I really don’t want this man anywhere near my children’s confirmation program. “Go therefore ... and apologize for being my disciples ...”

Since it was just a bishop who “apologized” and it wasn’t an act of the HOB and it wasn’t approved by the almighty General Convention, do the Hindus realize it was sheer bloviation?  I would guess that would be a resounding “NO”.

Which “God” it is that both Bruno and hindus serve? Even Wikipedia cannot go wrong quoting an Indian Supreme Court justice!

” Due to the wide diversity in the beliefs, practices and traditions encompassed by Hinduism, there is no universally accepted definition on who a Hindu is, or even agreement on whether term Hinduism represents a religious, cultural or socio-political entity. In 1995, Chief Justice P. B. Gajendragadkar was quoted in an Indian Supreme Court ruling:[15]

When we think of the Hindu religion, unlike other religions in the world, the Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet; it does not worship any one god; it does not subscribe to any one dogma; it does not believe in any one philosophic concept; it does not follow any one set of religious rites or performances; in fact, it does not appear to satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion or creed. It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more.”

Bruno et alia need remedial seminary instruction in Who is the God of the Christians.  Hint try Theology, Doctrine of God, Trinity, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, Jesus, kyrios, et cetera.

“Everyone therefore who shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 10:32,33)

I guess since our Lord didn’t specifically say anything about those who apologize for Him before men, J. J. is O.K.

As long as Bishop Bruno continue to consider Christianity as merely a “religious tradition”, he can compare it to other “traditions”.

What the Bishop needs to realize is that Christianity is not something one does, but something that one is - a new nature one takes on. To be a Christian is to be in Christ - to be marked as Christ’s own and to be sealed with the Holy Spirit. And that is a transformation, a new birth by water and the Spirit, endowing one with a new nature. This is not a “religious tradition”. When he realizes this, then there is no way one can compare being a Christian with practicing a religious tradition.

A Christian can, and should, apologize and repent when he allows the “old nature” to motivate him. But a Christian cannot, and should not, appologize for offering access to the new nature to those who lack it.

[Slightly edited by Elf]

I think Bruno is trying to make the “narrow gate” not so narrow. “Can’t we all just get along.” How can he call himself “Christian” and still believe what he does?

Virtue is reporting today that in addition to what was said in the article, Bruno apologized for proselytizing Hindus and promised it would not continue to happen- which would appear (don’t want to commit to hard here) to be a direct contradiction of The Great Commission from a diocesan bishop.  How can that be?????  Also, in the service that was mentioned in St John’s Pro-Cathedral - the Hindus in attendance were offered and took communion (some only the bread, since they didn’t drink alcohol) which is in direct contravention of TEC canons.  How can that be ?????  How can it be that Bp Bruno has not been brought up on charges by our Presiding Bishop for violations of church canons and for disloyalty to TEC, for certainly this cannot be deemed loyal to the canons and doctrine of TEC ... can it?????  How can all of this be ??????

#5 - Wasn’t Matthew 7:13f today’s Daily Office Gospel reading? hmmm

#6 - I will not name names, but I have heard even revisionist bishops openly wonder how Bruno is not inhibited and deposed (as if they have nothing to do with it). But of course I mention the hall of fame in Pike and Spong, etc., and they’ve shrugged and sighed. 
But you’re right Billy, one might go after canonical violations, because doctrinal violations won’t do anything.

The money in being an Anglican cleric is a little better than being a Hindu, and the Hindu pension plan isn’t quite as successful.