The Jaundice Eye of David Marr

This is the second reflection from the Good Weekend article on the schism in the Anglican Church. For the intro, read the previous post.


2. David Marr writing on Anglicanism is like China speaking out on human rights


What I found most bizzare about the article is that it was the evangelical anglicans who were accused of schism, while the liberals get a free pass to rape and pilage the very foundations of what it is to be an anglican, and yet they are still regarded as mainstream.


There are many reasons for this of course. None the least of which is that the world will always side with the most corrupted washed out version of Christianity becuase it will never challenge and confront, but rather appease them by telling them that they are ok just as they are.



But you really have to wonder how qualified David Marr is to be writing as the religious correspondant for a major newspaper when he goes on to make comments like this . . .



He argues that Sydney is not classic anglican. Fair enough. He goes on to explain that it doesn't LOOK classicaly anglican in that you will often find no crosses or vestements etc. Up to now, I'm with him. But then he says that visiting anglicans will be shocked and puzzled by



'Sydney's demand that all beleivers be born again in Jesus Christ'.



Hello?! Has this man ever read the 39 articles? Does he know anything about church history, anything about the roots of anglicanism?



Personal bias aside, how does this man become a writer on a topic he clearly knows nothing about? Can someone please shut this man up?





More to come


Scott