Since General Synod failed to pass a motion approving same-sex marriage, Bishop Andrew Asbil is advocating taking a pastoral rather than legislative approach to marrying same-sex couples. In other words, full steam ahead with same-sex marriage, legislation be damned. Had the reverse been the case, I doubt that he would be advising a pastoral approach to prohibiting same-sex marriages.
Naturally, he takes great pains to reassure recalcitrants who stubbornly cling to a Biblical version of marriage that they will still be welcome in the Anglican organisation. But does anyone with a functioning prefrontal cortex believe him? Do you really think that when Harry and Jim show up on a conservative priest’s doorstep, demand that he marry them, and sue him because he refuses that the Diocese of Toronto will pay his punitive legal fees? No, me neither.
Is that an earring in Asbil’s lower left auricle?
How long, O Lord, how long?
Just another APOSTATE pretending to be a bishop. One must question why these apostates made vows at both their ordination and again at their consecration when they clearly denounce any said vows without suffering any consequences. The ACoC has been quick to steal properties and evict genuine Christians but clearly has no intention of discipline. The ACoC is no longer a Christian Church.
Time will tell
It’s what’s God’s will
We have to await as to what’s God’s will
I do not believe we have to await God’s will. The Scriptures are quite clean and these so called bishops are well aware of this but are determined to deceive true Christians and cause them to follow in their path in the worship of the “god of political expedience”.
I will send 10 copies of my book with J.I. Packer Holy Homosex?, post paid and insured, to any part of Canada for $90.00.
“Interesting times” (the Trudeau I* Chinese curse inveighed against Canada) invites equally interesting timing for this Episcopal declaration, October 18* – on the eve of the October 21, 2019, Federal Election:
when Canadians will choose between an Ahab, or a Jehoshaphat, as set out in M’Cheyne’s lesson for today, October 19: + I Kings ch. 22,
the latter “doing what was right in the Eyes of The LORD…’inclusive’ of v. 46;
the former, “he did evil in the sight of The LORD, and walked in the way of his father, and in the way of his mother…who made Israel to sin:
For he served Baal, and worshipped him…”.
I was a little perplexed by the tangential reference to (a virtual) wearing of an earring on the left side, and looking that up did not clarify. A virtual ring through the nose by which someone is being lead by The Spirit of the Age (definitely not The Holy Spirit, of course, if indeed the ACoC still acknowledges that Person of the Trinity) may be better imagery.
The ring is real although, much like the promise to protect conservative clergy, the attempt to appear modern and cool looks entirely bogus.
Here is the bishop performing his fire-eating act at a recent dinner. Fertile material for those given to seeing such things as metaphor.
It’s a badge of ‘gayness’.
The issue of a ring in the ear is secondary, [ I wrote “(a virtual)” because I could not discern it in the photo; later, upon a zoom, it became clear. ] Although it may _suggest_ “gayness” (in whatever specific of the current alphanumeric sequence LGBT*) it does not _necessitate_ such. It might only be intended to signal some sympathy for their predicament; I have known people to support such adornment for that reason, and concern for them does not imply agreement with their demands. I also consider performing the fire-eating trick (typically dependent on an ethanol-water mix in a ratio just sufficient to sustain a flame – the origin of “100% proof”- and rapid extinction upon removing the oxygen supply) a secondary issue; although. as a personal feeling, I consider it to be in bad taste to perform it in episcopal “uniform”. A bishop may have odd hobbies in his spare time, but when dressed for work he should, as the saying goes, stick to his lathe.
My primary concern, quite independent of earrings, concern with sexual minorities, and stage performances, is, as I have pointed out before, quite simply put: What on earth (and in heaven if you like) do these people supporting same-sex “marriage” think Our Lord meant, in confirming and strengthening the OT teaching, in “the two shall become one flesh” ?
Give me a scholarly-sound answer that convinces me two men or two women can “become one flesh” as part of what He intended and you will be surprised at what innovations I will begin to tolerate.
I discussed that exhaustively twenty years ago with my now-deceased friend Hugh Dempster. After I had asked publicly during our first climactic Synod vote, “What blessing? What union?”
I have still never got an answer.