William Laud was the Archbishop of Canterbury from 1633-1645. He became obsessed with the liturgy, and his heavy-handed high church policies were seen as persecution by many Protestants. In his excellent book, The Reformation: A History, Diarmaid MacCulloch illustrates a peculiar conflict between Laud, his followers, and the English people.
In the Laudians’ zeal to make worship and church interiors more holy, they offended against long-standing silent understandings of religious behaviour; they even tried to stop people bringing their dogs to church. The English were already a nation of dog-enthusiasts if not dog-lovers, and they tolerated dogs in church on the same basis as children, as long as both groups behaved themselves: there was much fury among churchgoers at the cat-loving Archbishop’s intolerance. (p. 520)
Only a cat lover…
Unrepentant homosexual Diarmaid MacCulloch.
Does that make MacCulloch’s historical description and insights on this subject invalid?
In my experience when you actually engage such sources and influences they turn out to, if just subtly, present things the way the Devil wants them presented. Not all propaganda of the Devil is written in crayon and blinking like a neon sign over a brothel.
If the Wikipedia article is to be trusted, D. MacCulloch at least has the correct historic perspective and integrity to know that his personal orientation does not square with historic, orthodox Christianity, and he is not agitating for the ordination of practicing homosexuals.
You write as you dewll in an Intrusion-Bubble, by which you expect to deal in the hre & now as if the Final Judgement has come in fullness.
[Not that I would dream of igniting a 2-K debate here, Camden]
Using Kline as a weapon against Christians pointing out *unrepentant* sin. Interesting. Can’t really blame this on Michael Horton and company (as an aside)…
Notice the word I wrote before homosexual. Again: *unrepentant.*
And I’m not so sure your characterization of MacCulloch’s attitude vis-a-vis his homsexuality and his church is so on-the-mark. From what I gather he is *frustrated* that his church won’t accept homosexuality. Won’t downgrade from the direct and clear teaching of the word of God.
And, one more time, look at that word unrepentant. It’s an important word.
>> You write as you dewll in an Intrusion-Bubble <<
That is: You write as if you dwell in an Intrusion-Bubble
My keyboard must be possesed!
This should not be a problem with those who know an animals proper place.Where does the bible permit an animal into the worship of GOD except in the old testament to be used as a sacrifice?Homo Sexuals are not the only ones that view their pets as people.Pet lovers are sometimes idolatrous toward their pets.Romans 1 ; describes those who worship the creation more than the creator.
I would like to see a forum on modern versions of the bible.For some reason the modern translations are preferred in the reformed church.I would seriously like to hear a legitimate argument against the Authorized version,if one can be found.This debate has not furnished proof in favor of modern versions.So i seriously ask why?