Stephen Noll has written a good and succinct piece on how Biblical and anti-Biblical views of sexual morality and marriage are treated as morally equivalent under the guise of “good disagreement” in the Church of England.
“Good disagreement” along with “mutual flourishing” of course means LibChurchers can teach and practice whatever apostasies they please while traditional orthodox have to put up with it and get little in return, especially little when it comes to bishoprics and deaneries.
The Archbishop of York along with the Archbishop of Canterbury is endorsing this sham.
But, as Noll points out, there are matters in which truly good disagreement means the likes of, say, Martyn Percy are called out as St. Jude did, utterly rejecting the notion that false teaching is morally equivalent, and then (although Noll does not spell this out) exercising church discipline against the false teachers.
Yes, the Church of England is too far gone for any hope of church discipline against apostate clerics. It serves as a negative example illustrating that false teachers must not be treated as morally equivalent – which Noll considers “moral equivocation” – but must be confronted, suspended, and, when necessary, defrocked with all diligence. Otherwise false teaching will spread like gangrene eventually maiming or killing a church if said church discipline is too long delayed and too infrequently applied.
As I’ve oft said, a church that does not care enough about truth to discipline does not care enough about truth. Treating false teaching as “good disagreement” is deadly disagreement against God’s word.
But, as Noll points out, there are matters in which truly good disagreement means the likes of, say, Martyn Percy are called out as St. Jude did, utterly rejecting the notion that false teaching is morally equivalent, and then (although Noll does not spell this out) exercising church discipline against the false teachers.
Yes, the Church of England is too far gone for any hope of church discipline against apostate clerics. It serves as a negative example illustrating that false teachers must not be treated as morally equivalent – which Noll considers “moral equivocation” – but must be confronted, suspended, and, when necessary, defrocked with all diligence. Otherwise false teaching will spread like gangrene eventually maiming or killing a church if said church discipline is too long delayed and too infrequently applied.
As I’ve oft said, a church that does not care enough about truth to discipline does not care enough about truth. Treating false teaching as “good disagreement” is deadly disagreement against God’s word.
No comments:
Post a Comment