Since he was capable of saying that with a straight face I suppose I really shouldn’t have been startled to see Virtue publish the following, but I was...
“I can't imagine his (Bishop Robert O’Neill, Dio. of Colorado) use of trust funds meant for ministry isn't a legal problem itself.”Who do you all think more epitomizes the spirit of GAFCON – Virtue for posting this, or Armstrong for saying it? And what's the point of trying to make humorous stuff up when folks are coming out with material like this for real?Donald Armstrong – alleged trust funder user extraordinaire
I’m Father Christian, and not even I can believe these guys…
2 comments :
"I have been told that some diocesan Standing Committees have graciously offered to reconsider their denial of consent to my election as the XIV Bishop of South Carolina, if they only have assurance of my intention to remain in The Episcopal Church," he wrote. "Although I previously provided assurance of my intention, this has not been sufficient for some Standing Committees, which are earnestly seeking to make a godly discernment."
"As I stated at the walkabout in Charleston on September 9, 2006, and again in a statement written on 6 November 2006, I will make the vows of conformity as written in the Book of Common Prayer and the Constitution & Canons, (III.11.8). I will heartily make the vows conforming '...to the doctrine, discipline, and worship' of the Episcopal Church, as well as the trustworthiness of the Holy Scriptures. So to put it as clearly as I can, my intention is to remain in The Episcopal Church."
How's that for a straight face? I will let your readers guess who this is.
Fred, that quote reduces me in shear frustration to wishing I could get into Plus Mark's dishonorable face and scream the tried and true playground insult of my nursery school days: "Liar, liar, pants on fire!"
I quite realize this does nothing to raise the level of this discourse. Sometimes, however, the inner child needs release.
Post a Comment