November 23, 2007
Anglican split will get progressively uglier
The Anglican Church in Canada is on the verge of formal split over same-sex marriage and other liberal changes in Church teaching and practise. The charges flying back and forth on questions of theological correctness are sharp and emotionally charged. But like any divorce, the argument over whose fault this was will seem like children playing happily in a playground compared to what happens once the two sides start fighting over money.
And that's when I expect organizations will jump in to use this fight to promote their own agendas.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
12:00 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 856 words, total size 6 kb.
1
I like it very much.564651321348545 http://www.cheapcleatssoccer.com
Posted by: Nike Mercurial Safari at December 03, 2012 06:18 PM (2s7WC)
January 21, 2007
A Catholic monarch for England?
The incoming primate of the Church of Ireland, Bishop Alan Harper, had delivered some very controversial comments. Unlike his fellow Anglicans in America, though, he is not suggesting that Jesus is an optional concept or agitating for openly homosexual clergy.
Instead, he said it is well past time for England to move past the ban on Catholics ascending to the British throne. Note that the law, the Act of Settlement from 1701, bans Catholics specifically. It does not require that the monarch be Anglican. He or she could be a Buddhist, a Muslim, an agnostic, or a Scientologist -- just not Catholic. Bishop Harper correctly suggests that the circumstances that gave birth to this law have long since faded into history. The implications of such a change are quite interesting, and I think Bishop Harper knew exactly what those implications were before he made his statements.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
10:15 PM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
Post contains 841 words, total size 5 kb.
1
No. The British want an Islamic Monarch in order to prove their multiculti credentials. The sun is setting.
Posted by: Philanthropist at January 22, 2007 02:07 AM (7pBiD)
2
I think he is correct that it is probably time for the Church of England to be disestablished and the ban on Catholic Monarchs to be repealed.
But, I find the rest of your post to contain some pretty big leaps.
First, I'm not sure how many religious leaders would agree that "the fundamental function of religion is to be divisive." The message of most religions tends towards the opposite: to unite.
Second, your claim that the Anglican Church avoids "divisive" beliefs and practices runs directly counter to the current trends towards an impending schism within the Anglican community Indeed, the discussions over ordination of women, acceptance of homosexuality, etc. are the very definition of "divisive" practices, given that they are, in fact, dividing the church. It seems that you are really just using the term "divisive" here as a code word for "conservative" beliefs and practices.
Third, I think that attributing the diversity in Worldwide Anglican beliefs to the fact that some of the leaders of the Church Of England are nominally appointed by the Queen/Prime Minister to be somewhat of a reach.
The fact is, the Anglican Community has, from its very beginning, adopted a far less centralized governance than, say, the Catholic Church. There is no single juridical authority in the Anglican Community, and all 39 provinces are free to govern themselves through their own Primate.
This, of course, has lead to considerable diversity in belief and practice within the Anglican Community: some consider themselves to be non-papal catholics, others draw on Luther, Wesley, Calvinism, etc. It seems to me that this is of far greater importance than the claim that Church of England leaders are appointed by politicians and so must be politicians themselves.
It is, afterall, not the Church of England that has primarily pushed the gay-rights agenda into the worldwide Anglican community. It was largely factions within the US Episcopal Church, which has been separate from the Church of England since the US war of Independence.
Posted by: bob at January 22, 2007 06:06 AM (uvT7t)
3
Jesus' exact words about your comment, Steve, "Well, the fundamental function of religion is to be divisive" are:
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace,
but a sword.
For I have come to set a man against his father,
and a daughter against her mother,
and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's foes will be members of one's own household.
Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;
and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.
Matthew 10: 34-39
Substitute ambition or worldly power for father or mother as in "whoever loves ambition or worldy power more than me is not worthy of me."
This substitution in the Anglican Church of ties to the Monarchy and the governing establishment of the realm in place of ties to, and trust alone in, Jesus Christ, is the crux of the problem in the Anglican Church. I actually had a retired Anglican clergyman, very high up in the hierarchy after rectorships in some very "plummy" establishment churches, say to me, in great humility and some sorrow, "I wish I had served my Lord as well as I have served my church." I was surprised and felt an admiration for him for his candid, yet sad, admission.
I have very close ties with the Anglican Church of Canada, and am not speaking as an outsider. I welcome Bishop Harper's suggestion that it's time to scupper the prohibition of Catholics from the British Monarchy. The "establishment" nature of the Anglican Church in England, Canada, and the U.S. has put a noose around the neck of "true religion," a concept, in fact, that is somewhat ridiculed by the vestment- and mitre-clad crowd in the Anglican Church.
Political correctness and the "progressive" and "evolving" ideas of what the Bible calls "the world" have been seeping into the Anglican Church very rapidly in the past 50 years--not that they were ever absent or don't present themselves in other churches. The thing about the Roman Catholic Church is, it holds to its Magisterium and its core beliefs, which are difficult for individual priests, Bishops, and congregations to trifle with. Local Anglican Bishops, congregations, and Synods, on the other hand, have been toying with the Anglican Church's core beliefs for a very long time--e.g., Bishop Michael Ingham and the New Westminster Diocese--and chaos has ensued, not to mention bitterness and schism--not the kind of divisions Jesus was talking about.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 22, 2007 10:42 AM (weZMD)
4
Got to agree with Bob that the assertion that the links between the Church of E and the monarchy have led to the current positions. They dont explain the United Church's move in a similar if not more radical direction.
That being said the monarch should be head of state and cut from being head of the church of e....and this last point is a a question, Isnt the ban on Roman Catholics....I believe Anglican is still Catholic just not Roman Catholic...but I could be wrong...and the ban shouldnt be there anymore.
Yes wouldnt that be odd if a Muslim King or Queen became the head of the Anglican church.
Unfortuantley I think there will be lots of teeth gnashing and hair pulling long before that is even a possibility. Clearly there is a backlash brewing. In Europe, in Canada etc. Less tolerance for imposed or "demanded" tolerance, if you know what I mean.
Bit of a segue but I found the story in the Globe on the weekend interesting. The father of one of the older suspects in the Toronto Bomb Plot. The fathers justification for why his son was innocent was that he had a new BMW....now there are two explanations.
1) He was "making it" therefore no reason for him to get in trouble.
2) There is a twisted view of western society is, so pointing to his material accumulation is a way of saying he was just like you therefore he was inncoent...
the trial will be interesting to say the least.
Posted by: Stephen at January 22, 2007 10:45 AM (wtbPM)
5
Stephen, you say, "I believe Anglican is still Catholic just not Roman Catholic..."
You're right. But many Anglicans don't seem to know this, despite the fact that every week they say the Nicene Creed in which they proclaim,
"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the forgiveness of sins... etc."
Anglicans rather like to skip over credal statements they either don't understand or like.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 22, 2007 11:21 AM (weZMD)
6
batb
It's not just the Anglican Church that says the Nicene Creed in the form you outline. So does (or at least did) the Lutheran Church I attended as a boy. Didn't have a problem with it then, though my sister did until I pointed out that the word "catholic" means universal.
Posted by: Brian in Calgary at January 22, 2007 12:31 PM (ANILb)
7
"Anglicans rather like to skip over credal statements they either don't understand or like".
Wow. Such ignorance, arrogance, and contempt for your fellow Christians. But this is nothing new. Many Catholics still consider Protestants to be heretics. That's fine. Catholics never cease to amaze me. At a time when Christians are being persecuted through-out the world you still delight in attacking your fellow Christians. As predictable as it is sad and pathetic. Could someone please tell me why we English people are constantly being expected to give up our culture and traditions? Bilingualism in Canada, pro-activism in the States, multiculturalism in Britain, immigration in Australia, every day it's something new.
The Nicene Creed is a cornerstone of the Christian faith. The word Catholic itself is Greek for 'universal'. Anglicans believe in a universal Christian church and we still believe in tradition, therefore we celebrate our faith by reciting the Nicene Creed. Would it surprise you to know that we also celebrate Christ's sacrifice each week during communion? And no, we are not alone in our practices. You like to give the impression that we Anglicans are Catholics, we just don't know it yet. Gee, who does that sound like? Muslim fanatics love to talk about how the entire world is Muslim (they just don't know it yet). At least Muslims haven't been speaking such nonsense for the past 500 years.
You betray yourselves with your naked Catholic arrogance. Those of us who are fortunately not Catholic are not surprised by this. Your Church has for centuries institutionalized its own contempt for any group of Christians who have refused to follow your self-serving and at times deeply disturbing twist on the Christian faith (praying to the Virgin Mary for the forgiveness of sins for instance is contrary to the very words of Christ not to mention the will of God).
The ban on Catholics was well earned I'm afraid. Let us not forget for a moment that the Catholic Church itself sanctioned the assassination of the English sovereign and called for holy war against the English nation (not because they were concerned for the well-being of their fellow Christians mind you, but because they were more concerned about a loss of money and power naturally). For years the Catholic church worked against the emerging democratic will of the English nation. No, I'm quite afraid that the ban is well earned. At a time when our own faith and culture is under attack it would be foolish to give into the demands of any group that seeks to weaken our cultural resolve. And yes, let's face it, our cultural resolve isn't what it used to be. The ban stays, if only for the fact that the English sovereign is the defender of the national church. I would not expect (let alone trust) a Catholic to restore our faith.
But we have been in this situation before. Our history with the Catholic Church is not at all that dissimilar from what is going on right now in England with radical Muslims. Again, here we have foreigners attempting to subvert our culture and annihilate our faith. Clerics in Saudi Arabia sanction holy war against the English state and radical Islamic groups, like the Spanish armada before them, attempt to carry out the wishes of their masters. So don't worry, the Catholic Church in this instance is in good company.
Posted by: TheDiggler at January 22, 2007 01:57 PM (2Tb8y)
8
TheDiggler: I said, "Anglicans rather like to skip over credal statements they either don't understand or like."
To which you respond, "Wow. Such ignorance, arrogance, and contempt for your fellow Christians."
I've been a cradle Anglican for well over 50 years, so who's being ignorant and/or arrogant?
You further comment "Could someone please tell me why we English people are constantly being expected to give up our culture and traditions?" Are you not aware, TheDiggler, that there are millions of English Catholics? In fact, there are more English Catholics filling churches in England than there are Anglicans? These English Catholics share many traditions and one British culture with Anglican Christians; they are not that different from one another.
When you say "praying to the Virgin Mary for the forgiveness of sins...is contrary to the very words of Christ not to mention the will of God" I have to agree with you. Roman Catholics don't, contrary to your assertion, "pray to" the Virgin Mary.
From "The Catechism of the Catholic Church" on "Devotion to the Blessed Virgin" (#971):
[begin quote]
"All generations will call me blessed": "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship." The Church rightly honours "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honoured with the title of 'Mother of God', to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs [recall Christ's words about Mary at the Cross, "Behold, thy mother."]...This very special devotion...differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration." The liturgical feasts decicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, and "epitome of the whole Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.
[end quote]
The first part of the rosary prayer is a direct quote from Scripture, "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus" and the second part says, "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death."
You'll notice that the faithful have ASKED for Mary's prayers; they are not praying TO her. They are talking to her, their "mother," as Jesus proclaimed her before He died.
BTW, TheDiggler, there are many thousands of Anglicans and Lutherans who also pray the rosary. It is not just a Roman Catholic practice, though it clearly is widespread in the RC Church.
With this comment, "But we have been in this situation before. Our history with the Catholic Church is not at all that dissimilar from what is going on right now in England with radical Muslims. Again, here we have foreigners attempting to subvert our culture and annihilate our faith."
EXCUSE ME??????
British Roman Catholics are "not that dissimilar from...radical Muslims"? You're way off base here. There are British Roman Catholic families that go back as far as or much further than Anglican families, so they can hardly be called "foreigners." Both Anglicans and Roman Catholics share a common Christian faith and often work together, ecumenically, on any number of social justice and peace projects and issues.
To equate British Roman Catholics with radical Muslims is to step way over the line of reasonable debate. It is an outrageous allegation in which you are, quite simply, wrong.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 22, 2007 06:12 PM (Oda9S)
9
Brian in Calgary: Yes, I do know that "Catholic" means "universal," which is why I never quite know why Anglicans and other Protestants get their knickers in a knot when it is clear that the Anglican Church, for instance, pledges its belief in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Thanks for pointing that out.
All Christians believe what is proclaimed in the Nicene Creed: Anglican, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox, Protestant, etc. And there is really nothing controversial here.
What of course separates this proclamation of "Catholic" from the so-called "Catholic Church," is that the "Catholic Church" is the "Roman Catholic Church," which is under the earthly authority, bequeathed by God to Peter, of the Bishop of Rome. The other Christian deonominations are not under the authority of the Bishop of Rome.
And, therein, of course lies many misunderstandings, misapprehensions, stereotypes, superstitions, and sometimes downright bigotry, which go all different ways.
No wonder the Lord Jesus hates schism and keeps proclaiming "that they may all be one, like my Father and I are one."
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 22, 2007 06:26 PM (Oda9S)
10
Let's set some things straight:
Anglicans are only Roman Catholics who can divorce and, BTW, Roman Catholics ARE NOT Christians!
(I used to be an Anglican, until I was saved by trusting in Christ's sacrifice in payment for my sins ALONE -- not Mary's, or some so-called "saint" -- almost 8 years ago. Praise God!)
The Nicene Creed was written in the 4th century when the then emperor Constantine (who killed Bible-believing Christians, BTW) who conveniently "converted" to Christ because he was losing the war against them (research it for yourself). Ever heard of the phrase "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em"? Constantine took the then Roman Empire and all their Caesars and turned them into "priests".
Since then, the RCC killed REAL Christians for as little as re-baptizing people once they got saved (Anabaptists).
If you REALLY want a good read, try Revelation 17. Notice the appearance of the woman mentioned as well as where she sits (v9 "seven mountains" aka "the city of seven hills" or ROME).
Rome has not changed. They still hate the Bible, they still hate the Lord's church and they still want to control the world. Remember, Satan is a DECEIVER and comes as an "angel of light". Satan deceived Eve in the Garden of Eden and he is out to deceive you today. Satan wants you to THINK you have the real thing and takes you just close enough to miss it -- with "religion" and not true Christianity. No wonder the Apostle Paul tells us in Galations 1:6-9 not to receive any other Gospel even if an angel came down from Heaven and brought it to us himself.
(Now quit fighting and go read your Bible! You could also take a look at Foxe's Book of Martyrs or Caroll's Trail of Blood, if you still need more evidence.)
PS -- Diggler: isn't the BIBLE supposed to be "the cornerstone of the Christian faith"?!?
Posted by: What saith the Scriptures? at January 24, 2007 02:38 AM (Rww+E)
11
WSTS: Statements like your "Roman Catholics ARE NOT Christians!" show how little you know about Roman Catholics.
You don't say what denomination you are, but whatever it is, the kind of heightened rhetoric you're using, against brothers and sisters in the faith--you should do your homework, rather than rely on anti-Catholic screeds to prop up your anti-RC bigotry--is hardly "Christian."
You sound like a marauding bully to me.
BTW, I know my Bible, and your arguments are not convincing. Get on your knees, WSTB, pray for some humility and compassion, and then perhaps someone would be happy to converse with you.
Right now, your lofty position, which is so obviously superior to, and contemptuous of, Roman Catholics (after you saw the light 8 years ago, you say?) you're in a place that most of us cannot hear you from.
What did you say, again...?
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 24, 2007 07:37 AM (Q1NSZ)
12
Nowhere in Bible does it say that the Bible is supposed to be the sole source of Christian faith.
If you believe in Jesus' teaching, then the teachings are the source. The teachings include living a right life of faith and works and obedience to God, Jesus, and the Apostles. Either you believe Jesus' teachings or you don't. Included in the teachings is the establishment of the Church, the vesting of authority in the Apostles, and the promise to safeguard the Church for all time. So, either you believe Jesus, or you believe Jesus failed (to safeguard the Church). If you believe Jesus failed, then why be Christian at all?
Jesus founded the Church between 50 and 200 years before the Bible was even written and compiled. Jesus didn't teach from the Bible. He taught from the Old Testament and added the New. How someone can see the Bible as something independent and superior to the Church is beyond me. Well, I know how: Ignorance of history.
Neither is Vatican Hill one of the seven hills of Rome. The Holy See is on a hill across the Tiber from the seven hills of Rome. So, there's either eight hills, or the seven hills are picked arbitrarily to make attacks on the True Church for whatever reason. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Posted by: Patrick at January 25, 2007 04:31 PM (5jnES)
13
Also missing from the Bible: a verse or verses listing which books should be in the Bible. Though the Bible is written by the Holy Spirit, the table of contents was written by the Catholic Church. AFTER Constantine.
Any belief in the correctness of that table of contents bodes faith in said institution. So much for that conspiracy theory.
Speaking of institution, I love how non-Catholics can have faith in the existence of God but be agnostic about the existence of His Church on Earth.
Let us get this straight. You claim to be part of this "universal" church. There are several points to make:
1) "church" is singular. This presumes not only universality but also oneness.
2) "church" also implies "not-church" just as the concept of "apple" implies objects which are "not-apple."
Follow these logical extensions to their unavoidable conclusions. If you have just one church, then you must also decide what is "not-church". But who decides and how? Some would exclude Catholics from that definition, some would exclude non-Catholics. Others still would INclude Scientologists or Buddhists.
So who is right here? Clearly, you cannot rely on consensus among Christians because in order to find that consensus you would need yet another consensus on what a Christian is (and, if you include Catholics in that census, Catholicism would end up with the definitive definitions on both counts anyway).
You have only two choices:
1) YOU are right (whatever that means, oh mighty prophet)
2) The Catholic Church is right
One is absolutely relativistic -- which denies the unitive nature of truth. Not to mention the fact you will go to the grave with your mighty secret and at most only a handful of temporarily deluded followers to show for it.
The other is the Scriptural solution that preserves both the unity as well as the cathlocity of the True Church.
People like to go around saying "We're catholic too" because its warm and fuzzy connotations of togetherness. But like most heresies, the Church not only agrees with you, she makes sure to protect out the other dimension as well.
Funny how you do not hear too many people saying "we're the one church too". Yet "one" is the first of the four marks of the True Church in the very creed being referenced here (it even precedes "holy"). Not only is it the first, but, as stated earlier, it is the only element echoed in the singular form of the noun "church."
Anything else is sentiment as smokescreen. No accounting of a single church can be made and non-Christians see it for what it is: unworkable hogwash. But I am willing to entertain how you define this church you mention. It has been over 500 years after all and this matter is important enough to be settled.
Posted by: StubbleSpark at January 26, 2007 01:58 AM (QZRSo)
14
Please allow me to share some of “what sayeth the scriptures” in response to your arguments:
On extra-Biblical writings – “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Revelation 22:18-19)
On Roman Catholic traditions – “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Colossians 2:
On Roman Catholic doctrine and ordinances – “ Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” (1 Timothy 4:1-3)
On “Mary” the Roman Catholic “Queen of Heaven” – “The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.” (Jeremiah 4:17, see also Jeremiah 44)
On the Rosary– “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.” (Matthew 6:7)
On the Pope – “But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.” (Mark 1:30) Peter was married.
On the Roman Catholic “church” – “And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. [...] And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.” (Revelations 17:4-6, 9)
To TRUE believers – “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,” (2 Corinthians 6:17)
On Roman Catholic doctrine and ordinances – “ Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” (1 Timothy 4:1-3)
On “Mary” the Roman Catholic “Queen of Heaven” – “The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.” (Jeremiah 4:17, see also Jeremiah 44)
On the Rosary– “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.” (Matthew 6:7)
On the Pope – “But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.” (Mark 1:30) Peter was married.
On the Roman Catholic “church” – “And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. [...] And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.” (Revelations 17:4-6, 9)
To TRUE believers – “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,” (2 Corinthians 6:17)Posted by: What saith the Scriptures? at January 26, 2007 12:06 PM (Rww+E)
15
It's The Book of Revelation, WSTS, not Revelations. That mistake, alone, says something about your authenticity.
Your quotes, from both the Old Testament and New Testament, lack all credibility. What book are you quoting from?
Not the Bible.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 26, 2007 08:30 PM (0NNXQ)
16
Because the more internationally recognized title of the book is the Book of the Apocalypse, I think the misquote "Book of Revelations" is understandable. In fact, I am starting to think it is not a misquote at all. Having grown up Baptist, I have a vague memory of it just being called "Revelations". Mind you, this is minus "The Book of" but that might come from another Christian tradition.
But really, WST, do you truly want to play scripture shuriken instead of answering the question I proposed? You realize, I hope, that by pretending to ignore the question (how is "the church" both one and universal without an established governing body) you are openly proclaiming that you have no suitable answer.
Okay, by your rules then:
On extra-Biblical writings and sacred tradition -- "The Scriptures are our sole source of wisdom and understanding of Christ and His gospel." (aka Sola Scriptura) or other words to that effect are not found in the Bible. Sola Scriptura is unscriptural. See: I Tim 3:15, Luke 10:16, I Corinthians 11:2, II Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6
It is clear from these verses and the passages which provide them context that the Church authoritatively maintained unity through Christ's mandate to teach ONE gospel through the centuries "Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me." (Luke 10:16). Because what Christ wanted, more than a gaggle of "free-thinkers" was a unified church: "I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, SO THAT THEY MAY ALL BE ONE, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they may also be in us, that the WORLD MAY BELIEVE YOU SENT ME." (John 17:20-21).
The traditions of man being condemned in the scriptures in your above message (Colossians 2:8 and 1 Timothy 4:1-3) are the traditions that divide the mystical body of Christ. The teachings of Luther, Calvin and countless other heresiarchs whose words were like the lash upon our Lord's back -- each blow cutting deeper, separating more flesh from divine flesh, and adding to His suffering.
The division between Christians now is a tragedy of cosmic proportions and with every new "non-denominational" church that crops up, the divisions grow MORE numerous and the confusion more prevalent.
In light of the verses quoted above, you now have three choices:
1) Deny Christ meant for His Church to be unified.
2) Admit Christ meant for His Church to be one and that He gave it the authority to maintain that unity.
3) Try not to think about the fact that the Catholic understanding can incorporate a full understanding of BOTH the pro-tradition verses I quoted as well as the anti-tradition verses you quoted and change the topic.
Posted by: at January 27, 2007 12:40 AM (Eu/Xf)
17
Because the more internationally recognized title of the book is the Book of the Apocalypse, I think the misquote "Book of Revelations" is understandable. In fact, I am starting to think it is not a misquote at all. Having grown up Baptist, I have a vague memory of it just being called "Revelations". Mind you, this is minus "The Book of" but that might come from another Christian tradition.
But really, WST, do you truly want to play scripture shuriken instead of answering the question I proposed? You realize, I hope, that by pretending to ignore the question (how is "the church" both one and universal without an established governing body) you are openly proclaiming that you have no suitable answer.
Okay, by your rules then:
On extra-Biblical writings and sacred tradition -- "The Scriptures are our sole source of wisdom and understanding of Christ and His gospel." (aka Sola Scriptura) or other words to that effect are not found in the Bible. Sola Scriptura is unscriptural. See: I Tim 3:15, Luke 10:16, I Corinthians 11:2, II Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6
It is clear from these verses and the passages which provide them context that the Church authoritatively maintained unity through Christ's mandate to teach ONE gospel through the centuries "Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me." (Luke 10:16). Because what Christ wanted, more than a gaggle of "free-thinkers" was a unified church: "I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, SO THAT THEY MAY ALL BE ONE, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they may also be in us, that the WORLD MAY BELIEVE YOU SENT ME." (John 17:20-21).
The traditions of man being condemned in the scriptures in your above message (Colossians 2:8 and 1 Timothy 4:1-3) are the traditions that divide the mystical body of Christ. The teachings of Luther, Calvin and countless other heresiarchs whose words were like the lash upon our Lord's back -- each blow cutting deeper, separating more flesh from divine flesh, and adding to His suffering.
The division between Christians now is a tragedy of cosmic proportions and with every new "non-denominational" church that crops up, the divisions grow MORE numerous and the confusion more prevalent.
In light of the verses quoted above, you now have three choices:
1) Deny Christ meant for His Church to be unified.
2) Admit Christ meant for His Church to be one and that He gave it the authority to maintain that unity.
3) Try not to think about the fact that the Catholic understanding can incorporate a full understanding of BOTH the pro-tradition verses I quoted as well as the anti-tradition verses you quoted and change the topic.
Posted by: StubbleSpark at January 27, 2007 12:41 AM (Eu/Xf)
18
Sorry about the above double post.
WST, I had to also point out that petitioning Mary via the rosary, while repetitive, is not vain. As our Lord Himself has prayed in repetitions "He left them and withdrew again and prayed a third, time saying the same thing again" (Matt 26:44) I think it would be wise to distinguish between vain repetition and efficacious repetition.
Also, in Revelation 4:8, the angels in Heaven repeat day and night "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord."
Not to mention the passage in Daniel where the phrase "bless the Lord" is repeated countless times "Bless the Lord, all you works of the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all forever. Angels of the Lord, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all forever. You heavens, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all forever. All you waters above the heavens, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all forever. All you hosts of the Lord, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all forever. Sun and moon, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all forever. Stars of heaven, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all forever. Every shower and dew ..." it goes on like that (Daniel 3:57 and on and on).
A couple more things:
We know Peter was married.
Priests are not forbidden to marry. There are married priests. Although Christ Himself exhorted those among His followers who had the gift to not marry in Matthew 19:12. Not to mention the fact that Christ was an unmarried celibate.
You are using Scriptures to obfuscate the teachings of Christ, which is what the Bible predicts the false prophets would do. You either:
A) Think it is wrong to imitate Christ by by choosing to live a chaste, unmarried life.
or
B) Are more interested in twisting Scripture to fit your personal, narrow understanding of universal Christianity. "Know this first of all, that there is not prophecy of Scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation" (II Peter 1:20).
Posted by: StubbleSpark at January 27, 2007 01:08 AM (Eu/Xf)
19
Thanks, Stubble Spark, for your illumination on some serious problems with what WSTS has to say about Christ, the Bible, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and Roman Catholics.
I appreciate your contribution to this thread.
So, WSTS, come back! You have some 'splaining to do! No one's going to bite your head off, but you do need to justify some pretty heavy stuff you've alleged about fellow-Christians...
Love your neighbour as yourself, WSTS.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 27, 2007 11:12 AM (/5HRs)
20
Can you message me with some pointers on how you made your blog site look this good, Id appreciate it.
Posted by: outlet at December 19, 2012 07:56 AM (eh7R4)
December 19, 2006
Jefferts Schori: Episcopal Church not splintering
On one level, you would think that the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church is being willfully blind, stating that the church is not splitting apart over the issue of gay ordinations.
Meanwhile, several parishes in Virgina have done exactly that -- split from the Episcopal Church altogether.
But in a strange way, Jefferts Schori is right. The Episcopal Church is not splintering because gays are being ordained. It is splitting, but because of a disagreement over the fundamental nature of Christianity.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
01:25 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 932 words, total size 6 kb.
1
Agreed. The issue is how do you answer: What are the holy Scriptures?
As some men of God once answered (in part):
"The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." Westminster Confession Of Faith
Some churches simply ignore this plain teaching. Unfortunately this has been happening since the days of the Apostles as seen in many of the New Testament letters.
Posted by: Denis at December 19, 2006 02:50 PM (SqX7o)
2
Well said sir.
I agree completely.
Posted by: Scott Merrithew at December 19, 2006 02:59 PM (GqO0P)
3
What a load of pop psychology. Your use of the term "reason" throughout this post betrays a serious and fundamental misunderstanding of the history of both philosophy and religious studies.
As only the tip of the iceberg, it is absurd to state that a belief system based on reason denies that an absolute truth exists. It is precisely the opposite!
Posted by: bob at December 19, 2006 03:39 PM (uvT7t)
4
sorry bob
Steve's actaully got it right... he very clearly outlined the fundamental weakness of all religion. in the absense of absolute truth in the form of ongoing and definitive revelation from God... the existing canon of revelation, whether it be the Torah, Koran, Bible, Communist Manifesto, Nature Magazine, or whatever publication you decide to put your faith in, will always be subject to human interpretation.
there may be an absolute truth out there, (I personally think there is) but humans are obviously incapable of understanding it, and therefore substitute understanding with interpretation. The results of those interpretations being directly responsible for most of the wars, violence, opression and general stupidity over the last 7000 years or so.
Posted by: Sierra at December 19, 2006 05:12 PM (CHE53)
5
Sorry I meant to say...
The results of those interpretations, coupled with greed, ambition, and the lust for power being directly responsible for most of the wars, violence, opression and general stupidity over the last 7000 years or so
Posted by: Sierra at December 19, 2006 05:15 PM (CHE53)
6
Sorry Sierra, but Steve doesn't have it right.
A belief in reason does not in any way shape or form require a belief that there is no absolute truth. Unless by "truth" you mean something like "moral truth".
Most of the time when Steve uses the term "reason", which has a very specific meaning in both philosophy and theology, he seems to mean something along the lines of "opinion" or "interpretation". Whatever it is, it sure isn't reason, as understood by most religious scholars.
Second, I agree with you wholeheartedly that the existing cannon of revelation is always subject to human interpretation. And as such, this is not an argument about Faith vs. Reason, as Steve argues. It is an argument about whose interpretation of revelation is "better" or "more true".
Steve implies that it is only those dastardly liberal episcopalians who are interpreting revelation, while "conservative" episcopalians are simply accepting on Faith the revelation as given -- as if there were no interpreation required.
Posted by: bob at December 19, 2006 06:56 PM (uvT7t)
7
As Kant observed, just because you can say there is a penny in your pocket does not mean one exists. Just because you can say "absolute truth" does not mean that the concept is coherent. It is meaningful to assert the existence of absolute truths within a particular closed system of logical convention, such as 2 + 2 = 4 in our integer system, base 5 or greater. The truth claim is about a feature of the system of representation. However, any claims about our systems of representation in relation to the real world are contingent. As chaos theory amply demonstrates, anything of interest in the world is constituted by causalities too complex for any system of human representation to model completely and consistently. A life of "Reason" necessarily involves faith, as Holmes indicated in "A Soldier's Faith" and other speeches, and as Nietzsche set out in book five of Joyous Science.
The incompleteness of reason is no cause for despair. A plant cannot grow "toward" the sun, because that would be too operationally complex for a plant, it grows "away" from darkness, which is tractable to implement at the cellular level without top-down control. So too human systems of knowledge. It begs the question to assume computationally tractable ideals. Rather, scientific/empirical knowledge grows away from error, through continual and unending creative transformation of the systems of modeling and their relationship to experience.
This does not imply relativism. Error and failure are certainty objective. A child does not have a preordained ideal "walk" program in the brain. There are many ways to walk, as gait and the required neuro-muscular sequencings will vary with bone length ratios (which change over time), etc. But "fall down" is pretty objective. Walking "truths" that can't stand up to scrutiny (so to speak) cannot simply be asserted as subjective truths. Thus the absence of any meaningful notion of an "ideal" walking program or "absolute walking model" is hardly an objection the the activity of learning to walk. Moreover, positing the existence of an absolute walking program probably interferes with learning to walk more than it could help.
I think the real issue here is the evolved wisdom of tradition versus social experimentation. As Holmes observed, social experimentation is a fine sport, so long as one appreciates it takes a century to replace a tree.
Posted by: murray at December 20, 2006 10:12 AM (dw9A3)
8
"But some of the decisions by the Episcopal Church are clearly NOT permitted through scriptural revelation. Doing the kind of investigation I descibe would quickly show that."
It is offensive for you to imply that Church leaders (and even simple religious folks) in these Congregations have not, and are not, going through the same sort of struggles with their faith that you went through with yours. Do you honestly believe that they are just whimsically making these decisions? Take a look around -- it is causing great strife and great pain -- and it is not being done lightly.
If you look through the Archives of the Anglican, Episcopal, Lutheran, United, etc., churches, you will find extensive theological, philosophical, and moral discussions on just these issues. The struggles are all too evident. Just as there were on issues of slavery, treatment of women, and a whole slew of other "contemporary" problems.
Many faiths do not view the scriptures, themselves, as the word of God, but instead as recorded observations of the Life of Christ by exceptional, but ultimately human, teachers. As such, for many, many, Christians, the scriptures are seen as guides to moral practice and not as proscriptions.
You may disagree with the way others view the scriptures; but just as I am sure that you feel that only God is capable of ultimately judging the terms of your interpretation of divorce, why don't you let God judge the terms of others interpretations as well.
Posted by: bob at December 21, 2006 05:38 PM (uvT7t)
9
'Like the blue!
I can't enter into the theological discussion here, as I am no theologian.
But to put it very simply, Jefferts Schori is living in a parallel universe to reality when she asserts that "the Episcopal Church is not splintering."
It's been splintering for a long, long time. Any Christian Church that begins to pick and choose which parts of Scripture it will accept and which passages "no longer apply to an evolving humanity" has ceased to become a Christian Church. It's simply the chattering class at prayer, who truly feel that they are superior to everyone else, especially "fundamentalist" and "evangelical" Christians.
I should know. I have more than a passing acquaintance with such folk in the Anglican hierarchy, and I voted with my feet a year and a half ago. Whatever the failings of the Roman Catholic Church, at least its Magisterium holds to the eternal truths of our Christian faith, passed down from generation to generation.
John Paul the Great was a magnificent example of a true and courageous teacher and spiritual leader, which is, actually, the "job description" of a bishop of the Church (who would know when listening to what Jefferts Schori and Andrew Hutchison [the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada] have to say?)
Posted by: 'been around the block at December 22, 2006 09:15 AM (8+eLi)
10
The bigger issue with the mainstream protestant churches is the throwing out of centuries of tradition for faddish theories. Much like socialism, there are people who believe that they can ignore the example of history can craft society in their own vision.
And they wonder why theses churches are becoming more empty with each ridiculous edict being passed.
Posted by: Mitch at December 22, 2006 04:38 PM (zwzg4)
11
Steve does have it right.
Those in the North American Anglican church are making choices regarding this statement.
"The Bible and the plain interpretation thereof informs all our choices."
1. If no, a) you leave the church and only come back for family occasions.
b) you stay and become a force for liberalization.
2. If yes, a) you leave and go to another church.
b) you stay you stay and become a force for conservatism.
My wife, as a pastor, chose 2a. The church is splitting 4 ways because the 1b and 2b people can't stay together much longer.
Ordaining gay bishops is not the issue, it is the revelation of the issue. Is incompatable with The Bible and the plain interpretation thereof. You can't do that and maintain the long standing fiction that your church believes in the Bible in any meaningful way. The ordaination of gay bishops is part of a theological package that denies just about everything in the Apostles' Creed. If the leaders can deny that, they can easily deny that their church is splitting apart.
Posted by: PlaidShirt at December 22, 2006 11:15 PM (Zlb1H)
12
wholesale NFL jerseys,nfl jerseys for china,cheap nfl jerseys
Posted by: Texans jersey Cheap at November 29, 2012 08:44 AM (eOBZU)
December 03, 2006
The Anglican Church: Secession and blurred lines of authority
An entire diocese has voted to secede from the Episcopal Church, unhappy with the liberal policies being pursued by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori. Schori has offered to appoint special bishops for these diocese, a form of quarantine, but that offer was rejected. Significant though, is that Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Cantebury, has called these demands by the diocese for "alternative primatial oversight", that is, secession, an "interesting" idea.
Now we wait to see how Schori and the Episcopal heirarchy will respond to what could be seen as meddling by a British authority in an internal American church matter.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
09:01 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 772 words, total size 6 kb.
1
The undoing of the Anglican/Episcopalian Church will be around exactly such an issue as this. The Anglican/Episcopalian Church is in a crisis of authority, ironically, the very thing which brought the Anglican/Episcopalian Church into existence because of Henry VIII's refusal to accept the Pope's authority.
As the old Presbyterian clergyman in the film "Chariots of Fire" pointed out--obviously not a point taken to heart by latter-day Protestant Churches--"the Kingdom of God is not a democracy."
The more the Anglican/Episcopalian Church sees itself as a democracy, having to placate its many different constituents, having to be "open" and "tolerant" to its constituents' many "diverse" lifestyles, the more fractured and unworkable it becomes.
As long as Anglicans/Episcopalians see themselves as religious consumers--some looking for "equality rights," others for the gay agenda, still others, for "Green Liturgies"--and not as servants of God, these schisms are going to continue.
The future of the Anglican/Episcopalian Church is not looking good: "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
Posted by: 'been around the block at December 03, 2006 02:42 PM (pRS/B)
2
It's not only the Anglican churches bending to accommodate "alternates". Those "alternates" are not really into religion at all, just looking for notoriety to take on established religions in their attempts to gain acceptance and legitimacy in the mainstream society. It's part of their mission, the sickening fools!
It runs the gammit from taking rock music into the churches to performing same-sex marriages and blessing sodomy, going against the tenets of Christianity.
At present the pews are emptying, soon they will be totally empty.
The hierarchy of the churches are desperately trying to do the impossible by letting in these rogues they will only succeed in alienating the true believers further.
It's making a mockery of Christendom.
Posted by: Liz J at December 03, 2006 06:42 PM (k6TNB)
3
In business terms the Anglican church has lost its brand. What makes an Anglican an Anglican? Who can say? This is sad but the fact that the "church" fathers (and mothers!) have trashed this identity themselves also makes present and former adherents mad at the vandals.
Posted by: carrscanary at December 03, 2006 07:10 PM (yzOzm)
4
"Round the block", I believe you are exactly right.
No Church, or other organization that has fundamental precepts to protect, can operate as a democracy without subjecting them to the political vacillations of current opinion.
In recent years, competing opinions held with "religious" conviction (pun intended) are tearing the Anglican/Episcopalian Church apart for the sole reason that the Leadership has knowingly abandoned the doctrinal tenets on which their authority is founded, and given their people the impression, at least, that they can vote in what they want, and vote out what they don't.
If they had the courage of their convictions, they would understand that the people's democratic freedom to choose their favourite doctrines ends on the way in the front door.
Posted by: Scott Merrithew at December 03, 2006 10:30 PM (Cqw/R)
5
I was raised, baptised and confirmed in the Anglican Church and spent many happy years under its wing, with strong loving mentors, satisfying rituals and much friendship. As I entered young adulthood, my personal and professional development led me away from the Church and, when it came time to return, I found it didn't exist any more. For me, then, the journey became much longer, all the way back to Rome. It has been the same for many other ex-Anglicans of my generation.
Posted by: felis corpulentis at December 04, 2006 01:41 PM (edu1y)
6
A couple thoughts ... First regarding:
"Legal questions concerning ownership and control of diocese property have not been settled, and are likely to move this theological battle into the secular courts."
This is what rubs me about this story (and those like it). I applaud those willing to separate from a corrupt organization, but the secular courts should not be used as a tool ensure the separation happens the way they desire. I think Paul's exhortation to the Corinthians is especially relevant: "The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?" (1 Cor 6:7 NIV)
It seems rather than allowing themselves to be wronged for their just action, the modern philosophy of entitlements may take president.
Second, Liz (in the comments) equivocated the use of rock music with blessing sodomy. Here I do have to stand up for my church and those like it - I'd argue the use of a given medium and/or genre within the weekly worship service is not linked to the orthodoxy of said churches beliefs. In other words, the use of guitars or drums does not mean a church is pedalling some sort of seeker-sensitive, gospel-lite, or easy-grace message (or any other flavour of heresy for that matter).
Posted by: Denis at December 04, 2006 02:00 PM (SqX7o)
7
Amazing how many important sounding words and concepts that can be generated by a bunch of myth-making bullshit artists who act like they're the ones who invented and hold the patent rights to the concept of good will between all humans...in exchange for 10% of all your action, of course....
Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at December 06, 2006 09:43 AM (Y1ykG)
8
Wholesale NFL Jerseys,Cheap NFL Jerseys on SaleCheap Jerseys From China - Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale
Posted by: Cheap Bills jerseys at November 29, 2012 08:44 AM (eOBZU)
9
I admire your website , it has of lot of information. You just got a perennial visitor of this site.
Posted by: outlet at December 19, 2012 06:25 AM (K/7MY)
November 26, 2006
Rowan Williams: Blogs play a role in Anglican battles between the left and the right
It is fascinating to see where blogs crop up, and just how seriously the content is taken. In this case, the former and current Archbishops of Cantebury, George Carey and Rowan Williams, respectively, are engaged in some serious fighting over the direction the Anglican Church is taking. One of the tools in that fight is a blog maintained by George Carey's son, Andrew. Other Anglican blogs are playing equally significant roles in the fight.
Just as we've seen in the secular political arena, blogs seem to be used more effectively by conservatives to keep up pressure on liberals holding the reins of power.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
08:35 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1102 words, total size 8 kb.
1
Correct me if I am wrong Steve, but didn't Martin and the Libs want to impose real time monitoring of things like yahoo and msm messenger. This all at the ISPs expense of course,or they pay $50,000 fine. Just like Trudooooh and his "you will go metric, you will pay or you will be jailed". I haven't heard what happened to the idea maybe you can update us. This was of course before blogs became so favourite. We all know what they will try to do if they get re-elected. The party of freedoms is so much against the freedom of speech.
Posted by: Pissedoff at November 26, 2006 09:17 AM (t6NgY)
2
Another interesting question to ask is,"Why the egregious confusion amongst our leaders?"
There's still a long way to go on both sides. In the case of the orthodox churches, very few leaders have been able to articulate or defend some very old principles such as the rejection of gay marriage or the rejection of women priests. The left can't explain why they want these things, and the right can't explain why it's wrong. This should be a slam-dunk for the conservatives. New believers seek clarity and leadership. But as usual, we're paying with our wallets for our leaders to learn on the job like apprentices when they should be on top of these subjects already. We can be forgiven for expecting better of our leaders.
Posted by: Layon de Lumber at November 26, 2006 04:41 PM (1dKxB)
3
Here we go again!
While I initially found myself taking Carey's side on the issue, the total absurdity of the situation hit home when I read that Carey's camp calls "allies of Rowan Williams the real fundamentalists".
There is so much confusion in that organization, that no one seems to know what is "fundamental" anyway. I don't expect any resolution for these people as long as they are carried away on whatever wind of doctrine seems politically correct this month or next.
Steve, I love your sense of irony concerning the "incorporeal universe". I also agree with your observation that conservatives are making better use of blogs to support their views, but not due to any lack of effort by web-savvy liberals.
It is simply that blogs strip away the things that liberals rely upon to win their battles.
The winning stroke in any debate, religious, political, or otherwise, is a debillitating ad hominem attack that plants doubts in the public minds, and causes the opponent to wilt in the face of off-topic, un-defendable accusations. It has worked for generations in all walks of life, regardless of the issue, and regardless of the forum.
That is until now.
Why? Because the inherent worth of an argument cannot be squashed on a blog as easily as it can on TV and other media outlets that practise selective reporting; omitting any tidbit that might refute the position their editorial board has decided to endorse, and repeatedly broadcasting the ad hominem debillitation of the day.
No, the power of a public forum like this blog is that each argument is unhindered by any adversary, and is available to be read by all, just the way the writer intended; pure and unadulterated.
Every argument is presented on it's own merit, and we can all read a multiplicity of views, agree or disagree, and perhaps even be persuaded to adjust our own opinions.
The reason that blogs appear to be more effective for conservatives is a combination of two factors.
Firstly, the ad hominem attacks that are rendered impotent in this forum, are primarily used by opponents of conservative ideas.
Secondly, proponents of conservative ideas usually have valid and principled reasons for believing what they say, and the strength of their arguments is generally sufficient to defeat shallow liberal platitudes.
Proponents of liberal ideas generally base their arguments on the poll of the day, and winning at all costs, not on priciples that can withstand the tests of time. Liberal thought rarely runs any deeper than "down with the conservatives". If it did, then we would see more of it in the forum of ideas, and liberal victories would be founded on well-won debate, rather than slander and ridicule.
Unfortunately, we haven't seen many examples of the former, but are deluged with examples of the latter.
And so, while bishops Carey and Williams exchange ad hominems, trying to establish who is the least "fundamentalist", we can just shake our heads and wonder how the Anglican Church, ostensibly representing the conservative side of the political spectrum, descended from heights of sacred significance to the crumbling facade we witness today.
Could it be simply that liberals have taken over.
Posted by: Scott Merrithew at November 27, 2006 05:16 AM (h3dn9)
4
Scott Merrithew re the confusion and chaos in the Anglican Church vis a vis the gay issue: "we can just shake our heads and wonder how the Anglican Church, ostensibly representing the conservative side of the political spectrum, descended from heights of sacred significance to the crumbling facade we witness today.
"Could it be simply that liberals have taken over?"
As a cradle Anglican and one who has had intimate ties with the Anglican Church all of my life--until a year and a half ago, when I left the Anglican Church to become a Roman Catholic--I can answer Scott's question in a word:
Yes.
Posted by: 'been around the block at November 27, 2006 06:33 PM (SIY9j)
5
Oh, and another thing:
All of this wrangling going on between Archbishops, Bishops, clergy, and laity, all because of the gay agenda and the very small percentage of the population that fall into the gay category--not all of whom are in favour of the activist agenda, BTW--has created a scorch and burn policy in the Anglican and Episcopal Churches.
Gay activists and their apologists are forcing their agenda on the people in the pew who, if they were individually polled, would probably say a resounding "NO!" to the apostasy that has resulted. Activities which, for millennia, have been forbidden in Scripture--for the health and well-being of men and women--are now not only allowed but are championed. Never mind that same-sex sexual activity has led to an unprecedented epidemic of sickness and death in the gay community, the Church seems to think that it must, in the name of a false "equality," "openness," and "tolerance," defend these sexual preferences.
"Without a vision, the people perish," is exactly where the Anglican/Episcopalian Churches find themselves today. I'm giving them about 10 years before there is a total collapse. When the over-sixty generation, who tend to generously finance the church, are gone, that'll pretty much be it. The hierarchies may be able to limp along for a few more years on endowments, which are far more numerous and generous in the Episcopalian Church than in the Anglican Church of Canada, but the individual churches will be closing down in unprecedented numbers.
"For Wales, Richie? For Wales?" (From "A Man for All Seasons," when Sir Thomas More discovers that Richie Rich has sold him down the river for a place of honour in Wales, then a backwater of the Kingdom.)
Posted by: at November 29, 2006 08:45 AM (CDHVN)
6
Above post is mine: posted at 8:45 a.m.
Posted by: 'been around the block at November 29, 2006 08:47 AM (CDHVN)
7
The democratic process works well for nation states, allowing the population to guide the hand of a representative government. However, it undermines the authority of any organization that is based on an established set of foundational precepts, like a Church, or school, or club.
Majority rule does not mean that the majority is right; it only ensures that the fewest number of people are discriminated against.
In any church, synagogue, or mosque, the leadership is responsible for guiding the people.
Traditionally, churches, synagogues, mosques, schools and clubs had well-defined standards of operation, any divergence from which was identified and addressed in some fashion.
One pertinent effect of that was to discourage people from attending regularly if they did not endorse the standard.
Why is that acceptable in such an organization and not society as a whole? Because membership in these organizations is purely voluntary, with no legitimate repurcussions if a person chooses not to attend anymore. (I say legitimate because apparently a person who decides to quit a mosque is targeted for elimination by their family)
The tendency to relax any traditional standards in the church as an intentional strategy to increase church attendance in the midst of an increasingly non-christian society, has had the predictable result of empowering those who have no interest in foundational precepts, and diluting the relevance of the church in society.
This tactic is probably due to the misguided notion that the most important measure of a church's success is the number of members, so any effort to increase that number is warranted, even if it means sacrificing a foundational precept or ten.
An example of this carried to it's natural conclusion is something that happened in Thornhill, suburb of Toronto.
An old church with a very small number in attendance, had their Annual General Meeting and a motion was made by a relatively new member, to change the denomination of the church. There were not enough members in the quorum to prevent it, and now it is a completely different congregation. (I don't know enough of the details to state it as fact, but my memory tells me it was from a protestant denomination to an Islam mosque.)
That is an extreme example, but the same thing is happening to varying degrees in the Anglican Church and others.
Posted by: Scott Merrithew at November 30, 2006 02:26 PM (GqO0P)
8
My son and I feel very comfortable with the kindness and treatment plan we have experienced through Feil ortho!!! Thank you!!|;
north face online store
Posted by: north face online store at November 21, 2012 11:11 AM (QkIdl)
9
Big Strong Erections
Posted by: outlet at December 19, 2012 05:49 PM (O7a0w)
November 12, 2006
Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Anglican Church, and Irenicism
Is Katharine Jefferts Schori, recently invested in the position of Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (the Anglican Church in the US), up to dealing with such subtle theological questions facing her faithful such as irenicism?
Irenicism? Until I started this piece, I had never heard of the word. The worrisome thing is that I wonder whether Jefferts Schori has ever heard of the word either.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
09:21 AM
| Comments (45)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1811 words, total size 12 kb.
1
They understand that Christians must respect others and their faiths, but does that mean drawing some sort of equivalence between faiths in order to avoid having an opinion and coming to some sort of judgment? If all religions are the same, can they have any value, or claim to hold any Truths?
"Facile irenicism" is about dwelling on the superficial similarities between religions, while ignoring or denying ideological differences and religious diversity for fear of offending other faith groups. Genuine irenicism, by contrast, confronts these differences openly and respectfully, in order to gain an understanding of the Other, and perhaps to discern common values underlying each faith system. Monsignor Felix Machado:
he Catholic Church exhorts her faithful to engage in dialogue with people of other religious traditions while at the same time obliging them to adhere uncompromisingly to the essential truths of Christian faith...The Catholic faithful do not consider themselves to be on a higher level or better than the believers of other religious traditions, such as Hindu Vaisnavas. I think hardly anyone in the Catholic Church today would really have this attitude of superiority. The text of Dominus Jesus, an important document from the Central Authority of the Catholic Church, clearly states: "Equality, which is a presupposition of interreligious dialogue, refers to the equal personal dignity of the parties in dialogue, not to doctrinal content, nor even less to the position of Jesus Christ--who is God himself made man--in relation to the founders of the other religions" (Dominus Jesus, n. 22)...
Today the Catholic Church wants to approach other religious traditions with sensitivity to the spiritual and human values enshrined in them. Religions command respect because they bear witness to efforts to find answers to the profound mysteries of the human condition and give expression to the experience and longings of millions of their adherents. Other religions are not considered mere objects of Christian mission but partners in dialogue. [emphasis mine]
Moreover, as Rev. Maurice Ryan--who knows a thing or two about bringing together disparate faith groups under trying conditions--notes,
The interfaith experience reinforces the sense that the Divine transcends human thought and language, that our theologies are all ‘provisional’, ‘interim’ attempts to express the Inexpressible, and therefore no religion (and certainly no Church!) can claim a monopoly of truth. It is this that offers the ultimate basis for accepting others’ religious legitimacy, while seeking sincerely to maintain one’s own. This is, I believe, what Christianity must grasp in the exciting experience of encounter with people of faith worldwide. [emphasis mine]
Viewed through this understanding of false vs. genuine irenicism, Jefferts Schori's words are uncontroversial. She clearly does not compromise the legitimacy or the "essential identity of the [Christian] ChurchÂ’s faith", stating unequivocally that "As Christians, we understand [salvation] as relationship with God in Jesus..." At the same time, in keeping with the principles of sincere interreligious dialogue, she acknowledges that Episcopalians--and Christians more generally--cannot claim a monopoly on faith ("...but that does not mean that we're expected to judge other people's own commitments."). Her's is a nuanced and sensitive articulation of progressive interfaith communication.
3 additional quick comments:
1) For a lot of the faithful, statements like these are confusing.
Unless you can cite support for your claims (e.g., that many are confused by Jeffert Schori's statements), be wary of speaking on behalf of "the faithful."
2) If all religions are the same, can they have any value, or claim to hold any Truths? From that position it is only a short hop to a Marxist view of religion as the opiate of the masses.
The quotation of religion as "the opium of the people"--itself a misleading populist summation of Marx's actual views on religion--says nothing about moral equivalency between religions. One can believe that only a single True Religion is valid, and that all others are imposters, and yet still believe this True Religion to be "the opium of the people." You are conflating two unrelated theological issues here.
3) You should clarify that when you say, "The Lutherans issued a similar warning in their Catechism," that you actually mean the Concordia Lutheran Conference. The CLC, one of several N. American Lutheran church bodies (indeed, one of the smaller ones), does not speak for all Lutherans in the US, let alone all Lutherans globally.
Posted by: Z at November 12, 2006 01:01 PM (YK2nB)
2
The thing is: it's not about "Truth" any more in the mainstream protestant denomination. Truth? What's that? Whether Jesus died on the crosss? Whether he rose from the dead? Those are DETAILS!
This is precisely why Christianity is going down the toilet in the West. You will find growth where churches affirm your basic Apostle's Creed aS FOR REAL. You will find decline and abandonment in churches that treat those things as optional or open to discussion.
You cannot sustain a church on social justice policy. You can do social justice outside the church just fine. What people want is truth to know how to answer those existential questions, answers that you cannot find anywhere else, to give them hope and joy.
I don't think the mainstream churches get that. Large segments of the Catholic clergy don't get that either, I might add.
Posted by: SUZANNE at November 12, 2006 01:03 PM (iZ6T2)
3
Jefferts Schori, and too many bishops like her, are the reason that although I am a cradle Anglican (Episcopalian), I will not be a cradle-to-grave Anglican (Episcopalian).
I have crossed the Tiber for precisely the reason that Anglican bishops have been watering down the Christian faith for far too long. Biblical tenets now have no more meaning than what you want to invest in them. If you don't want to invest anything, hey, that's OK. What kind of religion/faith is THAT?
In my twenties, after I had more or less left the church at the age of 14 (coinciding with my Confirmation), I struggled with the Scripture, "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
At an adult Confirmation class I was attending, searching for the meaning of my faith, I asked the priest how Jesus could DARE say that. It made me angry. I then grappled with this Biblical Truth for months, much the way Jacob fought with the angel before his epiphany of understanding who God was in his life. I, too, had an epiphany, what some would call "a conversion experience," and from that day, I have understood the reality (what is sometimes called "the scandal of particularity") about Jesus' saying that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
It's not something easily explained to others. It's in the living it out that one comes to understand the truth of it.
So, I am eternally grateful to the Roman Catholic Church for its Magisterium, for the Pope and the RC Church's bishops for being true teachers and upholders of the Christian faith. Sure, they're taking it in the jugular by this secular humanist/socialist age, but they're not suffering any more than did their Lord.
When the going gets really tough, I like to remember this passage from the Bible, "The servant is not greater than the master."
I predict that the Anglican Church of Canada will not be around in 10 to 15 years. Once the over-60 group of parishioners have died (the ones who still give substantially to the Church), the anything goes, it's our own "holy living" that saves us, and an optional Jesus as Lord and Saviour, as the Way, the Truth, and the Life, is the "norm"--as it's fast becoming under the leadership (sic) of bishops like Katharine Jefferts Schori and her Canadian counterparts--what will be left of "the Church" as we have known it for over 2000 years?
The idea that the Christian Church is "evolving" is a heresy. As our faith tells us, "Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow." He does not change. We might, but He does not. Given that the Church is "the Body of Christ" we would do well to stop trying to change it ourselves and then insist that it is a natural evolution.
Thanks for this post, Steve. Most people/bloggers wouldn't touch this with a ten-foot pole!!
Posted by: 'been around the block at November 12, 2006 03:42 PM (V4oQD)
4
All of which suggests maybe I was on to something with my own lighthearted take on the ascension of Bishop Katharine.
http://doggerelparty.blogspot.com/2006/11/there-is-nothing-by-which-so-much.html
Posted by: Clive at November 12, 2006 03:44 PM (cz/lo)
5
All of which suggests maybe I was on to something with my own lighthearted take on the ascension of Bishop Katharine.
http://doggerelparty.blogspot.com/2006/11/there-is-nothing-by-which-so-much.html
Posted by: Clive at November 12, 2006 03:44 PM (cz/lo)
6
It was explained to me by a Catholic priest not too long ago, that God is much too great for any of us to comprehend. The foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of men. God judges men's hearts, and is merciful, and may in his mercy accept some non-Christians into his presence. Salvation is not ours to give or withold. I suspect the Bishop is trying to say something along these lines. AFAIK, this is consistent with both Catholic and Anglican teaching.
This is nothing radical or new, and it's only in the news because the Bishop is a woman.
If the Anglican Church of Canada will not be around in 10 or 15 years, we will all be diminished. But the ACC are not the only Anglicans out there, even in Canada.
Posted by: Dan at November 12, 2006 07:30 PM (m24lF)
7
One of the earlier leaders of the Apostolic Church was Iraneus, ... Iraneus believed in One God and supported the doctrine of the manhood of Jesus.Ergo "Irenics".
Posted by: Delshilo at November 12, 2006 07:33 PM (A4CRg)
8
Nutsackism.
Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at November 12, 2006 08:26 PM (Y1ykG)
9
Wow, I haven't seen a comment so successfully demolish a post in quite a while. Kudos, "Z".
Just to reiterate one of Z's points: several times in your post, Steve, you cite the "considerable confusion" that Jefferts Schori has caused to "a lot of the faithful". Who, exactly, are these confused faithful? Can you actually point to any? Have you been reading lots of letters to the editors of Episcopalian Newsletters that the rest of us haven't seen?
Posted by: bob at November 13, 2006 08:27 AM (Lmg9H)
10
Dan,
Like too many in the Christian world, you assert one Biblical truth while at the same time trying to counter another. The concept of the foolishness of God being greater than the wisdom of man comes directly from scripture (1 Corinthians 1:25). And Christ's words that He is the only path of salvation is scripture as well. How can you say the former is true and therefore dispute the latter?
The Bible isn't a collection of quotes that one can use for any purpose. Context is important. And using a Biblical reference without the context of the rest of the Bible leads one into doctrinal self-indulgence. If you can declare one part of the Bible true and another part false, than you are simply constructing your own religion.
Certainly, God is far beyond full human comprehension. But that is why he gave us the special revelation of His Word and His Son to reveal enough of Himself so that we might be reconciled to Him. Our very conception of God's nature and being come from those revelations. So it is far from unreasonable to discover His will (Romans 12:2), and a contemptable thing to suggest that His will can be anything than what He has clearly and expressly stated in scripture.
Posted by: Gabe at November 13, 2006 08:55 AM (bWB5j)
11
One wonders is Ms. Jefferts Schori is an example of what happens when 'affirmative action' enters the Church. We are called to be in the world, not of the world. Sadly, the Anglican communion has become overmuch friendly to this fallen world, to my eyes.
Posted by: Alex at November 13, 2006 09:46 AM (m/DtP)
12
Ah yes. The classic meme that the Catholic Church has never changed its doctrine, while all other Christian denominations have fallen prey to "affirmative action" and other forms of political correctness.
Need I remind you, that the Reformation -- which contributed to the formation of the Episcopalian Church -- was a reaction against the perceived corruption of "true" Christian values by the Catholic Church?
One might argue that "theological lightweights" are those who ignore the historical nature of their own beliefs, and thus fail to engage in discussions about their future directions.
No matter how hard you try, it is simply not possible to force the history of any Christian denomination into a static, unchanging, "true" form. Such a form doesn't exist.
Posted by: timmy at November 13, 2006 11:09 AM (Lmg9H)
13
"Who, exactly, are these confused faithful?" asks bob.
They're the ones that are leaving the Episcopalian/Anglican Churches in droves. Ironically, the reading from the Epistles this morning is from Titus 1:
"For a Bishop as God's steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable...but hospitable, a lover of goodness, temperate, just, holy, and self-controlled, HOLDING FAST TO THE TRUE MESSAGE AS TAUGHT SO THAT HE WILL BE ABLE BOTH TO EXHORT WITH SOUND DOCTRINE AND TO REFUTE OPPONENTS."
The problem with Jefferts Schori, and so many Church leaders like her, is not that they're not well-meaning, it's just that they water down the tenets of Scripture to be more friendly to this "age" and do not uphold Biblical Truths.
If we in the Church don't uphold these truths, who will? No one is forced to go to church and if you can't buy into the Christian Gospel and what it asks--no, demands--of us as Christians, that's fine. No one is making you. If, however, you do go to a Christian Church, the Christian Gospel is what you are asked, and helped and supported, to follow.
Though Jefferts Schori and the rest may have the best of intentions--even hoping to draw people into the church to "replace" the hordes that are leaving--we all know what the road to H*ll is paved with. Don't we?
Posted by: 'been around the block at November 13, 2006 04:44 PM (+bg2a)
14
If you're looking for one of those nameless "confused faithful," I'll be happy to give one a name for you. The name's Michelle, and I'm an Anglican from New York.
And Steve, if you sometimes wonder whether a theological lightweight has been elected as my presiding bishop...well, I wonder that every day. As it happens, my diocese is one of those that has been pleading for alternative oversight.
Yes, the Episcopal Church is in grave disorder. I am saddened. I am not sure what will happen next.
Posted by: at November 13, 2006 06:47 PM (Oa2Py)
15
Whoops, my info for some reason disappeared. The above was me.
Posted by: Michelle at November 13, 2006 06:49 PM (Oa2Py)
16
been around the block
I gather, then, that you also strive to uphold the "Biblical Truths" of slavery, stoning non-virgins to death, not wearing clothing made of two fibers, etc.
Leviticus 19:19: "Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material,"
Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
Exodus 21:20-21: A slave owner who beat either his male or female slave so severely that he lived a few days without dying would not be punished.
Deuteronomy 22:13-21: A bride who had been presented as a virgin, and who could not be proven to be one, was to be stoned to death by the men of her village.
Posted by: bob at November 14, 2006 05:35 AM (Lmg9H)
17
Bob, maybe you could move on from the old to the new testament. Love to quote the old testament don't you? Holds with your leftie veiws and all you stand for. Throw the whole book out because it seems to be contradictory in your small mind. Have you ever read the whole scripture? I doubt it.
Posted by: eliza at November 14, 2006 09:12 AM (aGsN3)
18
Eliza,
Sorry, I don't follow you. I'm not trying to throw out the Old Testament. On the contrary, it appears that it folks like "been around the block" who want to throw it out. Or at least conveniently ignore that particular set of "Biblical Truths" when arguing that Biblical Truths are by definition unchangable.
I'm really just trying to figure out how people like "been around the block" can argue that we must hold "... FAST TO THE TRUE MESSAGE AS TAUGHT SO THAT HE WILL BE ABLE BOTH TO EXHORT WITH SOUND DOCTRINE AND TO REFUTE OPPONENTS" while simultaneously accepting that much of what was in the past accepted as Biblical Truths are no longer accepted as such.
A little bit of humility in acknowledging the historical nature of current beliefs is all that I'm looking for.
Thanks for your insightful comments, though. I sure appreciate your discussion style: don't address substantive issues and just use ad hominum attacks ("small mind", "lefty views", etc.) instead. Very effective.
Posted by: Bob at November 14, 2006 09:24 AM (Lmg9H)
19
Bob,
What's your proof that any of those verses contain(ed) a "Biblical Truth" for Christians?
Posted by: PlaidShirt at November 14, 2006 12:07 PM (F47cQ)
20
One of the Biblical truths that people who've only half-read the Bible fail to grasp is the fact that the legal tenats laid out for Israel was for a specific people and a specific time.
As I said before, there is a lot of context to the Bible that so many who try to quote it simply don't bother to learn and could care less about. That not only takes away from understanding it, but muddies the water even further allowing narrow quotes to be used for almost any purpose.
It's fine if you have decided to reject the Bible as Truth. But I can't stand when people throw around scriptures while being so ignorant of them.
Posted by: Gabe at November 14, 2006 12:57 PM (bWB5j)
21
Does an opinion's acceptance determine it's validity as truth?
If so, then common forms of peer pressure would result in adherence to truth, and that is clearly not true.
My observation leads me to the opposite conclusion; that those who espouse a widely-accepted opinion often use intimidation to undermine the credibility of dissenters. Often, I see failure to persuade with cogent rationale lead not to careful consideration of the dissenting view, but rather to ad hominem attacks to win the public battle of political acceptability.
History is replete with example's of this cowardly "bully" tactic; Socrate forced to recant or die, Christians forced to worship Caesar or die, Church tyranny about the flat earth, the Earth-centric universe, the inquisition, the character assassination of good men like Dan Quayle who dared to speak up for family values, Stockwell Day who dared to hold a creationist view. Of course the list is endless because throughout history, people with integrity and courage who stood for truth against the deluge of popular opinion, have been crushed like annoying insects, or excised like cancerous tumours.
It is in this context that I assess the Irenicism of Bishop Jefferts Schori, and of several commentators above.
I suspect the motivation is noble, to provide some leadership in the harmonizing of disparate religious creeds, and resolve, or at least de-fuse, the animous between the adherents thereof.
However, the degree to which such efforts are successful, has nothing to do with truth.
It is merely a function of how willing people are to compromise dearly-held beliefs amidst the peer pressure of a community that would scorn such compromise.
The truth of the opinion doesn't appear to matter; only it's acceptability, or more to the point, the fear of reprisal for non-acceptance.
As long as people continue to attempt this ecumenicism of faith by arguing that all "truth" is relative to individual circumstance, and thereby deny any absolute truth, then all progress is illusory, and will be lost when the next charismatic speaker rises to voice a divergent but appealing view.
As somebody mentioned above, I also am generally impressed with the tenor of this discussion, and thank Steve for providing this forum.
It is only through articulate and rational dialogue like this that people will be persuaded to change their minds and accept previously rejected opinions. Conversely, resorting to emotional attack will usually undermine an argument, and provoke the participants to polemicism, which, as the word implies, serves only to polarize the confrontation.
In discussions like this one, it is proper to attempt to persuade people to your opinion, but if you are unsuccessful, then it is proper to agree to disagree, and part as fellow sojourners on this world. There may be another opportunity to discuss it later, after the tribulations of life give us new experiences, and alter our perspective on life, the universe, and everything. (h/t to Douglas Adams)
Just remember; we all think we are right!
But will you try to WIN someone to your point of view, or will you try to FORCE them to your point of view? The difference is profound.
Good luck on your journey?
Scott
Posted by: Scott Merrithew at November 14, 2006 02:03 PM (h3dn9)
22
bob, bob, bob (5:35 a.m. I tried to post this @ 7:30 and couldn't get onto the blog):
All of your passages are Old Testament.
Though I reverence the Old Testament and the Jewish people, who John Paul II calls our “elder brothers and sisters in the faith,” none of the passages you have chosen from Scripture are from the New Testament, which heralds a new covenant with God through Jesus Christ.
Katharine Jefferts Schori is a minister, presumably, of God's new covenant. She, presumably, is a Christian minister, a so-called Bishop of the Christian Church.
What we’re actually talking about here is sin and mercy. So-called “Christian” Bishops who don’t believe in sin rob Christians of mercy: Why would we need God’s healing and mercy if there is no such thing as sin? We can live in peace and harmony at no cost when we deny that sin exists, and that our own “holy lives” redeem us.
This is a do-it-yourself religion that Jefferts Schori seems to be advocating. With shepherds like these, we donÂ’t need wolves.
I rest my case.
Posted by: at November 14, 2006 06:47 PM (JWbD9)
23
The 6:47 post is mine!
Posted by: 'been around the block at November 14, 2006 06:48 PM (JWbD9)
24
Scott Merrithew writes: he degree to which such efforts are successful has nothing to do with truth. It is merely a function of how willing people are to compromise dearly-held beliefs amidst the peer pressure of a community that would scorn such compromise...As long as people continue to attempt this ecumenicism of faith by arguing that all "truth" is relative to individual circumstance, and thereby deny any absolute truth, then all progress is illusory, and will be lost when the next charismatic speaker rises to voice a divergent but appealing view.
Those who engage in interreligious dialogue under good-faith conditions do not deny the existence of Absolute Truth, nor do they accept that all theologies are morally equivalent. There is no real attempt at "harmonizing...disparate religious creeds." Indeed, the opposite is true--Monsignor Machado (linked above), a member of the Vatican Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, has written cogently about accepting (as opposed to denying or ignoring) religious differences as a precondition for genuine understanding of others. His piece is essential reading.
To repeat the words of Rev. Maurice Ryan, founder of the Northern Ireland Interfaith Forum,
"[O]ur theologies are all ‘provisional’, ‘interim’ attempts to express the Inexpressible, and therefore no religion (and certainly no Church!) can claim a monopoly of truth."
If we accept that this Absolute Truth is essentially unknowable--who among us is arrogant enough to claim otherwise?--then it seems to me that in order to acknowledge the equal legitimacy of another's theological beliefs, one must first possess an unshakeable faith system of one's own. Like the schoolyard bully who physically dominates other kids in order to hide his/her own insecurities, insisting that one's own theology is objectively superior to all others is in fact an admission of self-doubt and anxiety.
In other words, only when you accept with absolute confidence that your beliefs are right for you that you can accept that another's beliefs are right for him/her. Note that this acceptance does not require neither capitulation nor even compromise of one's own faith; indeed, it strengthens it. This, in the end, is the purpose and the goal of interreligious dialogue.
Posted by: Q at November 14, 2006 06:52 PM (YK2nB)
25
BATB: This is a do-it-yourself religion that Jefferts Schori seems to be advocating. With shepherds like these, we donÂ’t need wolves. I rest my case.
Read carefully again Jeffert Schori's words. Her statement that, "As Christians we understand [salvation] as relationship with God in Jesus, but that does not mean that we're expected to judge other people's own commitments" addresses two separate issues:
1) what Episcopalians (and Christians generally) should accept as part of their own faith ("[salvation] as relationship with God in Jesus", certainly not a D-I-Y religious claim, nor a compromise/rejection of the core Christian Truth), and
2) what Episcopalians (and Christians generally) should accept, in keeping with the virtues of humility and nonjudgment, about other religions ("that does not mean that we're expected to judge other people's own commitments", 'other people' being understood here as non-Christians).
The rest of her statements are in keeping with this view. She does not reject the central role of Jesus in the Christian faith, nor does she reject the idea of sin. What she appears to reject is the view that non-Christians--that is, all those for whom Jesus is not their central theological figure--are therefore incapable of salvation. What Jefferts Schori recognizes--as you apparently do not--is that for any human to claim that God will only allow salvation through Jesus is to impose a limitation on His ultimate sovereignty.
Posted by: X at November 14, 2006 07:32 PM (YK2nB)
26
Interreligious dialogue?
Is this what we're talking about here?
It thought the discussion was about a Christian Bishop watering down the tenets of the Christian faith--an issue quite different from "interreligious dialogue."
When a Christian Bishop is unable or unwilling to assert Biblical Truths, which the Christian Church has held for over 2000 years and by which millions of Christians have lived for millennia, it seems to me not unreasonable that believing Christians, as opposed to, say, "Christmas and Easter Christians" or "Hatch, Match, and Dispatch Christians," would be alarmed.
As I said in an earlier post, belief in Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth, and the Life and the only Way to God is not, as so many like to suppose, evidence of insecurity--"like the schoolyard bully" of Q's post above--but rather, for the believing Christian, a humble certainty of Who the One, True God is.
I don't assert this "scandal of particularity" in order to hit people over the head with it. I assert it as one who "once was lost but now am found" (John Newton, 1779), and in the hope that others might receive such amazing grace as well.
Posted by: 'been around the block at November 14, 2006 07:41 PM (JWbD9)
27
X: You say, "What Jefferts Schori recognizes--as you apparently do not--is that for any human to claim that God will only allow salvation through Jesus is to impose a limitation on His ultimate sovereignty."
The human who first claimed "that God will only allow salvation through Jesus," as you choose to put it, was Jesus Himself, the Jesus Who is both man and God: That is the heart of the Christian faith.
Take your argument up with God, not me.
The first calling of a Christian Bishop is not to admonish his/her followers for believing what Jesus, Himself, claims for Himself--and therefore, for His Body here on earth, the Christian Church.
It's not as though Christians are herding people into concentration camps, or whacking unbelievers, or beheading them, so why would Jefferts Schori feel that one of her first mandates is to wag her finger at Christians/Episcopalians and exhort them not to believe in the idea that salvation comes only through trusting in Jesus Christ. "It's this sense that one person can have the fullness of truth in him or herself, rather than understanding that truth is -- like God -- more than any one person can encompass."
Who is "this one person" she is talking about? Is it Jesus? Well, if it is, she seems to have missed the whole point of the Gospel and, I repeat, the heart and power of the Christian faith, which is that Jesus isn't just "one person," He is both man and God, in Whom "all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell" (Colossians 1:19)
A Christian Bishop's mandate is to be a defender and a teacher of the Christian faith, and a shepherd of the Christian flock, often beset by wolves. A Bishop's primary mandate is not to admonish his/her flock to not offend people of other religious persuasians, or none.
It is clear to me that God will save whomever God wants to save, but that doesn't mean that as a Christian I should not believe in what Jesus Himself has taught: "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me." This statement is known as "the scandal of particularity," and as offensive as it might be to many, it is at the heart of the mystery of Christianity.
If you don't like this, X, as I invited you to do before: Contend with God about it. It's His Word.
Posted by: 'been around the block at November 14, 2006 09:23 PM (JWbD9)
28
BATB: As I said in an earlier post, belief in Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth, and the Life and the only Way to God is..., for the believing Christian, a humble certainty of Who the One, True God is.
You're absolutely right, though the key phrase here is "for the believing Christian." Jefferts Schori, I'm sure, believes this too--for herself, and her Episcopalian flock. But she also believes that non-Christians, who believe in something else entirely, are also worthy of salvation.
The first calling of a Christian Bishop is not to admonish his/her followers for believing what Jesus, Himself, claims for Himself--and therefore, for His Body here on earth, the Christian Church.
You're absolutely right again, through Jefferts Shori isn't abmonishing her followers for themselves believing what Jesus claims for Himself. She's gently noting that her followers shouldn't judge non-Christians for not believing what Jesus claims for Himself.
...why would Jefferts Schori feel that one of her first mandates is to wag her finger at Christians/Episcopalians and exhort them not to believe in the idea that salvation comes only through trusting in Jesus Christ.
She doesn't. To repeat yet again, she is exhorting Christians/Episcopalians i) to believe, as Christians/Episcopalians, that salvation comes only through trusting in Jesus Christ, but also ii) to not judge non-Christians for believing that salvation lies through other routes.
It is clear to me that God will save whomever God wants to save, but that doesn't mean that as a Christian I should not believe in what Jesus Himself has taught: "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me." This statement is known as "the scandal of particularity," and as offensive as it might be to many, it is at the heart of the mystery of Christianity.
Nobody is offended that you, BATB, personally believe that Jesus is the Way and the Truth and the Life. However, people--especially non-Christians--would understandably be offended if you, BATB, were to then claim that those who do not believe the Jesus is the Way and the Truth and the Life are beyond salvation.
The point is this, BATB: Believe whatever you want. Just don't make the mistake of confusing the sincerity and passion with which you hold your own beliefs with the inviolability and superiority of their truth, which by their very nature is always provisional.
Is there really no room for such nuances in your thinking process? Can you not see the possibility that you can, on the one hand, believe with all your heart that your personal salvation lies through trust in Jesus Christ, and at the same time on the other hand, recognize that you might not have all the answers, and that it's equally valid for another person to believe with all their heart that their salvation lies elsewhere? And if in fact you can see this possibility, then why can't you accept that Jefferts Schori might be able to see it as well?
Don't even answer. Just think about this possibility for a while. I mean, really think about it, for your own sake.
Posted by: Y at November 14, 2006 11:23 PM (YK2nB)
29
Interreligious dialogue? Is this what we're talking about here?"
Um, yeah, at least originally. Reread Steve's post, especially the bits where he says "The Roman Catholic Church has a declaration in support of ecumenism from Vatican II, Nostra Aetate...", "When it comes to meetings with non-Catholics, no pope in modern times met with more than John Paul II. Here he speaks on the pitfalls of interreligious dialogue...", and "As John Paul II warns, in it lies the danger of ejecting doctrine altogether in an attempt to achieve the goal that inter-religious peace."
Posted by: K at November 14, 2006 11:29 PM (YK2nB)
30
Plaid Shirt asked:
What's your proof that any of those verses contain(ed) a "Biblical Truth" for Christians?
You mean other than the fact that the Old Testament is generally regarded as "The Word of God?" A better question might be, what is your proof that the Old Testament doesn't apply to Christians. Which brings me to Gabe.
Gabe said:
One of the Biblical truths that people who've only half-read the Bible fail to grasp is the fact that the legal tenats laid out for Israel was for a specific people and a specific time . . . It's fine if you have decided to reject the Bible as Truth. But I can't stand when people throw around scriptures while being so ignorant of them.
I'm far from ignorant of scripture. Your argument that certain parts of the Bible are "legal tenats laid out for Israel was for a specific people and a specific time" and thus no longer applicable to contemporary Christians is an old one; but it is generally not accepted by theologians.
It is common, for example, to interpret Old Testament Law by emphasizing the distinction between Moral, Civil and Ceremonial laws. Moral laws ("Love thy Neighbour as yourself") are seen as universal/timeless laws that are still applicable to contemporary Christians. Civil laws ("at the end of every seven years you must cancel debts") and Ceremonial Laws, dealing with sacrifices, festivals, etc. are seen as only applicable to the particular historical condition of Ancient Israel.
Unfortunately, such a distinction is entirely arbitrary is is not found in the Old Testament, itself. Witness, for example, that "Love your neighbour as yourself (Lev. 19:1
is followed immediately by the law "do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material (Lev 19:19)" Why is verse 18 a binding Biblical Truth, but not verse 19? The Old Testament provides no basis on which to decide.
In fact, in the context of Ancient Israel and the Old Testament, all laws were at once civil, moral, and ceremonial. The law against wearing two kinds of fibre at once isn't just a one-off -- it is part and parcel of God's Wish for us to maintain purity and sacredness in the face of profanity.
What of the Sabbath? Moral, Civil, or Ceremonial? Most claim it is Moral, and thus applicable; and yet precious few obey it in the sense dictated by God in his Commandments to Moses.
So, BOTB, it is insufficient to simply dismiss the Old Testament, and its inherent truths by saying that Christians follow a New Covenant as laid out in the New Testament. Indeed, to suggest that Christians have no need for the Old Testament and its Biblical Truths (including, not least of which the Ten Commandments), would be a radical departure for Christianity, indeed.
is followed immediately by the law "do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material (Lev 19:19)" Why is verse 18 a binding Biblical Truth, but not verse 19? The Old Testament provides no basis on which to decide.
In fact, in the context of Ancient Israel and the Old Testament, all laws were at once civil, moral, and ceremonial. The law against wearing two kinds of fibre at once isn't just a one-off -- it is part and parcel of God's Wish for us to maintain purity and sacredness in the face of profanity.
What of the Sabbath? Moral, Civil, or Ceremonial? Most claim it is Moral, and thus applicable; and yet precious few obey it in the sense dictated by God in his Commandments to Moses.
So, BOTB, it is insufficient to simply dismiss the Old Testament, and its inherent truths by saying that Christians follow a New Covenant as laid out in the New Testament. Indeed, to suggest that Christians have no need for the Old Testament and its Biblical Truths (including, not least of which the Ten Commandments), would be a radical departure for Christianity, indeed.
Posted by: Bob at November 15, 2006 04:57 AM (Lmg9H)
31
Y, thanks for being so concerned about me and my thought processes.
Now, maybe you would like to grapple with Jefferts-Schori's actual statements within the posting:
“In John 14:6, Jesus -- in responding to a question posed by the disciple Thomas -- said: ‘I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’ But Jefferts-Schori says she disagrees with the idea that salvation comes only through trusting in Jesus Christ. ‘It's this sense that one person can have the fullness of truth in him or herself, rather than understanding that truth is -- like God -- more than any one person can encompass,’ stated the soon-to-be ECUSA leader.”
There are two statements here that are breathtaking for a Christian Bishop to make:
1) Her disagreement with the idea that salvation comes only through trusting in Jesus Christ: It is not at all apparent that this criticism is because it "excludes" non-believers. It seems to extend to the Christian faith itself and she is exhorting Christians, themselves, to be wary of accepting salvation "only through trusting in Jesus Christ." Give me evidence to the contrary, Y.
2) Her disagreement with the assertion "that one person can have the fullness of truth in him or herself." But this is exactly what Jesus, the Incarnate God, has asserted about Himself and is the cornerstone of the Christian faith.
Y, please answer these conundrums, rather than cherry picking quotes that you want to deal with, some taken entirely out of context. How can you say that Jefferts-Schori "is exhorting Christians/Episcopalians...to believe, as Christians/Episcopalians, that salvation comes only through trusting in Jesus Christ"? Where does she say that?
She specifically states that she DOES NOT AGREE with trusting in one person for salvation and, further, says that she disagrees with "...this sense that one person can have the fullness of truth in him or herself, rather than understanding that truth is -- like God -- more than any one person can encompass."
Please address these two points that I am forced to repeat. This "one person" she has difficulty believing has "the fullness of truth" dwelling in Him isn't actually one person. As a Christian Bishop she should know, defend, and teach the One God in Three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity.
In her statements, she has categorically denied the Divinity of Christ and the Trinitarian God--both of which are absolutely breathtaking in a Christian Bishop.
My precise and considered thoughts on the matter, Y.
Posted by: 'been around the block at November 15, 2006 09:08 PM (FQ/Cs)
32
BATB: Here's the original article. Note that it was written by two reporters who are critical of Jefferts Schori. This consideration is important to my next point.
1) Her disagreement with the idea that salvation comes only through trusting in Jesus Christ: It is not at all apparent that this criticism is because it "excludes" non-believers. It seems to extend to the Christian faith itself and she is exhorting Christians, themselves, to be wary of accepting salvation "only through trusting in Jesus Christ." Give me evidence to the contrary, Y.
The phrase you quote twice ("Jefferts-Schori...disagrees with the idea that salvation comes only through trusting in Jesus Christ") are the reporters' commentary about the Associated Press interview. Jefferts Schori never actually says those words herself. So, when you write that "She is exhorting Christians, themselves, to be wary of accepting salvation 'only through trusting in Jesus Christ,'" you're putting the reporters' words into Jefferts Schori's mouth.
2) Her disagreement with the assertion "that one person can have the fullness of truth in him or herself." But this is exactly what Jesus, the Incarnate God, has asserted about Himself and is the cornerstone of the Christian faith.
Quite obviously, the "one person" she's referring to in this sentence is me or you or anyone else we know (i.e., other human beings). Not Jesus, not God, not the Father, Son & Holy Spirit, not the Trinity--just regular folks. Even the Agape Press reporters get this, which is why they write "him or herself" and not "Him or Herself." If they thought Jefferts Schori was referring to Jesus when she says "one person," they would have reproduced her quotation with proper capitalization. I note that when you refer to Jesus or God in your comments, you use 'Him' rather than 'him.' Same idea.
Jefferts Schori's point here is that no regular human being can claim to fully grasp the totality of religious Truth (for example, by claiming that they absolutely, positively know for sure what the one path to salvation is), because that Truth is Inexpressible, and can only be fully grasped by God Himself (and by extension, Jesus). Are you God, BATB? No? Are you Jesus? No? Then you can't claim to know that the path to salvation that you've chosen is the only one (you can believe it; you just can't claim you know it). Of course, neither can I. Neither can Steve. Neither can Jefferts Schori. That's her point. You can believe, as she believes, and as any other Christian believes, that Jesus = salvation, but it would be sacrilege for you, or her, or any other Christian, to insist (arrogantly, without humility) that you know it to be true.
To help you to realize this (and to avoid "cherry-picking quotes" "out of context"), maybe it would be useful to remove all the extra reporter commentary from the article and focus only on what Jefferts Schori herself said:
"If we [as Christians] insist we know the one way to God, we've put God in a very small box. It's this sense that one person can have the fullness of truth in him or herself, rather than understanding that truth is--like God--more than any one person can encompass. I understand salvation as being about the healing of the whole creation. Your part and my part in that is about holy living. As Christians we understand [salvation] as relationship with God in Jesus, but that does not mean that we're expected to judge other people's own commitments."
How can you say that Jefferts-Schori "is exhorting Christians/Episcopalians...to believe, as Christians/Episcopalians, that salvation comes only through trusting in Jesus Christ"? Where does she say that?
Umm, because she actually uses the words, "As Christians we understand [salvation] as relationship with God in Jesus..." I don't know how much simpler you need it to be broken down. Christians. Salvation. Relationship with God. In Jesus. Christians understand salvation as a relationship with God in Jesus. Christians understand salvation as a relationship with God in Jesus. Christians understand salvation as a relationship with God in Jesus.
The rest of that sentence ("...but that does not mean that we're expected to judge other people's own commitments") clearly refers to the idea that other people--i.e., non-Christians--may hold beliefs about their salvation that don't involve Jesus (or God), and that it's not the place of Christians to judge other people's beliefs. I think this is clear since she actually uses the words "other people," in contrast to "Christians." I can't emphasize this enough: other people. Other people. OTHER PEOPLE.
Posted by: C at November 15, 2006 10:21 PM (YK2nB)
33
X, Y, C, who all seem to be the same person--are you?--this is an argument that neither of us is going to "win." Your arguments do not convince me, nor mine, you. (I am, BTW, aware of which are Jefferts-Schori's words in the post above and which are the reporters', and it is not universal for writers to capitalize references to Jesus when using a pronoun to describe Him, though I have always done that.)
I am deeply suspicious of a Bishop who says, "If we insist we know the one way to God, we've put God in a very small box." It is she, by saying this, who puts God in a very small box.
I am deeply suspicious of a Bishop who after just saying "As Christians we understand [salvation] as relationship with God in Jesus,"--I'd like to know exactly what she means by this--then feels that she has to add, just in case we Christians aren't sufficiently aware of this--"but that does not mean that we're expected to judge other people's own commitments."
Thanks, Bishop, I'll note that.
I think it is scandalous that ECUSA has elected a Bishop with so little theological background and I distrust her Christology. I don't know what she means by "holy living." It's a term that's bandied about, often simply meaning that "I'm doing my best," with no reference to what the Bible and Jesus mean by "holy living."
I'm glad she's not my Bishop, and I'm even more glad that now that I am no longer a member of the Episcopalian/Anglican Communion, what Jefferts-Schori has to say doesn't raise my blood pressure. It just confirms for me why I couldn't stay--and why so many, like me, are leaving.
Posted by: 'been around the block at November 16, 2006 12:28 AM (RfP8X)
34
Bob said:
I'm far from ignorant of scripture. Your argument that certain parts of the Bible are "legal tenats laid out for Israel was for a specific people and a specific time" and thus no longer applicable to contemporary Christians is an old one; but it is generally not accepted by theologians.
I think you're misintepretting what I meant. I didn't get into the moral/civil/ceremonial law distinction at all. If that is the view you think I'm advocating, than you are right that most theologians have moved passed that.
I was discussing a contextual analysis of OT law, in that it is part of the Mosaic Covenant, which was superceded by the New Covenant established by Christ. The Mosaic Covenant and the Laws that proceeded from it are both culturally and geographically specific, concering only the Israelite people group, and their occupation of the Promised Land. The Mosaic Law is also stated repeatedly as a conditional covenant by which the Israelite people are either blessed or punished. It is both illogical and unscriptural to think one can apply such Laws onto redeemed Gentiles.
Further, the New Testament is fairly clear on the limitations of the specific obediance demanded by the Mosaic Law. Paul argues many times about how the Mosaic Law is no longer a requirement, stating that only faith in Christ is necessary for salvation in Galations chapters 2 and 3 (and elsewhere). In fact, there was quite a bit of a theological fight going on between Paul and "the circumcision group" of Jewish Christians who believed that the Mosaic Law must be obeyed in addition to faith in Christ. Paul won that argument.
Christ Himself spoke about Mosaic Law such that some were intensified, some abrogated and some modified. Most importantly, however, he stated that the righteous demands of the Law were fulfilled in Him. He also gave us the most general tenats of holiness that the Mosaic Law had been pointing towards, which is (to paraphrase) Love God with all your heart, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself.
Bob also said:
So, BOTB, it is insufficient to simply dismiss the Old Testament, and its inherent truths by saying that Christians follow a New Covenant as laid out in the New Testament. Indeed, to suggest that Christians have no need for the Old Testament and its Biblical Truths (including, not least of which the Ten Commandments), would be a radical departure for Christianity, indeed.
And here's where we're getting tangled. I'm certainly not dismissing the Old Testament. I'm dismissing the implied notion of what was said earlier - that somehow the fact that Christians do not adhere to the specific demands of OT law shows the type of "pick-and-choose" theology that some of us are accusing Schori of subscribing to.
Biblical familiarity does not mean the conclusions one draws from it aren't ignorant. Conflating Christian non-adherence to animal sacrifice (for instance) is not equivalent to denying the absolute authority of Christ to declare Himself the Way, Truth and Life as Schori apparently did here. And it IS ignorant to imply that it is.
As for "religious dialogue" there is no reason noble enough to justify saying, "I understand salvation as being about the healing of the whole creation. Your part and my part in that is about holy living," which seems to deny that salvation comes only through faith in Christ. It is also silly to say "As Christians we understand [salvation] as relationship with God in Jesus, but that does not mean that we're expected to judge other people's own commitments," because that is precicely what we are called to do in preaching the Gospel. "Judgement" as the word appears in the Bible, is about doling out consequences, not discerning one thing as better than another, which we are most certainly called to do. I have no authority to punish. But I have auhority to exhort someone to follow God in the way He has provided for us in the Bible, through Jesus.
It is disturbing that a major figure in a large Christian denomination appears to have a decidedly un-Biblical worldview.
Posted by: Gabe at November 16, 2006 10:12 AM (bWB5j)
35
Sorry Q, I do not agree that accepting things that you do not believe is a pre-condition to understanding them. Monsignor Machado was actually saying the opposite.
It is not impossible, or even very difficult, to form an objective understanding of another persons beliefs, while not accepting the beliefs as truth. I accept at face-value the words of a Muslim who tells me that he believes that Mohammed was a prophet of God and that his teachings are true. I understand also his passionate commitment when he tells me that he would even forfeit his life to defend these teachings. I accept that he believes it, but I do not accept those statements as truth myself, and I believe he is misguided. I respect his right to believe what he wants, and will not force my opinion on him, as I expect he will not force his opinion on me. However, I will enter into dialogue with him and attempt to persuade him to my point of view, and I expect him to attempt to persuade me to his point of view. This is healthy debate and represents true Irenicism.
This is in complete accord with Monsignor Machado who said, we "must deepen [our] mutual respect and friendship, not by ignoring the essential differences that exist between ... religious traditions, but rather by understanding, acknowledging, and accepting them, and thus mutually respecting them." He also said in the same article that, "Jesus Christ is the complete and final truth of God; He is the objective truth whom all people are obliged to seek and accept; all other truth claims become relative to this unique and objective truth, the mystery of Jesus Christ." That sounds quite exclusive to me.
So we are not talking about accepting opposing views as our own; we are talking about simple respect for other people WHILE we think they are mistaken. True Irenicism is learning more about an opposing view so that it is possible to properly JUDGE for yourself the "truths" and the errors of the other opinion. Making judgements is different than being judgemental. It is not wrong to make thoughtful judgements of the views we see around us; that is a sign of wisdom. But being judgemental (legal jurisdiction aside) is just rude; that pushes your opinion on others when they are not necessarily ready to hear it.
So, I restate the point of my first post; a healthy debate of passionately held opinions is a respectful attempt to learn what others believe, and to persuade them to your POV by drawing or attracting them through rational support of the argument.
It only becomes unhealthy when some participants are belligerant and attempt to force their passionately held opinion on other people. That is simply disrespectful.
Ecumenicism tends toward "Facile" Irenicism, though, because it places greater value on the goal of peace and harmony, than it does on the inherent values of each party. As Z pointed out in the Machado article, "[it dwells] on the superficial similarities between religions, while ignoring or denying ideological differences and religious diversity for fear of offending other faith groups."
In other words, "Why can't we all just get along!"
So the challenge faced by Bishop Jefferts Schori and all ecumenically minded leaders, is to walk the fine line of diplomacy; showing respect for multi-cultural views, while gently encouraging all parties to abandon the most inharmonious tenets of their faiths, so we can all join hands, smile, and sing we are the world.
I know that it sounds very noble to focus on the things we have in common, and de-emphasize the contentious issues, but that is not a solution. It may unite some people who do not take their own faith very seriously, but it offends and repels those who do.
It is folly to try to boil different faiths down to a lowest common denominator, and then happily present the resulting pablum as the solution to the strife in the world. That shows disrespect to all participants.
You may think I'm overstating my case with respect to Bishop Jefferts Schori, because she isn't really doing the blender thing, but really it is just a question of degree. The distinctions between Christian denominations may be slight when compared to distinctions between Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Animist faiths, but she is the representative leader of a Christian denomination that has already sacrificed many inconvenient foundational tenets of the faith, so there is now very little left to sacrifice.
So even though she has more in common with airline pilots and oceanographers than with theologians, it is no surprise that such a leader is well-suited to negotiate ecumenical peace and harmony between the cultures of the world, since doctrinal facility would serve only to focus on distinctions rather than equivalencies.
Scott
Posted by: Scott Merrithew at November 16, 2006 07:22 PM (GqO0P)
36
Scott Merrithew writes: Sorry Q, I do not agree that accepting things that you do not believe is a pre-condition to understanding them...I respect his right to believe what he wants, and will not force my opinion on him, as I expect he will not force his opinion on me. However, I will enter into dialogue with him and attempt to persuade him to my point of view, and I expect him to attempt to persuade me to his point of view. This is healthy debate and represents true Irenicism.
Thanks for the intelligent and articulate response. I agree with most everything you said. To clarify, I didn't argue that "accepting things that you do not believe is a pre-condition to understanding them." Rather, I stated that [paraphrasing] "accepting (as opposed to denying or ignoring) religious differences is a precondition for genuine understanding of others." That it, accepting that differences exist between myself and yourself is necessary for me to understand you (though I need not accept as true your version of these differences).
I suppose interreligious dialogue, in the end, is about creating a space to respectfully agree to disagree, a forum for interreligious diplomacy (but not integration or colonialism). No preaching, no attempts to convert the other. Just...dialogue. Truths, personally held with utter conviction, are nevertheless recognized on all sides as objectively provisional, their Absolute Truthfulness to be sorted out one way or another on the final days of judgment.
Kind of like blog commentary.
Posted by: Q at November 17, 2006 10:17 AM (YK2nB)
37
Thank you Q for your clarification. Perhaps "acknowledge" would be a more accurate word than "accept".
The context of our dialogue happens to be religious, but I intentionally phrased my comments to apply to any dialogue of opposing viewpoints, not just religious. They would be equally applicable to a debate about which is the better hockey team; the Toronto Maple Leafs or the Montreal Canadiens. Assuming there are some concrete criteria with which to make a comparison, this should be a respectful discussion.
Unfortunately, religion, sports and politics seem to be the unholy trinity when it comes to provoking people beyond reason, into the realm of emotional territorialism.
But that is scratching below the surface to the real issue; human pride.
A topic for another time.
By the way, I notice as I re-read my comments that I use the words dialogue and debate interchangeably. While technically not equivalent terms, they're close enough.
Scott
Posted by: Scott Merrithew at November 17, 2006 05:19 PM (GqO0P)
38
As for trying to "convert" someone; that is a term so loaded with baggage that it loses it's true meaning.
If you strip away the chaff, the objective of any dialogue is to convert your "opponent" to your POV.
My friend John wants to eat a slice of cheesecake that has been in the fridge for 3 weeks. I try to convert him to my point of view that it is too old and likely has gone bad over that time. I attempt to persuade him to change his mind and just throw it out.
If I am sufficiently persuasive, then my argument has converted him.
If he rejects my opinion, eats the dessert and no medical attention is required, then not only will he feel vindicated for not abandoning his POV, it supports his argument, and maybe I will be converted to his point of view.
(not likely though; I don't like cheesecake) ;>
So there is really no need to balk at the term "convert". We all think we are right, and the very act of defending our view is really an attempt to convert the opposer.
Posted by: Scott Merrithew at November 17, 2006 05:41 PM (GqO0P)
39
It all comes down to this:
Jefferts-Schori (like the Jehovah's Witness' and other cultists)does not believe Jesus is fully God.
Jesus said "Unless you believe that I am [God} you will die in your sins".
End of story.
Posted by: Enid SK at December 06, 2006 06:50 PM (bxOjK)
40
Wholesale Nike Jerseys: Enjoy Your Favorite In Great Discount
Posted by: Cheap Eagles jerseys at November 29, 2012 08:44 AM (eOBZU)
41
Lider Chat sitesine girmek icin mirc indir Paylasimlarda bulunmak icin forum sitemize sohbet etmeye buyurun
Posted by: brand at December 23, 2012 12:25 PM (nMp9u)
42
gaurcs svalue lehigh iiirangoli assistant proficiency ensa accelerate manipulated news
Posted by: brand at December 27, 2012 08:12 AM (HxnBM)
43
Amy Virgin
Posted by: Windows 7 Activation Key at February 07, 2013 07:50 PM (Q0F3m)
44
Im not a baseball fan, but this whole episode stinks to the high heavens. WHY in Gods name is congress (A group of liars if there ever was one) WASTING their valuable time on a baseball player who allegedly lied about taking drugs that may even kill him someday. The country is in the grip of a horrible mess caused by the inattention of politicians for the last 30 years. That boil is getting ready to burst,and here we have Congress trying to look busy. Its really disgusting. Its impossible for Congress to hold anyone in contempt, because that is the feeling that the entire country has -against THEM!.
Posted by: windows 8 key at February 08, 2013 11:14 AM (VG8XV)
45
Please excuse our English, I am in the study of schooling. I much like your blog very much, I think it is very interesting and I saved a bookmark of it in my web.
Posted by: Windows 7 Activation Key at February 08, 2013 11:14 AM (nDw8b)
August 19, 2006
Conservative Episcopalians moving to Africa and South America
The Anglican Church is again trying to deal with the schism that is tearing it apart, especially within the United States. A solution is being proposed, but it will never work, because we know from experience it will never be accepted by liberals. So what will happen? American conservative Episcopalians will continue to flock to Africa and South America.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
06:53 AM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1350 words, total size 10 kb.
1
The example of the UCC is a good one for the anglican church to look at. You need to understand who your memebers are? You also need to understand the principles you want your organization to stand for.
Chasing incluive membership is like a business chasing revenue, or customers. It is good up to a point but if the costs of doing so outweigh the benefit of the revenue or the customers the compnay loses money and the organization ceases to be effective.
Trying to be everything to evryone becomes impossible, so the Anglican Church needs to really think what it wants its brand to mean. The process Steve describes is effectively a debate about who controls the Anglican brand. One side, the Liberal Side, wants it to mean only one thing. The point is that imprateur of Anglican is valuable, which is why the Liberal side seeks it and doesnt just leave. IT was the same reason why the SSM proponents wanted the word marriage rather just all the rights and responsibilities, they want the brand equity.
At some point it becomes worhtwhile for the conservative Anglicans, or even mainstream Anglicans, to say if you want something different go elsewhwere and good luck. The fear of a schism is high but a clear headed church head woudl see the true value is in the name and infrastructure, the Liberals wont leave because they dont want to build a new org they want to take over the existing one.....they are up there with all the best corporate raiders, the Ichans, the Boesky's and the Milkens.
Posted by: Stephen at August 19, 2006 10:03 AM (upnxu)
2
The Anglican Church is liberalizing itself into irrelevancy. Their membership is dwindling, at least in North America, and most of that membership can't be bothered to show up at services. I mean, what's the point? It's just become a politically correct social club, where one person gets to do most of the talking. Hardly a distinctive brand, or a meaningful experience.
Meanwhile, the United Church, which threw out any core beliefs at its inception, is opposing the sale of water because it's sacred...
Posted by: Walrus at August 19, 2006 10:46 AM (ulWl5)
3
...i can hardly wait till the Anglican church allows temple prostitutes....
Posted by: tomax7 at August 19, 2006 10:50 AM (jHhd0)
4
"The spiritual leader of world Anglicanism has asked six Episcopal bishops to meet in New York next month to try to resolve differences over homosexuality tearing at their church."
Sadly, and much as Steve describes the situation, there will be no resolution struck that will please both sides or that can hold this Church together. There can't be.
The liberal-leaning, pro-gay priests, bishops, lay people, and supporters of same-sex marriage are on a collision course not only with the more conservative members of the Episcopalian/Anglican Church (read conserving millennia-old beliefs and traditions which have stood the test of time) but with the Christian faith itself.
These “progressive” (sic) ideas, which the left see as cutting-edge, evolutionary, and compassionate are simply not in keeping, in any way, with the foundational and core beliefs of Christianity. These beliefs cannot be changed by vote or by an over-weaning sense, on the part of liberal Episcopalians/Anglicans that allowing for same-sex partnerships thus makes the Church more "open" and "tolerant." Open and tolerant to what? More sexual promiscuity, more instability in conjugal relationships, more confusion for our children (of particular concern to me as a mother)? We can open and tolerate ourselves into No-Church, which is what is happening.
The image of the Episcopal/Anglican Church I keep getting, is one of two mitred and robed bishops, pro-gay and "pro-gressive," standing on a hill overlooking a large city. They are congratulating themselves on their finery and on the pinnacle they have achieved.
What they don't, and can't, see, because their eyes are blinded to the truth of the colossal break up which is about to happen in their Church, is that the hill is being devoured by termites. It's about to collapse.
I'm giving the Episcopal/Anglican Churches roughly another ten years before their total collapse here in North America. (Africa is a different story. There, the Anglican Church is vibrant and growing. No fooling around with the doctrines of the Church when it comes to sexuality and marriage—or anything else.) When the last of the grey-hairs, who actually contribute quite generously to the outreach of the Church, are dead and buried, that will be that. The progressive, pro-gay folks are not flooding to either the Episcopal or Anglican Churches and neither are they supporting the outreach of the Church to those genuinely in need, as the Church once did. Most of them are rabid and extreme activists pushing only for their own agenda. Once they’ve achieved it and ruined the Episcopalian/Anglican expression of the Church, what will they do next?
It will be a rather hollow victory. The Episcopal/Anglican Church now totally accepts the gay lifestyle, gay bishops, priests, and laypeople, and performs same-sex marriages. The only problem is, there is no Church. ItÂ’s gone.
Posted by: 'been around the block at August 19, 2006 11:54 AM (YA8DG)
5
None of this surprises me at all. They've already taken our country away from us (or at least nullified our culture and its role in Canadian society), so it's not surprising to me that they are going to take our Church away from us as well. When I read about the decline of the Church in Canada I often find myself wondering why I continue to bother with this country at all?
My family is originally from North London (I'm third generation Canadian) and we're devout Anglicans to say the least (not High Anglicans mind you, just devout in the strongest sense of the word). My mum, her brothers, and I were all confirmed and raised in the church. My uncles and I were Altar boys, my mum was on the Altar guild, and I was also a lay reader for several years. Needless to say, you get the point.
I was involved with my diocese's Youth Synod for a couple of years before I graduated from high school, I even manged to get on to the Synod's planning committee at one point, no small feat I assure you! Being involved with Synod as my parish's youth delegate allowed me to travel across our diocese (the diocese of Niagara) and visit several different parishes and get their take on our faith.
It's funny looking back on it. Each parish was trying to be different, new, and unique in an effort to attract more people to the Church (young people mainly) but each parish wound up being the same as the last. I witnessed hollow sermons which managed to say a lot about nothing (with the minister attempting to be all things to everyone), services smothered in New Age spiritualism and other such nonsense, and silly gimmicks usually involving lame musical attempts to impress the youth of the Church. I can assure, up until that point, I had never been so bored!
The Synod itself was worse. On the planning committee I was shut out of the discussion. NDP activists and self-proclaimed 'neo-marxist' sutdents controlled the decision making process; gay marriage was on the agenda, anti-globalisation, political correctness, and all the usual issues from the rubbish heap of special interest politics dominated the Synod's discussion. As both an Anglican and a libertarian I was disgusted. I dropped out before my third year, and a few years later I stopped attending services at my family's parish entirely (mind you I moved to China for a couple of years).
Today, the Church itself is more concerned with attracting non-Anglicans that is more than willing to sacrifice the loyalty of true Anglicans whose families have been with the Church since the early days of the Reformation. My family's parish of St. David's was founded by Welsh immigrants in 1949 and our church bares all the hallmarks of the Celtic Church, but strongly Anglican to the core.
I will not lie to you, most members of our parish were English, Scots, and Welsh newly arrived in Canada or fourth and fifth generation families. Yet, despite this old and stuffy influence from these 'whites' and 'anglophones' from a 'foreign nation' we still managed to attract Greek, Italian, French, African, Hungarian, Polish, and German families to our parish who were new to the concept of Anglicanism, but who became devout members of the Anglican communion in their own right. The liberal/socialist/poltically correct influence was non-existant in our parish as our traditional beliefs and faith in true Christianity prevailed.
I'm not opposed to civil unions in the political sense, but contemporary politics have no place in the Church. It's absurd to suggest otherwise. Society changes but Christ's teachings do not, they remain universal. But we're called racist, homophobic, sexist and all the usual insults by these liberals for saying this. But who would take these people seriously? These are the same people who claim that Islam, the faith of the Taliban, of the House of Saud, of Hezbollah, is a religion of peace? Bollocks. These parishes in Canada and the States should be kicked out before they try and make their move to hijack the Church in North America. I would be more than willing to remain true to my English roots and I would dearly love to remain in league with our brothers and sisters over in Africa and down in South America than shack up with these blighters.
I give the church twenty years and Canada ten. But don't worry about me, I'll be in Australia long before the end comes!
Posted by: TheDiggler at August 19, 2006 04:58 PM (2Tb8y)
6
Diggler, my sincere condolences.
I'm in much the same position as you, except my ancestors, staunch Anglicans, came to Canada from Ireland in 1799. My paternal great-grandfather was an Anglican clergyman and I was well-versed in the faith while growing up, though I took a 14-year detour, when I went to church only at Christmas and Easter, and couldn't for the life of me figure out what relevance the Church had to reality during my sojourn in the wilderness. Fortunately, I came to my senses, and have been much more than a Church-goer for many years now, a firm believer would describe me.
Like you, I am deeply disturbed by the hi-jacking of the Anglican Church by all sorts of fringe-group activists, who usually get on church and Synod committees. Like you, I also don't oppose civil unions but would appreciate it if the gay-activist usurpers would stop at that, consider it a victory in Canada, and leave the Church to join one man and one woman, which is the millennia-old understanding of what marriage is all about.
As to your hope that "These parishes in Canada and the States [that support the Same Sex Marriage, anti-globalisation, politically correct, special-interest agendas of NDP activists, self-proclaimed 'neo-marxist' sutdents, not to mention namby-pamby (heretical) clergy and bishops] should be kicked out before they try and make their move to hijack the Church in North America," I don't think it's going to happen. The activists in the Anglican/Episcopal Churches in Canada and the U.S. control the agenda now. They're the ones who are "kicking people out," whether it's actual or whether it's their agenda that is causing parishioners to walk out on their own and either join other churches or just stop going to church altogether.
As usual, the nice and decent, mustn't-rock-the-boat Anglicans in the pew kept their astonished mouths shut (that's not really being "nice," is it?), and now this denomination is sliding down the slippery slope so fast, it's going to hit the water soon--and hard, which is going to have all the "nice" Anglicans asking, "What happened? How did this happen?" to which the answer is, "You didn't have your wicks trimmed and you were asleep."
For the past 35 years, we've needed to wake up, but a lot didn't and they're still snoozing. We were warned but methinks it's too late.
There are a lot of Anlglican/Episcopal leaders who have a lot to answer for.
Posted by: 'been around the block at August 19, 2006 05:53 PM (n5lPj)
7
Good post, Steve.
All is not lost. This is faith that knows miracles and the wisdom of what seems foolishness.
http://www.stjohnsshaughnessy.org/
Posted by: Peter Jay at August 19, 2006 06:25 PM (YvXDk)
8
"This is faith that knows miracles and the wisdom of what seems foolishness, " writes Peter Jay.
Peter Jay, you're right, when it comes to the Christian Church/the Body of Christ: "And the gates of Hell will not prevail against it."
Nothing heretical that is happening now in the Anglican denomination can destroy the Body of Christ, His Church. But when it comes to a denomination that has forsaken God's truth, there is no doubt that it is under judgment.
God bless all of the faithful Anglican communities of which yours is one--a faithful remnant: Taste and see that the Lord is good. Happy are they who trust in Him.
Posted by: 'been around the block at August 19, 2006 07:11 PM (sepn3)
9
...gay marriage was on the agenda, anti-globalisation, political correctness, and all the usual issues from the rubbish heap of special interest politics.
I'm not intimately familiar with the Anglican faith, but my understanding was that it had a tradition of involvement in social justice issues dating from its earliest incarnations. In fact, wasn't Jesus Himself something of a social justice advocate? Anti-globalisation is a bit of a misnomer. It doesn't reject the idea of globalisation per se; however, the movement as a whole rejects the exploitation of workers in developing nations for the disproportionate benefit of private corporations and investors in developed nations. Rather than dismantling the system, anti-globalisation above all is about restructuring the system to improve proportionality in the sharing of social and economic benefits (I don't deny the presence of fringe anarchists, but also don't believe they represent the majority). In that sense, globalisation issues are very much social justice issues worthy of support from the Anglican Church.
Posted by: A at August 19, 2006 07:41 PM (Q+Bei)
10
A said, "I don't deny the presence of fringe anarchists, but also don't believe they represent the majority."
You're right, A. The fringe anarchists definitely don't represent the majority of Anglicans, but they get themselves disproportionately represented on the "governing" bodies of the ACC, which means that they are able to hi-jack the concerns/beliefs of the majority of Anglicans, the same thing that often happens in political ridings and parties.
Because a great many Anglicans in Canada, like most Canadians, don't think "politically," they are frequently are unaware of what often amounts to the anti-Christian shenanigans that are going on at their deanery and synod meetings.
Over the years, the decisions that have been made at these meetings--whether or not the majority are in favour or are aware of them--have been moving the ACC increasingly away from its spiritual roots to embrace the "open," "tolerant," and "diverse" secular humanist agendas mentioned above.
Posted by: 'been around the block at August 19, 2006 07:57 PM (sepn3)
11
Fortunately the continuation of the Christain faith is not dependant on the Anglican Church in North America. I have rarely attended an Anglican service, my tastes are more evangelical, but the last time I was in an Angilcan church was at a funeral. The family of the deceased filled much of the Church while the few church members left, all quite elderly, filled one pew in the back of the church. A year ago I went to an Anglican sponsored youth event and the Anglicans there were acting most peculiar. It seemed that while they wanted to believe in something beyond themselves they could not get over their secular humanist indoctrination and so turned the entire worship service into some kind of juvenile dance. I left when some "ordained" woman in clerical robes began her sermon.
Posted by: Joe at August 19, 2006 09:39 PM (b4grT)
12
Christopher Johnson has been covering the descent of the Episcopal Church at http://mcj.bloghorn.com/ since 2002. You might check his archives for further discussion.
Cheers
JMH
Posted by: J.M. Heinrichs at August 19, 2006 10:04 PM (QcudE)
13
'been around the block: When I said that fringe anarchists did not "represent the majority," I meant the "majority" to mean opponents of globalisation, not Anglicans. As an aside, you believe that they've managed to get themselves represented on the ACC governing bodies. How is this possible? I would imagine that appointments are made by vote. Wouldn't their representation indicate the will of the voting majority?
In any case, this sort of demand for doctrinal traditionalism is one of the main reasons why I left the church (Catholic). I always found the church to be more interested in telling other people how to live than in preaching universal messages of tolerance, nonjudgment, compassion, etc (i.e., the central teachings of Christianity). That is, the focus is far too defensive, always aimed at others who are seen to be threatening the integrity of the church (for some, it's female priests; for many others, it's same-sex couples who want the right to civil marriage) rather than on the personal spiritual lives of its own members.
Posted by: A at August 19, 2006 11:42 PM (Q+Bei)
14
A, sorry for my misunderstanding as to whom you were referring.
To answer your question, "How is this possbile?" that activists can get elected to committees, etc. without the consent of the majority? It's possible for the same reasons that political parties often vote for candidates not because the majority wants them but because the winning candidate has managed to load the ballot box with his/her suppporters. Or, someone has been parachuted in. Given that not all party members are able to be at the vote, the canny candidate gets elected.
'Same thing in any organization, including the Church. Activists typically spend a lot of time and energy on their political agendas, which the majority of Sunday-only church goers aren't necessarily aware of. It's also been my observation that most church goers are delighted when someone else steps up to the plate: "Whew, they'll give me a pass; 'glad so-and-so is doing it," even if they're not at all sure just what it is that so-and-so is doing.
Though that may seem cynical, that's been my experience in the Church. But having said that--and each to his/her own--I've also observed that in a crisis, whether it's an ice storm in Quebec, an earthquake in Costa Rica, or a Tsunami in Indonesia, the Christian Church is always there: Anglican, Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, United Church, Orthodox, Evangelical, Charismatic, Mennonite, and the list goes on and on: giving, giving, giving, time, treasure, and talent often for complete strangers and asking nothing in return.
I don't see this happening from "disorganized religion." And though non-religious charities do wonderful work, it is a fact that (Google Charitable Giving in Canada):
"Although our 'top donors' only give about $350 (on average) per year, the '2004 Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating' shows that 48% of those who attend weekly religious services are in the 'top donor' category, while only 16% of non religious types are in that category.
"Also, in an article 'The Generosity Gap' from The Fraser Forum, an analysis of charitable giving, based on hard data from the 2001 tax returns, showed that Quebec, one of the most socialist and least religious provinces in Canada, was near the bottom of charitable givings: only 22.6% of Quebecers gave an average of $473. On the other hand, in Alberta, probably the most C(c)onservative and religious province in Canada, 25.1% gave an average of $1 294."
So, though you're entitled to your opinion that you've "always found the church to be more interested in telling other people how to live than in preaching universal messages of tolerance, nonjudgment, compassion, etc" the facts don't seem to bear this out. Coming to the aid of stricken people and areas in the world, with concrete, hands-on help, doesn't come across as preaching to me.
Posted by: 'been around the block at August 20, 2006 08:21 AM (27hS1)
15
I find it incredibly ironic that some of you seem to think that the Anglican Church is "conserving millennia-old beliefs and traditions which have stood the test of time" and that "These “progressive” (sic) ideas, which the left see as cutting-edge, evolutionary, and compassionate are simply not in keeping, in any way, with the foundational and core beliefs of Christianity", when the Anglican Church, itself, was formed through a schism that argued exactly the same thing.
Posted by: bob at August 20, 2006 10:09 AM (fnZDj)
16
Hey BATB: I understand your point about how activists get on committees, but surely your reasons are a criticism of "Sunday-only church goers" more so than the candidates who run for office, who are only playing within the rules of the system. As I see it, having an activist "steal" a seat on a committee can only happen once. After that, if the majority don't like how the church is being run, they ought to come out and vote for someone else during the next election. I see two equally valid explanations for why "activists" are installed year after year: (a) as you say, because the majority is complacent and "apolitical"; or (b) they are generally happier with the direction of church policy than you suggest.
I concede your point on the well-established trend of greater charity-giving among those who attend religious services. However, I'd point out that donating to the basket that churches hand out at service is considered by the StatCan survey as a form of charity, so it's also the case that those who attend religious services often give directly to their own church, and are only as equally likely as those who don't attend services to give to health, social service, and international aid organizations (of course, many churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. dedicate special funds to emergency relief). I mention this not to take away from the generosity of religious givers, only to point out an important consideration when interpreting the survey results. It's unclear whether groups like World Vision or the Salvation Army are categorized under "religious" or "social service" (it may simply depend on each individual respondent's view).
The Fraser Forum's "generosity gap" refers to the gap between donations in the US and Canadian (US give far more on average), rather than difference among provinces. Also, according to the 2005 survey (see Table 1 in particular), Manitoba is tops, while Alberta is 5th and 4th, respectively, in % of population who donated and % of income donated, both of which are stronger measures of population level "generosity". Alberta still leads in average dollar amount, but this number can be skewed by a few massive donations from a handful of individuals. Quebec does indeed suck with respect to charity donations.
As for my opinion that the church "seems to be more interested in telling other people how to live than in preaching universal messages of tolerance, nonjudgment, compassion, etc.," this was a criticism leveled more at the institution of religion than its specific human followers. My own experience with Catholicism is that I came aware perfect clear on what the Church was against (abortions, condoms, women in the clergy, same-sex marriage, etc.), but not at all clear on what it was for in practise. Indeed, I found that the virtues it supported in principle (non-judgment, compassion for the poor and marginalized, universal acceptance, etc.) were too often contradictory to its positions on the issues it was against in practise.
Posted by: A at August 20, 2006 10:45 AM (Q+Bei)
17
Perhaps the debate should be "Why don't gay ministers, and those practitioners who feel it is acceptable for their ministers to be gay, found their own church" rather than hijacking the one that has served the interests of it's flock until now? Is this not the same net effect? After all, we're talking about people leaving an institution that no longers believes in the same values that it's core constituency accepts. And it is consistent with not forcing one's views down the throats of others. Isn't this everybit fair in the context of a free and liberal life?
This is framed just like the immigration debate, where "traditional" church members, just like long time citizens of Canada, are not listened to in the mad rush to change society into the giant lab experiment that has resulted in this P.C. madness that is the Western society of the 21st millennium.
We cannot impose equity with inequity, and you cannot create sanity with madness. These are lessons that the Left never learns.
Perhaps, in the spirit of understanding where my views come from, I should declare that I am against organized religion of any sort. I have seen much more harm than good come of it (and I'm including my hypocritical Buddhist friends who lecture me on materialism before they jump into their BMW's and Jags). The way I choose to be anti-religion is to live my life by my conscience, and not by opinion polls. Having said that, I am AGAINST banning any "peaceful" religions, and I have no personal problem with people believing there is a ghost out there that is watching us.
As to the origins of the Anglican Church, I thought it started because Henry VIII just wanted a divorce? How is this the same as "cutting edge, evolutionary, and compassionate"? I guess it is so if it allows men to leave their marriages without having to chop off their wives' heads.
Posted by: mike s at August 20, 2006 10:51 AM (WgxhF)
18
A: You say, "I see two equally valid explanations for why 'activists' are installed year after year: (a) as you say, because the majority is complacent and 'apolitical'; or (b) they are generally happier with the direction of church policy than you suggest."
I'm clear that if the majority is, as you posit, "generally happier with the direction of church policy than suggest," that the Anglican Church of Canada would be growing and flourishing.
Sadly, it's not. Whole congregations are leaving the ACC and joining other Anglican bodies, and most of the congregations remaining have an average age of about 65 (casting no aspersions on the elderly; I'm approaching being a senior myself!). Attrition, itself, will probably see an end to any vibrancy in the ACC in a few years time.
The interesting thing is, these activists are not bringing in new people in any significant numbers who agree with their "open" and "tolerant" agendas. Nor are they contributing in any significant way to the coffers of the ACC which, let's face it, is one indicator of an organization in crisis.
As for your assertion that you weren't criticizing religion's "specific human followers" but rather "the institution," it would take a wiser person than I to distinguish between the two. My specific generosity and hands-on help to single moms, to the homeless, to victims of natural disasters (my family and I were living in a Caribbean country when a 7.4 on the Richter Scale earthquake hit) is only possible because of the strength, support, and encouragement I receive from my community of faith. It's very hard to separate the two.
I appreciate your thoughtful responses, A, and the opportunity to respond to them.
Thanks!
Posted by: 'been around the block at August 20, 2006 11:28 AM (27hS1)
19
Well, when all human ideas fail, there is always the Bible.
Posted by: Chris Smith at August 20, 2006 04:10 PM (KPSTE)
20
YOu shuld re-join the Catholic church.
Posted by: at August 20, 2006 04:44 PM (yTEjs)
21
preaching universal messages of tolerance, nonjudgment, compassion, etc (i.e., the central teachings of Christianity)
Nope. The central teaching of Christianity has always been the Resurrection. "Messages of tolerance, nonjudgement, compassion, etc" are part of the message. So are various injunctions against certain behaviors. Divorce and adultery are condemned in the Gospels, in Jesus' own words. That may or may not count as "telling other people how to live", but at the least, it sets standards.
As for the history of the Anglican church, that's... well, it's complicated. Henry VIII rebelled against the pope, but that was only the beginning of a long process that made the Anglican church what it is today. Equally important were contributions of the reformers under Henry's son Edward, the abortive return to catholicism under Mary, Elizabeth's tendency toward protestant thought with catholic trappings, etc. etc. I don't think real stability came to the Anglican church until after 1700.
Anglicanism traditionally is thoroughly protestant in theology. And protestantism was always intended, essentially, as a return to the faith of the Apostles. As Steve has so ably explicated, todays conflict in the Anglican communion in the end will be less about gay marriage and more about the core theological ideas of the christian faith.
Posted by: at August 20, 2006 05:04 PM (5DpWg)
22
preaching universal messages of tolerance, nonjudgment, compassion, etc (i.e., the central teachings of Christianity)
Nope. The central teaching of Christianity has always been the Resurrection. "Messages of tolerance, nonjudgement, compassion, etc" are part of the message. So are various injunctions against certain behaviors. Divorce and adultery are condemned in the Gospels, in Jesus' own words. That may or may not count as "telling other people how to live", but at the least, it sets standards.
As for the history of the Anglican church, that's... well, it's complicated. Henry VIII rebelled against the pope, but that was only the beginning of a long process that made the Anglican church what it is today. Equally important were contributions of the reformers under Henry's son Edward, the abortive return to catholicism under Mary, Elizabeth's tendency toward protestant thought with catholic trappings, etc. etc. I don't think real stability came to the Anglican church until after 1700.
Anglicanism traditionally is thoroughly protestant in theology. And protestantism was always intended, essentially, as a return to the faith of the Apostles. As Steve has so ably explicated, todays conflict in the Anglican communion in the end will be less about gay marriage and more about the core theological ideas of the christian faith.
Posted by: warko at August 20, 2006 05:04 PM (5DpWg)
23
A
Where did you get the idea that universal acceptance and tolerance are the core of the Christian faith? Every age exalts some virtues and buries others - in this age "tolerance" or a cheap simulacrum thereof has been raised up as the highest virtue. It isn't. Tolerance is a modern cultural value which derives partially from Christian teachings, but is no0t quite the same.
Don't take my word for it. Read the writings of Christians in other centuries - any other century.
bob - yes, I've heard the theory that proclaims that modern attempts to change the church, which conservatives hate, are just the same thing all over again from the old attempts to change the church, which conservatives adore. It is a convenient narrative, but it doesn't square well with actual history. You also might benefit by reading the writings of Christians in other centuries.
Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at August 20, 2006 05:05 PM (1w197)
24
Actually, all you need to know about why this is all happening is to look up Antonio Gramsci's works.
The Gramscians took over the left. Now they've infiltrated your institutions: your religions, your education, your media. I'm an atheist, but I find myself appalled at the way they're taking over the Anglican church.
Good luck at fighting back. Incidentally, I'm working in an Anglican school in Singapore, and the leadership is still pretty conservative. I've lost count of the number of times they've tried to 'convert' me!
Posted by: The Wobbly Guy at August 21, 2006 03:09 AM (0IZna)
25
Wobbly Guy: Anglicanism other than in Britain, the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe ('pretty long list, actually) is doing pretty well, and holding its own spiritually.
Unfortunately, it's where "enlightenment" ideas and thinking have taken hold, leading to every "progressive" (sic), politically correct, secular humanist idea being loaded into the Anglican barque, that Anglicanism is sinking--and fast. Glug, glug, glug.
Kyrie Eleison.
There are other faithful churches that Anglicans can join...though I don't deny the hurt and difficulty in leaving one's life-long church and having to find another spiritual home. But many have done it.
Posted by: 'been around the block at August 21, 2006 09:30 AM (//kMp)
26
“. . . the Liberals wont leave because they dont want to build a new org they want to take over the existing one.....”
Stephen, I think it's less the case they donÂ’t want to take over than that they have to take over. They could never fill a church with congregants who share their beliefs because most so-called "progressives" are far too "progressive" to believe in God; they don't go to church. As 'been around the blocks so nicely elucidates, it's the complacent, nonpolitical, non-confrontational types, sitting quietly in their pews, faithfully dropping their pledge envelopes into the plate every Sunday, that make it possible for the liberals to keep their jobs. When the rapidly aging faithful die off, the money will stop flowing, the host will die and the liberals will have to move off in search of another host. In other words, to put it in the harshest manner, they are parasites who, unlike the biological strain, are fully aware of what they are doing.
Posted by: Anthony at August 21, 2006 11:25 AM (mvOKu)
27
Sorry, I garbled the first line of my post which should read: "Stephen, I think it's less the case the liberals don't want to build a new organization than that they can't, they have to take over an existing one."
The rest I think is reasonably clear.
Posted by: at August 21, 2006 11:53 AM (mvOKu)
28
Cheap Jerseys-Authentic Cheap Nike NFL Jerseys 2012 Sale.
Posted by: Broncos jersey Cheap at November 29, 2012 08:44 AM (eOBZU)
February 15, 2006
The Anglican Church in Canada: Trying to maintain the faith
A schism, and a schism within a schism, is starting to form in Ottawa.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
02:28 PM
| Comments (78)
| Add Comment
Post contains 827 words, total size 5 kb.
1
As a member of the Anglican Church, these foolhardy actions by our bishops have profoundly saddened me. There is already a schism between North and south. It is time for healing, not useless confrontation. The Anglican Church is growing remarkably in the third world and one day I believe the West will be re evangilized by our Asian and African brothers and sisters. Already in England many of the Anglican priests are from In dia and Africa. Let us at least try and keep the agreements.
Posted by: Roy Eappen at February 15, 2006 02:35 PM (x9M4y)
2
What do people really expect will happen?
A mutually satisfactory compromise??
A healing of delicate sensitivities??
The two sides are irreconcilable without the sacrifice of integrity of both parties.
How can an organization that holds to the Bible's unequivocal stand against homosexuality, not rebuke the homosexual lifestyle? To do more than hate the sin, but love the sinner, is to contradict it's founding documents.
How can any self-respecting gay man or lesbian seek comfort or solace within the walls of such an organization? It is equally hypocritical for them to want any association with the Church.
Both sides of this whole issue are in a conflict of interest.
The Church is trying to uphold the sacred, at the same time playing the PC game of being all-inclusive.
The Gay community claims lifestyle validation, while also seeking an Ecclesiastical badge of acceptability that they can wield like a weapon at anyone who would dare criticise their sexual choices.
Hypocrisy on both sides.
Scott
Posted by: Scott Merrithew at February 15, 2006 03:48 PM (0YGq4)
3
An African, John Sentuma (I think I've got his name right) was recently enthroned as Archbishop of York. And lo and behold he preaches traditional Christian values.
The re-evangalisation of the west by our Asian and African brothers and sisters has already begun.
PS. The Bishop of Rochester (UK) orginally comes from Pakistan. And he too teaches the old values.
Posted by: The Prophet at February 15, 2006 03:48 PM (VY4is)
4
An interesting post indeed. Your explanation of Apostolic Succession in the Anglican faith was important and is something that seems to get forgotten/overlooked.
Just a housekeeping note on the use of the term "Roman Catholic" and "Roman Catholic Church" as used in the post. In the context above, the better term is "Catholic Church" or "Catholics". Roman Catholics, or Latin Rite Catholics, are simply the predominant rite in the Catholic Church. Aside from Roman Catholics, the Catholic Church also includes the the various Byzantine or Eastern Catholic faiths such as Ukranian Catholic, Coptic Catholics, Melkite Catholic etc. All are united under the Pope and hold the same doctrine, although their liturgical rites will differ.
Posted by: Don at February 15, 2006 03:53 PM (pQYXG)
5
The Church of England used to be called "the Tory Party at prayer". The Anglican Church of Canada might be called the "the New Democratic Party at rut".
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at February 15, 2006 04:00 PM (tUUmB)
6
There is certainly a lot of confusion when matters such as this arise. In general, though, churches will expect their leaders to accept correction: nobody is in a position to correct others if they themselves are continuing in sin.
All people sin, but it is necessary to recognize our sin and work to "sin no more". Where sinful pride takes over, and people refuse to strive against sin, problems arise.
Posted by: Paul O at February 15, 2006 04:23 PM (220Tp)
7
The small but vigorous group of orthodox Anglicans in Canada is worthy of admiration from all faithful Christians. Like many people I know, I eventually gave up on being able to influence anything and left the Anglican Church in Canada to be received by Rome, God willing.. but the courage and determination of those who fight the good fight still is inspiring.
Posted by: DSM at February 15, 2006 04:38 PM (H7O9H)
8
The Church's attempt at being all inclusive and politically correct has been an abymsal failure. I used to attend Youth Synod for my parish in the Diocese of Niagara, at one point I even managed to get on the Synod planning committee. I strongly objected to the church being turned into a political arena where certain individuals could advance their political agenda. I was dealing with people my age (1
who were professed Marxists, militant and devoted to their cause. The fact that they considered themselves to be Christian is perplexing to say the least. My efforts were in vain and I left Synod. I haven't really returned to the church since, and I can tell you that many more have done so as well. Politics has no business in the church. These individuals who want to advance their agenda need to be put in their place or shown the door. Much in the same way Christ threw the tax collectors out of the temple.
These minority parishes clearly want to force the hand of the overwhelming majority of Anglicans worldwide. Is it just for a minority to thrust its will upon the majority? Of course not. If these parishes and their bishops reject the will of the majority, then they must be expelled from the Anglican Communion. Just because a few individuals, bishops, and parishes wish to be intolerant and disrespectful towards the rest of the Anglican Communion, doesn't mean the church should suffer and be forced to endure a world-wide schism.
As for homosexuality as a sin. If you follow dogma in the way Catholics and many other Christians do, eventually you are going to contradict yourself. People enjoy pointing out an obscure reference from Leviticus as proof that homosexuality is a sin. But another passage would appear to condone slavery. Personally, I believe if homosexuality is a sin it is between that person and God. Not me, you, or anyone else. Judge not lest ye also be judged is clear enough for me and should be clear enough for every other Christian.
who were professed Marxists, militant and devoted to their cause. The fact that they considered themselves to be Christian is perplexing to say the least. My efforts were in vain and I left Synod. I haven't really returned to the church since, and I can tell you that many more have done so as well. Politics has no business in the church. These individuals who want to advance their agenda need to be put in their place or shown the door. Much in the same way Christ threw the tax collectors out of the temple.
These minority parishes clearly want to force the hand of the overwhelming majority of Anglicans worldwide. Is it just for a minority to thrust its will upon the majority? Of course not. If these parishes and their bishops reject the will of the majority, then they must be expelled from the Anglican Communion. Just because a few individuals, bishops, and parishes wish to be intolerant and disrespectful towards the rest of the Anglican Communion, doesn't mean the church should suffer and be forced to endure a world-wide schism.
As for homosexuality as a sin. If you follow dogma in the way Catholics and many other Christians do, eventually you are going to contradict yourself. People enjoy pointing out an obscure reference from Leviticus as proof that homosexuality is a sin. But another passage would appear to condone slavery. Personally, I believe if homosexuality is a sin it is between that person and God. Not me, you, or anyone else. Judge not lest ye also be judged is clear enough for me and should be clear enough for every other Christian.Posted by: TheDiggler at February 15, 2006 05:28 PM (2Tb8y)
9
The High Anglican Church has aligned itself with the Orthodox Church.
Posted by: Simeon at February 15, 2006 05:47 PM (dWA3+)
10
Homsoexual practice is called an abomination in Leviticus 18:22. Now, one can consider that as part of a number of laws given to the people of Israel before they entered the Promised Land. Many of these laws obviously do not apply to us today.
However, there are other scriptures where the practice is clearly condemned e.g. Romans 1:26, 27 where the apostle Paul makes this abundantly clear. In other places it is referred to as a perversion and in the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorra (Genesis 19) God's disapproval is also evident.
It is diffucult to see how a Christian Church can condone the practice, let alone allow homosexual priests.
Posted by: Herman at February 15, 2006 05:59 PM (8oprY)
11
Diggler, I share your frustration with the bureaucracy and political morass that you described above. It can, and usually does, paralyse the whole organization.
I have a true story of what can happen if Church Leadership gives too much latitude to contrary opinions.
A small Protestant church in Thornhill had capacity for about 100, but a membership of only about 25. Sometime around 1986 or 87, new members started to attend, and when sufficient numbers were attained, a motion was made at the AGM to convert the church to a mosque for the Muslim faith. It passed because there were not enough christian members to oppose it.
In this completely legal way, a church building and all assets were lost in spite of the many years of christian contribution and leadership.
The net effect of a leadership that tries to accept everything, is that it ends up standing for nothing, and original intentions are drowned in the overwhelming flood of the "majority".
It's a fact of life that the majority rules.
Unfortunately, the majority is also frequently wrong.
By the way, many people feel that the hard teachings of the Bible can't be reconciled with the "Love" teachings of the same Bible.
I remind them, and you, that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and does not change his values.
As Herman said, the Bible is abundantly clear in several passages about this topic, and to deny it as some obscure reference, is to deny the authority of God's Word, and mold it to conform with pre-judged opinions.
Be cautious when discounting the scriptures; if something seems contradictory, it's probably because you need to study it a little more.
You and me both.
Posted by: Scott Merrithew at February 15, 2006 06:43 PM (0YGq4)
12
...somewhere I remember reading someone saying "you can't serve God and mammon.
Gee it's just on the tip of my tongue where I last saw it...
;-)
Posted by: tomax at February 15, 2006 07:52 PM (CUIIz)
13
???
Perhaps you read it in Luke 16:13.
I agree with the statement, but fail to see your meaning in this context.
Posted by: Scott Merrithew at February 15, 2006 08:19 PM (0YGq4)
14
As an Anglican, I believe that while homosexual practices are a sin, but I also believe that condemning homosexuals is just as bad. A sin is a sin is a sin. Whatever happened to 'love the sinner, hate the sin'? Frankly, I see no real big deal with homosexuals entering into a partnership. Calling it marriage is wrong. Engaging in homosexual behavior is wrong, but is it so wrong to love another man emotionally as it is with a woman?
Posted by: Pat T. at February 15, 2006 08:29 PM (jprqz)
15
Anglican happens to be the man-made religion club my family was born into. These *clubs* generally do more good than harm in these modern times.
There is a middle eastern religious group that seems to be stuck in the middle ages.
I am at a loss to think of the good they have done for the general cause of mankind lately. Anyhow...
10WORDS
Well I am in over my head now. Recently registered a real .CA website. Actually paid out some money for it too. Not normal for this person with traces of Scot bloodline.
$10 register with 10Dollar.ca registry.
$100 for 2 years at Can. Internet Registry Authority. [ CIRA] CA> authority.
FastWebServer and SiteXpress Editor.
It is 10WORDS.CA and the name is HOME. Home will not work in search engines yet [too soon and not crawled] but 10WORDS works in Google and Technorati all right.
I thought they were good tag terms for a website. Nothing much comes before 10 as in 10words.
Zero does, but no one uses zero really. I was surprised that HOME was not registered in Canada.
http://10words.ca
In deep because I never did get into HTML much and the editor is not forgiving.
The site is ideal for business but it is a quasi-blogsite for now.
Any advice for a neophyte would be welcome. Now, off to investigate the term FTP account? TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 15, 2006 08:38 PM (rmMzv)
16
The problems in the Anglican Church run deep and are symptomatic of a greater malaise. The very fact that the Church as repudiated the authority of scripture and allowed the clergy to run roughshod over the beliefs of practicing Christians world wide only go to show how far the Church has wandered from the Truth in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Posted by: Joe at February 15, 2006 09:09 PM (ZF5aM)
17
This debate relates directly to the Anglican Church's role in running Apartheid colonial-era Residential Schools for mostly Liberal Federal governments under contract for so many decades.
"Hate the sin, but not the sinner" is too simplistic a comment to come to grips how an institution genuinely committed to 'doing good' could have, within its own structure, fallen prey to a significant number in its ranks who have caused so much grievous harm to individuals as well as the Anglican Church's reputation.
At that time too, there was an agenda at work within the church clearly at odds with Christian values.
Posted by: brock at February 15, 2006 11:09 PM (e/acA)
18
Brock and Joe are right about the greater malaise.
It is also much older than you might know.
The power that comes with leading any large institution is very appealing, and the hunger to gain that power attracts many people to pursue it.
Believing in the foundational doctrines of the institution isn't even required.
When that institution represents a widely held religious belief system, it is even more powerful because the will of millions of people can be manipulated for personal gain.
This reality pre-dates the Anglican church which was formed for the sole purpose of allowing the King to defy the Roman Catholic prohibition against divorce.
It also pre-dates the Orthodox Catholic Church, and even the original Roman Catholic Church.
For the first 300 years, Christianity was an illegal faith, not tolerated by the Roman Emperors. As a result, Christians met and worshiped together in secret gatherings in houses or caves.
In 325 Roman Emperor Constantine removed the laws against Christian believers, and presided over the Council of Niceae, which gave a select group of Christian leaders the authority to speak for the church and to determine the canon of Christian doctrine.
I cannot say that these members were anything less than honourable, and acted with the best of intentions, but this was the beginning of the "Christian institution". Although it did unify the church, those who came later certainly recognised the newly minted power of an organized religion sanctioned by none other than the Emperor of the Roman Empire.
Millions of true believers, ecstatic and grateful to God that their lives of fear and hiding were exchanged for lives of honourable acceptability, gladly fell in line behind the newly heralded leadership of the church.
Those leaders, in subsequent councils and decrees, established, bit by bit, the ominous and pretentious autocracy that came to be known as the Roman Catholic Church.
Through centuries of tumultuous, political upheaval, the Roman Catholic Church became a gaudy caricature of it's original form, drunk on the political power it wielded in gold and vast riches and landholdings, while at the same time subjugating the people by keeping them ignorant and compliant. Almost none of the common folk could read, and the Church wanted to keep it that way. Even church services were conducted in latin so that few could understand what was spoken. This meant that the common folk who had a desire to honour God, had to come to the church priest to ask what to do.
And so the priests could say anything they wished and the people would believe it, even if it only served the interests of the priests.
Reading the bible was a rare privelege because they were all hand-written and only the wealthy could afford to own a copy.
But after Wycliffe started producing english translations, and copies became more widely available, the Catholic Church decreed at the Synod of Oxford in 1407, that it was unlawful for any but Priests to read the bible.
Many Catholics deny this today, but the fact remains that if people started to read those passages that contradict the teachings of the Church, that the power over the people would start to decay.
Did you know that as recently as 1962, the Pope declared that it was still discouraged that any but "learned persons" should read the sacred books, but it was no longer forbidden. It was left up to each Bishops discretion to allow people to read the Bible. 1962!!!
Over the centuries, and up to modern times, more and more people could see through these false teachings of the Church. But instead of rejecting the church and pursuing a true faith, many simply rejected Christianity completely because of the hypocrisy of the Christian institution. This is, perhaps, the greatest crime of the Catholic Church.
The Anglican Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church differ from the Catholic Church in only minor and petty ways. They all share the same damning legacy. They all claim a form of godliness, but deny the power of God. They rather glory in the political power of their institutional traditions, and maintain a holier-than-thou arrogance as they wallow in the ecumenical melting-pot of political correctness.
In the end, all that remains is a weak plea that we all just get along and show tolerance for everybody except those nasty Christians who just stir everything up by saying there is right and wrong.
Don't walk! Run away from these churches.
Seek out a place that truly believes in God's Word, and you will be surprised to find caring people, who stand for something true. People who truly love others who are different from them.
People you can work beside to show love and compassion to the lost, the sick, the hungry, and yes even the Gay and the Lesbian. It is not necessary to condone the sexual choices of homosexuals, to love them the way Jesus did.
Nor is it helpful for homosexuals to consider Christians their enemies. That's just propoganda spewed by the Gay Rights Activists who have found their own institutional powerbase.
Sorry I rambled on more than I intended, but as I review what I wrote, I think it all needed to be said.
Posted by: Scott Merrithew at February 16, 2006 12:07 AM (0YGq4)
19
Good purview of that history. Lenny Bruce said: "They are running out of the churches in order to get closer to God." This was the comment that got him banned in many jurisdictions back then.
Posted by: brock at February 16, 2006 12:19 AM (e/acA)
20
Thank you Scott M. for that epistle.
And Scott B, if you fail to see the connection of "you can't serve God and server mannon" at the same time, well here's the Readers Digestion version.
You can't appease humanists and feel goodies and server a God that sometimes requires one to take a stand on issues.
cheers
tom
Posted by: tomax at February 16, 2006 04:53 AM (CUIIz)
21
where the heck did that "r" come from...dang keyboard.
"serve".
Posted by: tomax at February 16, 2006 04:54 AM (CUIIz)
22
The Anglican Church of today seems to be fracturing along a liberal/conservative front. That's a pity.
Much of that front centers on gays. In a great many ways today's views of gays --on both sides-- remind me of the 1860's views of slaves on both sides. Pro and con get so entrenched in their views that there is little or no room to think.
Without a lawyer from God standing here I must think as to what the Bible says on some things. For gays, I'm guessing (from a lot of thought) that the biblical proscription against gays has a lot to do with promiscuity and rejection of family life: These things have been a major part of the gay lifestyle for as long as we have history to cover the matter.
So, to me, married family oriented gays are left out of the proscription. We should want married gay priests as good people of the faith. We should, according to how I see it, take a stand against the promiscuity which still holds as the centre of much GLB life.
I know, that looks like fence sitting! None-the-less, I think it is the Biblical way of things.
Posted by: JwWells at February 16, 2006 05:05 AM (Lozdz)
23
In 50 years, most likely such "religions" will be gone, thankfully, along with all the ethnocentric racism that creating of these institutional, artificial human divides That Religions create. creates. Wisen up...Religion was created centuries ago to provide the ignorant masses with answers to Life's Mysteries(in exchange for 10% of your gross, plus a lifetime of subservience.
....And they cloak it all under the guise "We're the Good Deed Guys", as they've weseled in, to steal your Life...
Posted by: Raymond Hietapakka at February 16, 2006 06:45 AM (Uagor)
24
Why all of this talk about the Anglican church Steve?
Do you really care?
Are you enthralled by this superstition?
Why not shut up about this and keep your phobias to yourself?
Citing the Bile or other such nonsense doesnÂ’t really work with thinking people.
Posted by: Nick the Dick at February 16, 2006 09:36 AM (yJ5ul)
25
Raymond,
Such is the social engineering that is being perpetrated on us. In 50 years we will all have smartened up and thousands of years of history will be put away. Not to mention curing us of racism.
Just because you may find religions offensive does not mean others do. Whether for good or bad, individuals search for answers and find these answers in various religions. Others find the answers in social engineering the rest of us, militant atheism, feminism and left wing politics etc.
enough
Posted by: enough at February 16, 2006 09:49 AM (ucHAZ)
26
Talking of the Anglican church is a matter of interest. Institutions like this used to play a large part in Canadas well-being. My grandparents had much of their life centered around the United Church. That institution has slipped into irrelevancy. Was this due to dropping of traditional values?
Is the Anglican church following in the United Churchs footsteps?
Their role has diminished and that may be a detriment to Canada while others see that as a good thing. The least we can do is consider it.
enough
Posted by: thisisenough@gmail.com at February 16, 2006 09:57 AM (ucHAZ)
27
Thank you Raymond. You have just proved my point about False teaching pushing people away from a religion, turning them into cynics, rather than driving them to seek for the truth of it.
But don't allow your cynicism to blind your eyes to the fact that power mongers will corrupt any organization, and pervert it from it's original ideals.
It's the same with large corporations.
It's the same with Government, at all levels.
And as we have been discussing, it is the same with organized religion.
I have even seen power struggles in leadership of the local Shriners Service Club.
In all these examples, the reality is far away from the original intentions of the institution.
What is missing is the desire to step back and take an objective look at our own situations.
Even that kind of self-analysis is not sufficient to prompt most people to actually speak out against what is wrong. To do so would be to sacrifice public standing or recognition earned by upholding the opposite view for so long.
Imagine a renowned scientist, who after becoming a Christian believer, begins to question the various theories of Evolution, and espouses the biblical case for Creation. To dare speak out against Evolution would immediately brand him a loony and he would be completely ostracised by the same community that a day earlier was holding him up as a champion of science.
I know a lady who lived a lesbian lifestyle for many years, but after becoming a Christian believer, came to recognise the incongruencies between that lifestyle and a Christian lifestyle.
When it became known that she would no longer continue as a lesbian, the loving, caring, and sensitive members of the gay community chastised her, publicly humiliated her and loudly branded her as a traitor to the cause.
Well that's it isn't it? It had become a Cause.
Wasn't it originally about a loving relationship between two women. Somehow that original intention had been usurped by the powerful agenda of "Gay Pride". The attitudes they now manifest are the exact opposite of the attitude of acceptance that is the point of their campaign.
In most cases, it is too late to actually make a difference in the direction of the organization.
It is like standing on the seashore trying to stop the encroaching tide.
But that does not mean the stand should not be made. And if the voice is rejected, cut your losses and get out.
In the case of the Anglican Church, there is still time to defend the clear intention of scripture with respect to homosexuality, without being labeled an old-fashioned fool by anyone other than the most rabid proponents of same-sex marriage.
However if someone were to defend the clear intention of scripture that divorce is wrong, they would not be well respected, because that ship has already left the harbour.
Divorce is just as common in the church as it is in secular society.
What if someone spoke out for abstinence instead of "Safe-Sex". It has happened recently, but that ship is long gone! They are labeled "naive" because everybody knows that kids are going to have sex anyway, so it is better to focus efforts on condom distribution in public schools.
All this boils down to choosing which sins are acceptable and which ones are not.
The same people that say some sins are OK, say others are blasphemy.
Yet all these issues are addressed in scripture by the prohibition of fornication, which is simply sex outside of marriage.
Arguing about differences between homosexual, heterosexual, and re-marriage sex is just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Many Christians need to reconsider their motivation when condemning homosexual behaviour, while condoning promiscuity as normal teenage behaviour. According to scripture, both are sins.
We need to stop viewing sin in degrees, as if some sins are worse than others. That is just cultural. The original intention is clearly written for any honest enough to accept it.
And when we do, we realise that we actually are all in the same sinful condition, and people of every race and every culture are the same in God's view.
Only then will individuals break out of their delusions of acceptibility to like-minded mankind, and desire the acceptance of God.
Posted by: Scott Merrithew at February 16, 2006 10:33 AM (nogyA)
28
Scott Merrithew:
Look, you're a brother in Christ so I don't want to be too harsh, but thanks for that ridiculously biased and inaccurate view of church history.
Yes, the church was persecuted for the first 300 years. However, even at that time it was heavily pro-Roman. Witness, for example, the exhortations among the church fathers to pray for the Roman empire even though they were persecuted. And guess what: the episcopal structures of the church do in fact historically go back to Clemment of Rome and Polycarp among others, who were direct disciples of the twelve apostles. Yes they were living in houses and caves, but this does not change the fact that the church already had bishops and patriarchs by 312.
Also, Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion, he merely made it legal. It was later, with the reign of Theodosius, that it became official. Before this, the church (both east and west) held the councel of Nicea, which laid down the Niceen creed, which all Christians still confess. It was ***after*** this council that the Bible was codified. If you reject the authority of the church, you may as well reject Holy Scripture, because they're the ones who cannonized the New Testament as we now have it.
As for the gradual decline of the Catholic church that you site, there is a more complex history again than that which you describe. In fact, periods of decline were interspersed with periods of renewal, of which the Protestant Reformation could have been simply one more example. The fact is that the Renaissance Papacy represented a low point in Catholic history, and Luther's excommunication is a part of this scandal. Some, though not all of the things against which Luther railed were fixed at the Council of Trent, though other errors were certainly internalized.
Finally, your quote from the Pope as of 1962 I believe, has likely been modified by Vatican II, which advocates more openness in Catholic theology.
I'm not even going to bother saying much about those who claim that religion is irrelevant. The cold hard fact is that 95 percent of humanity throughout thousands of years of history have disagreed with this assessment, including most of the more brilliant scientists in history (Boyle, Newton, Bacon, Copernicus, Galileo, Mendel, etc). The fact that "free-thinkers" Atheists, Scientific Naturalists and a few radical fundamentalists have endeavored to break the long-standing historical ties between science and religion does not eliminate the equally saliant fact that they have existed throughout most of history. And that's not even getting into the benefits of Religion for society. Yes, some religions can promote values inconsistent with rationality and the kind of things one would expect from a good God. But some atheists and "free-thinkers" have killed millions of people (Naziism and Communism are both atheistic faiths), and I wouldn't judge all of them by this small minority.
Last but certainly not least, I wish the Anglicans the best of luck, and urge the liberal clergy and laity who are seeking to shove their heretical dogma on the rest of the communion to cease and desist. They would be far better off just forming their own denomination, and make their case to the people. The fact is that they have already left the historic faith, and have confused tolerance of people with acceptance of their lifestyles.
Just the rantings of one high church, conservative Lutheran yank. And by the way: great blog. IKnow that some down here in the uncaring south sympathize with what you Conservatives are trying to do in the frozen north. I'm also glad to find some Canadians who aren't reflexively anti-American. Keep it up!
Posted by: A. J. Nolte at February 16, 2006 10:43 AM (AIutj)
29
So-called 'progressive' thinking is the problem. The past hundred years have been far more barbaric than any other epoch in history. And it's getting worse. The progressives are actually regressive, blind to history and blind to facts. You can ignore the facts, but the facts won't ignore you.
As far as the Anglican Church is concerned, they should look at the ongoing, self-imposed destruction of the United Church.
Stand for something, some will stand with you, some will stand against you. Stand for nothing, nobody will stand with you and nobody will stand against you.
If you believe in God, you have to believe in the life changing Spirit of God. Otherwise, religion is meaningless and empty.
Posted by: Irwin Daisy at February 16, 2006 11:06 AM (MkblT)
30
Here's a little epistle to those blaming religion for all our deceived masses woes. Forgive my rambling...
Religion indeed has mass appeal whereas Faith basically is individual accountablility. You can't really equate religion with faith.
One action is out of fear, another is action out of love.
Religion is fallen man trying to reach God by offering their own works and deeds, whereas faith is believing God reaching for you, no matter what your state of affairs is. In faith you receive God's gift of forgiveness.
Sure, the basic tenant is you gotta figure out you need forgiveness to start with, but I'm not discussing that stream at the moment.
Now faith can be argued as secular also. Do you have faith when you put the brakes on the car for it to stop? Or do you have faith when you cross a bridge it won't collapse on you?
You dont' go around testing these things because well, there is the trust that the engineers (hint that ring they wear) have tested the designs to work. Besides it is quite easy to believe when you can see and touch something, but again that's another stream.
But what happens when you've seen or heard of a bridge collapsing - like the Bowness park peidestrain bridge that collapsed during repair last summer in Calgary.
It would be foolish to walk over the bridge again unless you know for sure or hoped they figured out what happened and fixed it.
Would you walk over that bridge again? Maybe, but would there be a small tinge of doubt/fear in your mind/heart?
So how do you believe? You go on trust. You go on someone's words. Liken to the engineer you never met saying "oh it's alright to cross the bridge now". Do you go around testing each step or say, no I'll swim across, or heck "there is no bridge, no engineer, I'm my own bridge".
Well some things in life you can't know for sure. Some things about God decided can be attained by believing. Why? Dunno, ask Him. I would think it is because of love, or personal choice. You choose to believe. So if you believe, then you choose to follow that belief. So if God said He said He sent His son, Jesus, to die for your sins in your place, then you can choose or reject to believe that actually happened on some wooden cross, on some hill, in some country far away, in another time.
So it is human nature to doubt or fear if something doesn't work or if we can't touch or feel it. What if your life depends on it? God is greater than our hurts and fears.
We can believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, as the lamb who died for our sins, or we can just not believe.
So who is right? We shall see.
;-) But trust me, He is alive and did die for your sins, and wants to come into your life.
Just ask.
cheers
tom
Posted by: tomax at February 16, 2006 11:30 AM (CUIIz)
31
Tony Guitar...You have a bit of an uphill battle developing a website/blog. Fortunately there is lots of free info on the web. I suggest you get a good WYSIWYG editor like FrontPage or download a trial version of Coffee Cup Editor at:
http://www.coffeecup.com
I spent 2 years of night school learning webmastering and have done little with it since, I'd rather play guitar and make music.
Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 16, 2006 11:53 AM (p9aJL)
32
tomax said..."We can believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, as the lamb who died for our sins, or we can just not believe."
Put me on the list of those that do not believe.
All one needs is a great value system and a well defined moral compass. After that everything falls into place.
Reigion has created as much misery as its created comfort.
Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 16, 2006 12:00 PM (p9aJL)
33
It's interesting how many people blur the line between the literal word of the Bible and God's message.
'God' or 'a God' or 'The God' didn't write the Bible; it is a compilation of stories written by many different men many years ago, all of whom used their artistic licence to prove whatever point it was they were trying to make.
God does not hate gay people. God does not hate anybody, correct?
To tie any feelings of hate or exclusion to the teachings of God is wrong, yet it is exactly what the Churches are doing.
Fault lies where it always does in cases like this, with organized religion....it allows those with racist, sexist, discriminatory, etc. views a shield to hide behind.
Posted by: Jason at February 16, 2006 12:04 PM (e5rfi)
34
Oops...correction...Religion not Reigion
Was that God's hand at work?
Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 16, 2006 12:05 PM (p9aJL)
35
Liberal Ron: "great value system and a well defined moral compass".
Oh? Prey tell where does one get these guidelines?
It obviously isn't borne into kids or mankind. Put a toy or food between two babies...instinct right?
Posted by: tomax at February 16, 2006 12:11 PM (CUIIz)
36
Jason...You've made a case for 1 of the reasons I do not believe.
Why should I or anyone get involved with an organization that attracts people with special agendas. There are far too many people that get into positions of power in organized religion that do so to manipulate/enslave the weak or satisfy/feed their own personal baggage.
Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 16, 2006 12:20 PM (p9aJL)
37
tomax...First of all there is no such thing as human instinct. We are taught everything we know. Parents would teach the babies to share.
I got my value system by searching the internet.
As far as defining a moral compass, it's about defining the direction that it points not your actual morals.
Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 16, 2006 12:30 PM (p9aJL)
38
Thanks A.J. for that intelligent response.
I do confess to a bias based on how quickly and how far the church strayed from the original intentions of early church fathers.
However, please don't dismiss my attempt to condense 1700 years of church history into a blog sized comment, as ridiculous.
Oversimplified, perhaps, but space is limited to get my point across, and my point still stands; Institutionalised religion is it's own worst enemy.
As I read through your objections to my statements, I see they are all misunderstandings of what I said. I actually agree with you in all but symantical ways.
Firstly, the idea that having Bishops or Patriarchs and as you call it, an episcopal structure is not what I mean by Institutional. Certainly the leadership of elders and "Fathers" is common to all organizations, religious and otherwise. In this case, I'm sure many elements of structure were carried over from the Hebrew system from which most Christians came in those days.
My point about the first 300 years is that, because the christian faith was illegal, gatherings were small, secret affairs, and everybody shared a healthy fear of discovery. Regardless of episcopal structure, they were all in the same boat.
I maintain that while this fear was prevalent, believers shared the cohesion of a faith they were willing to die for if necessary.
The social acceptibility that arose when Constantine removed the threat of persecution, is what made it possible for church structure to segregate the leaders from the laity.
I do not reject the authority of the church, but observation of history does not allow me to ignore the cases where the church leadership has abrogated their responsibility for political or materialistic purposes.
By the way, I would further state that the Authority of the Church resides in the Head of the Church, Jesus Christ. Suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church represented the Authority of Christ, while blatantly ignoring several specific passages of scripture, and intentionally misleading adherents over the centuries, is reprehensible.
I do disagree with you when you say Christians in the early centuries were Pro-Roman. Then as now, Christians are exhorted to pray for their leadership (regardless of whether you agree with them) "that God would turn the head of the King". It is not necessary to agree with your King, or Pope, or Prime Minister, to pray that their decisions are right ones.
Next, I never said that Constanine made Christianity the State religion, only that he removed the laws against it. So again we agree.
I stated, perhaps without authority, that prior to the Council at Niceae, one could assume that Church leadership was still functioning in the interest of the Church, and was probably not yet tainted with power politics. That is not to say there was no organization, only that it was based on a patriarchal model and that the documents of faith were the old testament Hebrew scriptures and the various letters written by the apostles and contemporaries of Jesus.
Within the church at that time, in all parts of the known world, there were disparate views on certain themes of scripture. But it was not until 325, that one of those views was considered so divisive that the Church leaders should remove the controversy and declare which view was correct and which was wrong.
So, again, I see this as a watershed event in the perception of the role of Church Leadership.
The Authority of the Church was finally being used to officially judge between "christian" views.
That is power! I believe this specific example, even though I agree with the decision, is what first attracted people to desire the leadership role, without any allegiance to the principles underlying the position.
We certainly agree that the Renaissance, and the years before it, were a low point in the history of the Official Church.
We also agree that scripture is authoritative, although we may disagree on why.
I certainly do not accept the authority of the bible because some commitee of the Church decided what would be the canon of scripture.
I accept it because God Himself promised to preserve His word and keep it faultless. If He chose to use these men to assemble His library of scripture, then I am just as grateful that I can read His word today.
Lastly, I agree that society's attitude toward "free-thinkers" throughout history is seldom justified.
It is almost always a gut-reaction to something that differs from the accepted norm.
It is when the accepted norm is wrong that is most lamentable.
It is the Church that (foolishly) maintained that the earth was flat, when a couple observers started to suggest otherwise.
It was the Church that (properly) maintained that the earth was created by God according to the description in Genesis, when some observers started to suggest otherwise.
Who decides what is right and wrong?
It has been said that history is written by the victors. The difference between a Revolution and a Rebellion is simply who won the battle.
Hopefully, there will always be those who question the norms and shake the foundations of accepted truth.
If truth cannot withstand honest scrutiny, then it probably isn't really true.
So again thank you brother for your comments. I accept them in the spirit there were given.
Iron sharpens Iron.
Posted by: Scott Merrithew at February 16, 2006 01:06 PM (nogyA)
39
Ron, Thank you for page editor advice. I always said there were good liberals around.
I have the Sams Teach Yourself Web Publishing with HTML4. *in 21 days?* Mensas maybe.
Looks like a head banging exercise. Reminds mw of when we got into extended basic and the using of *Edlin*. TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 16, 2006 01:19 PM (rmMzv)
40
There is instinct. Mob phsycology comes to mind, the fight or flight reflex, people leaving a parking spot take longer if someone is waiting which tends to indicate a territorial instinct. Watching my newborn develop has shown me things learned neither from her mother or I.
Communist states tried to bypass the way we are. People tend to be greedy. This social engineering did not succeed.
A value system learned by searching the internet?
enough
Posted by: enough at February 16, 2006 02:03 PM (ucHAZ)
41
Scott:
My appologies. I'm used to a specific kind of critique of the post-constantinian church leveled particularly by Mennonites (and liberal Catholics oddly enough) which blames the "power politics" as you call it for the advent of Just War theory, among other things. Incidentally, Just War Theory also proceeds the Constantinian era. I would add that there was official church condemnation of some heresies pre-Nicea: Origen, Marcion and the Ibionites at the Council of Jerusalem (which was in apostolic times) for example.
Yes, I believe that (A) Christ is the ultimate head of the church and (B) that he protects his scripture. I also believe that Christ protects the church of which he is the head, and that this goes for the Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. Whenever church leaders have become too obsessed with power politics, reformers, inspired by the Holy Spirot, have called them back to Orthodoxy and truth. You're absolutely right: iron sharpens iron, and that is the virtue of Christianity: we always have/allow space for such a sharpening.
Liberal Ron:
Wow, your point deserves much more time than I can give it. However, your "moral compass" argument places you in a catch-22. For, if you yourself come up with your own "moral compass", then everyone else may come up with one which is totally different from yours. However, if the "moral compass" is something more intrinsic, then it must come from something greater than yourself, namely, a higher power of some sort. Atheism must of necessity argue for moral relativism in the end, and moral relativism, in the end, makes society itself untenable. I need to dash, but perhaps I can flush this out more later this afternoon.
A. J.
Posted by: A. J. Nolte at February 16, 2006 02:05 PM (AIutj)
42
I disagree with Don about "Catholic" versus "Roman Catholic". I take your point that not all Catholic churches in communion with the Holy See follow the Roman Rite, or all of its rules, such as the celibacy of clergy. Several churches, including the Anglican Church, consider themselves to be part of the Catholic Church, which is why we still say we believe in the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church in the Creed. As with apostolic succession more specifically, the belief in the Anglican Church's catholicity is more important to the Anglican High Church than to others. Other Churches are Catholic in this sense, including, of course, most of the Orthodox Churches. So you cannot simply say the "Catholic Church" and have it mean, to Anglicans and others, the Roman Catholic Church and others that adhere to the ultimate authority of the Roman Pontiff.
Posted by: Dirk at February 16, 2006 02:10 PM (nAJZL)
43
What's the difference between learning a value system from the internet or from a person in a pulpit.
They are both sources of information. Is one more right than the other?
A.J. Food for thought...Does everybody in a congregation actually have the same moral compass just because they're all taught the same thing?
Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 16, 2006 02:26 PM (p9aJL)
44
One of the more damaging logical fallacies is the equative comparison between, let's say "blacks" and 'gays', as in the post comparing the 'slavery debate' with the 'gay' debate.
The genuine theologins of a large Church should know better what it is that makes up human morality. It certainly isn't race, it is behaviour. Rather than cover any choice under a 'category' and then covering that category in state-mandated teflon, let's concentrate on behaviours and look to Scripture for guidance in this regard.
Posted by: brock at February 16, 2006 02:31 PM (e/acA)
45
First of all there is no such thing as human instinct. We are taught everything we know.
Ron, this is a total and utter crock. It is such a monstrous pile of manure that I don't even know where to start, so I won't.
I should probably state for the general audience that I don't have any use for organized religion myself (but nor do I have any quarrel with those who do). I was reading this thread more out of curiosity than anything else, but I couldn't let Ron's statement pass without comment.
Posted by: pheenster at February 16, 2006 02:31 PM (IlPXz)
46
OK pheenster, give me an example of what you think is human instinct and I'll respond with the reasons why it's not.
Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 16, 2006 02:48 PM (p9aJL)
47
Well, to begin with the requirement to communicate with the rest of the species.
Posted by: pheenster at February 16, 2006 02:56 PM (IlPXz)
48
pheenster...We learn our language skills firstly from our parents then learn advanced skills at school.
Having vocal chords is a function of our biology.
If we are born mute then we go to schools for the deaf to learn signing.
If you mean a baby crying for its bottle. That's learned as well. We are born crying and quickly learn that the act gets attention and results.
Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 16, 2006 03:15 PM (p9aJL)
49
pheenster: I don't believe Liberal Ron is interested in an educated discussion; don't be annoyed by his lack of decorum.
After all, he said above, "Why should I or anyone get involved with an organization that attracts people with special agendas." ... and signs his post "Liberal Ron": signifying his involvement with an organization dedicated to people with special agendas.
Let's not allow such comments as those (or, indeed, this one either) to detract from an otherwise interesting discussion.
Posted by: Paul O at February 16, 2006 04:21 PM (220Tp)
50
Scott Merrithew:
Thank you so much for your historical overview of the church. From what I have learned it is accurate but I have never seen it summarized so well. The Reformation improved much but still kept some erroneous teachings. Its best contribution was making the Bible accessible to believers.
In my Christian life I have learned to stay away from membership in organized churches and stick with those that meet in NT way. Organized churches often add catechisms or creeds to the Bible to make themselves different from anyone else. I prefer 'solo scriptura'.
I appreciated tomax's contributions as well.
Posted by: Herman at February 16, 2006 04:30 PM (8oprY)
51
Paul O...I'm not a carded Liberal nor have I been to a single meeting. I'm Liberal as in the state of my mind.
How do you know I'm not interested in an educated discussion. As for decorum I don't need you to tell me what a dignified propriety code of conduct is.
Your ad hominem is indicative of someone who fears the truth.
Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 16, 2006 05:17 PM (p9aJL)
52
Thank you Herman, but as A.J. pointed out, I was pretty free with the scalpel as I cut out a lot of interesting bits of history.
On your other point, I would caution you against being a "Lone Wolf" Christian. "Don't neglect gathering together with other believers".
My concerns about Institutionalised Religion are mostly about the over-arching agendas that distract from the true purpose of the Church.
But don't forget that there is a true and godly purpose for the Church. Every believer should be involved in one. Just find one that upholds the authority of the Bible. Shop around and get recommendations from people you respect.
There can be hypocrites in any organization, so don't park your brain at the door when you go in. If you are wise, they won't be able to fool you.
Posted by: Scott Merrithew at February 16, 2006 05:31 PM (0YGq4)
53
You folks are aware that the books selected to make up the Holy Bible were selected by wise men from a group of books of more than double the final number in the good book. eh?
This derived from bible scholars who rounded out the bible origins in a televised documentary series.
If their work was off the mark, there would have been an uproar from at least one or two churches.
I will accept their findings. Knowing that tends to put a different tone of thinking to where the Holy Bible and religion is concearned. TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 16, 2006 05:33 PM (rmMzv)
54
...give me an example of what you think is human instinct and I'll respond with the reasons why it's not....
Witin seconds of my son being born he was placed in his mother's arms where he immediatley began to root for her breast. He found it and latched on, beginning to suckle immediatley.
How about fear, anger, shyness, curiosity, affection, play, imitation, jealosy or envy?
In can't believe you are serious about that statement.
Posted by: Jason at February 16, 2006 05:45 PM (YaR8u)
55
Scott:
You are quite right about the 'lone wolf' danger. Besides, there only so many things one person can do by himself, and I have made it a habit to meet regularly with other believers in an 'organized' Church.
The problem I have with becoming a church MEMBER is that then I am usually expected to promote the teachings of the church instead of those of the Bible. Fortunately there are usually other groups who meet simply without worrying about creeds etc. I think there have always been those, from day one, who kept meeting like the disciples did. Perhaps the Anabaptists would fall in that category. They sure had to suffer for their faith that differed from the Lutheran and Catholic churches.
Posted by: Herman at February 16, 2006 06:44 PM (8oprY)
56
Liberal Ron:
I think you missed my point, but I'll attribute that to it's briefness.
Basically, what I was talking about was the absoluteist nature of a "moral compass". Yes, you can learn "good" values off the internet (I guess), but there is still this problem as to where exactly your concept of "good" comes from. There have been several non-theistic attempts to create a concept of good, but they all come back to an a priori assumption that something is good. Or put another way, any non-theistic argument for the good inevitably comes back to "well, it's good because... it just is." This is, intellectually, far less satisfying than belief in a benevolent God who's character itself is our definition of the good, as the Christian teaching goes. The only other alternative is to say "X is good because I like X." However, this makes morality a simple matter of personal preference, and that faces the problem of societal degradation that I mentioned.
So whatever values you embrace as "good", you have to have some extrinsic source for it (meaning a source which comes from outside of you). And that pretty much means God. I hope this clarifies what I'm saying.
Tony Guitar: you're absolutely right about the Bible. Of course, those wise men were very careful to do the best they could to authenticate the apostolic origins of the books they included.
Herman: The anabaptists have their own extra-biblical sources. First, like almost any other church you can find, they have confessions. Second, they embrace a radical pietism which owes a great deal to interpretation. Finally, I'd caution you against biblio-idolatry, or worship of the Bible. Christ, not the Bible, ought to be the touchstone for our faith, and we can believe in the Bible (despite it's late origin) because it speaks to the truth which we believe about Christ.
Good thread!
Cheers,
A. J.
Posted by: A. J. Nolte at February 16, 2006 07:11 PM (AIutj)
57
You're quite right, A.J. We worship the Author of the Bible, not the Bible itself. To me the Bible is simply God's Word, an instruction book for life, so to speak. It is the only reliable source of information on matters of faith and that's why Confessions, Catechisms and Creeds don't matter to me. They are simply man's words about God's Word. Why not stick with the source?
Theologians fall into the same category. They tend to divide believers. I don't trust anyone to interpret the Bible for me because I can understand it well enough on my own.
I see churches (like the Anglican Church in this case) simply as human-run institutions with all the faults that come with anything run by people. They mean well, no doubt, and they do their best, but we're all sinners and incapable of perfect and selfless behaviour.
To me, the argument about homosexual priesthood is silly. The Bible teaching is clear, if you don't want to follow it, start your own church.
What amazes me is that so few believers actually read the Bible. In the church I attend very few people do. How can they know how to live when they don't read the instructions? I would assume that they depend on the preacher and are content with that. That can be dangerous, though, for that's second hand advice, letting someone else interpret the Bible instead of going to the source.
I hope I'm giving some food for thought.
Posted by: Herman at February 16, 2006 08:16 PM (8oprY)
58
AJ, interesting insights. Herman you too mostly except for a popular generalization...
They mean well, no doubt, and they do their best, but we're all sinners and incapable of perfect and selfless behaviour.
Many of us are capable of pure and selfless behaviour. Admittedly, in short stretches, but we have often extended a hand to help with no thought of personal gain. Those are the times when we are the salt of the earth.
Mother Theresa extended selfless help to so many for so long, she approached sainthood.
Here is a contrast..
http://10Words.com
http://10Words.ca
Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 17, 2006 12:03 AM (rmMzv)
Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 17, 2006 12:08 AM (rmMzv)
60
Good discussion. "Lone wolf Christians" (or any religionists, for that matter) VS "organized religion" memberships: Now there is a classic conundrum that goes back to the core issue of both Liberalism and Conservatism and their different ways of attempting to solve the underlying classical political conundrum of "the rights of the individual VS the rights of the collective". There is no final answer to this discussion, so we are doomed to participate in the process.
Posted by: brock at February 17, 2006 12:25 AM (e/acA)
61
Of course Herman you must admit that not all churches encourage Scripture reading and especially not personal interpretation of Scripture. Many people go to church expecting that they do not have to be involved because the priest does it all. This in fact is how the United Church and the Anglican Church got off track in the first place. The people of the Church assumed that the people coming out of the seminaries actually knew everything because they went to semincary and because they, the clergy, knew everything there was no need for them, the laity, to concern themselves about the things of the Bible. The leaders of the Church whether Bishop or Moderater and their enclave of fellow travellers had overwhelming influence in formulating the direction and practice of the Church. Unfortunately for the laity of these churches there is only one alternative to meekly going along with the leaders and that is to stop going to the church. However for many of the laity since they have had little or no experience in Bible study tend to simply stop practicing their faith in any real sense of the word. They still think of themselves as Christian but they could not relate even the most basic tennents of the faith. I spent 23 years in one such church listening to the sermons and going to children's Sunday School yet it wasn't until I went to an evangelical church out of anger with the ordination of gays that I learned that Jesus was God.
Posted by: Joe at February 17, 2006 12:27 AM (ZF5aM)
62
And so spake the prophet Brock, though he meant to say challenged to participate in, or destined to rather than doomed to.
Half full , half empty? TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 17, 2006 12:31 AM (rmMzv)
63
So long as you are alive, you're half full (of it), which is always the preferred option. 
This is not to say that such a stance is not fully sincere and worthwhile compared to the other options of hypocrisy and meal-mouthing for benefit.
This is not to say that such a stance is not fully sincere and worthwhile compared to the other options of hypocrisy and meal-mouthing for benefit. Posted by: brock at February 17, 2006 05:18 AM (e/acA)
64
Just remember to smile :-) God loves you.
Posted by: tomax at February 17, 2006 07:03 AM (CUIIz)
65
Jason...In a discussion if human instinct exists the example you've given about the newborn searching out the mother's breast usually comes up. I have to at this point refer to my mother who was an obstetrics registered nurse for 30 years. She assisted in the delivery and cared for thousands of newborns, this is what she said on that subject.
Newborns at birth cry because of the trauma caused during delivery and need their passages cleared quickly so they don't choke and can breathe freely. They do not need food right away, however, mothers draw them close to bond. The mother usually can't even produce milk at this point but the drive to bond is so great that the newborns flailing arms and mother's emotions draw them together in a breast meets mouth pretend feeding.
"How about fear, anger, shyness, curiosity, affection, play, imitation, jealosy or envy?"
These are all emotions and if you want to consider them instinct then so be it. However, you won't get much support from educated people. I would like to hear from psychologists on this topic.
Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 17, 2006 10:02 AM (p9aJL)
66
There is a common misconception about the Church that is based on the popular use of the word to indicate either the denomination, or the building in which the people meet.
However, whenever the Bible refers to the Church, it is referring to the people themselves, not bricks and mortar.
Furthermore, it describes the Church as the "Bride of Christ", using marriage as a picture of the relationship between the people and Christ.
So, the plain reading of scripture indicates that individual believers have a personal relationship with God, through Christ.
Therefore, one important factor (not the only one) to look for when determining whether the Anglican Church, or any other, is truly the church of God, is how it handles the priesthood of Christ.
Is Christ really THE mediator between God and Man, as the Bible says, or are there also other priests to whom we have to go, to satisfy God?
There are only two reasons why a Church institution would insist on people seeing a priest; either they do not understand that Christ became our only Priest, or they do understand, and purposely hide the fact so that they can continue to exert power and authority over the faithful flock.
To do so is to fool the public into thinking they have to please men in order to please God. That is just wrong?
The authority of the Church is real, and it is God given. It is an administrative structure that ensures that God's people will function in an orderly and efficient manner. Somebody has to take a leadership role and it should be one or more people who will govern wisely, and make wise decisions when decisions are required.
The Bible likens the role to that of a shepherd guiding and protecting a flock, and it describes the qualifications to be met by a person who would fill that role.
That means that the leaders come from the congregation itself. They are chosen by the people based on respect and demonstrated wisdom and spiritual understanding.
They differ from the rest of the congregation only in position, not by education, and not by special dispensation from a council thousands of miles away.
In this case we have an Anglican board of bishops, spending years trying to decide whether it is OK to support same-sex marriage and gay priests. The Synod expects to reach a decision in 2007 or 2008.
Without too much imagination, you can guess that they aren't spending all that time trying to rationalise this with scripture. You can be sure they are trying to balance public opinion and political correctness and attendance numbers and who knows what other relativistic factors.
You'd think they were the Liberal party that stands for nothing other than this weeks opinion polls.
It is pathetic watching them play these circus games. Don't try to tell me that they are exercising spiritual wisdom by ignoring the plain teaching of scripture, and conducting nothing more than a popularity contest.
The blatant hypocrisy of their position on this issue is enough to condemn the whole Anglican Church as apostate, and if your church is wrestling with the same issue after years of thoughtful reflection, then I'd say the shoe fits there too.
Posted by: Scott Merrithew at February 17, 2006 01:00 PM (nogyA)
67
The mother usually can't even produce milk at this point but the drive to bond is so great that the newborns flailing arms and mother's emotions draw them together in a breast meets mouth pretend feeding.
The drive to bond is so great.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
enough
Posted by: enough at February 17, 2006 04:20 PM (ucHAZ)
68
Yup.
Sounds like instinct to me!
Posted by: Scott Merrithew at February 17, 2006 08:48 PM (nogyA)
69
Herman: "I appreciated tomax's contributions as well."
Psst...Herm, I lost your address, where do I send the $5 again?
Posted by: tomax at February 18, 2006 06:33 AM (CUIIz)
70
No instincts?
Me see cookie, me eat.
Pretty basic instinct I think. Plus it is a dangerous place to be between me and food...the wife can attest to bein poked by a fork when reaching across the table...
Posted by: tomax at February 18, 2006 06:36 AM (CUIIz)
71
AS an Ottawa Anglican, I have to comment on your reference to the Anglican Gathering as a "schism within a schism". It is not. The Anglican Gathering is simply a semi regular gathering/church service for orthodox anglicans in the Ottawa area.
Posted by: Kate at February 18, 2006 01:57 PM (dWDFl)
72
You missed the point Kate.
The Anglican Church itself is split from the Roman Catholic Church.
The non-Orthodox Anglicans are split from the Orthodox Anglicans.
And now the Canadian branch is split from the International Anglican Church because it is officially suspended over the same-sex marriage issue.
That's just the background.
The recent news item about the Ottawa "gathering" is yet another split from convention as Bishop Coffin has decided not to wait for the official decision to come down from on high, before welcoming same-sex marriage into the pastorate.
I count at least 4 schisms there.
Posted by: Scott Merrithew at February 18, 2006 03:01 PM (nogyA)
73
Brock and Tomax, Seriously ripping the fabric of heavy debate by way of subtle humour. *So long as you are alive you are half full,[of it].*
Being half full, [of it], you are to *remember God loves you... so smile.* Maybe it's late, but I laughed out loud. Rich! TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 19, 2006 04:27 AM (rmMzv)
74
(Liberal Ron)"there is no such thing as human instinct. We are taught everything we know."
Ron, there is no clear line between learning and instinct. All behaviour is subject to biological constraints that determine how fast we learn and even what we can learn. It's more useful to think in terms of a continuum, with some behaviours being more 'hardwired' than others.
With regards to homosexuality, some forms are probably so hardwired that nothing can be done to unlearn them. That doesn't mean that gayness is 'God-given' (anymore than colour blindness is God-given). But it does mean that we have only two choices: either accept such individuals for what they are or force them into a kind of sham heterosexuality.
Other forms of homosexuality seem to be more facultative. This is particularly so with the form that causes many older men (probably as a result of declining testosterone levels) to feel attracted to young boys on the threshold of puberty. In such cases, we can and probably should intervene to restrict such behaviour, all the more so because the objects of their attention are underage.
As a society, we have a right to impose limits on sexual behaviour, even when such behaviour has some kind of natural basis. Sexual attraction to beautiful married women is quite natural, but we're not entitled to act on this impulse simply because it's natural.
Posted by: Peter Frost at February 19, 2006 05:57 AM (BzG7U)
75
...i know it's natural for my wife to wack me on the side of the head if I stare too long at a young lass...
Posted by: tomax at February 19, 2006 05:20 PM (CUIIz)
76
Now that the instinct debate has confused more than clarified...emotion confused with instinct...stimulus-response confused as well, I'll move on.
All this splitting and schismizing is good in 1 way...it shows that there are people within the church that follow their own hearts, use their own heads and are just not sheep.
I was an Anglican choirboy (I'm not making this up) and consider that period to be 1 of the best times of my life.
Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 20, 2006 10:27 AM (p9aJL)
77
It seems the only person 'confused' here is Liberal Ron. But that's an expected intellectual state for Liberals.
Posted by: Irwin Daisy at February 20, 2006 12:23 PM (MkblT)
78
Hhe articles content rich variety which make us move for our mood after reading this article. surprise, air max here you will find what you want! Recently, I found some wedsites which commodity is colorful of fashion. Such as xxxxxxxx that worth you to see. Believe me these websites won't let you down.
Posted by: outlet at December 19, 2012 01:08 AM (GqP4p)
November 07, 2005
Gene Robinson: A mixed message hides the deeper truth
Gene Robinson, Espicol bishop and openly gay man, has some words of harsh criticism for the Roman Catholic Church and it is because the Church is cracking down on having homosexuals in the ranks of the priesthood. Ostensibly, this is in response to the sex scandals in the past, but I think the Church is rooting out a fifth column looking to rewrite Church doctrine. I think Gene Robinson's elevation in the Episcopal Church has precipitated this move, and I think Gene Robinson knows it.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
07:33 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 938 words, total size 6 kb.
1
Angry,
The authoratitive book on the 'lavander mafia's' control over parts of the Catholic Church can be found in Michael Rose's book "Goodbye, Good men" in which he does a lot of investigative reporting on this matter on which you discuss. I might also suggest reading his columns in the New Oxford Review.
Posted by: Mitch at November 07, 2005 09:50 AM (Jiqqf)
2
What ever happenned to reconciliation and forgiveness?
Posted by: Me at November 07, 2005 06:22 PM (ghhgD)
3
The Catechism clearly teaches that to be forgiven of a sin, you must be repentant and that you must try not to commit that sin again. Not only is Robinson not repentant, but he continues to live a sinful lifestyle while openly defying Biblical teachings.
We can forgive someone for working to destroy the Mother Church (which will never happen, but it doesn't stop them from trying), but I cannot see how reconciliation can happen with someone openly hostile to the Faith.
Of course, the state of anyone's soul is known ONLY to God.
Posted by: Christine Johnson at November 08, 2005 09:33 AM (FFm4r)
4
you missed the point. Jesus is love, your blog is egoistic and hateful. We cannot help these people if we as Christians continue to bicker about things and do nothing to show compassion. For how you treat the least of our brothers, you treat Jesus. (stop rationalizing, put down the pride and learn to love)
god bless
Posted by: me at November 08, 2005 02:03 PM (ghhgD)
5
To the last poster, "me", some questions:
What went wrong with Jesus and the Money changers in the temple.?
What about Jesus and the Pharasees?
Guess He was being egoistical and hateful, and was overcome by pride and forgot all about love and compassion.
Posted by: LaVallette at November 09, 2005 06:54 AM (hBqUx)
6
I don't believe that the Global South Anglicans are pulling any closer to the Roman Catholic orbit. They want to be Anglican and Christian at the same time - something that ECUSA, and increasingly, the Anglican Church of Canada, seem not to care about.
Posted by: K.L.S at November 09, 2005 09:00 AM (dtEz5)
7
A homosexual by any other name is still a homosexual.
It is refreshing to see this appelation, with all it's derogatory context, popping up more frequently
Posted by: R.A.K. at November 11, 2005 10:14 AM (xApcb)
September 27, 2005
Anglicans continue to go where no Christian Church has gone before
The Anglican Church in England continues to come up with new reasons to destroy the Anglican Communion, and drive the conservatives back to Catholicism.
more...
Now it's transsexuals.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
11:28 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 767 words, total size 5 kb.
1
It seems that at some point their religion ceased to be about them serving God, and became about God serving them. When God is there to serve you, the Id takes over - what else is there to stop it? Gender realignment? Sure! Chop all your bits off! Actively homosexual priests? No Prob!
That those of the "God serving us" camp want to promote these poster-children of self indulgence to authority is unsurprising. That the radical left wingers of the world support them is unsurprising, and should be a warning to other congregations considering such moves.
Posted by: J-P at September 27, 2005 12:20 PM (7IKUs)
2
The Anglican Church of Canada is not unlike the Liberal Party of Canada. Both have become immoral and will take ANYONE into their ranks.
Posted by: Eskimo at September 27, 2005 02:53 PM (EByKN)
3
Besides all the problems associated with the claim of this priest/ess that God somehow goofed when designing their "accessories" a telling argument for the God who these people serve (and the God who feminists and other advocates of priesteses serve) is the final statement
[...]
"What's important is that she's a person made by God, loved by God and given gifts by God who feels that she's called to be a priest and that's a call that's been checked out by the church rigorously," Priddis said.
[...]
The priesthood has very little do with whether a person "feels" they should be a priest. It is a vocation from God. If this vocation is discerned, with the help of those in authority of the Church, then perhaps, a person MAY have a vocation.
via media my eye
Posted by: jamesAMDG at September 27, 2005 06:26 PM (CGvId)
4
"The Evangelical Alliance - the organization of conservatives in the Church of England"
Hate to break it to you Angry, but in my experience, the overwhelming majority of conservatives in the Anglican church are Evangelicals. In Canada, they fall into two camps. One camp is trying for renewal within the Church. They are using the Alpha Course and other such programs to achieve that. The other camp are on their way to Evangelical churches. They have established strong ties to Evangelical churches and are only keeping up their membership and attending on Sunday morning.
There will be few Anglican conservatives going to the Roman Catholic church. In fact, I think it more likely that liberal Roman Catholics will be switching to the Anglican church.
Posted by: PlaidShirt at September 28, 2005 09:30 AM (F47cQ)
5
AvSeimJy ha ha ha
Posted by: outlet at December 18, 2012 04:08 PM (sjepR)
September 19, 2005
Separation of Church and State: Apologies not required
The Church of England is taking it upon itself to apologize for the role the United Kingdom played in the Iraq War. We often see examples of the State interfering in sphere's rightly controlled by the Church. Here is a much rarer example of the Church getting mixed up in purely State matters.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
01:08 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 2705 words, total size 17 kb.
1
Angry,
Technically the Anglican Church is part of the government. The Queen is head of state and head of the Church. Thanks to Henry the 8th.
Meddling with Her Majesty's Government is an old tradition with Anglican bishops. Hence the English Civil War and the American Revolution, among other things. Usually they're not raving commies though. This bunch seems to be. That's a new thing.
Possibly the Queen needs to do some pruning in the hierarchy, what?
The Pruning Phantom
Posted by: The Phantom at September 19, 2005 01:20 PM (nAMT1)
2
The specificities of this particular example aside, it does seem to me that many "conservatives" want to have their cake and eat it too.
When a Church (say, the Catholics) have something conservative to say about an issue (let's say SSM) then it's all "people of faith are entitled to their opinions too" and "'separation of Church and State' doesn't mean you can ignore people of faith!" and "people of faith are tired of being ignored by their government".
But when a Church (let's say the Catholics again, after all, the RC Church ALSO opposed/opposes the war) has something liberal to say (let's say "the war was wrong") then suddenly these pinko commies (like the Pope) are sacrifiing faith to politics and should just keep their mouth's shut about something that is beyond their pervue.
Seems to me, neither of these scenarios have nearly as much to do with the separation of Church and State as they do with any person's willingness to use "the Church" or "religion" to support their views when convenient, and people's subsequent willingness to abandon "faith" and "religion" when they disagree with the Church.
I read a lot more about "turn the other cheek" and "do unto others..." in the bible than I do about whether or not gay people should be allowed to be married, and yet so many conservatives seem completely gung ho about using their Church's opposition to SSM as a bludgeon against their political opponents, while simultaneously freely ignoring their church's staunch opposition to the war in Iraq. That's just not convenient I guess.
At least the Church hierarchies tend to be consistent on these things (often WRONG from my point of view, but consistent, and that's admirable). But Church followers? For them, the Church is great until you ask about Iraq (or poverty, or the redistribution of wealth, or foreign aid...). Then they're commies.
I do take heart though that Jesus (hanging out as he did with prostitutes and lepers, violently kicking conservative business men out of the temple, espousing that we all love our neighbours, and turn the other cheek to our enemies....) must have constatntly been saddled with the Roman-era equivalent of the "pinko-Commie" label. So I'm sure in this context the Anglican Church (and the RC Church, and any number of the MANY other Christian Churches who opposed the war) would be quite proud of the label.
Posted by: Lord Kitchener's Own at September 19, 2005 02:40 PM (ZaMIu)
3
Indeed there is no separation of Church and State in the UK. Quite the opposite. The Church of England (Anglican) is the "Established Church" and one of the monarch's titles is "Defender of the Faith" (Good Prince Chuck has mused about changing that to "Defender of the Faiths"). The prime minister effectively appoints the spiritual head of the Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury (on the recommendation of the Crown Appointments Commission). Twenty-five Anglican archbishops and bishops are members of the House of Lords.
The doctrine of separation of Church and State is essentially a republican one and strongest in countries such as the US and France (also China, North Korea, Cuba). Note that the party that won the most votes in the recent German election is the "Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union".
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at September 19, 2005 02:52 PM (geQjW)
4
The Anglican Church might be the State Church, so to speak, nevertheless, there is still the notion of respecting each other's sphere's of influence. Much that Catholic theory about Church and State was developed in the Middle Ages when the RC Church was the only Church in all of Europe, when it was charged with crowning kings, and when it collected ecclesiastical taxes and fielded armies.
And yet they understood that there had to be a line of "competence". So I don't buy the argument that the Anglicans get to meddle. Official church or not, the Church is the Church and the State is the State.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at September 19, 2005 02:56 PM (PTRPR)
5
What is it with idiots who believe that the seperation of Church and State means "the Church must never have control, input and/or opinions on State matters" and not that "the Church must never interfere with State matters"?
LKO, the basis of the seperation of Church and State is that the Church must not supplant representative government or directly interfere with the process of governing. Nothing more, nothing less. The Church has a right to its opinion and the right to voice those opinions.
And I know many right-wingers who disagree with the Roman Catholic Church on its POV of the Iraq war, but I have never heard them call them Pinko Commies. Where are you getting that from? Could you provide an example.
And when you talk about people saying, "separation of Church and State doesn't mean you can ignore people of faith", I would hope you agree with that. I personally hold that a government has the duty to every citizen regardless of their faith or lack thereof. I believe in democratic representation, which means that every person has a voice that must be heard WITHOUT EXCEPTION. That includes people who are religious. They have a right to their beliefs as much as you or I have a right to ours, and no government "can ignore people of faith" because they are part of the makeup of the country. They can choose not to go alongside with "people of faith", but to ignore them is to ignore democracy.
Is that such a hard concept?
Posted by: Surecure at September 19, 2005 03:02 PM (Hs4pB)
6
Angry: It was in reaction to the Catholic Church's insistence on the separation of Church and State--in the sense that the state should not dictate what the church should do--that Henry VIII created his own Church of England (initially not Protestant) which he could in fact control: zero separation.
And, as I pointed out, in the UK the Church is part of the State: Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords. And vice-versa: PM appointing the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: at September 19, 2005 03:50 PM (geQjW)
7
Good point, Mark. But I dare say one king's poor grasp of theology is hardly a reason to keep repeating the mistake over and over again. God and Caesar have different realms of competence -- Jesus states as much.
To look at it another way, these clerics are using the relationship between the Church of England and the Crown as an excuse to meddle in State matters. The RC Church might write a letter to the President, but beyond that, would tread very carefully in an area of State responsibility.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at September 19, 2005 03:54 PM (phwde)
8
Angry,
I think the issue isn't so much church vs. state as Leftists attack state under cover of church. The Brits have made some really bad choices with their Bishops lately. But then they've been making really bad choices generally since the 1950's.
Socialism sucks, and sticking a bishop's hat on it doesn't make it suck any less.
Posted by: The Phantom at September 19, 2005 05:52 PM (nAMT1)
9
This seems to be to be an odd position for a Roman Catholic to be taking, Angry. I woudn't think that you need to be reminded that The Vatican claims "statehood," has a representative at the UN in order to ensure it's Roman Catholic position is heard by "governments of people."
In fact, the Roman Catholic church historically has indeed meddled in the affairs of the State(s).
Are you supportive of getting the Vatican's rep. out of the UN?
What about when the Pope comes to visit Canada? Should tax payer money be spent in security - basically the "State" ensuring his security? Could the Vatican not pay for that itself, or Roman Catholics in Canada pay for it?
Posted by: Ian Scott at September 20, 2005 06:24 PM (KiTgm)
10
Do all European countries have a joint head of state and church, or do any of them separate them? From what i understand, it is only the U.S that attempts to separate them, and honestly, doesn't seem to succeed very well because the ten commandments are basically the principles that make up the constitution.
Posted by: Ciarrai at October 22, 2005 06:25 PM (7yUvz)
11
There are many countries who separate the state and church, for example; France, Canada, Australia, Germany, Japan, the Philippines, Sweden, Turkey, as well as the U.S. Some European and Middle Eastern countries do not try to separate them, for example, the U.K, Belgium, Finland, Greece, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
If you follow the laws back far enough, almost every culture has its laws based on religion, so yes, it is almost impossible to truly separate the church and state.
Posted by: AKC at October 27, 2005 03:13 PM (yyUtP)
<< Page 1 of 1 >>
304kb generated in CPU 0.0707, elapsed 0.1565 seconds.
102 queries taking 0.1052 seconds, 423 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
102 queries taking 0.1052 seconds, 423 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
