairly small minority, no?

        1. jonny_darko

          You’re right. In any case gay males are an even smaller minority, so I don’t see your point here. Oh well, I won’t pursue this further, but you may have the last word if you wish.

          1. detroitfather

            Thank you; I will.

            Gay males in ECUSA are a much larger minority than 1928 BCP-using, anti-Women’s Ordination, straight males. That’s really closer to what I intended to convey.

            1. hoosierdaddyiub

              What is it about the 1928 BCP?

              You can put all sorts of qualifiers on a group and make it a REALLY small minority.

              1. detroitfather

                Well, it doesn’t have to be the 1928 BCP. Just about any one previous to that would be fine as well. The 1979 book is not a Book of Common Prayer. Not only is it not in the lineage of the earlier BCPs, it is not even common prayer. It is a book of alternative services.

  2. prester_scott

    Same old blah blah blah as always.

    That’s why I, like the Eagles, am Already Gone.

  3. kjs

    A monologue disguised as dialogue.

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