Someone at a name-brand reasserter site actually wrote: "'That time could be devoted to the real mission of the church: helping the poor, the homeless, the community at large.' Interesting that this definition of the mission of the church is said as an incontrovertable fact when it is actually a recent innovation."
Yes, folks, living into the life of Christ is now an "innovation" and is theologically suspect. Never you mind what Jesus actually did or said, apparently.
God bless +KJS!
She may just convince us all to bring the world to Jesus, instead of the inverse.I'll focus on her optimism, and let the bitter ones snipe away into oblivion.
Jake said this:
"When will we become weary of our fixation on the depravity of humanity and instead reorient ourselves towards the glory of God?"
We can't put the cart before the horse. The Glory of God is there for us...but we can't enter it while we are still lost in sin. It's the repentance that lets us into the glory. No repentance...no glory.
It "THY" will be done. We have to repent of "OUR" will...our sin.
You can't have Easter without Good Friday. It's no mistake that Easter follows Good Friday either.
That's part of it, Perhaps...but I'm suggesting that some have made that the only part....and if we focus only on the sin, the depravity, that is all we will see.
Confession is a part of every liturgy. But it is not the main thing. It is a necessary way to clear our vision so that we can perceive the glory of God. It is the foretaste of the heavenly banquet that is the highlight of the liturgy, not the confession.
I think an unhealthy fixation on the negative is one of the reasons Christians often do not live into the full potential of what we were created to be.
And yet, Perhaps...Jesus asked God to forgive us for our sins from the cross. He didn't say "Forgive them only if they ask You." He said "Forgive them, for they know not what they do."
Now that doesn't mean I'm arguing that we can go and sin all we want to, with no consequences. I don't believe that for a minute.
But I DO believe that people need to feel Jesus' love BEFORE they can develop a relationship with Him. Love is a much better motivator to carry the grace of God into the world than guilt or shame.
Why do some people focus and fixate on the gore of the cross, the depravity of their souls?
Simple. They get off on it.
Creeps me out.
LPR
Somebody in the KJS fan club help me with this one, please--what is up with her black and white depiction of the two strands of faith? Apparently one is gracious and the other is not? Can I have "both/and" for a thousand, Alex? Amen?
Regardless of what she says, the secular press will boil it down to black and white anyway, as they assume the public will not have the patience for the nuances of gray (and I suspect they are right).
So, if this article is not simply cherry picking her comments, one can assume she gave answers that she knew would find their way into print. Also, keep in mind that the Church is not her intended audience.
Having said that, you are right, WG..."both/and" is indeed a much more Anglican approach to such things.
Unlike many of my friends I have a literal belief in Christ being a sacrifice for our sins. I also have a literal belief in the unstopable, unrefusable grace of God.
To me, anybody who says that we have to get ourselves right with God in order to benefit from the gifts of God is denying the efficacy of both the atonement and the grace of God.
I think Jesus, Paul and, later, Martin Luther get round the seeming contradiction of Christians who sin by making the atonement and the grace of God the determining factors in our salvation. In Paul's theology, living a good life is the result of accepting Jesus as Lord as opposed to being accepted by Jesus because we live a good life.
In the end it all boils down to just how much you truly believe that God loves us. The more you believe he loves you the more you will allow him to change rather than trying to behave in certain ways, and believe certain things, in order to change God - to change God's attitude to you, to make God love you more (which, of course, with a God of love, is a stupid idea).
It seems to me that focusing on others' failings is a way of distinguishing "them" from "us". Very human, of course, because we like hierarchy, we like knowing that one is better than the other --smarter, more attractive, more powerful, more righteous.
If you took away the "holier than thou", the sanctimonious superiority , I suspect a lot of people wouldn't feel nearly so "special" about church.
Organized religion is at its heart about power and control and defining the other for rejection. Whether you call those outside "reappraisers" or "infidels" it's the same ugly human emotion.
Thanks for that, MP...I also have a literal belief in the atonement, but simply don't think going around telling people that I've been saved by the blood of the lamb is a very effective witness today. A rather gory image, it seems to me, and totally unnecessary.
BTW, thanks as well for the discussion about vocation with Sam. I found it very helpful.
Organized religion is at its heart about power and control and defining the other for rejection. IT
No, that's where sin comes in. Organized religion, a term I dislike by the way, is necessary because religion is ultimately a community activity. The church is certainly a community and all communities need some form of structure.
Allen
Widening Gyre - I'm with Jake - She did not posit the two strands as being mutually exclusive or in opposition to one another - but rather to put forth that there ARE two strands which exist in tension with one another - like so many things in our Faith. And to suggest that perhaps as with so many things, it is a matter of emphasis.
C.B.
IT
But I don't belong to an organized religion; I'm an Episcopalian!
Awesome, MP and Jake, WG, CB, Paige. It seems like we're all on the same page. Surely all the orthodox must agree. So why is there this tremendous problem with what Bishop Katherine h a s shared?
Grace.
Grace,
As C.B. noted, the two strands are in tension with one another. What you are seeing is the tension at work. It is a dynamic process, and the balance tends to swing towards one or the other side over time.
It is also, in part, a small band of extremists trying to claim that only one of those strands represent "authentic" or "orthodox" Christianity, and the other as an "innovation". Perhaps someone was asleep during the classes on church history?
morningsider,
I distinguish "religion" which is a organization, from "faith".
I do not participate in the former nor do I have the latter. So what I present you is how all this looks from the outside.
Right now, what it looks like is a lot of people who define who they are by whom they exclude.
Barry:
:-)
(I think I need to start putting the atheist disclaimer in every post; I wouldn't want to make things worse for the actual Episcopalians by having people mistakenly point at my views as representative of you all.)
I remember my first reading of our patroness Julian of Norwich when I came unexpectedly upon the following:
"To the soul this was a mighty wonder...that our Lord God, as far as He is concerned, cannot forgive — because He cannot be angry — it would be impossible."
God cannot forgive? Astounding! Shocking! Insane!
No, God cannot forgive because God has ALREADY forgiven. That forgiveness was accomplished 2000 years ago on Calvary. It is done and over. Indeed, mystically speaking God IS forgiveness itself.
And then I remember another bit from Julian:
"When other men's sins come to mind, the soul that wishes to be in repose shall flee from that as from the pain of hell, searching in God for remedy for help against it, for the beholding of other men's sins makes, as it were, a thick mist before the eye of the soul, and we cannot for the time see the fairness of God..."
Maybe the 21st century can use a spot of 14th century insight.
In the end it all boils down to just how much you truly believe that God loves us. The more you believe he loves you the more you will allow him to change rather than trying to behave in certain ways, and believe certain things, in order to change God - to change God's attitude to you, to make God love you more (which, of course, with a God of love, is a stupid idea). (Madpriest)
This really touches the core of the psychology underlying the differences, Madpriest. And that "belief" that God truly loves us as we are is a big part of "faith," about which Jesus had much to say.
I agree with C.B. that the argument is not two totally separate theologies, but rather, a matter of emphasis. What did Jesus emphasize? Did he emphasize unworthiness and separation (i.e., sin) or did he emphasize a God who gathers all (the poor, the incarcerated, the least of these, the Samaritan who helped the impure victim, the and the rest of us, too) into The Kingdom of Heaven? Those whom he said would have difficulty entering the Kingdom were not those who were judged "sinful" by others; rather, they were people who were not fully willing to drop their little gods for the big one ( the rich man who couldn't part with his riches even for God, and the Pharisees who could not drop their religiosity and judgmentalism.)
Perhaps wrote, We can't put the cart before the horse. The Glory of God is there for us...but we can't enter it while we are still lost in sin. It's the repentance that lets us into the glory. No repentance...no glory.
Bear in mind, Perhaps, that Jesus continually reminded people to focus on their own sins, not those of others. In fact, he said we should *not* focus on the sins of others. Surely he had a reason for these statements, so frequent in his teachings. Could he have been referring to occurs within us when we focus on how sinful other people are (i.e., when we judge others)? What happens within us? We create a hierarchy with ourselves above and them below. We separate ourselves from them. We shut them out. And what is the opposite of that? No hierarchy, no separation, no exclusion.
Which leads us back to KJS and TEC. :-)
formerly susan
P.S. -- that's awesome, John-Julian. Thank you.
Bishop Jefferts Schori notes that sin is "not the centerpiece of the Christian message."
A similar thought is raised by Theo Hobson: The issue of homosexuality "revives the huge question of whether Christianity is meant to uphold a moral law at all. The original answer was no: Jesus and Paul wanted to sever the link between religion and the idea of a divine moral law. (It is therefore amazingly ironic that Paul is used as a "legal" authority for Christian homophobia.) But in practice Christianity became an organised religion, and therefore laid down the moral law - at first this law applied to a subculture, and later it merged with official public law."
So if we focus on "law" and "lawbreaking" and "lawbreakers" we end up, perhjaps, like Perhaps...: You repent first, or I won't let you into heaven.
That doesn't sound to me like Jesus talking.
I frankly think that even had +KJS made her first words the Athanasian Creed, it would have been mis-interpreted by those who desire the death of the Episcopal Church.
Why do some people conclude that the more "gracious" view of Christianity somehow precludes or negates the value of penitence? I should think the contrary. If our focus is on the destiny that God has created for us all (rather than on an indiscretion in a garden in the past), then we will all see where we each fail to live up to that glory intended for us. It is our task as Christians to be Imago Christi to the world, a task that we all fail far more often than not. Thanks be to God that our salvation does not depend on living up to that image. If that were the case, then the Gospel would not be good news for anyone.
I understand ++Schori's comments as a call for the Church and its members to BE that Gospel for the world. That message is to have hope and take heart, not that we should all be oh so very very sorry about everything.
An African American was asked and he replied: "I don't know what it is, but I know what it ain't".
Let us not get caught up in definitions, let us open our mouths and speak. The World knows when the Gospel is being preached.
(Ask Billy Graham and Mother Theresa).
and, maybe, Desmond Tutu?
OK folks, just because someone questions what KJS says in her latest interview, don't assume that person wants the "death of the Episcopal Church." What is this, an episode of 24?
Second, C.B., I'm not sure you are really "with Jake" on this one. Sure, sure, the interviewer could have greatly miscontrued KJS' words but as Jake said above, she had to know what she was saying. And read again what she said (hint, look for the stuff in quotes). She talked about one strand and then said the other "is the more gracious." She didn't say "most" gracious, she said "more" gracious. That my friend, is a term of comparison, a term that suggests an either/or approach, not the "both/and" approach most of us in TEC are MORE used to.
Coming on the heels of her awkward Arkansas moment, she should have been MORE careful in the words she used.
And Paul M., let's not be so quick to label these two strands as being in tension with each other. Don't buy into such thinking, my friend. I am sure Jake, Grace, and others would say that to them the idea of the atonement and that strand of thinking is chockoblock full of grace.
Finally Barry, now that was funny. Well typed!
"There is a fountain filled with blood,
Drawn from Emmanuel's veins,
And sinners plunged beneath that flood
Lose all their guilty stains."
Dare I acknowledge that I love that hymn, cheesy and gruesome though it is?
But it's probably not your best bet for marketing purposes.
There are mulitple interpretations of Jesus' death and resurrection. Payment for sin is only one of them. A book that explores the various ideas in Christianity throughout our history is Problems with Atonement. From blood sacrifice to settle our debt to God to scapegoat to at-one-ment of more recent times and everything in between.
Jake,
I should have added Desmond Tutu and Bonhoeffer.
Widening Gyre,
I wasn't referring to anyone who had questions about her beliefs, but there are some who indeed do desire the death of the church. To pretend otherwise one would be a mistake. I'm perfectly willing to listen to honest questions, indeed, I myself am not nearly as "free thinking" as she appears to be, but I don't damn her for that as some do.
Widening Gyre,
She didn't say "most" gracious, she said "more" gracious. That my friend, is a term of comparison, a term that suggests an either/or approach, not the "both/and" approach most of us in TEC are MORE used to.
While it's true that "more" and "less" are terms of comparison, they are suggestive of a continuum, not of an either/or state. Either/or would be "gracious" and "not gracious."
Coming on the heels of her awkward Arkansas moment, she should have been MORE careful in the words she used.
I think she said what she meant, and she said it most graciously. ;-)
formerly susan
Agreed formerly susan - I don't think her statements were the least bit awkard Widening Gyre. She is NOT speaking to you - clearly. She is actually trying to comminicate with people for whom words like Sin, Repent, Saved have NO meaning.- accept in the most rudimentary way as clubs with which to beat people and make them feel bad about themselves. Otherwise, they are archaic concepts, from a different world view/paradigm. You can't even get to first base with them by talking about atonement. But thank God that's not the whole message of the gospel.
To them, she is trying to communicate that
they are NOT the only words needed to appreciate the gospel. Instead, she says - There are those who preach that the most important task is to repent, BUT there is another strand also important to the Gospel, that is more gracious in that it emphasizes the purpose God has for all our lives through the incarnation of Christ. That we may, if we will, enter into our divine inheritance as the Sons and Daughters of God, as God intended.
She describes it as "a more gracious"strand in order to contrast it with the other strand, but that does not mean it is in opposition to the message of repentance, or exclsuive of repentance.
I feel you are quibbling, because you do not want to hear her really. You want her to speak your language because certain doctrines and dogmas coming from her mouth is what you need to feel secure. But she has decided not to use the secular media as a forum in which to discuss doctrine as between members of the church.
C.B.
re: Peter and the fish - I get a both/and sort of message from this. Jesus says to Peter, come. Peter protests that he's just a sinner (and maybe for a fraction of a moment is sorry to leave all that fish?). Jesus ignores this (a human a sinner - so what's new?) and assigns Peter his new duty.
You have to work with what you have, and if that happens to be your sinful self, don't wallow, get moving! All very matter-of-fact here.
LPR--
The Cross itself 'creeps me out.'
But it wasn't my choice; and to ignore or downplay the immense, even unimaginable suffering it entailed is to tell God He didn't need to go that route.
If I'm trapped in a burning building and a fireman gives up his life to save me, I will always remember his sufferings.
This is not an unnatural 'fixation', but part of our humanity.
I posted this on Thinking Anglicans in response to a question as to where Protestants thought the church was prior to the Reformation, but the last sentence seems just as apt in dealing with those determined to undermine "this monstrous regiment of women!"
"Many of the reformers searched for the 'true church' among the heretics -- not only Waldensians, but even Albigenisans were included in 'Foxe's Book of Martyrs.' Of course, ignorance of history & Scriptural obscurantism are essential components of Conservative Evangelicalism."
BTW, it seems to me that a penal substitutionary theory of the Atonement (which the church did fine without for 3/4 of its history) simply mistakes Satan for God.
There have been some interesting things written about the Atonement from a Girardian perspective recently.
Maybe the 21st century can use a spot of 14th century insight.
John-Julian, OJN
Nah.
She called God a female.
Burn her. (Silly muddled medieval mind.)
[snark, by the way. The conviction that we are the wisest generation which ever lived and alone have attained truth is the worst hubris of all. We would do much better to learn from what has been revealed, in humility and awe, than to keep reinventing an already existent wheel.]
Drive to bar liberal from Church's crisis summit
By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent
05/02/2007
The Archbishop of Canterbury's efforts to defuse the bitter Anglican row over gays looked increasingly doomed last night after conservative leaders threatened to bar a leading liberal from a crisis meeting in Africa next week.
[...]
Oops ... sorry for the double posting. I thought I was editing it!
.
The snit has started. "We won't talk until the girl (PB KJS) goes".
They don't want ++Sentamu there either, assigned by Williams to act for England. What a pissing match.
C.B.,
I would suggest that if you think I am quibbling, then say so and stop. Don't assume (presume) that you know me or what I want. You don't know me and therefore you don't know what I want from KJS. I would never ever presume such things vis-a-vis you or any other brother or sister in Christ (other than to presume that they want to know Jesus better, as I do). Fair enough?
And Dave, I think it is a mistake on a spiritual level for you or any other to think that there are brothers and sisters in Christ who want the death of TEC. Yeah, sure, the devil and his ilk (for those who believe in that sort of stuff) want to see the Body of Christ destroyed but I would caution attributing such ill motives to your siblings in Christ. Fair enough? Peace.
Could someone explain why the Global South primates wouldn't want ++Sentamu at the Primates' meeting? Did I miss something?
I just came back from hearing a talk by Bp. Gene Robinson at Columbia University's St. Paul's Chapel. Before he spoke he asked a few questions to gauge the churchly sophistication of his audience (it was pretty churchy.)
I hope to say more about his remarks at my blog Morningsider, but that may have to wait a day or two. Meanwhile, apropos of the comments above by Widening Gyre, one thing I was struck by was +Gene's statement that liberals and progressives need to pay attention to the fact that we often look like we don't take evil seriously. I had heard a similar point raised last Wednesday at the inauguration of Gary Dorrien as Reinhold Niebuhr Professor of Social Ethics at Union Theological Seminary.
Allen
I think it's a 'mistake' on a 'spiritual level' for snitty puritans with spell check to roam the blogs freely.
Peace!
She is actually trying to communicate with people for whom words like Sin, Repent, Saved have NO meaning. — C.B.
I've seen this idea before, but it bothers and confuses me. My preliminary interpretation of C.B.'s point is this: KJS has a market demographic in mind - "post-moderns" or some such. Well-educated White people. (People like her? Like me? Like us?)
I hope that's not the case. I'd hope a presiding bishop would communicate to the whole society; to the whole world.
Growing churches do indeed use the words sin, repentance and salvation. Millions respond to those words. I think we have to be comfortable using them, as well as other words like grace, inclusion and love, all in the same sermon or interview.
I thought the USA Today piece was great; finally, someone gets it. And I noticed that KJS spoke the name of Jesus more than once; I've said before I think that's important, that people want to hear the Name. An avowed Christian who never talks about Christ raises suspicion, so I couldn't be happier with this interview.
I realize, though, I don't want a church that's nothing but rich, educated White people. Or Gays or Democrats or people just like me. And she doesn't either; witness the dancers and smudgers and musicians at her installation.
So I remind myself that C.B. is not KJS's official spokesperson. Let's revisit that snippet:
She is actually trying to communicate with people for whom words like Sin, Repent, Saved have NO meaning. — C.B.
And those people read USA Today?
The link to the following appears to have changes. This one is updated.
Drive to bar liberal from Church's crisis summit
By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent
05/02/2007
The Archbishop of Canterbury's efforts to defuse the bitter Anglican row over gays looked increasingly doomed last night after conservative leaders threatened to bar a leading liberal from a crisis meeting in Africa next week.
[...]
I think Dar es Salaam is going to mark the definitive break, that Akinola will treat Williams (much less Jefferts Schori) just like Joan Collins bitch-slapped Linda Evans.
So much for England's Dynasty, huh? And the ratings will go through the roof.
Umm, can I just say,
sin, repentance and salvation
have no meaning for me, the local atheist. They are conceits of your faith. So, yeah, you mention them and I'm doing the la-la-la thing.
Just sayin'.
IT, my dear athiest -
I suspect you and I don't-believe-in the same god(s); I also suspect that your unbelief and my belief are much the same to the God that "is." Let us be unbelievers for Christ's sake.
Josh - "... [apparently] KJS has a market demographic in mind [...] I hope that's not the case. I'd hope a presiding bishop would communicate to the whole society; to the whole world.
And I hope, against hope, against almost everything at work in this and every Church and in the world, that *somebody, *somewhere, is framing the Gospel for the post-modern, intellectual, scientist, aestheticist, Gay, Liberal, Democrat[ic], Educated, white, European, ...
St Paul wasn't a Jew to the Gentlies or vice versa...
Something in your post reads like you're arguing for a Gospel for "Our Kind Of People" but in reverse...
hpb
Austin, TX
Hymn (by Harry)
Straight above the house the sun
Burns, and in the fields the sheep
Rest in willow shade where run
Rivulets and creepers creep.
Dreams put by upon the shelf
Shimmer in the rising heat,
Faded in the purposed self
That reckons chores incomplete.
Nothing stirs, no leaf, no dust,
And in the thicket no birds sing.
On such a day decay and rust
Cannot accomplish anything.
There is no rest but rest in Thee
God of the heat, who burns the fields.
You settle all, O One and Three,
In the mournful quiet summer yields.
This same hour, upon the cross, we
Did the worst that humans do.
You asked your Father how could he
Be Father and abandon you.
The day has turned its highest hour
The sun descends, the shadows grow.
By the backdoor blooms a purple flower,
And a quiet breeze begins to blow.
IT, every time the ConEvs kick us queers in the teeth (I say this from Michigan, where the Appeals Court just ruled that the same-sex marriage ban can be used to strip domestic partners of their health insurance), you're getting a textbook definition of SIN. >:-( (Ergo, "sin" has meaning?)
{off to read ++KJS interview---she's going to Tanzania, and she's bringin' The Gospel, whether Akinola (et al Puritan Primates, Chike) likes it or not!}
*****
Let us not get caught up in definitions, let us open our mouths and speak. The World knows when the Gospel is being preached.
Yeah, Chike, but The World knows even *better*, when the Gospel is lived! Perhaps CLOSE our mouths more and, ala the ol' Nike ad, JUST DO IT???
Come, Holy Spirit, and EMPOWER your faithful for the Building of the Reign of God! :-D
When I read the passion story, I always see myself doing the crucifying. When I live within it, I always experience Jesus telling me that he forgives me.
It is important to remember to see Jesus in the face of everyone in the story. It's not just a story about what Jesus did, but about what we do.
The vulnerable babe in the manger gives us hope, the vulnerable man on the cross forgives us, and we can only live in the faith that is manifest in our loving one another.
Feed my sheep is what he said when all was said and done. Not who was right. Not who was wrong. Feed my sheep, and, "I am with you always."
I cannot scale the cross, nor the theology of the cross. But I do experience, in the middle of the unimaginable, his kindness. That is where I fix my eyes. I can barely get through an afternoon without letting irritable moments get the better of me, and I strive for more kindness.
JCF--
We might live next door to each other! I'm in the "middle of the mitten."
I think the case will probably go to the Supreme Court of the state.
Nice to have a Jake's Place neighbor!
Harry
I'm in the "middle of the mitten."
Hi Harry!
:::waves back:::
I'm south of there (and we have the Good Prior among us here in Mitten-land, too!)
I *hope* they find a court they (dp benefits, amidst "The [furkin'] Ban") can win in. As a Christian, I'm "not optimistic, but I'm Hope-full"! :-)
In my understanding of the Atonement I emphasise the sacrifice that Jesus made, which is an orthodox doctrine and has been throughout the whole history of our faith. For me, the scapegoat is the most important character in the Jewish Bible. However, where I plunge into heresy is that I do not believe God needs the sacrifice, because he is God and not subject to any action and because we are told many times in scripture that he does not require bodily sacrifice. Therefore, my conclusion is simple. Jesus willingly becomes the payment for our sins because we need the payment to be made (not God). Although we know intellectually that God forgives we don't truly believe it unless we are punished. We are unable to bear the required punishment but God is, so Jesus, who is God, takes the rap for us so we, in our human weakness, can truly believe we are forgiven by God. It is the same psychology at work in the story of Lamb as in the story of the scapegoat.
I think that she brings the sunshine of the Gospel just as Bp Tutu does.
Here is what a disgruntled fellow on Thinking Anglicans wrote: "Aaron: "Is Schori a bishop or even a priest for that matter? She certainly would not be recognised in England as a bishop (as her performing any episcopal acts would be illegal) and even her priestly orders are still open to question. Just because the TEC deems to "consecrate" Schori a bishop knowing full well that this is contentious does not mean that the rest of the communion have to accept such high handed, aggressive and arrogant actions."
The constant growling and grousing of the Akinolans is based on very little in the way of sober reflection. What, really, do they want? If they calmed down and talked openly about the issues, they might find their minds growing and changing like everyone else's.
"The Cross itself 'creeps me out.'
But it wasn't my choice; and to ignore or downplay the immense, even unimaginable suffering it entailed is to tell God He didn't need to go that route."
Excuse me but if I understand the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, the 'route' doesn't matter one damn bit. Jesus could have died an old man from a stroke in his sleep or any other 'natural cause' and death would have been destroyed, our sins forgiven, etc. God became human and God died as a human being. The 'route' isn't the point.
In fact, I like to recommend that folks think about Jesus dying by another death - a death they can actually visualize or identify - to actually get a realistic perspective on the incarnation. I'm not downplaying the historical fact that Jesus was crucified. He was crucified in our human history and I celebrate Good Friday in the liturgy with the fullness that the prayer book offers (Solemn Passion, Veneration of the Cross, etc).
However, I can't identify with a crucifixion because I have never seen one. I CAN identify with someone dying of cancer, AIDS, heart disease or being in an auto accident. I bet the incarnated God would be willing to die by one of these routes as well - in fact he did just that by becoming human in the first place.
Widening Gyre - I presume(assume) nothing. I stated "I feel you are quibbling." This is how YOU come across to ME. It is not something I am "guessing" or even "thinking." But based upon what you have said and the way you have said it, this is what I "feel." Peace.
Josh - Please - don't half quote me then critique the half quote -it's not fair and others might not read the whole thread to know it's a misquote.
I said "She is actually trying to comminicate with people for whom words like Sin, Repent, Saved have NO meaning.- accept[should read "except"] in the most rudimentary way as clubs with which to beat people and make them feel bad about themselves."
I think it's pretty clear that I thought she was speaking to a fairly wide audience. Not just post modern white folk who probably don't read USA Today, anyway.
C.B.
JCF,
I'm no Puritan!
Br. William Henry, I have never heard or thought of the death of Jesus in the terms you have presented. You have given me much to consider. My still developing understanding has been, in part, that we humans might have all accepted the love Jesus was born to show and offer us, and all would have been accomplished. But we didn't; instead we killed love because it was not like the love we give and take and understand. And God's judgment was the resurrection - no matter what we do to Love, as incarnate in Jesus, it will rise again, in and through and for us. I think to insist that all Christians adhere to one absolute understanding of what happened in Jesus is impossible, since it takes all our different understandings to even come close to what was really done, the enormity of it all. Anyway, I continue to work on this, and your piece has added one more facet to this wondrous jewel.
Regarding the statement on Thinking Anglicans which Fr. O'Leary shared with us: at bottom, such an understanding, that women are not fit matter to become priests and therefore those of us who have taken priestly orders are not really priests, along the line that you can baptize a horse but it doesn't make it human - there is something in some men, and some women as well, that consciously or unconsciously does not view women as fully human. We are put below men, as inferior or as incomplete men (Aquinas?); or we are expected to live on a pedestal where Mary has been put, again not expected to be fully or truly human.
If this is the case, the question has been asked, why baptize girls or women? If it is to wash from us the stain of having been born female, should the baptism not then make us fully human? But no, it is like the horse: baptized but not human.
Well, dear hearts. I will be away for the next three days and I don't take a computer with me or check blogs, so I will miss you all. Keep conversing, in the Name of the Christ!
revLois Keen
MP...good insight. It seems to me that so much of what we do is for our sake, not to meet God's requirements. Even our rituals, including the sacramental ones, are primarily intended to be outward and visible signs of God's grace that has already been bestowed. We need something concrete so concepts like love, grace and God don't just float away.
... the 'route' doesn't matter one damn bit...
I agree, Br. William. I've yet to view The Passion of Christ, as from what I have read, it seems to me that one of the intended messages is that Jesus suffered more than others, and for that reason the act was unique.
There is no question that the suffering of Jesus has given us reason to reflect on the idea that God is not indifferent to suffering, having experienced it, but the notion that it was some kind of ultimate suffering seems to be a strange kind of theology to me. Possibly that is for the reason you stated; I cannot fully imagine a crucifixion.
WG, as you know, there is ample evidence on the net of those who indeed want to destroy TEC. They are quite clear about their intention. I think they are a small group, but the fact that their militant tirades are not challenged suggests that their sentiments are considered valid expressions of a subset of those who oppose TEC.
Rev. Lois, the good news about such comments as the one quoted from TA is that the other agenda of the extremists is beginning to be revealed. I don't think it is accidental that there are no women in leadership positions within the Network, with one exception (a canon whose husband was once a big name at Trinity).
Mike, I saw that article by Petre. I didn't see anything new in it. No references, suggesting it's just his personal predictions. I think Mark Harris fisks it a bit.
Beautiful, Harry...thanks.
A couple of final thoughts...
Is there something wrong with post-modern white people?
And, does anyone read USA Today?
Jake,
It would be interesting to find out how many of us read the USA Today piece before being alerted to it from a blog site.
Commenting on a few strands here ...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that God's forgiveness and grace is a gift that is freely given and our repentence is the response ... not we repent and then are forgiven ... the former puts our salvation in the hands of God (which is biblical), the latter puts it in our hands (which is not).
To the atheist(s) in our midst, at the risk of scaring you off, I would dare to say that the fact that you comment on this blog is just evidence that God is working within you whether you may realize it or not ;-)
-David
Jake, that isn't even logical. I never said there was something wrong with White liberals; I said I don't want a church that only contains white liberals.
Br. William, take your old man Jesus with the stroke and stuff it. Who gives a brass farthing about what kind of death you can identify with?
The secessionists are wrong about 95% of what they say and do, but the 5% they're right about - that all these attempted Bible rewrites alienate people - hits the bullseye.
We all have to struggle with staying in the church, not just them. I'm sticking with the Creed, the sacraments and prayer.
Now I know what to give up for Lent... snake oil.
"Now I know what to give up for Lent... snake oil" Josh
Now, don't be too hasty! You are appreciated and loved around here (wherever here is, which is the whole point of really "being" anywhere anyway outside of despised and closeted)...so, stick with the snake oil addiction/treatment plan because it actually, no-doubt-about-it, 100% proven/guaranteed, cures Akinolan and AngloCLAN Networklessness SNAKE BITE from poisoness stateside neocon religious bigots and their Global Southern Fried buddies who appear burdened with HATE and eternal resentment backlash!
It's worked miracles for me, just dabble in *it* a little while and you'll feel great after it all soaks in!
Love to you Joshington up there in FROZENTON, Indiana!
Jake,
USA Today is available at most hotels across the country. They give it away and include the cost in the price of the room. Its audience tends to be business travelers. Yes, it's widely read.
Josh...my comment was meant as good natured ribbing. Sorry if it caused offense.
Wow. Lots going on here.
Re. Michigan: Another job I'm glad I did not accept, another state to cross off the list. Condolences, JCF and Harry.
Re. USA Today: I read it when I'm traveling if the hotel shoves it under the door. At home I read bits of the NY and LA Times, the Yahoo news feed, and blogs. I listen religiously (!) to NPR.
Re. Josh: Chill, brother. One of the points of Jake's place is to discuss different view points. You don't have to agree but we need your view too.
Davebubba, I'm just trying to learn to live with the Christians in my midst, and teach y'all something about the non-believers in yours. :-)
Leonardo,
You are not teasing us brother, are you, up here in the frozen northland, where it's like zero degrees, and counting backwards??? LOL
I'm coming to visit you sooner rather than later, Leonardo. I feel a mission trip comin on. God is calling!!! :)
Poor J.C. Hope you're keeping warm out there in frozen Michigan. Brrr!
Grace.
Josh,
Will you share more of your personal witness. How have you come to faith in the Lord? I certainly appreciate all of your sharing. It's true as IT has shared. We don't all agree, but it's important to understand and share different points of view.
(I want you to know, though, that I feel strongly too relating to Christian orthodoxy, to put it mildly. LOL ) You do have to admit that Bishop Katherine is in a difficult situation. She has to to be all things to everyone. She's trying to communicate the faith to post moderns that feel alienated from the church, and trying to relate to the progressives and the evangelicals at the same time. Then there's this trip to Tanzenia to think about, and the Africans to deal with. This woman needs everyone's prayers, that's for sure!!
Anon was me, Grace, trying to keep warm. Brr!!
*Sigh*
What could I add to this discussion, that hasn't been said? Nothing.
I love +Katherine. I agree with her insights. None of you are shocked by this.
I like MP's idea of atonement, and, I think this hits far closer to my own heretical beliefs. (See, MP - I knew I liked you for a reason!) We have the need, psychologically for repentence, and atonement. God has grace, he made us, he knows we have failings. He wants us to become more then what we are, and pushes us along. I don't want to belong to a church where God requires his own son's death. I'd rather deal with messed up falliable men then a messed up, terror extracting God.
To me, this is what the creeds, etc. are all about - (hu)man trying to encapsulate the divine, and understand our place in relation to the divine and the messed up world around us. Reconciling the human and the divine.
Jake's statement about 95% divine and 5% human struck a cord with me. This is a feeling I've had in reading many blogs and in my own spiritual struggles. For the atonement to mean anything, he needs to be 100% of each, of course. Extremely difficult to reconcile in a limited, undivine human capacity. And so, we have God, far and close. So much tension and paradox. So it's a mystery beyond me. I'll have to swallow it, and move on, because I can't explain it.
But, I'm a heretic, so, whatever.
I don't read USA Today - only when directed to it by blogs. Just an FYI.
Prior ----- when you have nothign else to do some time, please e-mail me privatedly, I have a question about your post. rabalone@charter.net
James
...BTW, it seems to me that a penal substitutionary theory of the Atonement (which the church did fine without for 3/4 of its history) simply mistakes Satan for God.
I don't read USA today unless it is linked to something.
Harry, thanks for the poem amid the polemic. And thanks for your continuing kindness and insight.
ALP
Eileen said, "What could I add to this discussion, that hasn't been said? Nothing..."
Yeah, what Eileen said :) Good post. And hey, if you're a heretic, you're in good company ;)
...But in a humiliating blow to the Archbishop's authority, senior conservative leaders privately wrote to him last month warning that he had no right to invite Bishop Schori to the summit without their consent....
Now, how dang interesting. So, not only are "they" picking and chosing which bits of scripture are authoritative, and who is and isn't a 'real' Christian, they are also picking and chosing what the ABC can and cannot do. He has all authority when 'they' need him to shore up their wants, but when he doesn't give into him, he has no authority.
At least there logic is consistant! "We make the rules and call the shots!"
“In my understanding of the Atonement I emphasise the sacrifice that Jesus made, which is an orthodox doctrine and has been throughout the whole history of our faith. For me, the scapegoat is the most important character in the Jewish Bible. However, where I plunge into heresy is that I do not believe God needs the sacrifice, because he is God and not subject to any action and because we are told many times in scripture that he does not require bodily sacrifice. Therefore, my conclusion is simple. Jesus willingly becomes the payment for our sins because we need the payment to be made (not God). Although we know intellectually that God forgives we don't truly believe it unless we are punished. We are unable to bear the required punishment but God is, so Jesus, who is God, takes the rap for us so we, in our human weakness, can truly believe we are forgiven by God. It is the same psychology at work in the story of Lamb as in the story of the scapegoat.”—
MadPriest
That’s an interesting interpretation. I have struggled with this doctrine all my life; why would God need to punish in order to save? Perhaps the answer is, like MadPriest suggests, locked in our unconscious. I guess that having faith in God’s love for us is enough for salvation.
Amazing, amazing stuff on atonement which I wish I read yesterday while having a conversation with a fellow congregation member... I shall digest for next time.
I kind of hoped to see in the comments how we get out into the world. What are those baby steps that we can take? Or should we all take a deep breath and jump into the deep end?
Did Jesus not say that there is no greater love than to lay down one's life for his friends.
Jesus was willing to die, because he was motivated by a cause greater than the person of "Jesus the carpenter". He was motived by love.
Sacrifice for a greater noble cause represents the best part of human nature.
During the Second World War many people willingly laid down their lives to defeat Nazism. Steve Biko laid down his life for a free South Africa. The list is endless.
Atonement should not be a strange concept to grasp. God rarely intervenes directly in the affairs of men - he uses men. Examples are Oscar Romero, Desmond Tutu, Gandhi. People who risked their lives for change.
Jesus risked and gave his life for his message. On the first level his disciples were deeply touched by his example in suffering and death. The Bible accounts tell us his did not chicken out, he did not take the easy route and he did not implicate any of his followers.
On the second level, there is a deeper spiritual significance. Did John not cry out "Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the World!!".
There is no major positive event in human history that did not require men to risk their lives. There will be matyrs even in the future.
(I hope to expand on that later).
Thanks David! ;-) It's an INFP group - HA (Heretics Anonymous!)
Grace - as an aside, I'm not trying to upset you with this. David and I don't believe we're heretics, as we've discussed before.
Read USA Today?
Only if I'm really bored and I don't have to pay for a copy.
.
Br. William, how would salvation be accomplished without the sacrifice of an innocent victim? The idea that Death would be conquered if Jesus died in his sleep of a stroke is simply nonsense to me. Isn't there greater profit in struggling with the historic teaching rather than creating your own story because you are uncomfortable or because you can't envision His crucifixion?
Why does the manner of death matter?
Does it have to be the most henious form imaginable? Is that the point of refusing to see the face of Jesus on those who suffer in the world today? Jesus suffered more?
If so, then I would think crucifixion doesn't fit the bill, in spite of Mel Gibson's gory attempt to prove otherwise. There are plenty of more painful ways to die, although I don't think the degree of suffering has anything to do with it.
What has not been assumed has not been redeemed. Jesus suffered and died. God understands human suffering and death, and has redeemed it. To attempt to add that he suffered "more" than others is to once again attempt to build a wall between God and humanity...to hold up the trascendent divinity of Christ as more essential than his humanity.
Through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, death, our ancient enemy, has been cast down and trampled underfoot. Alleluia!
I understand Eileen. I'm not concerned for myself. But, what does everyone think of C.S. Lewis's view of the atonement?
We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ's death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us, and, even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself. All the same, some of these theories are worth looking at.
The one most people have heard is the one about our being let off because Christ volunteered to bear a punishment instead of us. Now on the face of it that is a very silly theory. If God was prepared to let us off, why on earth did He not do so? And what possible point could there be in punishing an innocent person instead? None at all that I can see, if you are thinking of punishment in the police-court sense. On the other hand, if you think of a debt, there is plenty of point in a person who has some assets paying it on behalf of someone who has not. Or if you take "paying the penalty," not in the sense of being punished, but in the more general sense of "footing the bill," then, of course, it is a matter of common experience that, when one person has got himself into a hole, the trouble of getting him out usually falls on a kind friend.
Now what was the sort of "hole" man had gotten himself into? He had tried to set up on his own, to behave as if he belonged to himself. In other words, fallen man is not simply an imperfect creature who needs improvement: he is a rebel who must lay down his arms. Laying down your arms, surrendering, saying you are sorry, realising that you have been on the wrong track and getting ready to start life over again from the ground floor - that is the only way out of a "hole." This process of surrender - this movement full speed astern - is what Christians call repentance. Now repentance is no fun at all. It is something much harder than merely eating humble pie. It means unlearning all the self-conceit and self-will that we have been training ourselves into for thousands of years. It means undergoing a kind of death. In fact, it needs a good man to repent. And here's the catch. Only a bad person needs to repent: only a good person can repent perfectly. The worse you are the more you need it and the less you can do it. The only person who could do it perfectly would be a perfect person - and he would not need it.
Remember, this repentance, this willing submission to humiliation and a kind of death, is not something God demands of you before He will take you back and which He could let you off of if He chose: it is simply a description of what going back to Him is like. If you ask God to take you back without it, you are really asking Him to let you go back without going back. It cannot happen. Very well, then, we must go through with it. But the same badness which makes us need it, makes us unable to do it. Can we do it if God helps us? Yes, but what do we mean when we talk of God helping us? We mean God putting into us a bit of Himself, so to speak. He lends us a little of His reasoning powers and that is how we think: He puts a little of His love into us and that is how we love one another. When you teach a child writing, you hold its hand while it forms the letters: that is, it forms the letters because you are forming them. We love and reason because God loves and reasons and holds our hand while we do it. Now if we had not fallen, that would all be plain sailing. But unfortunately we now need God's help in order to do something which God, in His own nature, never does at all - to surrender, to suffer, to submit, to die. Nothing in God's nature corresponds to this process at all. So that the one road for which we now need God's leadership most of all is a road God, in His own nature, has never walked. God can share only what He has: this thing, in His own nature, He has not.
But supposing God became a man - suppose our human nature which can suffer and die was amalgamated with God's nature in one person - then that person could help us. He could surrender His will, and suffer and die, because He was man; and He could do it perfectly because He was God. You and I can go through this process only if God does it in us; but God can do it only if He becomes man. Our attempts at this dying will succeed only if we men share in God's dying, just as our thinking can succeed only because it is a drop out of the ocean of His intelligence: but we cannot share God's dying unless God dies; and he cannot die except by being a man. That is the sense in which He pays our debt, and suffers for us what He Himself need not suffer at all.
Grace.
I think USA Today is really a paper for commuters and people doomed to airports. And, I agree that ++Jefferts-Schori most likely chose her words for non-episcopalians, and especially for people not belonging to any church.
I heard on NPR some weeks back an interview with a guy from rolling stone on how Fox News uses the news, and I was struck at the time by the similarity between that process and how the "reasserters" react to every statement by ++Jefferts-Schori. They make specific attacks on stuff like Bonnie Anderson's letter about the Dallas arragement for women's discernment, but imo the reaction to the PB is a bit different.
I can't find a link to the rolling stone story, but I found this, which touches on some of the same themes. And not to be political, as I'm a registered goper, and the rolling stone guy said he used the same tactic in his stories sometimes; in fact he was almost admiring of fox for inventing and perfecting the tactic. (Beware, there's a jpg of an extremely thin attractive woman advertising a "diet patch," which I think I'll buy right away, given her attractivenss)
http://www.rollingstone.com/poli...6417561/
mad_dog
Anyway, what O'Rielly does is select an emotion that will appeal to his viewers. Two soldiers deserting to Canada is the example. Even among Fox's faithful, support for the war is waning, but desertion? That's pretty shocking, and gets a good negative emotion going. Plus, there's the whole Canada angle. Then, O'Rielly has to demonize someone by tagging the story to him personally. Give the viewers and individual to attach their negative emotions to. To the Reasserters, the emotion is betraying the faith of our fathers; apostacy. Then the news, or what ++Jefferts-Schori says, has to be fitted to feed the negative emotion. It's irrelevant what is actually said. It's actually irrelevant to whatever they think they're reasserting. It's only relevant that something is being reasserted.
I'm not really sure what feeds the reasserters. I'm a bit leery of the political effect of "gay marriage" on TEC's membership, and even of whole dioceses voting to leave over it if whatever accomodation to end discrimination is viewed as "too much" by too many. But the current group of clerics leading the reasserters seem to follow the classic fox line.
btw, I hope it is clear that by 'reasserters' I mean the comments posted on places like Stand Firm. Comments such as Tom's are quite different, and would be common in a adult education session.
I take the view that the second covenant was God giving the world Jesus' ministry of BOTH social justice and individual access to God's love/grace without the priests. I take it on faith that he existed and was mortal. To me, if Jesus was fully human, then the end result was not foretold. Mankind could have accepted his ministry, rather, than nailing him to a tree. Moreover, his dying call to the God who "has foresaken" him, seems to support the notion the he did not know his movement would survive.
This is hardly revolutionary. C.S. Lewis created an Asalon who did not have foreknowlege of the younger brother's treachery. Asalon had no plans for self-sacrafice until man's treachery required it inorder for the winter to pass.
Fr. Jake, I love the question in the last paragraph of your post. When will we?
MadPriest, I agree wholeheartedly with your comment. There. That should scare you to death. ;o)
Harry, your hymn is lovely.
There is much in this thread that is satisfying.
God loves us. He reaches out to us with his gift of grace to call us to come to him, though we may be living in a cesspool of sin, before we ask forgiveness or repent.
God's love for us is boundless, and he needs nothing from us. We are the the needy ones, and he supplies us with all the love that we need.
I don't commonly read USA Today except the free copies at hotels and coffeeshops. I want local news in my own city, and in cities I am visiting (especially, what events are playing), and that means the local newspaper. Most sports addicts give the USA Today sports pages an A+. Entertainment pages can also be decent (for pop culture and Hollywood). Frankly, USA Today, while not a topnotch news newspaper, is better than a whole lot of small and medium town newspapers at national news. And they do have an in-depth story every day.
Well, as a somewhat new Christian (still learning), I have been far more affected and inspired by the words and deeds of Jesus -- as recorded in the four Gospels, but especially the Synoptics -- than by his death on the cross. His death on the cross breaks my heart and tells me horrible truths about humankind and the beautiful truth of his own obedience ("take this cup from me; yet not my will, but thine be done") and his supremely loving spirit ("forgive them, father"). His resurrection proved what the doubters couldn’t seem to see in him previously. But the church’s focus on his death and resurrection almost to the exclusion of his life and teachings is, to my eyes, something of an evasion, a move away from Christ. It provides us with a compelling and dramatic story that catagorizes Jesus while bypassing the real work of inner transformation he asked us to do, over and over again, while he lived. The saddest thing about the Creeds is their omission of anything Jesus talked about. It seems many would rather tell stories about him than listen to him. Then they fall in love with the stories and forget the source.
Something wrong with that.
And then there are the “orthodox” who insist that the true measure of faith rests in everyone telling the exact same story *about* him. As if it's all about "getting on the same page" conceptually.
I wonder what he would think of all this?
And as for scapegoating, it’s happening right this very moment to KJS. Reading conservative blogs, one gets the sense of a growing, angry mob gathering in the night, muttering and growling amongst themselves, holding torches, clutching pitchforks and clubs, their scathing words increasingly shrill, losing any semblance of charity or even decency, a virtual burning in effigy of the woman. It’s becoming rather ugly. It reminds me of the mood of the Pharisees toward Jesus. I'm not comparing her to him (I wouldn't), but what's happening is the same weird ritual magic of scapegoating. It has been done to groups (e.g., Jews, Blacks) and to individuals (saints, "witches," other hapless victims). I don't fear for her life at this point -- the worst would currently only make her something of a pariah -- but I hope something can dispel the hateful momentum that seems to be building among these people.
formerly susan
Read USA Today?
Only at airport waiting ramps (if CNN is not on a screen nearby).
Since we Episcopalians (I think there are some here) do our theology in our liturgy, I offer you--
Rite One on Atonement:
All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for
that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus
Christ to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption; who
made there, by his one oblation of himself once offered, a full,
perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for
the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy
Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that
his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again.
Rite Two on Atonement:
Holy and gracious Father: In your infinite love you made us
for yourself; and, when we had fallen into sin and become
subject to evil and death, you, in your mercy, sent Jesus
Christ, your only and eternal Son, to share our human
nature, to live and die as one of us, to reconcile us to you, the
God and Father of all.
He stretched out his arms upon the cross, and offered himself,
in obedience to your will, a perfect sacrifice for the whole
world.
WG on atonement: I don't know what it means, but it makes my soul sing to say those words with my brothers and sisters! And can it be...
PS If we ever get to the point where these words are removed from the prayer book because they are from the wrong strand, then something wonderful will have been lost.
Holy and gracious Father: In your infinite love you made us for yourself; and, when we had fallen into sin and become subject to evil and death, you, in your mercy, sent Jesus Christ, your only and eternal Son, to share our human nature, to live and die as one of us, to reconcile us to you, the God and Father of all.
True, all of it, true. That, indeed, is what he was all about. And I suspect that most of the people here say it -- and mean it.
formerly susan
Formerly Susan -
First of all, which Church focuses on Jesus’ death and resurrection almost to the exclusion of his life and teachings?
Second, you make an interesting observation about the Creeds. Perhaps they are written as they are because they are intended to address those things that are scandals, foolishness and stumbling blocks to the world: those things the world would deny, even as they form the real power of the Faith.
It’s understandable that you would be moved by Jesus’ words, which are moving in the same way as those of a Gandhi or an MLK. But, as St. Paul said, “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.”
That is the bottom line.
Christ is unique because of who He was, and what He did. And, if we cannot find it in ourselves to be moved by his death and resurrection, and accept that this action saved us from sin and death – however we choose to understand the Mystery – then our Faith is a fraud, and we have been conned.
I respect and treasure the words of many – some of which have come on these pages – but I worship only Jesus, because of who He was (and is), and what He did. And, yes, being on the same page as to those two things is the dividing line between Christian and mere religious seeker.
Finally, it could not have been lost on you that I could change a few words in your last paragraph – “Akinola” or “Duncan” for “KJS,” “progressive” for “conservative” – and indict the other side equally.
Amen, Phil. Jesus saves by His death and resurrection!! Praise God for the apostolic witness which is reflected in the creeds and liturgy of the church.
But, for me the whole issue is not what the other side, or my side is doing. It's more what am I doing?
Are we showing love, and honoring the Lord with our spirit whether we can agree or disagree with each other.
Grace.
Phil,
It’s understandable that you would be moved by Jesus’ words, which are moving in the same way as those of a Gandhi or an MLK.
No, not the same, not at all. What a shame you can't see that.
But, as St. Paul said, “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.”
Maybe Paul's faith would be in vain, and perhaps yours, as well. But my faith doesn't require miracles. I'm not saying he didn't make them; I'm just saying that my faith does not derive from them (except the miracle of Jesus in my life.)
but I worship only Jesus, because of who He was (and is), and what He did. And, yes, being on the same page as to those two things is the dividing line between Christian and mere religious seeker.
Well so do I, Phil. But if I don't happen to express my faith in our Lord Jesus in the same words and images as you, don't be calling me a "mere religious seeker," okay?
Finally, it could not have been lost on you that I could change a few words in your last paragraph – “Akinola” or “Duncan” for “KJS,” “progressive” for “conservative” – and indict the other side equally.
Have you heard anyone saying that Akinola and Duncan are not legitimate priests and bishops, that they don't truly hold the faith, that they have no right to their positions? Have you heard anyone refer to either of them as "that witch?" Do you know of any movement afoot to exclude them from participation? Is anyone refusing to sit at the same table as them? Check out the "conservative" blogs sometime. They'll curl your hair.
formerly susan
Amen, Phil. Jesus saves by His death and resurrection!! [Grace]
For me, Jesus saves by his love, by his grace, and through the movement of the Holy Spirit.
formerly susan
WG, a question, and I hope you'll be honest rather than merely insulting to others whom you consider not worthy.
Do you consider the crucifixion to be necessary for Jesus to complete his mission from God? If you believe that, then logically you'd also have to believe that it was NECESSARY for mankind (or the Jews) to reject him. That's got some serious theological baggage there.
)ne can read the rites as you've replaced them as God sending Jesus into the world to live and die as a human without requiring mankind's rejection and Jesus' acceptance of God's will.
Well, Susan,
I'm thinking this all just works together. The Scripture reads in Rom.
He(Jesus) was delivered to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will someone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us...
For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life. Rom. 5:6-8, l0.
Here's probably my favorite part of all the Scripture.
If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all, how will he not also along with Him give us all things?....It is God who justifies. Christ Jesus, who died, more than that, who was raised to life is at the right hand of God interceding for us...Rom. 8:31-34.
And, then the Scripture shares that nothing in all creation can seperate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Awesome!!
Absolutely the cross was neccesary, Bendog. It is the center of human history, and turned the course of all the world.
Grace.
FS – I didn’t take from your earlier comment that you were not moved at all by Christ’s death and resurrection, just that you were moved more by Jesus’ words and deeds. So, I apologize if it came off as though I was calling you a mere religious seeker.
That doesn’t change my assertion that one who thinks Christ’s death and resurrection is (note singular – that is, taken as a unified action) unimportant is not a Christian.
I’m interested, FS, why are Jesus’ words, taken at face value, not moving in the same way as those of others who have stood strong for the powerless and outcast? Are you saying that from the standpoint of our common confession that He is Lord, or do you think there is something else that distinguishes them? Thank you.
On Akinola and Duncan, I’d like to offer my usual disclaimer that most conservatives do think KJS is a legitimate bishop. But have no right to their positions? Sure, I’ve heard that. And not “witch,” but “bigot,” “power hungry” (among others), absolutely. Of course, we have no jurisdiction over Bishop Akinola, but I’ve read lots of calls for +Duncan to be excluded. There is nastiness on both sides, of which I am as guilty as anyone.
It's no longer the social norm to be a Christian," Jefferts Schori says. Her answer isn't to ramp up on orthodoxy but to reach out to all ages and cultures with Christlike social action
I am not an American, but I think this statement may not be very helpful in understanding the religious landscape in America.
You have 80 million Evangelicals, 77% of the population calls itself christian. No meaningful political activity can be done in the African American community outside the black church.
Then there was a major issue because a congressman chose to swear with the Quran.
I may be uninformed, but I think that it is still the social norm to be christian in many parts of America.
I also think that KJS's statement betrays a "blue state" orientation. I read "Huffington Post" and then I read "Free Republic" and it seems as if we are talking about two different countries.
Is KJS merely talking about the America she is familiar with? Does this apply to Texas, Arkansas and the Bible Belt? Or have these parts of America been written off?
This is what Peter Berger had to say:
The irony is that while mainline Protestants, – well, Roman Catholics are a somewhat different situation – but mainline Protestants are interested in dialogue with everybody from Tibetan monks to African sorcerers but they don't have dialogue with American evangelicals who are next door, and that's absurd.
Grace,
But can we still stay in TEC (or the AC) if we disagree?
http://www.religioustolerance.or.../
chr_atone1.htm
Chike --
Actually, Berger (as usual) wrong & Roman Catholics are in official dialogue with Tibetan monks (monks are in charge of the dialogue -- it is quite interesting -- I recommend "Gethsemani Encounter")
The reason for the lack of dialogue with Evangelicals is that they refuse to talk to anyone who wants an honest exchange -- it is either submission to their position or expulsion (see the plans for the Primates' Meeting).
Prior Aelred,
Berger could be wrong. (I hear Berger is a top expert in his field).
However, the furore over Keith Ellison using the Quran for his swearing-in, the role of the African American Church in politics and the religious fervor of the Latinos makes me doubt whether KJS's statement is relevant to the American context.
If she was referring to the intelligenstia, the West Coast, the East Coast or even England, she is right on target. I cannot reconcile her statements in a land of "War on Christmas", "Jesus Camp", "Purity Balls" and "Integrity Balls".
There is a disconnect somewhere.
Now about the Evangelicals, I suspect it is a two way thing. Evangelicals look down on Progressives and Progressives look down on Evangelicals.
The problem is they are not going anywhere. They are right there in your backyard. It is similar to suggesting that the Nigerian Church should carry on as if Islam does not exist. (And Islam has done much worse things to us than you could ever imagine the Evangelicals doing to you).
Chike,
Although a large percentage of those in the U.S.A. claim to be Christian, (>75%), only around 40% claim to attend church regularly. If you take a look at actual attendance numbers reported by all Christian groups in the U.S., the actual percentage of folks who attend church most Sundays is less than 20%.
A higher percentage of people attend church in the Bible Belt and the rural U.S., but less than half of U.S. citizens attend church each Sunday, even in the more 'pious' regions of the country.
I have commented once before that there seems to be more theological discussion on the "traditionalist" boards than on this board or other "revisionist" boards. However, this string is an exception. I applaud almost all of you, with the very definite exception of Leonardo Ricardo.
I have to agree with FS on the baseness of attacks on Bishop Schori...Phil, how many attacks have you read about Akinola's wardrobe? Or his looks? I must say, and I did, I was brought to tears by a You Tube mockery of ++KJS on Stand Firm titled 'This Christmas...Whom WillKJS Worship?' I still cringe when I think of it, and cannot see who would take pleasure in such mochery...
And, I must agree, this has been great reading...many loving thoughts My contribution is a quote from Verna Do “Jesus came to preach repentance and the church has resorted to moralism.”
Heidi
"I applaud almost all of you, with the very definite exception of Leonardo Ricardo" Scooter
What? Yo? No applause? Dang, darn, durn, jump'n gee hosafats Scoot, what will you have me do? More blame/shame game, scoot?
You mean Scoot that I'm not a "quality" enough Christian for you as you critique the quality at the "theological discussion" at our "revisionist" board? Wow, just when I was feeling so included/sive and sisterly/brotherly loved and learning mucho!
You mean I don't pass religious muster even though I've been listening quietly to some selective scriptural bigoted nonsense my whole life? Egads!
Am I to be cast out by you Scoot and your traditionalist buddies when you drop in (do you guys have a roto or is it just your "time" of the month?) here at Jakes? Will the fear/hatemongers and thieves have no patience for the "like of" me at your "traditionalist" venues that promote slap happy, yet sorta secure feel'n, religious hatred/exclusion toward other human beings?
Scoot, how about "loving me anyway" even though I'm not up to swallowing your nonsense? Bishop Robinson suggests I should love you. Do you love Bishop Robinson and me too? We can have a "love oneanother" thread if you like...I'll give loving you a try.
More importantly, how about praying for all the LGBT people in Uganda and Nigeria who are tormented, outcasts and demonized/demoralized and often murdered by religious zealots? Some twisted "traditionalist" +Anglicans+ in Nigeria and Uganda don't have a clue as to what love actually means but perhaps their "theological discussions" are top notch.
Leonardo the Lion-Hearted,
I absolutely dropped my jaw when that Scooter poster said "except Leonardo."
But--it was wonderful to read your response.
Dude, I got your back.
Harry
I like MadPriest's suggestion that Jesus chose to suffer not to atone to the Father but to teach us, and save us by the teaching. Luke's Gospel suggests something similar -- that Jesus melts our hearts by his death and so puts them right with God. Paul in Galatians shows what it means to be melted by the spectacle of Christ's death -- see Gal. 1.4, 1.20, 3.1, 6.14.
"Let there be light. Let there be light.
In the suffering, let there be kindness and mirth.
Let there be more, let there be more,
Let there be more, let there be more
Than the world’s deep woe.
Let there be peace on the earth" Harry
With a friend like you dear Harry I'm a very honored and SAFE fellow (and lucky as hell)...you're quite the BRAVE Lion Heart yourself!
Now we're talk'n my kind of Church fellowship! Let us hug.
Peace be with you (especially you meanspirited/lightfingered and scared-to-death puritans)!
It's a gorgeous night in Latinoland and I'm going to sleep well again tonight because I love all of you and I love our Episcopal Church tradtion and family where we ALL get "to be"...finally!
Praise to you Lord Christ
"Let there be angels around you, around you.
And peace like the rain from above.
Let there be heaven, let there be heaven,
Let there be heaven, let there be heaven
Before and behind you.
And kindness. And love. And love"
By Harry, bye Harry and to all of you a good noche...happy dreams.
P.S. I love Presiding Bishop Kathariene Jefferts Schori and I love Fr. Jake and Padre Mickey (no squrming allowed) and zillons of other Anglicanos too!
I've always thought Jesus's death and resurrection were necessary because how else could we believe Death has no real power?
As long as we believe in Death's power, rather than God's power ove it, we can't do what is necessary. We are always holding back in what we give. We don't give all, because we think we may lose something.
My problem with the more simplistic understanding of substitution in the sacrifice is that it simply makes Jesus a Marvel superhero, sweeping out of the sky to do it all. The Grace we are given, the Forgiveness is only the beginning. They not only allow us to, but demand that we, go forth and do as He did and greater things, beside.
Well, when it comes to theological discussions, I'm probably in the woodshed w/ Leonardo: I mostly tune out. ;-/ (All of it is SO above my paygrade, and the more I read/hear, the more I want to go "How do you puny human peabrains even BEGIN to think you have a clue? Just break the bread, say the prayers---'79 BCP, natch!---and just let all that theological gobble-dee-gook BE. StandFirm can have it!")
...but then this struck home:
Does it have to be the most henious form imaginable? Is that the point of refusing to see the face of Jesus on those who suffer in the world today? Jesus suffered more?
If so, then I would think crucifixion doesn't fit the bill, in spite of Mel Gibson's gory attempt to prove otherwise. There are plenty of more painful ways to die, although I don't think the degree of suffering has anything to do with it.
You see, I'm dealing w/ my mother's impending demise, and her handling of it (or lack thereof). According to a segment of The Daily Show a couple of months ago (before Saddam's execution, when John Oliver was positing about ways to kill him), she's dying the MOST horrible way, by inches: ALS, aka "Lou Gehrig's disease".
I thought of getting her a crucifix: something (SomeOne) she could share her suffering with . . . but she's gotten even more virulantly anti-RC (regrettably) in her latter years, and suggesting she "offer up" her suffering is a slogan likely to provoke a tirade. Literally, as if she'd see Jesus on the cross, and curse him, because a few HOURS of pain seems so much better to her, than what she's got.
So now, I've been looking at "Jesus Heals the Paralytic" icons (to get for her---there are some nice ones available). However, maybe *it* would prompt more tears of despair, too ("He healed them 2000 years ago, WHY NOT ME???")
I'm still wrestling w/ this (and clearly, this is a theological/theodicy matter---for ME---that I can't just push aside 24/7).
In conclusion, I ask you all for your prayers: for her, for my father, for my brother, and of course, for me.
[And an end to ALS, and all incurable diseases *cough* Stem Cell research *cough*]
Phil,
I’m interested, FS, why are Jesus’ words, taken at face value, not moving in the same way as those of others who have stood strong for the powerless and outcast? Are you saying that from the standpoint of our common confession that He is Lord, or do you think there is something else that distinguishes them? Thank you.
Phil, I find the Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels unique, both in what he says and what he does, how he handles situations, the choices he makes. He was honest, confident, focused, courageous, genuine, and completely lacking in self-interest. There’s no greed, no guile, no pretense, no self-consciousness, no dominance, no laziness -- none of the myriad weaknesses we know in ourselves and others. There’s no hierarchy: he was straightforward, direct, one-on-one with everyone (everyone!) he encountered. His responses are always surprising (at least to me), but when you think about them, you see how egregiously “right” they are, and I say “egregious” because they seem to come from a place that is beyond our common mental and imaginative realm. His parables are mind-boggling: you can peel them and peel them and peel them for truth after truth after truth, and none of the truths are obvious, at least not to simple, corrupted minds like mine, but all have a quality of opening the mind to a realm that is larger than human.
He was not “eloquent” in the same way that MLK was; he wasn’t trying to do that. He wasn’t “fancy;” it wasn’t “about him.” He was interested in getting his ideas across, in telling people what they needed to hear, in opening their minds and souls to the reality of the Kingdom of God. What he says goes deeper than “standing strong for the powerless and outcast,” although that can be logically derived from his major themes. He points to a reality that is quite different from the one we have created for ourselves. In some ways, it’s as if he were from outer space (or maybe inner space); he is qualitatively different from us mortals -- one might say…God from God, true God from true God…
He constantly surprises me. He makes my mind go into standing ovations over and over again. He’s perfect.
And that’s why he’s different.
Father O’Leary – yes, he does indeed melt our hearts!
Grimalkin -- I agree; it's only a beginning.
Leonardo,
You handle these assaults with grace and kindness. God bless you. I’m glad you have friends like Harry and just about everyone who posts here. We all got your back.
JCF, I'm sorry to hear what your mom, and you, are going through. Hard as it is, you can't take her suffering away, but you can be there with her. Just being present, enduring alongside her, listening, caring -- these things seem to help. Often, you can bring Christ to people in this way. He works through us.
You and your family will be in my prayers. Hang in there, JCF.
JCF,
First, my prayers to you and your family. God's Peace to your mother, especially.
Second, I agree. I don't wander out into theology often, and when I do, I precede it with "I think . . . " or "I've come to believe . . ." I've tried to look into Theology (note the capital "T") in the various textbook approaches to systematic theology as well as theological debates at hand in the AC, and I find that it is largely a sort of mental masturbation (pardon the term) to reduce the Unknowable to a fact and avoid living the uncertainty of God's Will.
Bendog,
I checked out this website. Of course, Christians disagree concerning the theory, and precise mechanics of the atonement. No problem there. But, that's all different than saying that the death and resurrection of Jesus was not purposed by God, or had nothing to do with our "salvation."
But, as far as I'm concerned, Bendog, God is calling you to the Christian church. You're totally welcome right next to me in that pew. :) God is faithful!!
Cont. prayer for your mom, J.C. I'm sure your love, and emotional support mean alot even when you can't always find the right words.
Grace.
"Br. William, take your old man Jesus with the stroke and stuff it. Who gives a brass farthing about what kind of death you can identify with?." " I'm sticking with the Creed, the sacraments and prayer. "
Josh - I'm glad you are sticking to the sacraments. As I high Churchman - I would suggest going to confession for being rude. All may, some should, none must. You are in the "some should' category.
Actually, if we don't make Christianity something that modern people can 'identify with' we will not be able to proclaim the Gospel in the 21st century. The old language and symbols don't work on some people. The Church has NEVER declared which atonement 'theory' is official so everyone is free to develop different ways of viewing it in order to understand it better and the Church throughout history has done just that. I was merely suggesting an exercise to use to mentally grasp what God has done for us in the very experiences we encounter has human beings in the 21st century. I'm not rewriting history or belittling the crucifixion. But I like the translation of the Prophets called Isaiah that says "Surely he has born our grief and carried our diseases"
Now - I am sure that if someone's father died of a stroke and had never heard the gospel, they might identify with that 'connection' when trying to explain why God became a human being.
Now - go say 10 Hail Marys and 10 Our Fathers. :)
From Tom:
"Br. William, how would salvation be accomplished without the sacrifice of an innocent victim?"
Thanks Tom for your questions. I am no authority and this is just reflection I have done when pondering the mysteries of our Faith. I don't think this is heresy. I would say that I am quite "orthodox" (although a modern high churchman and I am sure the self proclaimed 'orthodox' would call me a heretic) - I don't have to cross my fingers when I say the creeds but Akinola would still not sit at table with me I bet.
I would say that sacrifice of an innocent victim was accomplished through God becoming human and dying as a human. I think we would agree on this. My idea of sacrifice, however, is not limited to just three hours on the cross before death and the hours following the Last Supper - the mocking, scourging, etc. My idea of Sacrifice of an innocent 'victim' embodies God becoming human from the moment of his conception (thanks to the cooperation of Our Lady) through his last breath he took - the whole 33 years on earth (and 9 months in the womb give or take) - all the pains and joys of living as a human being - from laughter to a belly ache. The vehicle which resulted in the heart of Jesus stopping (clinical death as a human being) doesn't seem to be the limiting reagent for me - its Jesus' entire life and death - the whole package. I am trained in medicine and the advance medical sciences - not theology - so this is how I think. God died as a human being just like we must do - that is the TRUE sacrifice regardless of the manner causing the death. I think by looking at it through other 'ways of dying' can free one to actually see this complete picture - at least for some. Even the ancient animal sacrifices that we draw symbolism from in Christ's crucifixion were done 'humanely' - not a long drawn out painful death where the animal was tortured for three hours. A unblemished Lamb was sacrificed through a simple slit of the throat - quickly and as pain free as possible. (I am no authority on ancient Jewish animal sacrifice but someone tell me if I am wrong here).
"The idea that Death would be conquered if Jesus died in his sleep of a stroke is simply nonsense to me. "
I would agree that would be nonsense along with you... But that is not the complete story is it? - Jesus rose on the third day. I would say that Jesus dying specifically as a result of being on the cross didn't destroy death - Jesus dying (heart stop beating - clinical death) and then Rising destroyed death - God got the last 'word'.
Isn't there greater profit in struggling with the historic teaching rather than creating your own story because you are uncomfortable or because you can't envision His crucifixion?"
I am not creating my own story - I am creating a mental exercise to perhaps help some people who can't identify with the crucifixion. I am actually comfortable with the crucifixion and can appreciate all the atonement theories - there is not ONE HISTORIC TEACHING - there are several to work with here. Some work for one may not work for another. It is actually struggling (or I would say pondering this great mystery) that has allowed me to enjoy looking at it from a different angle.
Some like to see Christ taking on all the sin of the world upon the cross. I like to ponder that on the cross he took upon himself all manners by which we human beings have to die (which symbolically is the result of human sin) and then conquered them through his rising to life. "Surely he has born our grief and carried our diseases"
Bendog wrote: "WG, a question, and I hope you'll be honest rather than merely insulting to others whom you consider not worthy."
Boy, Bendog, you really know how to draw someone into a conversation. For the record, I am always honest and I am never insulting and I consider all persons worthy. I think you have me confused with someone else. Can I get a witness?
As for the question about the necessity of Christ's death, I really don't spend much thought on it. All I know is that I was lost but now am found, I was blind but now I see. That my friend (seriously stated), is the power of grace and it is available to all of us.
I feel another tune comin' on. When I survey...
JCFisher,
Someone I admire once said that "Prudence is rational concern without worry."
I believe your continued humility rather than any bravado will see you through your crisis with your Mom dear JC...that's how it works for me when faced with adversity (even though I don't get humble usually until I'm completely powerless to take ANY action except acceptance)...when I see ghastily fear/pain happening in others and I have no "control" over helping or changing outcomes I must sit quietly and await Gods "will" to be revealed...not only for the *other* but also revealed before me...often it's in the "not doing" that I realize exactly how "rightsized" I am as a human being while noting my heart and positive wish to help and love *others* is in the right place.
Letting "nature take its course" through Gods "will" is a huge thing to behold for ALL of us..."the beloved"...you are loved.
WG, you don't cosider this insulting?
Since we Episcopalians (I think there are some here) do our theology in our liturgy, I offer you-
----
I've never read the rites to indicate blood atonement was necessary, or that mankind was predestined to kill Jesus. I guess the question becomes, do you or Grace feel a need to toss out the rest of us who have never believed in a blood atonement and who have never viewed the Bible either as inerrent or a literal history? It appears so from the above quote.
If through my inability to navigate haloscan I incorrectly attributed that quote to you, I apologize.
Harry wrote, "I absolutely dropped my jaw when that Scooter poster said "except Leonardo." But--it was wonderful to read your response. Dude, I got your back."
He ain't the only one, either. Anyone wants to give Leonardo, my cousin Reed, the lesbian couple at my parish who's baby was baptized the same day as ours, or any of my LGBT brothers & sisters in Christ, grief or harm is gonna have to come through me first.
FS – I do think that, if His followers had not been absolutely convinced in Jesus’ divine nature and his real death and resurrection, we wouldn’t even know much of what Jesus said. At the same time, yes, I agree with you that there is something unique to His teachings – unsurprisingly, in hindsight! I appreciate your thoughts.
JCF – I am so sorry for what your mother and your family are enduring. My family struggled with the loss of my grandfather to Alzheimer’s, and, truly, these types of diseases are such cruel ways for life to end. What is disturbing is how dehumanizing this can be . . . may God grant all of you the strength to persevere and to always remember to love in spite of the frustration. I will be praying for you and your family, my brother.
JCF,
Leonardo said it better above, but my prayers go up for you, too. I'll light a candle for your family next time I'm at church...
Almighty God, look with pity upon the sorrows of your servants for whom we pray. Remember them, Lord, in your mercy; nourish them with patience; comfort them with a sense of your goodness; lift up your countenance upon them; and give them peace; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. (BCP, 1979)
Bendog,
I'm just not seeing the insult there. Please elaborate. Thanks.
Hey JCF:
Hugs.
My parents are quite elderly, and I know how difficult they can be and how painful it can be to witness just the "normal" decline of age. THis is much worse and must be incredibly hard for you and also for your mom, who is raging, raging against the close of day. I will keep you and your mom in my thoughts. I may be in your shoes myself soon.
Please know that on the basic research side, we're all doing our bit for human health, one little step at a time, though it has gotten very very hard with the massive budget cuts in research funding and political attacks on science.
I apologize. It can be taken two ways: those of the more liberal persuasion have ceased being episcopalian, which is the "reasserter" view, or there are not many episcopalians among those posting comments. I read it as the former, but I was surprised.
I apologize. It can be taken two ways: those of the more liberal persuasion have ceased being episcopalian, which is the "reasserter" view, or there are not many episcopalians among those posting comments. I read it as the former, but I was surprised as I didn't expect it.
btw, Fr. Jake's referenced on the stand firm site.
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/...e/article/2043/
They seem to be anticipating a 2nd American province, one way or another.
FS – I do think that, if His followers had not been absolutely convinced in Jesus’ divine nature and his real death and resurrection, we wouldn’t even know much of what Jesus said.
Phil, there were many who recognized his divine nature prior to his crucifixion. We have the conception/ birth stories of course, but they do not carry the quality of witness we are looking for. Then there is John the Baptist, and, of course, God at his baptism. Bringing it down to people like you and me, at the commencement of his ministry, regular folk took notice that he was different: he “taught with authority” (unlike the scribes who merely taught the Law of Moses). See Mk 1:22. This is worth pondering. Then, astoundingly, "evil spirits" were able to take his full measure instantly (Mk 1:24, 34). We read that common people, his disciples and others, dropped what they were doing, left their families, and followed him. Crowds followed him; he had to teach from a boat at one point because of the immensity of the crowds. By the time he was crucified, Jesus had made his impact. People's lives had been changed, the religious authorities were (quite properly) threatened, even Rome was concerned. After his death, his deeds and sayings circulated orally, were transcribed onto parchment (Q, Mark, Matthew, Luke) and his meaning in the world was beginning to be seriously pondered (John, Paul, James, Peter, etc.). After death, he came to Paul, as he has come to many throughout the ages.
He really was God’s gift to the world, and he really was of God. This was apparent in everything he said and did prior to (and after) his crucifixion. His behavior during his crucifixion was 100% “him,” and so was his resurrection. But I must say, those who base their faith (and worse, their interest) in him solely on the crucifixion/ resurrection aspect are missing a big part (I would say, the major part) of Jesus.
Thanks for the link, Bendog. This part :
Father Jake is the latest to get his knickers in a twist over the notion that Katharine Schori might not be walking into a primates' meeting where all is sunshine and lollipops, but it's a common theme among the Episcopal left.
especially disgusted me. Their arrogance, their lust for power and their readiness to abuse it are so very apparent, even down to their tone and imagery. I hope KJS knows what kind of people she’s dealing with. Give them an inch and they’ll turn it into a club to use against you. She’s the one who will need to “stand firm.”
Bendog,
I don't know if Jake has done a statistical analysis of his commenters but there are definitely non-TEC-ers among us (not that there is anthing wrong with that; hey some of my closest friends are non-TEC-ers) and I didn't want to sound like I was ASSUMING that everyone here was (esp. since I know that some are not). Nothing further intended. I was trying to decide if you were disagreeing with my comment that we do our theology in our liturgy. I think it is clear we do so it was appropriate to bring in examples of our liturgy and let it speak for itself. I think that is one of the greater attributes of TEC.
Oh, and thanks for the apology.
Well, I am genuinely sorry for misreading, esp because you don't seem "the type" to take one of the typical "reasserter" swipes, as stand firm so regularly does.
One of the wonderful things about the liturgy is that it's beautiful language does not necessarily pigeon hole us into theological pigeon holes. We've got the Nicene Creed in which some of us do small cringes over the virgin birth angle, but that's about it. As for the 39 articles .... I tried reading them in their original English wording, and I've never really been the same.
bendog,
If you read Stand Firm enough, you'll see that I frequently take swipes at my fellow conservatives. I'm an equal opportunity critic. Way back when, in the early days of blogging, I think Pisco Sours and I helped create some term for the drive-by swipes that drive us all crazy, playing on the Molotov cocktail idea. I can't remember it now.
And of course I agree with your comment about the liturgy, but remember that words do have meaning and there is a limit to the elasticity of our liturgy. Somewhere there is a happy medium between "it has to mean X" and "it can mean anything you want it to mean."
Well, I think we've exhausted this thread. Peace.
Bendog,
I don't think anyone should be tossed from the Christian church no matter what. Prayers for you, Bendog.
Grace.
IT wrote: "Chike: my relationship in no way imperils anyone else's marriage. I approve of marriage so much I want one. So leave of the "protection of marriage" stuff. No one's marriage is endangered by my relationship. But they sure want to imperil my relationship."
Yes. Yes. Yes. "Protection of Marriage" laws/constitutional amendments... such proponants should possibly consider outlawing divorce, the existence of which certainly is not protective of marriage. Oh, yeah, then there's that pesky act of adultery... back to stoning? (And who shall cast the first stone?)
If anything, the marriage of two people, whether sanctioned by church and/or state or not, is, ideally, iconic in that within the love shared by two one can catch a glimpse of the love of God in Christ.
At least that's what I preach at weddings...
Nice site. Thanks!!!
http://www.freewebtown.com/weddi...ng-
dresses.html maggie sottero wedding dresses
http://www.freewebtown.com/weddi...ng-
dresses.html wedding gown wedding dresses
http://www.freewebtown.com/weddi...-a-
wedding.html dresses for a wedding
http://www.freewebtown.com/weddi...ng-
dresses.html beautiful wedding dresses
http://www.freewebtown.com/weddi...ng-
dresses.html ivory wedding dresses
http://www.freewebtown.com/weddi...ng-
dresses.html destination wedding dresses
http://www.freewebtown.com/weddi...ng-
dresses.html wedding wedding dresses
http://www.freewebtown.com/weddi...es-size-
16.html wedding dresses size 16
http://www.freewebtown.com/weddi...ng-
dresses.html wholesale wedding dresses
http://www.freewebtown.com/weddi...ng-
dresses.html demetrios wedding dresses
Nice site. Thanks!!!
http://www.freewebtown.com/weddi...ng-
dresses.html maggie sottero wedding dresses
http://www.freewebtown.com/weddi...ng-
dresses.html wedding gown wedding dresses
http://www.freewebtown.com/weddi...-a-
wedding.html dresses for a wedding
http://www.freewebtown.com/weddi...ng-
dresses.html beautiful wedding dresses
http://www.freewebtown.com/weddi...ng-
dresses.html ivory wedding dresses
http://www.freewebtown.com/weddi...ng-
dresses.html destination wedding dresses
http://www.freewebtown.com/weddi...ng-
dresses.html wedding wedding dresses
http://www.freewebtown.com/weddi...es-size-
16.html wedding dresses size 16
http://www.freewebtown.com/weddi...ng-
dresses.html wholesale wedding dresses
http://www.freewebtown.com/weddi...ng-
dresses.html demetrios wedding dresses
Very good site. Thanks.
http://www.freewebtown.com/spora...a-
sporanox.html acetyl glucosamine vulva sporanox
http://www.freewebtown.com/spora...uid-
online.html buy sporanox liquid online
http://www.freewebtown.com/
spora...suspension.html sporanox suspension
http://www.freewebtown.com/spora...n-
sporanox.html janssen sporanox
http://www.freewebtown.com/spora...s-
sporanox.html prescription drugs sporanox
http://www.freewebtown.com/
spora...raconazole.html sporanox itraconazole
http://www.freewebtown.com/spora...vs-
lamisil.html sporanox vs lamisil
http://www.freewebtown.com/spora...nox-
mexico.html sporanox mexico
http://www.freewebtown.com/spora...n-
sporanox.html vulvar burning non albican sporanox
http://www.freewebtown.com/spora...f-
sporanox.html side effects of sporanox
Commenting by HaloScan
