Some of what he says is true, but much of it is clouded by the hermeneutic through which he looks upon the world; he lenses do not seem to see neither nuance nor distinction.
He first contends:
Not a Southern Baptist nation, or an Episcopal nation, or a Roman Catholic nation. Not grounded in the doctrinal and ecclesiastical isms that have grown up over the centuries. But a Christian nation, doing what Jesus did.Here he ignores the reality that Jesus did, in fact, found one Church, built upon the Apostle Peter. The Southern Baptist and Episcopal ecclesial communities are not that Church; the Catholic Church is. It is a simple fact of history.
But be that as it may, his second contention - one which might well be expected from an Episcopalian - is the one that troubles me most:
Well, we wouldn’t be arguing about sex, that’s for sure. Jesus devoted no time to matters of sexuality.Has he read the Gospels? If he has, I'm not sure how could possibly make that claim unless his ideology greatly clouded his reading. Or unless he has a very specific narrow meaning of sexuality.