Sometimes they make Anglican blogging too easy . . . or too hard, depending on how you look at it.
From the New York Times:
Bishop Robinson said he had been reading inaugural prayers through history and was “horrified” at how “specifically and aggressively Christian they were.”
“I am very clear,” he said, “that this will not be a Christian prayer, and I won’t be quoting Scripture or anything like that. The texts that I hold as sacred are not sacred texts for all Americans, and I want all people to feel that this is their prayer.”
Now how the hell am I supposed to satirize or comment on that?
I guess I could suggest that the VGR would be “horrified” if he learned some history and realized we used to be a Christian nation. Or I could ask if the Church of Satan will “feel that this is their prayer.” I could even change the name of this blog to “Specifically and Aggressively Anglican.”
But when the heretics get this over the top, how am I supposed to top them?
I give up.
What’s amazing is they might actually not realize how silly they look.
I have to agree with you on this. I'm actually pretty tolerant of his homosexuality, but I can't understand how anybody (gay, straight, or otherwise) could serve as a bishop in a church when they clearly don't believe in the doctrines of that church.
ReplyDeleteSaying that the bible is "sacred to me" but that many other faith traditions "have their own sacred texts" is just a fancy way of saying "the bible isn't REALLY true."
And his "God of many Understandings" bit is so obviously heterodox that he even seemed to shock Melissa Block with it, which is hard to do.