|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: ECUSA vs. The C of E
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
Callen's citation of Dryden is exactly on point, and consistent with the (so I thought) usual orthodox understanding of salvation through Christ. Christ is the Way, Truth, and Life and no one is saved except through him. One can only be saved through Him, and He may (not, necessarily will) save those who do not share explicit faith in Him if He so chooses.
Unfortunately, the battle lines seem to be drawn between those who believe that an explicit decision of faith in Christ is necessary (and sometimes sufficient) for salvation versus those who believe that Christ saves Christians, but others are saved and Christ has little or nothing to do with it - assuming that they even believe that there is sin and eternal death from which one is to be "saved," which usually, so it seems, they do not.
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Attitudes to Scripture. It's only from ECUSAns that I've ever heard a literalistic version of the 'three-legged stool' analogy attributed to Hooker. Most Anglicans elsewhere know that Scripture is the primary means of doing theology with the use of reason and tradition. The idea that reason and tradition are somehow on a par with Bible is a peculiarly liberal piece of nonsense - and since TEC is the most liberal church in the Anglican Communion it is more commonly found there.
I think a fruit machine epistemology whereby if the three answers delivered by the three wheels are different the one that turns up in the reel marked 'reason' or indeed 'scripture' automatically trumps the other is pretty deficient. Certainly the notion that tradition is on a par with scripture is liberal is one that would surprise most Catholics and Orthodox who, IIRC, maintain that Scripture is part of Tradition and think that it is bad practice to oppose them. More generally Scripture is inert until we read it, pray through it and engage with it and to do that we need reason. Reason, to quote Hildegard Von Bingen is the root through which the resonant word flourishes. A rational belief is one which one has reasonable grounds to believe is based on true propositions and valid arguments. Should one really, if one holds such a belief, abandon it in favour of an interpretation of Scripture? Not according to those well known enlightenment liberals Tertullian, Augustine, Aquinas and Pascal. In such a circumstance one should, I think, double check the propositions and arguments whilst re-engaging with Scripture to see if one has misinterpreted it.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
There are some wonderful posts here from Callan, Laura, RuthW and others. Thank you all for putting it so well.
I believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that no one comes to the Father but by him. I don't think we're qualified to state exactly whom he brings or how he brings them.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Guys, I think we must make clear to everybody throughout the world that their lives are not devalued if they are not living in the Kingdom, and also that if a Judgment takes place beliefs will not be valued against anybody, but, at the same time we should be clear that through Jesus we can enter the Kingdom right now and that despite the errors and dangers of the Christian religion we can enter the Kingdom right here right now through Jesus. But in order to be able to do so, we have to live the Kingdom ourselves, and here's where it gets tough. Frankness and openness is the way for us to go and not repeating fossilized expressions of faith that do not help even us enter the Kingdom.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siena
Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574
|
Posted
Sign me up as another member of TEC who believes that Christ is the the way to salvation, period, and He may save whichever sheep are not of his fold He desires. Which, as JArthurCrank points out, is a fairly orthodox view.
Custard, does that belief pass muster for your ordination threshold? Not asking to be a smart-aleck, I'm genuinely interested.
--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson
Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I'm going to be quite happy to lay into TEC tomorrow but only after tonight I've acknowledged its clear points of superiority over the Church of England.
[...]
5. Those of us who disagree with some of TEC's decisions, should take note of the fact that at least their wrongheadedness is motivated by a desire for justice and compassion. We should show more grace in return.
Awwww, Spawn, you big sweetie pie. Come have some of the Rector's Fund cookies. ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JArthurCrank:
Callen's citation of Dryden is exactly on point, and consistent with the (so I thought) usual orthodox understanding of salvation through Christ. Christ is the Way, Truth, and Life and no one is saved except through him. One can only be saved through Him, and He may (not, necessarily will) save those who do not share explicit faith in Him if He so chooses.
Unfortunately, the battle lines seem to be drawn between those who believe that an explicit decision of faith in Christ is necessary (and sometimes sufficient) for salvation versus those who believe that Christ saves Christians, but others are saved and Christ has little or nothing to do with it - assuming that they even believe that there is sin and eternal death from which one is to be "saved," which usually, so it seems, they do not.
I agree -- Jesus is the Way. It would be extremely presumptuous of me to say who he finds suitable. But it is certainly not sufficient to believe -- Jesus said that not every one who says "Lord, Lord" will be acceptable.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Callan, you've put it very well and in particular debunking the notion that putting Tradition on a par with Scripture is somehow 'liberal' ( ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) ). Where I part company with your analysis (unsurprisingly you may think ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) is your assertion that Scripture doesn't 'trump' the other two. As a (mainly) GLE (should that be 'BLE'?) that undermines my belief in the supremacy of Scripture and, may I be so bold to suggest, is not quite on all fours with the 30 Arts...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Is it really exactly that simple? I'd pose the question this way:
Is Jesus Christ the Way the Truth and the Light?
No doubt about it! I believe he is indeed and that no one comes to the Father except by him. But -how - that is isn't a simple equation in my mind. It's a mystery.
Too loosey goosey for you?
I'd prefer "The Way, the Truth and the Life" personally.
My impression, from what I've heard of her, is that KJS would disagree.
I think that the Light/life part is probably a typo, but the point is surely moot. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and also the Light of the world. It might not be the usual juxtaposition of Claims, but it's surely hardly heretical, so I don't realy understand your beef. I don't know whether KJS is universalist or not, but holding uniiversalist beliefs is hardly, in and of itself, inherently heretical or unscriptural, and is certainly not logically inconsistant with believing that salvation is only possible because of the atoneing work of Jesus.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Certainly the notion that tradition is on a par with scripture is liberal is one that would surprise most Catholics and Orthodox who, IIRC, maintain that Scripture is part of Tradition and think that it is bad practice to oppose them.
You're quite right, I wasn't addressing anything other than certain liberal views of the three-legged stool, and thus what I said was open to misunderstanding.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I think the whole notion of anything trumping anything else is flawed. Think Darwin. Think Galileo. If reason and scripture appear to be in conflict the answer is not to announce that scripture trumps reason, it is to re-examine both scripture and reason and tradition until they are drawn into alignment. If scripture is true it cannot, by definition, be in conflict with reason. It was one of the merits of Pope Benedict's Regensburg address that he pointed out that rationality is at the heart of the Christian faith. It is not a matter of having a magic book that dropped out of the sky (some editions with Apocrypha and some not) which we blindly adhere to, but possessing the teaching of the Holy Apostles and their Israelite predecessors and faithfully endeavouring to reinterpret it afresh for each generation in the light of contemporary knowledge.
None of which is contrary to the Articles of Religion. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
[In response to Matt Black.]
[ 11. January 2007, 09:16: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
But human reasoning is flawed...nevertheless I'm minded (with my flawed reasoning!) to concede your point
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Human reasoning is not flawed. It is limited. Two different things. Now, the way some people interpret the scriptures... that's what I call flawed!
For example, to say that the world is a few billion years old is not flawed human reasoning. To say that the world changed and death and pain were added when the first man sinned, now that's a human mistake. To say that God's honor demanded for the Son to be crucified, that's a flawed interpretation of scriptures.
Me thinks that some people cannot yet accept that their bibles contain mistakes and that their interpretations contain flaws. And that's a pity, because in many cases that leads to a lot of misery instead of the Holy Spirit's refreshment.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
I agree -- Jesus is the Way. It would be extremely presumptuous of me to say who he finds suitable. But it is certainly not sufficient to believe -- Jesus said that not every one who says "Lord, Lord" will be acceptable.
I concur. Nor is it especially easy to be clear exactly what kind of faith is required - I like reminding people of the thief on the cross and the haemmorrhaging woman as examples that show we cannot draw a clear line as to whether specific individuals are saved or not.
On the other hand, it is very clear in all the gospels that some are in and some are out and I really don't see how they can lead to a universalistic interpretation of the gospels as a whole or of the large number of verses within them that maintain the distinction.
I believe this is a quote from an interview with KJS by Robin Young on NPR's Here and Now...
quote:
RY: TIME asked you an interesting question, we thought, “Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven?” And your answer, equally interesting, you said “We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box.” And I read that and I said “What are you: a Unitarian?!?” [laughs]
What are you– that is another concern for people, because, they say Scripture says that Jesus says he was The Light and The Way and the only way to God the Father.
KJS: Christians understand that Jesus is the route to God. Umm– that is not to say that Muslims, or Sikhs, or Jains, come to God in a radically different way. They come to God through… human experience.. through human experience of the divine. Christians talk about that in terms of Jesus.
RY: So you’re saying there are other ways to God.
KJS: Uhh… human communities have always searched for relationship that which is beyond them.. with the ultimate.. with the divine. For Christians, we say that our route to God is through Jesus. Uhh.. uh.. that doesn’t mean that a Hindu.. uh.. doesn’t experience God except through Jesus. It-it-it says that Hindus and people of other faith traditions approach God through their.. own cultural contexts; they relate to God, they experience God in human relationships, as well as ones that transcend human relationships; and Christians would say those are our experiences of Jesus; of God through the experience of Jesus.
RY: It sounds like you’re saying it’s a parallel reality, but in another culture and language.
KJS: I think that’s accurate.. I think that’s accurate.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
No, Andreas, I cannot accept that human reasoning is merely 'limited'; "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", and our critical faculties reflect that reality, as is borne out by the experience of history - the reasoning of Hitler and Stalin was not just 'limited', it was deeply, deeply flawed.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
A core component of rationality is: "I may be wrong and you may be right and by an effort we may attain to the truth". I don't think that attitude was particularly marked in the cases of Hitler and Stalin.
Any given person may reason in a flawed way but there are well known damage limitation strategies which can be used to ensure that flaws are not fatal. Reason may be limited and even flawed but it is not impotent. I think that there are truths of revelation that are beyond the scope of reason - the Trinity, the Incarnation, Holy Charity as the crown of all things - but when they are presented to reason, reason assents gladly*. They are mysterious but not irrational.
*Yes Dave, I know you disagree. Can we treat this as an intra-Christian argument on this thread please?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Matt Black
Well, if you think that a world-changing fall really happened, then you have to prove it. You see, the scriptures are not enough, because science proved them mistaken. If you don't like that, then it is up to you to prove what you claim. You cannot point us to a few verses in Paul. Can you show that this change happened? Because scientists show that no world-changing effect took place while the first humanoids lived. Prove your claims.
I am amazed you attribute reason to people like Hitler and Stalin. I am really amazed. On the contrary, they did not use logic to prove their claims. They appealed to people's emotions and they took power and misused it according to their own hearts. Where's reason in saying that the Hebrew people are to blame for poverty? Where's reason in saying that religion is to be exterminated? Where's reason in killing those who personally oppose you?
To say that reason is limited and we can experience God in ways that transcend reason is one thing, but saying that "human" reason is flawed (as if there exists another kind of reason, a non-human one) is, well, a mistake.
[ 11. January 2007, 11:20: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Ah, but Hitler and Stalin did use logic, a very terrible form of logic, albeit logic built upon a flawed/ false premise...hence examples of flawed human reasoning.
As to science 'proving' or 'disproving', I would retort with the 'state of the art' argument: what science says is 'truth' can and does change from time to time based on the nature and extent of information available to the scientist at any given time (eg: last week tea is very good for you, this week it gives you cancer etc), and I am therefore very wary of seeking to ascribe any kind of absolute or empirical empistemological value to its conclusions.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
quote:
I believe this is a quote from an interview with KJS by Robin Young on NPR's Here and Now...
RY: TIME asked you an interesting question, we thought, “Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven?” And your answer, equally interesting, you said “We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box.” And I read that and I said “What are you: a Unitarian?!?” [laughs]
What are you– that is another concern for people, because, they say Scripture says that Jesus says he was The Light and The Way and the only way to God the Father.
KJS: Christians understand that Jesus is the route to God. Umm– that is not to say that Muslims, or Sikhs, or Jains, come to God in a radically different way. They come to God through… human experience.. through human experience of the divine. Christians talk about that in terms of Jesus.
RY: So you’re saying there are other ways to God.
KJS: Uhh… human communities have always searched for relationship that which is beyond them.. with the ultimate.. with the divine. For Christians, we say that our route to God is through Jesus. Uhh.. uh.. that doesn’t mean that a Hindu.. uh.. doesn’t experience God except through Jesus. It-it-it says that Hindus and people of other faith traditions approach God through their.. own cultural contexts; they relate to God, they experience God in human relationships, as well as ones that transcend human relationships; and Christians would say those are our experiences of Jesus; of God through the experience of Jesus.
RY: It sounds like you’re saying it’s a parallel reality, but in another culture and language.
KJS: I think that’s accurate.. I think that’s accurate.
And your problem with this is exactly?
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Matt, your post is unreasonable. When we have evidence that dinosaurs who ate other animals alive existed long before man, this is empirical evidence that cannot change even if additional information gets revealed in the future. You have to account for the fact that death did not enter creation with Adam. You have to account for the fact that the first Christians e.g. believed that the End (tm) was imminent within their generation and that Paul himself thinks that he would be alive when that happened.
Blind faith is the problem, both with religious fundamentalists and with people like Hitler and the people that supported him. Hitler had faith that the Jews are bad and that he is the Savior of the German people. The people had faith in him. Reason was not used.
[ 11. January 2007, 11:30: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I mentioned nothing about dinosaurs ![[Confused]](confused.gif) Where do you get that from?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Matt, I do not know your background in science but it is to belittle science if you think that the caricature "last week tea is very good for you, this week it gives you cancer" is true. Modern science is not like that, precisely because it is based on reason along with empirical evidence. It can be something like "last week tea has excellent effect on man's health, but we do not have conclusive evidence whether it is responsible for some kinds of cancer or not, and next week tea has excellent effect on man's health, but it can also be the cause for some kinds of cancer with probabilities so and so, and we can be mistaken about that with a margin of error so and so" but this is not what you are portraying science to be.
When empirical evidence along with reason disprove religious claims, then it is the religious claims that have to change. You cannot still accept Paul's opinion on the Fall, when we now know that death did not enter creation with Adam.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
*Yes Dave, I know you disagree. Can we treat this as an intra-Christian argument on this thread please?
Er, what? Oh, OK.
I'll just agree with KJS and Andreas (clearly extra-Christian).
[ 11. January 2007, 11:52: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Andreas, I have had no scientific background since leaving school some 20 or so years ago, I have no wish to 'belittle' science and I will gladly defer to the scientists here, but I believe my epistemological point re: purported scientific conclusions still stands: either drinking tea has health benefits or it doesn't, and science can't seem to make up its mind on the subject...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I think Andreas is adverting to his oft made point that traditional narratives about the Fall and Original Sin cannot be historically true because we know that Genesis is not a description of a historical event.
Now whatever the current scientific position on tea drinking I don't think that a load of scientists are going to turn up at a press conference any time soon announcing that the theory of evolution has been declared redundant. Whist science is, undoubtedly, a work in progress in practice we can take large parts of it for granted. It would be highly unwise to take a headline in the Times about the medicinal benefits of red wine and use it to base a strong belief about anything but we can pretty much take the theory of evolution or relativity for granted.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Science making up its mind is an anthropomorphism. My point is that science IS NOT like that.
I think it was the Dalai Lama who said that if science and Buddhism disagree, then Buddhism will have to change so that it agrees with science. I find it amazing that many Christians do not even dare to think that some Christian "truths" might be mistaken. We need more enlightened people like the Dalai Lama, because it is these people that give meaning and joy in our lives, while those who repeat fossilized "truths" usually bring misery and internal conflicts.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
Thanks to Jolly Jape for pointing out my hastily made typo. The brain is on overload right now. What is important to me is that there be no doubt that Jesus is the unique Saviour for all humankind. Just who gets to the Father by him, through him and in what way, is to me unimportant.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
How did we get back onto this?
Its all irrelevant to the original posting.
Anyway (1) plenty of conservative evangelcals - almost all I suspect - would be quite hapy to sign up to the idea that only God knows who he chooses to save. And some of them might even like Dryden (though the'd mostly prefer his old mates Milton and Marvell - the three of them marched together behind Cromwells coffin at his funeral...) But they'd also say that that doesn't let them off the hook as far as preaching Christ to the whole world is concerned.
And (2) at least a large minority of evangelicals are universalists, or almost so (& I suspect a considerable majority of Chruch of England clergy in general)
And (3) whatever Anderas says, ercognising tht the universe is billions of yeaars old has no logical bearing whatsoever on whether we are fallen. Either could be true without the other. You don't need to be a Yeccie to believe in the Fall. And you can be a Yeccie without beliving in the Fall. There are loads of people in all four quadrants of that question.
So even if the supposed differences between CofE and ECUSA were really just reflections of an evangelical/liberal split over Scripture (& I don't think they are) the last 20 or 30 posts would be irrelevant to the question because I the issues addrresed are not the ones that divide.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Now whatever the current scientific position on tea drinking I don't think that a load of scientists are going to turn up at a press conference any time soon announcing that the theory of evolution has been declared redundant.
For what it's worth, tea is known to be good for you in most cases, but it has recently been demonstrated that this good is negated if it is drunk with millk... so this actually represents an ongoing refinement of knowledge without any obvious errors.
... although one can find plenty of other examples where research has invalidated previous assumptions. As Callan says, most scientists would be mildly surprised to see evolution by natural selection a la Darwin fall into this category.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
<snip>it has recently been demonstrated that this good is negated if it is drunk with millk
Well, possibly. Which was kind of my point; although this news was trumpeted as a great scientific discovery early in the week there were very quickly dissenting voices raised claiming that the reseach sample was too small etc. Nothing of any import has been said which Joe Public can actually rely upon.
Callan and Andreas, point taken re the fossil record/ evolution etc, but I would refer you in turn to the point which Ken has just made: just because there wasn't an historic Fall a la Gen 3 doesn't mean that mankind - and our reasoning - isn't fallen and flawed.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
I hear Dead Horses.
Please leave discussions that belong there out of this thread.
John Holding
Purgatory Host
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Sorry, Boss.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Anyway, back to ECUSA. I'm not sure what KJS means by:
quote:
RY: So you’re saying there are other ways to God.
KJS: Uhh… human communities have always searched for relationship that which is beyond them.. with the ultimate.. with the divine. For Christians, we say that our route to God is through Jesus. Uhh.. uh.. that doesn’t mean that a Hindu.. uh.. doesn’t experience God except through Jesus. It-it-it says that Hindus and people of other faith traditions approach God through their.. own cultural contexts; they relate to God, they experience God in human relationships, as well as ones that transcend human relationships; and Christians would say those are our experiences of Jesus; of God through the experience of Jesus.
RY: It sounds like you’re saying it’s a parallel reality, but in another culture and language.
KJS: I think that’s accurate.. I think that’s accurate.
If she is saying that divine grace may be operative in other, non-Christian, cultures then I think that is perfectly defensible. If she's saying that Krishna is every bit a path to God as Jesus Christ, then my sympathies are with Custard. I think she's saying the former but it's not terribly clear. Judging by the umming and aahing I think she knew she was on dangerous terrain. Nerves can be fatal to clarity.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I know that if it eventually comes down to a choice between being in communion with the lesbian and gay people in the pew with me in my parish or being in communion with Rowan Williams or Pete Broadbent or anyone else eight time zones away from me, I'm going to go with the folks in my parish. Some might call this a congregationalist attitude, and if so, so be it; I call it loving my neighbor. I trust our parish priest, and I trust our diocesan bishop, but I don't know people beyond that, and honestly, my loyalties don't go further than the diocese of Los Angeles.
And I thought Los Angeles was kind of a cosmopolitan place.
Seriously though, are there not people on all sides of all these questions in your diocese, or even in your parish? There are in ours. Which is one reason lots of us here have been trying to keep the thing together.
And keeping it together is difficult. The church of the parish I live in (not the one I usually attend worship in) is one of the HQs of "Forward in Faith" and its vicar is prominent in pushing for the probably unworkable Third Province. Our own parish is now part of a team ministry with three churches in it. One famously liberal for decades, mostly white and middle-class, that has signed the Inclusive Church declaration. One very small congergation with a rather working-class conservative evangelical background. And one rather larger, once conservative evangelical then more charismatic, now considering itself "open evangelical" with a long-lasting commitment to the ordained ministry of women, whose congregation is now almost entirely African. So the splits in the Anglican communion literally run down our street.
But none of us could say "my loyalties don't go further than the diocese of Southwark". Local loyalties are inextricably mixed up with international ties. Our own church has members from, as well as England, at least Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Cameroon, Togo, Uganda, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Jamaica, Barbados, Guyana, Germany, Spain, India and China. And we have recently had individuals from, all sorts of other places including Trinidad, Zambia, Rwanda, Tanzania, Poland, Hungary, Ireland, Armenia, Pakistan, Korea, Japan - and also Canada and the USA.
I had a sort of "which side are you on" moment last summer, at a wedding which was celebrated at our church. If there was some sort of international redivision of the Anglican Communion with the Nigerians on once side and some of the othrs on another I realised I would probably want our church (that is both our parish and the Church of England) to be in the same camp as the Nigerians.
Of course I was in a room with about four hundred Nigerians who seemed to be having all sorts of fun at the time, so I was probably biased.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jerusalemcross
Shipmate
# 12179
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Do us CofE folk think that Jesus is the only way to God / salvation?
Well, I do.
And my personal opinion is that no-one who disagrees should be ordained.
Hmmm. Better not come further south then - or north or west or east. You might find that there are an awful lot of clergy (among others, and ordinands, too)preaching that J is not "the only" way to God / salvation - but he most definitely is the Way for Christians. Are you then saying that anyone not Christian will never be reunited to God? How sad.
--------------------
What's the difference between an organist and a terrorist? You can negotiate with a terrorist.
Posts: 305 | From: somewhere west of Eden | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Anyway (1) plenty of conservative evangelcals - almost all I suspect - would be quite hapy to sign up to the idea that only God knows who he chooses to save. And some of them might even like Dryden (though the'd mostly prefer his old mates Milton and Marvell - the three of them marched together behind Cromwells coffin at his funeral...) But they'd also say that that doesn't let them off the hook as far as preaching Christ to the whole world is concerned.
And I as a liberal agree completely about preaching Christ to the whole world. For me the difference would come in saying how we should preach Christ -- sending missionaries to predominantly Muslim countries to say, "Hey, you're missing the Christological boat, and you'll burn in hell for it" doesn't seem like a good idea to me. (And before anyone goes off on me, that's a caricature used to make a point.)
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Hmmm...I think I prefer Callan's nuance on the issue.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
So, Ken, is this "the side" you want to be on?
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jerusalemcross
Shipmate
# 12179
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I had a sort of "which side are you on" moment last summer, at a wedding which was celebrated at our church. If there was some sort of international redivision of the Anglican Communion with the Nigerians on once side and some of the othrs on another I realised I would probably want our church (that is both our parish and the Church of England) to be in the same camp as the Nigerians.
Recriminalising homosexuality, no doubt (with appropriate penalties like death) , barring remarried divorced people from church on the basis that they are living in adultery, and insisting on a dogmatic belief in the infallibility of the literal words of the Bible...? But which version of the Bible, I wonder?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
What's the difference between an organist and a terrorist? You can negotiate with a terrorist.
Posts: 305 | From: somewhere west of Eden | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
If you think that is all there is the the church in Nigeria or Kenya, or even that they think it vey important, you are very mistaken.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jerusalemcross:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I had a sort of "which side are you on" moment last summer, at a wedding which was celebrated at our church. If there was some sort of international redivision of the Anglican Communion with the Nigerians on once side and some of the othrs on another I realised I would probably want our church (that is both our parish and the Church of England) to be in the same camp as the Nigerians.
Recriminalising homosexuality, no doubt (with appropriate penalties like death) , barring remarried divorced people from church on the basis that they are living in adultery, and insisting on a dogmatic belief in the infallibility of the literal words of the Bible...? But which version of the Bible, I wonder?
If they want to go back to literal biblical morality, they should not just bar adulterers, they should stone them to death - and also any children who are rude to their parents.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If you think that is all there is the the church in Nigeria or Kenya, or even that they think it very important, you are very mistaken.
Ken---if they don't think those things are so important, why is their Primate angling to get TEC kicked out of the Anglican Communion?
Maybe the Nigerians/Kenyans/etc. in the pews don't care what TEC does---if so, they need to call their attack-dog-archbishops to heel.
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
Their Primate thinks that it's a Communion-dividing issue. If this is how he responds to things that aren't very important to him, I'd hate to see how he'd respond to something that was.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
Thank you - it's been a useful and educative discussion. Perhaps my phrase "governing assumptions" didn't help - "plausibility structure" might work better.
If a denomination has a predominantly liberal ethos, then it provides a plausibility structure for liberalism. If a denomination has a predominantly conservative ethos...
Spawn's comments about attitudes to scripture and the teaching role of bishops on page 2 of the thread seem to me to be good examples of how the liberal ECUSA and conservative CofE plausibility structures are created. (For example, you can't -for better or worse - produce any report on church or world topics that goes to the CofE General Synod unless it has a an explicit chapter or more on the biblical/theological basis for the approach you are advocating, and [in many cases] unless it's been through the HoB before it goes to Synod. It's a particular way of doing things - and it may well be seen as a ridiculous comfort blanket to placate catholics and evangelicals, but it's our way of operating).
The question about any denomination for most evangelicals is "does this feel like a church/denomination in which I recognise that the faith once delivered to the saints predominates"? I don't think I would be able to exist in any denomination where the predominant consensus was theologically liberal, and that would override any stuff about "being in communion".
Thus I can appreciate those on the ECUSA side who want to say "We hold certain values here about self-determination, a commitment to a liberal theological approach, inclusiveness, and a desire to fight for the rights of those historically oppressed and excluded from the church on the grounds of their lifestyle" (etc.)
and will then say, as several folk from the other side of the Pond have said in this thread, "and if the CofE and the Anglican Communion don't hold those values, then stuff them."
All of which may mean that we haven't enough in common to hold together, or may mean that we can find ways of co-existence. But we shouldn't underestimate the differences.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I know that if it eventually comes down to a choice between being in communion with the lesbian and gay people in the pew with me in my parish or being in communion with Rowan Williams or Pete Broadbent or anyone else eight time zones away from me, I'm going to go with the folks in my parish. Some might call this a congregationalist attitude, and if so, so be it; I call it loving my neighbor. I trust our parish priest, and I trust our diocesan bishop, but I don't know people beyond that, and honestly, my loyalties don't go further than the diocese of Los Angeles.
And I thought Los Angeles was kind of a cosmopolitan place.
The diocese of Los Angeles goes well beyond the city of Los Angeles; it comprehends Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. There are certainly some very cosmopolitan areas and people in the diocese. There are also places that are diverse without being truly cosmopolitan (and I'd say Long Beach, where I live, is like that), and other places that aren't terribly diverse, never mind cosmopolitan.
quote:
Seriously though, are there not people on all sides of all these questions in your diocese, or even in your parish?
Well, guessing at what "these questions" are ...
That the Bible comes first in the scripture-tradition-reason formula would go without saying to just about everyone in the diocese and in my parish.
Whether or not women should be ordained or should be bishops is not a discussion we have in this diocese -- it's a done deal. There are no doubt people here and there who aren't happy about it, but they have pretty much accepted it. In my parish the idea that women shouldn't be ordained or be bishops would be greeted with dumbfounded astonishment.
We have blessings of same-sex relationships in our parish. When the last rector performed the first one, most people were in favor of it, one person who really hated it left, and the ones who had been on the fence about it came to believe that it was a good idea when our interim priest performed the second one and did a far better job of educating and counseling around it than the previous rector had. As for the diocese, there are certainly people on all sides of this questions, but I feel confident about what direction we'll go in the end.
It would be a tragedy if the communion broke up over this. But if breaking up the communion made it easier for the Episcopal Church to go forward with developing a rite for blessing same-sex relationships, that would in my opinion be a very, very thick silver lining.
quote:
But none of us could say "my loyalties don't go further than the diocese of Southwark". Local loyalties are inextricably mixed up with international ties. Our own church has members from, as well as England, at least Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Cameroon, Togo, Uganda, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Jamaica, Barbados, Guyana, Germany, Spain, India and China. And we have recently had individuals from, all sorts of other places including Trinidad, Zambia, Rwanda, Tanzania, Poland, Hungary, Ireland, Armenia, Pakistan, Korea, Japan - and also Canada and the USA.
My parish is diverse, but not as much as yours is. The people from Mexico and Central America don't feel any loyalty to the Anglican churches in those countries, since they didn't leave the Catholic Church until after they got to the US. The few British ex-pats of course feel some loyalty to the CofE, and I imagine the folks from the Caribbean and Africa feel the same about the Anglican churches they grew up in. But the vast majority of the people who attend the English-language services are native-born Americans. Half of the people who attend the English-language services didn't grow up in the Episcopal Church (including me), and none of the people at the Spanish-language services did. A lot of them don't have much loyalty to the church beyond the parish; they are in the Episcopal Church because they liked what they found when they came to our parish, and they have varying degrees of knowledge about the larger church structures. So it's not going to make any difference to a lot of people in my parish if we suddenly aren't in communion with the ABC or Nigeria or anyone else they don't see at church on Sundays.
And that's a huge difference between the Episcopal Church and the Church of England -- we've got a lot of people who aren't culturally Anglican, especially in the west.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
+Pete---this is an honest, and heart-felt, question. One that I've asked repeatedly and never received an answer to, so I hope you will engage with me.
Why would you find it difficult or impossible to kneel at the altar rail with me and partake of the Eucharist?
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
Yes, +Pete, it's - the - question we're all facing and is at the heart of the OP. Whether it be Abp Akinola or KJS. I haven't any idea what the person next to me at the rail believes. I just trust in God and go on trying to live in love with with my neighbor...
In sincerity.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Is kneeling at the altar rail together the whole of churches being in communion together? The TEC/ECUSA accepts all baptized Christians to the altar rail, yet as a church we are not in communion with all churches that baptize.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
It's not really an issue. I'll share communion with anybody - from any (Trinitarian)denomination. That's not where it bites. It's "where would I choose to go to church?", not "is the person next to me at the communion rail a Christian?" That's between them and God. Rather, it's about whether, if I were in the US, I'd automatically seek out an ECUSA church.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
