Originally posted by Johnny S:
MG & TM - wouldn't the best way to uphold the ideals of the ship be to forgive previous hurts and return to the OP of the thread in front of us?
Right. Now you can both unite in slagging me off and then my job is done!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:I'm not a fan of Spong, but this is going a bit too far, isn't it?
A ROW has erupted within the Anglican Church over a visit to Australia by an American cleric who has being accused of modernising Christ to the point of stripping him of all divinity.
Sydney Archbishop Peter Jensen has taken the extraordinary step of banning John Shelby Spong, a fellow member of the Anglican communion who arrives in Sydney this morning, from churches in his diocese.
By contrast, Anglican Primate Phillip Aspinall has invited Bishop Spong, a leader of the church's liberal wing, to deliver two sermons in Brisbane's St John's Cathedral.
The retired Episcopal bishop of Newark, New Jersey, Bishop Spong will also give a public lecture at St Aidan's Anglican Girls School in Brisbane.
At the direction of Dr Jensen, the current edition of the Sydney diocese's newspaper, Southern Cross, has devoted two pages to an attack on Bishop Spong and his new book, Jesus for the Non-Religious. The book questions biblical references to the nature of the birth of Jesus Christ, his ability to perform miracles and the Resurrection.
Speaking on behalf of Dr Jensen, Bishop of South Sydney Robert Forsyth said Dr Aspinall was wrong to welcome Bishop Spong to Brisbane.
"The judgment of the primate is, in our view, ill-advised," Bishop Forsyth said.
"It is a mistake. It is the wrong thing to do."
He said many in the church were distressed by Bishop Spong's latest book, the promotion of which was a major reason for his Australian visit.
"He is attempting to reconstruct Christ to make him acceptable to the modern community but it is disastrous," Bishop Forsyth said.
"Jesus ends up as a non-divine entity in this attempt to find a human Jesus. The result is a gutting of the Christian faith."
Dr Aspinall defended his decision to welcome the American bishop.
"Bishop Spong speaking at St John's Cathedral is not particularly extraordinary," he said.
"That Bishop Spong holds views which some Anglicans might find challenging is no reason to exclude him from speaking.
"Our church has thousands of members and widely diverse views on a wide variety of subjects. I am sure Anglicans willlisten respectfully to the bishop's views and make their own minds up."
quote:FYI, Spong was elected Bishop more than 30 years ago, long before he'd written any books. And actually, he's a good preacher. Again, I think what he says about Christian doctrine is not even worth listening to, but he is a good preacher on Bible.
Originally posted by Custard.:
Seems completely reasonable. I think it's a sad indictment of any dioceses that haven't banned Spong, and of TECUSA for electing him bishop. I sincerely hope my diocesan wouldn't let him preach in churches in my home diocese either.
And as I've pointed out before, ++Jensen was the one who stopped Sydney formally approving lay presidency.
quote:Which heresies, Crank?
Originally posted by JArthurCrank:
My recollection is that Spong's heresies were well known in 1976 when he was elected, through books such as "This Hebrew Lord" and in his preaching.
quote:Denial of the divinity of Christ and the Virgin Birth, which entailed a denial of the Incarnation, as well as the Resurrection as anything more than a metaphor or some vague "Easter" experience by the disciples.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:Which heresies, Crank?
Originally posted by JArthurCrank:
My recollection is that Spong's heresies were well known in 1976 when he was elected, through books such as "This Hebrew Lord" and in his preaching.
quote:I'm too polite to mention how odd it is for an "outsider" to hang around on a Christian website, having racked up almost 10,000 posts....
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Speaking as an outsider, it is this kind of thing that makes us all adore Christians. The infighting, backbiting, banning, fascist lawmaking, you know, the Christian Love™.
I jest. But only slightly.
quote:Well, you did bring it up. Details are important.
Originally posted by JArthurCrank:
I could go back and look up old issues of the American Church News or Living Church to get more details, but this was all commented on at the time. The shock at Spong's books in the 1980s-1990s was really more than a day late and a dollar short.
quote:Personally I would leave out the "as believed by the Church" part and add in a whole slew of loving your neighbor type things. You know feeding the poor, tending the sick that type of thing. But that is just me and I do not know if Spong was or is good at those things.
Originally posted by Custard.:
To my mind, "good preacher" requires remaining within the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, as believed by the Church, and Spong quite simply doesn't do that.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Well, from what I know - not very much, I admit, because I find nothing interesting about what Spong writes so I've only read a couple of his books - Spong does "remain with the revelation of God in Jesus Christ." He just doesn't hold with the "as believed by the Church" clause (although I think he makes an absurd caricature of this anyway).
Originally posted by Custard.:
To my mind, "good preacher" requires remaining within the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, as believed by the Church, and Spong quite simply doesn't do that.
quote:Well, from what I know - not very much, I admit, because I find nothing interesting about what Spong writes so I've only read a couple of his books - Spong does "remain with the revelation of God in Jesus Christ." He just doesn't hold with the "as believed by the Church" clause (although I think he makes an absurd caricature of this anyway).
Originally posted by Custard.:
To my mind, "good preacher" requires remaining within the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, as believed by the Church, and Spong quite simply doesn't do that.
quote:Well, we agree on that.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I actually think Spong should have resigned as Bishop a long time ago; I don't have much respect for him because he wants his cake and to eat it, too. But that's neither here nor there.
quote:Well, it's within Sydney's power to do so - but is it a good idea? That's the question. Is it wise to attempt to limit access to ideas, rather than to debate them openly? Christians aren't babies who need to be coddled, after all.
Originally posted by Custard.:
quote:Well, we agree on that.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I actually think Spong should have resigned as Bishop a long time ago; I don't have much respect for him because he wants his cake and to eat it, too. But that's neither here nor there.
I think the Church should have and exercise a role of discipline and discernment, particularly over what is taught. That is part of the job of parish clergy, and part of the job of bishops.
It's also probably one of the key factors behind the TECUSA / Anglican split.
What I see as in this case the failure of TECUSA to exercise discipline and discernment correctly does not remove ++Sydney's responsibility for the pastoral care of the Christians there, including that of discipline and discernment, including restricting who can preach in churches. I very much doubt he'd ban Rowan Williams, for example.
quote:I love people. Perhaps the only reason sometimes is that I know I'm still one of them, with the same shitty inclinations.
Originally Posted by Mad Geo:
Speaking as an outsider, it is this kind of thing that makes us all adore Christians. The infighting, backbiting, banning, fascist lawmaking, you know, the Christian Love™.
quote:You know, I'm really fine with that. A debate with and about Spong would be an excellent thing - but that never seems to happen.
Originally posted by MouseThief:
I think it's time somebody in the Anglican community had the backbone to stand up to him and tell him what he preaches isn't (Anglican) Christianity.
That it should be +*-/Jensen is predictable, and perhaps unfortunate in some ways, but somebody had to be first.
quote:In answer to the question, I was a Christian when I started here. I'll avoid the obvious joke that some of the people here drove me away, although it is partly true. They were part of a much larger process.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:I'm too polite to mention how odd it is for an "outsider" to hang around on a Christian website, having racked up almost 10,000 posts....
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Speaking as an outsider, it is this kind of thing that makes us all adore Christians. The infighting, backbiting, banning, fascist lawmaking, you know, the Christian Love™.
I jest. But only slightly.
quote:Just wanted to second that. Silencing someone just makes you look bad, no matter what it is you're silencing. It's like trying to throw a scandal under the rug. The mere presence of the rug will make the scandal look ten times bigger than it really is.
Originally Posted by comet:
If Jensen wants his people to reject Spong's teachings, he would be better opening his diocese to the lectures, attending them, and then holding discussions afterwards where he can challenge what Spong says. Instead, by making Spong taboo, everyone wants to know what he has to say and it makes the papers.
quote:Actually, Spong is exactly like that, too.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The reason I "Hang around" is that I didn't turn my opinions off with Christianity. There is also something to be gained by having different and/or dissenting opinions in any forum. Unless of course one is prone to thinking that only people of the same opinion are somehow relevant, which would of course be close-minded and stupid, but very few here are like that.
You know, like the Bishop that banned Spong.
quote:So if he didn't run around saying "Everything the Traditional Church has been doing for the past X years was a mistake and we need a revolution!," then his apparent theological heresies would be more palatable? The problem isn't that he has newfangled ideas, but that he also wishes to destroy the old in order to ring in the new?
Originally Posted by TubaMirum:
Actually, Spong is exactly like that, too.
quote:Well, yes, I think if he were less arrogant towards those who disagreed with him, things might be a little different.
Originally posted by mirrizin:
quote:So if he didn't run around saying "Everything the Traditional Church has been doing for the past X years was a mistake and we need a revolution!," then his apparent theological heresies would be more palatable? The problem isn't that he has newfangled ideas, but that he also wishes to destroy the old in order to ring in the new?
Originally Posted by TubaMirum:
Actually, Spong is exactly like that, too.
quote:Did the Church look ridiculous when it condemned Arius as a heretic in Council?
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:Well, from what I know - not very much, I admit, because I find nothing interesting about what Spong writes so I've only read a couple of his books - Spong does "remain with the revelation of God in Jesus Christ." He just doesn't hold with the "as believed by the Church" clause (although I think he makes an absurd caricature of this anyway).
Originally posted by Custard.:
To my mind, "good preacher" requires remaining within the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, as believed by the Church, and Spong quite simply doesn't do that.
What I find weak, though, is the ban itself. What happens is that Spong is made a martyr - which he definitely isn't - and the Church looks ridiculous, which actually helps him in his cause.
.
quote:That was a totally different time, with a totally different church in a totally different situation. I vaguely remember Arius being a first century heretic. Could you explain how this analogy works in historical context? Who was Arius, how and why did they condemn him (and to what), and how is that like telling Spong he can't preach in a particular church?
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
Did the Church look ridiculous when it condemned Arius as a heretic in Council?
quote:No, Geo: I'm questioning your right to slam "Christians" as a group, when you wouldn't put up with such statements yourself for a second. That's what you do, and that's what you've been doing ever since I first read one of your posts.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
TM
Generalized slander? Or constructive criticism? If the shoe fits.....
The biggest standing joke around here is the statement from newbies: "I thought this was a Christian website!".
I find it horribly ironic on a thread where you and others are defending Spong's right to speak, even if partially defending, you are questioning my presence as a nontheistic Buddhist on a "Christian Website". Ironic as hell.
Don't worry TM, I will keep posting past your protestations and sensitivities, so don't waste your keystrokes. I figure it's my duty to
(wo)mankind.
quote:Well, that's an interesting straw man, but it doesn't bear much resemblance to what I've said on this thread. Which was (several times) that the Church should debate and refute Spong, rather than banning him.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
A Church looks more ridiculous when it tends to say "let us all get along" and does not take a stand on anything even dealing with pretty fundamental teachings of the Christian Faith.
quote:MG & TM - wouldn't the best way to uphold the ideals of the ship be to forgive previous hurts and return to the OP of the thread in front of us?
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The biggest standing joke around here is the statement from newbies: "I thought this was a Christian website!".
quote:It's so true about Spong; he's got nuthin'. Really.
Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
Banning the Spongs of this world merely encourages them. Anything he's said (or written) has been said better by others before him. He's a lightweight who's been kept afloat by opposition.
I do, however, think that Anglicans need to compete in more of a marketplace of ideas than the Jensenites would likely be comfortable with. ++Jensen needs some more decent opposition within his fold. I gather that Sydney is a happening place in civic terms. It's too bad they don't have an Anglican Diocese that's up to the challenge.
RR
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.quote:Well, I'm done with previous hurts. At this point I'm into present offenses.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
MG & TM - wouldn't the best way to uphold the ideals of the ship be to forgive previous hurts and return to the OP of the thread in front of us?
Right. Now you can both unite in slagging me off and then my job is done!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Praytell, who would you not allow into the pulpit? Hindus, Muslem, Satanists?
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I think that stating that Christians CAN BE " backbiting, banning, fascist lawmaking" is simply a FACT. The banning of Spong, amongst other things I could source easily, makes it so. etc.
quote:I can't exactly tell from the article whether he's "banned" from going into a church to give a talk, say. That would be questionable, and I wonder if that was the intent; hope not.
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
I don't think it is a question of "banning" Spong. Spong has every right to preach his message in the secular sphere, in more liberal churches, and so on.
No one has the right to the pulpit. I as a lay person can't suddenly call up my priest and say "I want to preach on Sunday, God spoke to me in a dream." Well I can, but he will probably say No.
quote:Honestly, I just think people in general are pathetic. What a piece of work is man...
Originally Posted by Mad Geo:
If Christianity can't take intense criticism of how it treats people, it is pathetic. But since NONE of us think that is the case...
quote:Happy Vesak / Visakah Puja
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
P.S. Johnny S.: I actually edited out the tangential comments to TM before i saw your post. Merry Xmas
quote:A bishop has a responsibility to maintain the Faith and not giving approval for those who are teaching heresy (denying Christ's Divinity, Resuurection, the Virgin Birth) to preach in the Churches of his diocese. It seems a pretty acceptable principle. I believe there are plenty of bookstores and public meeting halls in Sydney for Spong to give his "lecture"
Originally posted by mirrizin:
quote:That was a totally different time, with a totally different church in a totally different situation. I vaguely remember Arius being a first century heretic. Could you explain how this analogy works in historical context? Who was Arius, how and why did they condemn him (and to what), and how is that like telling Spong he can't preach in a particular church?
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
Did the Church look ridiculous when it condemned Arius as a heretic in Council?
As stated above, I think, people no longer take "this institution says so!" as sufficient grounds for rejection of an belief. You have to be able to demonstrate what it is about his ideas that are so harmful before you can safely say he's contraband.
And "well, his message is bad for our church institution" doesn't really cut it, because to most people these days, institutions aren't God. I'm sure a lot of Christians, including Spong's audience, are very wary of trusting the church as an authority in and of itself.
[Edited to remove a potential can of worms.]
quote:But the bishop isn't actively promoting the faith at all; he's simply forbidding somebody to speak. Which, again, is his right - but aren't cries of "heresy" counterproductive these days?
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
A bishop has a responsibility to maintain the Faith and not giving approval for those who are teaching heresy (denying Christ's Divinity, Resuurection, the Virgin Birth) to preach in the Churches of his diocese. It seems a pretty acceptable principle. I believe there are plenty of bookstores and public meeting halls in Sydney for Spong to give his "lecture"
I believe you know who Arius was and what the Arian heresy involved.
quote:Of course but probably not good or productive to give him the pulpit in a Church of an Archdiocese but rather in a secular setting which others have suggested. I'm sure such a debate could be arranged.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:But the bishop isn't actively promoting the faith at all; he's simply forbidding somebody to speak. Which, again, is his right - but aren't cries of "heresy" counterproductive these days?
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
A bishop has a responsibility to maintain the Faith and not giving approval for those who are teaching heresy (denying Christ's Divinity, Resuurection, the Virgin Birth) to preach in the Churches of his diocese. It seems a pretty acceptable principle. I believe there are plenty of bookstores and public meeting halls in Sydney for Spong to give his "lecture"
I believe you know who Arius was and what the Arian heresy involved.
And is the faith that fragile that it can't withstand a Spong, who basically has nothing to say? That's pretty sad, if you ask me.
I guess I can see it from the "slippery slope" point of view, or perhaps even that Spong's "arguments" don't deserve to be dignified. Still, isn't it better to let him speak and then argue why he's wrong? Wouldn't it be more productive?
quote:Actually I have seen Hindus and Muslims interacting with Christians from the pulpit. It's called "Comparitive Religion" and actually can be helpful and informative. Satanists? Well that would be like having Klan members at a ACLU meeting, now wouldn't it? Nice try though.
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
quote:Praytell, who would you not allow into the pulpit? Hindus, Muslem, Satanists?
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I think that stating that Christians CAN BE " backbiting, banning, fascist lawmaking" is simply a FACT. The banning of Spong, amongst other things I could source easily, makes it so. etc.
And don't say Spong is a Christian. Unless you use a definition so broad as to be almost meaningless, he's not.
quote:I'd just like to note that I actually agree with Madge. There must be some peculiar planetary alignment.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The surest way to get someone a higher profile is to ban them. It's the best advertising money can buy.
quote:Yep, and to Spong, you're a heretic.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
I understand your aversion to the baggage of the word heresy but you do agree that such a animal as heresy exists?
quote:I agree that certain teachings are part of the Christian faith as it has been worked out, and certain things are not. And that if you are a Bishop and don't hold with any of those things, you should resign out of principle; it's part of the job description to teach the faith. I'm actually not sure whether Spong is being banned because he's a Bishop, or if he would be banned in any case.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
I understand your aversion to the baggage of the word heresy but you do agree that such a animal as heresy exists?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Rowan Williams spoke up about Spong's nonsense in 1998.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I really wish somebody would simply and calmly point out that what Spong teaches isn't what the Church teaches, and why it isn't. Wouldn't it lead to a much better result? People outside the Church don't know what Christianity is anymore; isn't this the perfect opportunity to teach it?
quote:This from a man who also claims that "the Christology of the ages is bankrupt."
St Paul is said to have preached a sermon in the Book of Acts in which he talked about the God in whom he lived and moved and had his being. That's the kind of God I experience. John, I cannot tell you or anyone else what God is like or who God is like. I can only tell you how I experience God, and I wish the Christian church and all Christian people would realise that simple distinction. None of us can tell any other person who God is, we can only tell that other person how we have experienced God.
And so when I describe God, I am not trying to describe what God is, I'm only trying to describe my experience. And to go back to my trilogy: I experience God as life, as love, and as being. I see that God in Jesus of Nazareth, and that God calls me into living and loving and being. So as I worship this God, I become more fully human. Now does this mean God is a person? I don't know that, I only know I experience God in the depths of my personhood. I said in Perth last Sunday that though I am a Trinitarian, I could never say that God is a Trinity because I don't think a human being can ever tell anybody what God is like. But I experience God.
quote:No , it refers to error, choosing error. Your argument seems to be built on a more then a bit of relativism. St Athanasius, St Hilary of Poitiers and other brilliant theologians of the period gave extremely detailed theological arguments to why Arianism was and is a heresy.
Originally posted by mirrizin:
quote:Yep, and to Spong, you're a heretic.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
I understand your aversion to the baggage of the word heresy but you do agree that such a animal as heresy exists?
We don't live in an era where institutions can take their authority for granted. As a result, "but The Church (TM) say that's wrong!" doesn't really hold much water, and as I understand it, heresy just refers to religious belief that isn't within the church's doctrine.
quote:You'd be hard pushed finding anything in the creeds or the Articles (or the early councils) that he disagrees with. He spent much of his life as an Anglican theological lecturer, lecturing in Anglican history (IIRC)...
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Not that the Archbishop is exactly orthodox himself...
quote:Oh, that silly Paul, awkwardly compromising all of that Judeo-Christian theology just to convert a few gentiles...
Originally Posted by IngoB:
I find the Spongian heresy simply boring, in a "I'm modern secular too, I just talk funny" way.
quote:How droll.
Originally posted by Custard.:
...((++Jensen)) spent much of his life as an Anglican theological lecturer, lecturing in Anglican history (IIRC)...
quote:If that is so, then even the Catholic Church itself has a long, long history of heresy. Galieo spoke truth, and they punished him for it. History has shown that action to be erroneous.
Originally Posted by SeraphimSarov:
No , it refers to error, choosing error.
quote:Not really. I do believe there is one truth, and I do believe in God, and I'm pretty ok with the trinity (though I suspect that it's a human intellectual convenience rather than something to excommunicate people over). I just don't have the sheer arrogance to proclaim that what I understand is the whole truth beyond any reasonable doubt so help me God. For this reason, I don't like accusations of heresy.
Your argument seems to be built on a more then a bit of relativism.
quote:OK. So someone else, perhaps 1500 years ago, wrote argument against Arianism that were thought out. It's perhaps telling that none of his writings really exist anymore (which some take as evidence of active persecution, which doesn't make you look stronger these days). Also, could you outline what some of these arguments were? How would people accept them today?
St Athanasius, St Hilary of Poitiers and other brilliant theologians of the period gave extremely detailed theological arguments to why Arianism was and is a heresy.
quote:I'm fine with objective truth. I just think that a highly politicized gathering of people who are trying to negotiate a compromise among lots and lots of emergent theologies is necessarily a guarantee of objectivity. It's more of a guarantee of something they could all agree on, perhaps holding their nose in some cases.
But yes, I do believe that the when the Church speaks in Council (i.e. Nicaea) that it is inspired by the Holy Spirit and that there is something known as objective truth in matters of Faith and not just that someone's opinion is just as good as another's ("oh he believes that Christ was just a good man, that could be true as well, I suppose for him")
quote:Gah, sloppy typing. By "his," I meant Arius, not St Athanasius, St Hilary of Poitiers, etc.
Originally Posted by myself:
It's perhaps telling that none of his writings really exist anymore (which some take as evidence of active persecution, which doesn't make you look stronger these days).
quote:That presumes that Jensen's purpose was to deny Spong publicity. The real purpose, presumably, was to declare that Spong and his opinions are unacceptable and not permitted to be taught in the Archdiocese of Sydney.
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:How droll.
Originally posted by Custard.:
...((++Jensen)) spent much of his life as an Anglican theological lecturer, lecturing in Anglican history (IIRC)...
My point, however, was that ++Jensen is giving +Spong the free publicity he craves, which would seem to be defeating his purpose in banning The Heretic.
However, I gather the Archbishop enjoys garnering headlines too, so perhaps they both benefit from this very public little tempest.
Ross
quote:Actually, I think that ++Jensen's primary purpose was to get ++Jensen publicity -- but it had the side effect of giving it to +Spong as well.
Originally posted by JArthurCrank:
That presumes that Jensen's purpose was to deny Spong publicity. ...
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:I completely agree. Freedom of speech is one thing
Originally posted by Custard.:
To my mind, "good preacher" requires remaining within the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, as believed by the Church, and Spong quite simply doesn't do that.
quote:Really? Do you have a citation to back that one?
Originally Posted by bc_anglican:
even Bill O'Reilly likes him.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:Hell, can someone arrange for me to be banned from the Diocese of Newark? I want that on my resume.
Originally posted by JArthurCrank:
Being banned from the Diocese of Newark is like being blackballed by the Pacifica Radio Network or disinvited to one of Leonard Bernstein's dinner parties. I'm sure he would be rightfully honored.
quote:I believe if you check the back of Spong's "The Sins of Scripture", O'Reilly is one of the endorsements of his book. Apparently Spong went on one of his programs and for some reason, Spong and O'Reilly were not bashing one another.
Originally posted by mirrizin:
quote:Really? Do you have a citation to back that one?
Originally Posted by bc_anglican:
even Bill O'Reilly likes him.
quote:As if I wasn't?
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Actually, I hold no brief for either one of them, TBAS. I was pointing out the similarities.
Ross
quote:This is certainly true, at least among liberal Christians. I'm not as sure about liberals who might become Christian and don't realize that the Sydney Diocese doesn't represent the whole church.
OriginallY posted by bc_anglican:
He probably doesn't endorse Spong's theology. My original point was that Spong isn't going to lose much if Sydney doesn't want him. He already is quite famous and popular among liberals.
quote:<raised hand> And at the recommendation of a United Church minister, too. OliviaG
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Then again, I don't know how many non-Christians read Spong or would care enough.
quote:Tangent: I know someone who possesses, with some angry pride and honor, a letter of excommunication from the Anglican Catholic Church. Not only was he excommunicated, but he received the "greater excommunication," and permanently banned from ever stepping on the property of an ACC parish ever again. I still might even have a photocopy version of it in my files, for it is one of the most hilariously pompous, sectarian, and ultimately worthless documents I've ever seen. From memory, it included unfortunate verbiage about being duly "deprived of intercourse with the faithful."
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
quote:Hell, can someone arrange for me to be banned from the Diocese of Newark? I want that on my resume.
Originally posted by JArthurCrank:
Being banned from the Diocese of Newark is like being blackballed by the Pacifica Radio Network or disinvited to one of Leonard Bernstein's dinner parties. I'm sure he would be rightfully honored.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
The supposed offense was committing sacrilege against the Blessed Sacrament! (There was, obviously, no sacrilege against the Blessed Sacrament, merely a trumped-up charge during of one of those ugly power-grabbing purges and coups that continually plague continuing Anglican churches). ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:I have to agree with this part of it, all right; it is rather good to talk about religion for a change. Too bad there isn't more actual discussion of, say, Christology, though, rather than an outright ban.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
....and it's good to see some action on theology and specifically Christology rather than the usual points of engagement in the Anglican Communion. Score one for Sydney.
quote:I agree it was. He's written many books, BTW; one I liked was called Where God Happens: Discovering Christ in One Another and Other Lessons from the Desert Fathers. Wonderful history and just chock-full of ideas. I'm sure people here can give you some more recommendations.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
That response from rowan Williams is just excellent - I don't read much in the way of formal theology, but I shall go and see if he has published anything in book form, and if so acquire it.
quote:Perhaps, and I'd quite like to see that, but the pulpit just isn't the place for it.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
They should have invited him to come debate them, IMO.
quote:You're right. I was thinking about a formal debate during the evening, for the whole Anglican community there, or something like that.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:Perhaps, and I'd quite like to see that, but the pulpit just isn't the place for it.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
They should have invited him to come debate them, IMO.
quote:Sorry -- I wasn't clear on that. (And how's your PM folder, by the way? I've tried to respond....)
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
As if I wasn't?
quote:There's a lot of that going around Sydney, isn't there?
Originally posted by GreyFace:
What it does say is that according to Sydney, this person is a vile heret... erm, I mean this person holds opinions that are so far from what Sydney understands Christianity to be that he's not getting permission to preach. ...
quote:It tickled me, too. I sent it to my quaker housemate, and got rather an affronted response. Apparently, Rowan Really Doesn't Get What Quakerism's About, and that quote was quite crass
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Oh and of course I liked this line:
If a corpse clearly marked 'Jesus of Nazareth' turned up, I should save myself a lot of trouble and become a Quaker.
quote:Infamously so.
Originally posted by TubaMirium:I take it that Sydney Diocese is as a whole very conservative?
quote:Couldn't give you a definitive answer, I'm a Durham Anglican.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I take it that Sydney Diocese is as a whole very conservative?
quote:Could be but I really don't know. As you may know I differ with +Jensen on certain matters
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
There's a lot of that going around Sydney, isn't there?
but I'm not aware of any bishops who're closer to where I'm sitting being banned from preaching in Sydney. It's one thing to direct your own presbyters, and another to basically announce you think a visiting bishop's a heretick.quote:This was my understanding; I know that he is to speak at a Uniting Church here and have his Australian book launch at a Uniting Church, or Uniting Church Hall, also.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I'm just trying to figure out why Spong was invited there in the first place - or if he was, now that I think of it. I just re-read the article, and apparently this is sort of out of the blue; a gratuitous attack addressing a non-existent problem. It doesn't seem that anybody has actually invited Spong to speak in an Anglican church in Sydney.
quote:If shit was all someone could bring themselves to eat, I am sure you wouldn't want take that from them, would you?
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Spong's 12 theses are all that's left for some Christians to hold on to. I am sure you wouldn't want to take that from them, would you?
quote:There must be some sort of unexamined relationship between church and hockey.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Speaking as an outsider, it is this kind of thing that makes us all adore Christians. The infighting, backbiting, banning, fascist lawmaking, you know, the Christian Love™.
I jest. But only slightly.
quote:May I ask why? Is "inclusiveness" the only thing we should aim for?
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Well I see Spong is about inclusiveness, and you two apparently are not.
He Wins.
quote:True and I do believe that that is sincerely the Archbishop's intention. I do find it odd, though that he feels the need to protect his flock in such a way when he has said time and again that people should read the bible and make up their own minds, this authoritarian banning from preaching seems to veer towards being non-reformed to me. I'm not a fan of the publicty seeking Spong but if he wants to get on a soapbox on wheels in a rainshelter who is the Abp to stop him?
++Jensen is not seeking media attention - there are plenty of other ways he could do that if he wanted - he is fulfilling his responsibility as an Archbishop, protecting his flock from what he sees as false teaching.
quote:Let's see if I recall my NT Jesus correctly:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
quote:May I ask why? Is "inclusiveness" the only thing we should aim for?
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Well I see Spong is about inclusiveness, and you two apparently are not.
He Wins.
......quote:Amazingly, It has been examined.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
There must be some sort of unexamined relationship between church and hockey.
quote:Shall we have the chorus of "All are Welcome" now??
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Well I see Spong is about inclusiveness, and you two apparently are not.
He Wins.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
quote:Somehow I don't think he's just in it for the money, but I think I understand the point. I suppose he'd have more legitimacy if he became a Unitarian Universalist and was done with it.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Mirz, I don't think one has to be able to discern universal truth in order to make a call. Here is group X. Group X has beliefs Y. Whether or not beliefs Y correspond to external reality, group X has the right to say, "Nobody who denies Y is allowed to speak in our churches" all they want. It doesn't take the ability to discern the mind of God to say, this is against the teachings of the church. Don't like it? Fine. Go start your own church; nobody's stopping you (generic you). But to stay in (and draw a pension from) group X while preaching (and making a small mint off money from books that say) not-Y, is despicable.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:He is a man who has answered the question:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
I'm not a fan of the publicty seeking Spong but if he wants to get on a soapbox on wheels in a rainshelter who is the Abp to stop him?
quote:with the words:
'Are you ready to drive away all false and strange doctine which is contrary to God's word; and privately and publicly to call upon and encourage others to do likewise'
quote:We may quibble over the best way for him to do that, but that is one of the things that he has sworn to do.
'I am, the Lord being my helper'
quote:Quick, say something nasty about lay-administration.
Originally posted by Cusanus:
OMG I agree with CJS. And Peter Jensen.
My fuzzy tat-loving liberal credentials will be in danger if I'm not careful.
quote:Can we please stop referring to Spong being 'banned' from preaching in the Diocese of Sydney. This thread is beginning to sound like 'The Church of England Newspaper' upon hearing the news that Archbishop Akinola had been banned by Rowan from preaching in England. (What had actually happened was that he had not submitted his request for permission to preach to Rowan in time for his trip.)
Originally posted by Anselm:
++Jensen did not release a statement "banning" Spong. The journalist who wrote the story approached the diocese asking what the diocese's response was to Spong's impending visit. The reporter was told that the response was to be the same as for his previous visits, that if he sought permission to preach in the churches in the diocese that would not be given, as his published teachings deny the divinity of Christ.
[...]
) Having not read any of Spong's theology, I am in no position to comment. However, I do know that he has helped some people in their faith and theological thinking ... '... by their fruits shall ye know them.'
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Actually, no - I think the article says that two jeremiads against Spong appeared recently in the Sydney press, just before his arrival on the continent.
So there is some active aggression being mounted against him.
One can hardly call critical book reviews "jeremiads".quote:Though I think that J Whitgift's point was that the journalist had chosen a misleading description and we shouldn't perpetuate it.
(The headline writer did use the word "ban," BTW. That's why we're using it here.)
quote:Again, I was just quoting from the article itself:
Originally posted by Anselm:
You can find the articles in question here and here.
Surely it would be bordering on negligence for critics to abstain from making comment about literature that that is likely to get media attention. Seems a bit rich to describe it as 'active aggression'.
quote:"An attack," it says. A "jeremiad," IOW. I'm really only relying on what I've read, and trying to understand what's going on. It has the look of aggression, that's all, and I wonder why. Spong just isn't that interesting, IMO, and his main supporters seem to be ex-fundamentalists who enjoy his bashing the church as a whole. But otherwise, nobody much pays attention as far as I can see. What sort of threat is he to Sydney?
At the direction of Dr Jensen, the current edition of the Sydney diocese's newspaper, Southern Cross, has devoted two pages to an attack on Bishop Spong and his new book, Jesus for the Non-Religious. The book questions biblical references to the nature of the birth of Jesus Christ, his ability to perform miracles and the Resurrection.
quote:I am sure Bishop Spong has said many unorthodox things but actually this passage reminded me more of Father Gregory than anyone unorthodox. Except what he wrote was called apophatic theology rather than heresy.
Originally posted by Tuba Mirum quoting former Bishop Spong
St Paul is said to have preached a sermon in the Book of Acts in which he talked about the God in whom he lived and moved and had his being. That's the kind of God I experience. John, I cannot tell you or anyone else what God is like or who God is like. I can only tell you how I experience God, and I wish the Christian church and all Christian people would realise that simple distinction. None of us can tell any other person who God is, we can only tell that other person how we have experienced God.
quote:Well, I was referring to the paragraph you didn't quote, in which Spong claimed to be a Trinitarian - and yet in the past, he's said that "the Christology of the ages is bankrupt." It's not clear to me how both those things could be true; his claim about "bankruptcy" is extreme. So either something is bankrupt or it isn't. Unless Spong's claiming to be part of the "bankruptcy" himself - and if that's the case, why would anyone pay attention to him?
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
quote:I am sure Bishop Spong has said many unorthodox things but actually this passage reminded me more of Father Gregory than anyone unorthodox. Except what he wrote was called apophatic theology rather than heresy.
Originally posted by Tuba Mirum quoting former Bishop Spong
St Paul is said to have preached a sermon in the Book of Acts in which he talked about the God in whom he lived and moved and had his being. That's the kind of God I experience. John, I cannot tell you or anyone else what God is like or who God is like. I can only tell you how I experience God, and I wish the Christian church and all Christian people would realise that simple distinction. None of us can tell any other person who God is, we can only tell that other person how we have experienced God.
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
quote:I'm sure there is a "Yes Prime Minister" episode about this...
Originally posted by bradleys:
Seems to me the key to becoming a well known bishop is to lob in, then commence proclaiming some outrageous one-liners that mainstream media pick up on which fund your worldwide star tour for the everafter.
quote:Look at what you are trying to do here. You're actively looking for reasons to violate the spirit of the law (Love thy neighbor, Love one another) while somehow keeping the letter of the law, right?. Why are you doing that?
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Mad Geo, I notice that one category that's not on your list is religious leaders who teach false things about God.
I assume you're not suggesting that +Jensen should be accepting of +Spong because the latter is a whore, an adulterer or a woman with many sins.
quote:People who do not believe Jesus of Nazareth was/is God Incarnate are not Christians. Full stop. End of story.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Preachers that were trying to affect change and keep people in the Christian camp I hardly think he would have excluded.
quote:
To diagnose the trouble, to represent a bygone era, to punish a theologically forgetful church, to call us to historical-critical work without fear, to lay bare the central issue, to illustrate a tempting false path, to suggest, even in spite of himself, a real solution, and in doing so to highlight the nature of Christian theology as a whole: for all these services, in all these respects, we should thank John Spong. (p. 131)
quote:That's your opinion. Your welcome to it, as is Spong. That's my point (and others).
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:People who do not believe Jesus of Nazareth was/is God Incarnate are not Christians. Full stop. End of story.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Preachers that were trying to affect change and keep people in the Christian camp I hardly think he would have excluded.
Thurible
quote:I think I still have that book. I actually read it too, at the time I bought it. Can't remember much about it, except agreeing with it.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
In case anybody's interested, there apparently exists a book titled "Can a Bishop Be Wrong?", reviewed in the Anglican Theological Review in the Spring of 1999.
quote:- Mohandas Gandhi
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
quote:Christ also claimed Divinity. You can't just choose to admire those things that Our Lord said on some things (the ethical teachings) and ignore the God-Man that He indeed claimed to be.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Jesus had a lot of choice words about a lot of things. Somehow "Love thy neighbor" didn't strike me as one of the optional ones.
That some Christians make earnest attempts to circumvent those words, we find entertaining.
quote:- Mohandas Gandhi
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
quote:Heh. I thought the problem was that Spong saw the resurrection purely as symbolic and not literal, that he saw the bible as a collection of possibly useful myths rather than a modern scientific history. I think (and may be mistaken) that he'd be perfectly happy to say that the symbolism of the resurrection was more important than the fact.
Originally Posted by St Pellinor (Ret'd)
They seemed to have little imagination and could not see it was not the "facts" they disputed but the symbolism behind those facts that mattered.
quote:What difference does his ostensibly being god-man have to do with hating thy neighbor?
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
Christ also claimed Divinity. You can't just choose to admire those things that Our Lord said on some things (the ethical teachings) and ignore the God-Man that He indeed claimed to be.
quote:I would argue that they are all of a piece. One cannot seperate them.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
quote:What difference does his ostensibly being god-man have to do with hating thy neighbor?
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
Christ also claimed Divinity. You can't just choose to admire those things that Our Lord said on some things (the ethical teachings) and ignore the God-Man that He indeed claimed to be.
As I said, Christ said many things. I admire nearly all that was attributed to him, while disagreeing with some. But the topic at hand seems pretty clear to his entire message. Love thy neighbor. Do not exclude. Love the people that are the lowest members of society without reservation.
quote:Mad Geo, the fact we've only ever met online prevents me from loving you dearly, but I'm certainly glad you're on the ship. But were I the leader of a church/diocese/whatever, would I ask you to preach, thus placing you in a didactic setting and giving your theology the implicit approval of my church? I'd do such a thing neither for you nor for many other people who I do actually love dearly. The Abp of Sydney's office has given him responsibility for the care of souls in that location, so is he going to waste valuable Sunday service time by letting them hear sermons which he views as rubbish, and which he's sure won't build up their faith, and may even send some people's faith backwards? No, he's going to let them hear teaching which he feels will build up his flock in the way of Christ. There's nothing about censoring or banning opinions here at all. Anyone in Sydney who wants to know what Spong thinks can hear a talk of his in a more secular setting, or a more dialectic setting in church, or can download a talk or read his books. But the vice chancellor of my university wouldn't invite me to lecture in Linguistics, since I dropped all languages at the age of 17, and he has a responsibility to his students. No more is the Abp going to put his archdiocese's seal of approval on a theology he sees as fundamentally flawed.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Telling him basically to fuck off and not be able to speak is pretty clearly against the spirit, if not the letter of that "law".
quote:Wrong, with a capital W.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Look at what you are trying to do here. You're actively looking for reasons to violate the spirit of the law (Love thy neighbor, Love one another) while somehow keeping the letter of the law, right?
quote:What post-modern rubbish. Then I can say 1 is 2, black is white, lead is gold, I am the Walrus, koo-koo-ka-chu.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
quote:That's your opinion. Your welcome to it, as is Spong. That's my point (and others). . . .
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:People who do not believe Jesus of Nazareth was/is God Incarnate are not Christians. Full stop. End of story.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Preachers that were trying to affect change and keep people in the Christian camp I hardly think he would have excluded.
Thurible
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
"inclusive."
quote:An argument could be made that this definition excludes St Mark...
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:People who do not believe Jesus of Nazareth was/is God Incarnate are not Christians. Full stop. End of story.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Preachers that were trying to affect change and keep people in the Christian camp I hardly think he would have excluded.
Thurible
quote:What post-modern rubbish. Then I can say 1 is 2, black is white, lead is gold, I am the Walrus, koo-koo-ka-chu.
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
"inclusive." [/qb][/QUOTE]quote:Of course, this was before several things in Christology and theology were worked out. For example, like the Trinity.
Originally posted by Cusanus:
quote:An argument could be made that this definition excludes St Mark...
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:People who do not believe Jesus of Nazareth was/is God Incarnate are not Christians. Full stop. End of story.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Preachers that were trying to affect change and keep people in the Christian camp I hardly think he would have excluded.
Thurible
quote:Yeah, come on. This is a Christian website, right?
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Look at your hearts. When the "unchurched", the Buddhist, or a Ghandi looks across the room at what you are doing, do you really want to show them the nasty backfighting, unloving version of Christianity? Really? Come on....try harder.
quote:No.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Can I ask, as an ignorant free church man, do people genuinely see the Sydney Anglican push for lay presidency as a theological issue of equivalence to denying the divinity of Christ?
quote:No. The reason I am against it is because I see it offends others.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Can I ask, as an ignorant free church man, do people genuinely see the Sydney Anglican push for lay presidency as a theological issue of equivalence to denying the divinity of Christ?
) then let him speak and you or the bishop rebut it. quote:
Yes, apparently us non-Christians are supposed to have the graciousness to be seen and not heard in this forum. I will try to do better next time.
Not.
quote:Totally irrelevant. Nobody has banned him nor forbidden him to speak. They have said he would not receive permission (permission he hasn't even asked for yet) to preach from the pulpit of one of their churches. They are not beholden to allow anybody who asks to preach from their pulpits, be they priest, bishop, or zookeeper. I very much doubt they'd let me do so. Hell, I doubt the Orthodox Church would let me do so. It's not keeping me up at night. (Nor, I imagine, is Spong losing much dreamtime.)
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I don't know how you'd feel if we, say, banned you from the Ship and then reported it to the newspapers that we didn't let you talk because we think the Orthogonal from WA are too square, or whatever.
quote:No, but it's overtly heretical, according to the Catholic/Anglican understanding of the priesthood and the Eucharist. If I were a bishop, I certainly wouldn't want anyone preaching that sort of thing from the pulpits of my diocese.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
...do people genuinely see the Sydney Anglican push for lay presidency as a theological issue of equivalence to denying the divinity of Christ? ...
quote:I think you mean 'the Roman catholic and one of the anglican understandings of the priesthood and the Eucharist'
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:No, but it's overtly heretical, according to the Catholic/Anglican understanding of the priesthood and the Eucharist.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
...do people genuinely see the Sydney Anglican push for lay presidency as a theological issue of equivalence to denying the divinity of Christ? ...
Ross
quote:Geez, MG. You're beginning to sound like a writer for Entertainment Tonight. No one "leaked" shit to the media. Did you miss Anselm's post on pg.3?:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
... That you are defending people that deny permission to speak before it's even asked and then leak it to the media that they are banning him before he asked so they could ban him anyway......is fucking hillarious.
quote:Hello? I thought that this thread would come to a grinding halt after that revelation. TubaMirum's "Sydney Archbishop Peter Jensen has taken the extraordinary step of banning John Shelby Spong" [my bold] in her opening OP set the tone for this exercise in futility. The whole premise is ridiculous. Of course the various denominations of christianity set the rules for who is IN or OUT. So what else is new? In other news, man bites dog. Pictures at eleven.
++Jensen did not release a statement "banning" Spong. The journalist who wrote the story approached the diocese asking what the diocese's response was to Spong's impending visit. The reporter was told that the response was to be the same as for his previous visits, that if he sought permission to preach in the churches in the diocese that would not be given, as his published teachings deny the divinity of Christ. [my bold]
quote:No, I meant precisely what I said. Don't be coy, CJS.
Originally posted by CJS:
I think you mean 'the Roman catholic and one of the anglican understandings of the priesthood and the Eucharist'
quote:You quoted the "banning" phrase without any other setup than "I'm not a fan of Spong, but this is going a bit too far, isn't it?" YOU posted it, YOU own it.
Several of us weren't sure, in fact, if it meant that Spong was forbidden to even set foot in churches in Sydney, which would indeed be quite extreme. That was the question.
quote:I suspect this is about my post, but I wasn't trying to suggest that you had got something wrong. I read the article and you quoted it accurately.I think that the journalist has been a bit creative because I can find absolutely no other evidence for the issuing of some sort of formal 'ban'.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Um, for the hundredth time: what was in the OP was a direct quote from the article I linked to. I didn't write it; the newspaper guy did.
Sheesh.
quote:I may be coy, but I have to say "Tish i love it when you speak French".
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:No, I meant precisely what I said. Don't be coy, CJS...
Originally posted by CJS:
I think you mean 'the Roman catholic and one of the anglican understandings of the priesthood and the Eucharist'
The notion of "lay presidency" in such celebrations is absolutely outre for Anglicanism, even if you happen to regard yourself as more Protestant than Catholic.
Ross
quote:Try the "Back" button. It's a real good way, I've found, to avoid threads you don't have any interest in, or whose "setup" you don't like.
Originally posted by Gort:
There is nothing in your OP aboutquote:You quoted the "banning" phrase without any other setup than "I'm not a fan of Spong, but this is going a bit too far, isn't it?" YOU posted it, YOU own it.
Several of us weren't sure, in fact, if it meant that Spong was forbidden to even set foot in churches in Sydney, which would indeed be quite extreme. That was the question.
quote:True although the Abp and his relatives and clergy from Sydney show fairly scant respect for Abp's authority and perogative eg Sydney Anglicans will establish non-denominational churches in dioceses outside Sydney and the Dean of Sydney and other clergy will visit other dioceses and undermine the authority of clergy within that diocese, all in speaking the truth in love of course. That is justified within their paradigm of defending the truth so I guess Spong thinks he is doing the same. It's a slippery slope when you start ignoring church authority.......
I'm not a big Jensen fan, by any means. But it's his perrogative to say who can and cannot preach from the pulpits in his diocese.
quote:My point is simply that PFJ has not abandoned any aspect of the faith he has vowed to uphold at his ordination or indeed his consecration.
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
"Lay presidency" is not a remotely Anglican concept.
We're getting off topic here: my point is simply that +Spong is not the only bishop mentioned in this thread who has apparently abandoned some aspects of the faith he vowed to uphold at his ordination. It may only be the kettle compared to the steam locomotive, but it's still pretty black.
Ross
quote:Sorry, no. It was meant for Gort, who doesn't seem to understand that the phrase "In the news today," linked to the news I was referring to, might signify that the content of the OP came from a newspaper. Which I linked. And quoted. Go figure.
Originally posted by CJS:
I suspect this is about my post, but I wasn't trying to suggest that you had got something wrong.
quote:You know you can find people like that in any organization. From what I remember of history, Buddhists had all kinds of issues. Just look how they treated that Nichiren guy...
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Look at your hearts. When the "unchurched", the Buddhist, or a Gandhi looks across the room at what you are doing, do you really want to show them the nasty back-fighting, unloving version of Christianity? Really? Come on....try harder.
quote:I strongly disagree.
Originally posted by CJS:
]My point is simply that PFJ has not abandoned any aspect of the faith he has vowed to uphold at his ordination or indeed his consecration.
quote:Could you be a bit more specific? Please.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:...the Dean of Sydney and other clergy will visit other dioceses and undermine the authority of clergy within that diocese...
I'm not a big Jensen fan, by any means. But it's his perrogative to say who can and cannot preach from the pulpits in his diocese.
quote:OK. I criticize the lame "setup" in your OP by pointing out there was nothing there regarding "Several of us weren't sure, in fact, if it meant that Spong was forbidden to even set foot in churches in Sydney, which would indeed be quite extreme. That was the question." and this in the context of Mad Geo's strident extrapolations and you suggest I take a hike?
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:Try the "Back" button. It's a real good way, I've found, to avoid threads you don't have any interest in, or whose "setup" you don't like.
Originally posted by Gort:
There is nothing in your OP aboutquote:You quoted the "banning" phrase without any other setup than "I'm not a fan of Spong, but this is going a bit too far, isn't it?" YOU posted it, YOU own it.
Several of us weren't sure, in fact, if it meant that Spong was forbidden to even set foot in churches in Sydney, which would indeed be quite extreme. That was the question.
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
OK. I criticize the lame "setup" in your OP by pointing out there was nothing there regarding "Several of us weren't sure, in fact, if it meant that Spong was forbidden to even set foot in churches in Sydney, which would indeed be quite extreme. That was the question." and this in the context of Mad Geo's strident extrapolations and you suggest I take a hike?
Is the point of this thread to educate you in the vagaries of press reporting or the finer points of christian exclusiveness? If the former, I would that suggest MG's hyperbole is a good example of what you can expect from assuming Spong's "banning" extends to being forbidden to set foot in Sydney churches.
If the latter, then perhaps you should define those parameters more closely. Whether or not I have an "interest" in this thread and how I should react is not your decision to make.
This thread stinks of yellow journalism and sensationalist media bullshit.
quote:I kinda got that vibe
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:I strongly disagree.
Originally posted by CJS:
]My point is simply that PFJ has not abandoned any aspect of the faith he has vowed to uphold at his ordination or indeed his consecration.
.
quote:That's odd, since you've responded. So which is it? Yellow journalism or christian exclusiveness? I want to be sure so I can focus my response in a constructive manner.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...I just don't care what you think, and it's not worth it to me to respond. Sorry.)
quote:Another problem, BTW, is that your posts are totally incoherent, so I have literally no idea what you're talking about.
Originally posted by Gort:
quote:That's odd, since you've responded. So which is it? Yellow journalism or christian exclusiveness? I want to be sure so I can focus my response in a constructive manner.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...I just don't care what you think, and it's not worth it to me to respond. Sorry.)
quote:I thought I was quite clear. I was asking for the focus of your thread.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Another problem, BTW, is that your posts are totally incoherent, so I have literally no idea what you're talking about.
quote:I literally have no idea what you're talking about. I assure you, there is no sense of superiority in asking you to define the parameters of this thread. As it is, I don't know whether to hang the author of your article or burn Sydney Anglicans at the stake.
Hope you're enjoying - well, whatever sense of superiority you seem to feel about whatever it is you're talking about. Sounds like a great time.
quote:You haven't got it straight.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
So let me get this straight.....
....he hasn't asked for permission and they banned him from speaking, before he could ask for permission?
Yeah, that's NICE. How utterly absurd.
quote:I don't actually want to drag this into specific egs of wrongs or perceived wrongs done by "Sydney", as I said I think their intentions are genuine in defending what they percieve to be the truth, nevertheless, if you want specific publicly discussed egs of Sydney Diocesan representatives undermining the authority structures of other dioceses, here are a couple off the top of my head. Note the issue is not who's approach is truth, just respect for authority.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not a big Jensen fan, by any means. But it's his perrogative to say who can and cannot preach from the pulpits in his diocese.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...the Dean of Sydney and other clergy will visit other dioceses and undermine the authority of clergy within that diocese...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could you be a bit more specific? Please.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:I never heard of him until I came here.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Anglicans know exactly what the mention of the word "Spong" implies,
quote:Some of us would stake our lives on the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. To this extent, lay presidency is up there with the issue of the denial of Christ's divinity.
Originally posted by CJS:
quote:No.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Can I ask, as an ignorant free church man, do people genuinely see the Sydney Anglican push for lay presidency as a theological issue of equivalence to denying the divinity of Christ?
quote:It may come as a surprise, but I understand "the Spong thing" perfectly well. Like Mad Geo, it only emphasizes the petty divisiveness that this sort of pseudo-conflict advertises.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
... Anglicans know exactly what the mention of the word "Spong" implies, and are familiar, too, with what's going on now, during the "Great Anglican Unpleasantness"; some others understand the Spong thing, too, but I guess not everybody.
In any case, I can't really think how to sum this up succinctly so that somebody who's never heard the word before would understand. Sorry about that; it is, as they say, a long story.
quote:what?? No Giordano Bruno???
Originally posted by Gort:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TubaMirum:
[qb]
Oh yeah, sorry about that, Copernicus and Galileo. We were just upholding the faith.
quote:Oh, OK. Christian thinking has it right about the Incarnation but just happened to fuck up about geocentrism. What exactly is your point? Could it possibly be that the church, as an institution, is more concerned with survival than propagating the truth?
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Yes, because of course geocentrism has exactly the same role in Christian thinking as the Incarnation. Well, nearly. Well, nice try, Gort.
quote:I am seeing another intersting trend on this thread. Apparently when one becomes a Christian one can no longer decide for oneself what one should listen to at the alter.
Originally posted by Anselm:
...You speak of loving others; the Archbishop has a responsibility to love and care for his flock - allowing +Spong to preach (which is different to 'setting foot in a church' or 'engaging in dialogue with') would not be loving to either parishioners or to +Spong.
quote:Thank you for being specific.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
[QB] CJS saysquote:I don't actually want to drag this into specific egs of wrongs or perceived wrongs done by "Sydney", as I said I think their intentions are genuine in defending what they percieve to be the truth, nevertheless, if you want specific publicly discussed egs of Sydney Diocesan representatives undermining the authority structures of other dioceses, here are a couple off the top of my head. Note the issue is not who's approach is truth, just respect for authority.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not a big Jensen fan, by any means. But it's his perrogative to say who can and cannot preach from the pulpits in his diocese.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...the Dean of Sydney and other clergy will visit other dioceses and undermine the authority of clergy within that diocese...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could you be a bit more specific? Please.
Church planting outside Sydney
Then there was the sorry case when the Dean of Sydney went to England and can't actually remember what he said but admitted to talking about the Abp of Canterbury and then immediately went on to talk about holders of high office in the CHurch of England prostituting Christian ministry.
Dean talks about prostitution of Christian ministry
quote:I apologise, you appeared to me to be making two, mutually contradictory points.
PS you selectively quoted me in one of your previous posts so as to misrepresent my point.
quote:I see your point here, but I can see the other side too. Eternally a fence sitter.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I am seeing another intersting trend on this thread. Apparently when one becomes a Christian one can no longer decide for oneself what one should listen to at the alter.
You are a sheep! Your designated shepherd, a priest (not Jesus mind you because he would let any old riff raff in to eat with you) must protect you from ALL things. Especially anything controversial. In order to protect you he must stand firm against anything, real or imagined that MAY cause you to be forced to think.
Or something.
, I get the impression you are a smart fellow who can, and does, think for himself. I have been at conferences or talks where those around lap up whatever is dished out to them as Gospel Truth : not daring to question the wisdom of the speaker. Foolish? In my opinion yes, but many people do lap such things up. I've had people -- lawyers, doctors, etc, and so you'd think they'd have their brains switched on -- rush to tell me they know the date of Christ's coming [a Sydney Anglican, which concerned me as they don't tend to go for such things] or if they dream and see a Cross it is a message direct from the Blessed Trinity [a cradle Orthodox, responding to a talk].quote:What questions does he raise that Renan and other sceptics of the 19th century didn't?? It seems pretty derivative to me.
Originally posted by Liverpool fan:
I just did a search on Spong and came across his 12 points. They seem pretty standard liberal fair. I may not agree with his focus on theism but he raises interesting questions. The thing is, is that a real mission requires us to deal with a multitude of arguments, and Spong raises a few. Not allowing him to preach is like putting one's hands over one's ears and saying 'I can't hear you' whenever a view is offered that you don't like.
quote:and that is called making a very big assumption
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Jesus fought people like the bishop his whole life. I suspect him and Spong woulda got along fine.
quote:The point of those that would support Spong (or anyone else who denies the divinity of Christ)'s not being given permission to preach in a church is that his is not a perfectly legitimate point of view to peddle during an act of Christian worship.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
If you feel you are entitled to ban, excommunicate, not talk to, keep from preaching, whatever, a perfectly legitimate point of view that is different than yours, well then I have nothing to say that I haven't already said.
quote:Why would they remain as a priest if they did the former? What would be the point? And why would someone who didn't believe what he was praying, seeking to live and promising to preach be worth listening to?
Originally posted by Liverpool fan:
Seraphim: I said that what he said was pretty standard liberal fair.
Ian: I agree that there are many people who believe what they are told. I know vulnerable people like that. The thing is, who is to judge who they should listen to? Are we to be those who do the controlling? Perhaps it is the case that people need to be weaned off being dependent on what others say, and need to be challenged in their beliefs, in order to help them grow. It is very difficult, though.
Thurible: Give me a Priest who 'denies the divinity of Christ' over a Priest who spreads prejudice of minorities or condones a 'just' war any day.
quote:I meant worth listening to as a preacher, in the context of Christian worship, which wasn't necessarily clear.
Originally posted by Liverpool fan:
To your third question: who are you talking about here? Do you know Spong that well? I cannot talk for a man who I only learned about earlier today. Do you know what he prays or how the tries to live? He seems to be an honest guy; honest about his beliefs.
In fact, in my experience, some of the sermons that I have heard that resound more in the souls of ordinary people are those that speak of doubt; ones that admit to lack of knowledge or even belief.
quote:I'm a bit shocked that you think the tradition of the Church and the views of its Councils aren't very closely aligned with the teaching of Jesus.
Originally posted by Ex Cathedra:
BTW, I'm a bit shocked that the only contributor to this thread who seems to give more weight to the teaching of Jesus than the traditions of the Church and the views of its Councils is Mad Geo, the non-Christian.
quote:I have been advised that this section of my earlier post on this thread (see page 3 for the full post) is completely incorrect. In the interests of fairness and truth I am hereby retracting this section of my post and offer my apologies to those concerned.
Originally posted by J Whitgift:
Can we please stop referring to Spong being 'banned' from preaching in the Diocese of Sydney. This thread is beginning to sound like 'The Church of England Newspaper' upon hearing the news that Archbishop Akinola had been banned by Rowan from preaching in England. (What had actually happened was that he had not submitted his request for permission to preach to Rowan in time for his trip.)[/i]
quote:Well, we've managed to royally screw them up before, certainly. Are we perfect?
Originally Posted by Thurible:
I'm a bit shocked that you think the tradition of the Church and the views of its Councils aren't very closely aligned with the teaching of Jesus.
quote:Is there a single theologian now living on the face of the entire planet that isn't derivative?
Originally Posted by SeraphimSarov:
What questions does he raise that Renan and other sceptics of the 19th century didn't?? It seems pretty derivative to me.
quote:Too late
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I see your point here, but I can see the other side too. Eternally a fence sitter.
That said, if I can give an example from my experience. Reading your posts, and don't let your head get too big
quote:I am of the opinion that information delivered and controlled (if absolutely neccesary) or rebutted, is often better than information that is hidden or surpressed. By banning Spong, people give him a louder voice than he ever would have had they simply let him have his say in a controlled situation.
....I have been at conferences or talks where those around lap up whatever is dished out to them as Gospel Truth......
.....Could it be that the Archbishop is concerned for people like these? That an approval to speak as part of a Service/Meeting grants some credence to something which the Diocese of Sydney would have no truck with?
quote:Well since the church did NOT stop him from those views when he was a Bishop, I somehow question the validity of your base assumption(s)....
Originally posted by Thurible:
The point of those that would support Spong (or anyone else who denies the divinity of Christ)'s not being given permission to preach in a church is that his is not a perfectly legitimate point of view to peddle during an act of Christian worship.
quote:This whole line of argument is Ad Hominem, and how rich he is is particularly irrelevent.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I have to point out that Jack Spong is rich and famous, so I really wouldn't waste any tears on him.
In fact, he's a publicity hound with an egomaniacal sense of his own righteousness.....
Etc Etc
quote:So...it's a question of who or what you're derivative of, not whether or not you are derivative. You think that the orthodoxy is necessarily derivative of Christ and the rest are derivative of themselves, or something else...
Originally Posted by Dingy Sailor:
Orthodoxy is about holding on to the same truths, and applying them afresh to each new situation we come across and putting them in a new light to reflect the problems they face today. Spong manages to dump the truths without being interesting, and tbh if he was preaching at my church, I'd rather stay home and read Tillich.
quote:Ah but you are assuming the church fucked up when he was a bishop. THAT is incorrect. Nice try though.
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Ah, the church fucked up while he was a Bishop, so every part of it should continue to fuck up in the same way now that he's retired. Great logic, Mad Geo.
quote:I didn't realize that this thread was limited to topics that you prefer to talk about. And I don't remember that you said anything about "whether he has or has not got a point," either, BTW.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
TM
The last time I checked money wasn't a sin, the LOVE of money was. You cannot prove the latter so you shouldn't assume the former.
I also do not recall a commandment that says "Priests shall not make money speaking". That's absurd.
Again, most of the priests I know are not afraid of money, and are certainly not wallflowers. They are usually agressively political, arrogant to some degree, and often to excess. You have to be to do the tough job they do with all the backbiting, nasty, music-war-comittee, bullshit that often goes on in churches nowadays.
This whole line of "reasoning" is ad hominem. If you want to attack his ideas, fine, but just because he is making money doing what he loves, does not in fact prove anything at all about whether he has or has not got a point.
quote:The claim however was that he had new or interesting beliefs. He does not.
Originally posted by mirrizin:
quote:Is there a single theologian now living on the face of the entire planet that isn't derivative?
Originally Posted by SeraphimSarov:
What questions does he raise that Renan and other sceptics of the 19th century didn't?? It seems pretty derivative to me.
Isn't the whole idea of an orthodox tradition all about being derivative?
What's so freaking awful about being derivative?
quote:Not really.
Originally posted by mirrizin:
So...it's a question of who or what you're derivative of, not whether or not you are derivative.
quote:Then again, he wasn't into letting the pharisees preach his sermons for him.
I don't think anyone wins when churches close their doors on people or on ideas. I've never thought Christ was into creating a movement of ideological goose-steppers all chanting the same mantra, even if they did it in his name.
quote:So, what is it about Spong that's Pharisaic, besides being unorthodox and overstating his case?
Originally POsted by Dingy Sailor:
Then again, he wasn't into letting the pharisees preach his sermons for him.
quote:The linked article by Rowan Williams is a typically well-written little gem, but I have questions of a general nature about it.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Rowan Williams spoke up about Spong's nonsense in 1998.
quote:My concern is that if Spong is being so simplistic as to be likened to a sixth-former, you'd expect that when his mistake is pointed out it would be pretty obvious, and that we'd all feel embarrassed for him to have made such a howler. But RW's correction of Spong's theism offers us something pretty imcomprehensible. Spong is being gently mocked for failing to understand something that taxes even RW's ability to express clearly. In fact the oh, so obvious orthodox doctrine of God relies heavily, it seems, on a phrase - unconstrained love - which I've never come across before. Not a difficult phrase to understand, I admit, but why does RW need it?
God is not an object or agent over against the world; God is the eternal activity of unconstrained love, an activity that activates all that is around God is more intimate to the world than we can imagine, as the source of activity or energy itself; and God is more different than we can imagine, beyond category and kind and definition.
quote:You're right, though, that RW should explain this more fully.
But to fulfill the law means to do its work eagerly, lovingly and freely, without the constraint of the law; it means to live well and in a manner pleasing to God, as though there were no law or punishment. It is the Holy Spirit, however, who puts such eagerness of unconstained love into the heart, as Paul says in chapter 5. But the Spirit is given only in, with, and through faith in Jesus Christ, as Paul says in his introduction. So, too, faith comes only through the word of God, the Gospel, that preaches Christ: how he is both Son of God and man, how he died and rose for our sake. Paul says all this in chapters 3, 4 and 10.
quote:I don't think that's right, though. Spong says, openly, that "the Christology of the ages is bankrupt."
Originally posted by Ex Cathedra:
No doubt RW is right to say that Spong is attacking a form of theism that is naive, and not actually taught by any significant theologians, but unfortunately the vast majority of Christians are not influenced by significant theologians. Spong is attacking the - as he would see it - simplistic and ultimately destructive theology of those who cling to ancient and now irrelevant understandings of God.
quote:'course it is. so is assuming he wouldn't have gotten along with Spong. Until our Man drops back in to set us aright, they're all big assumptions.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:and that is called making a very big assumption
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Jesus fought people like the bishop his whole life. I suspect him and Spong woulda got along fine.
quote:Really??
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:I'm a bit shocked that you think the tradition of the Church and the views of its Councils aren't very closely aligned with the teaching of Jesus.
Originally posted by Ex Cathedra:
BTW, I'm a bit shocked that the only contributor to this thread who seems to give more weight to the teaching of Jesus than the traditions of the Church and the views of its Councils is Mad Geo, the non-Christian.
quote:I find it entertaining but more puzzling frankly when people can accept the moral teachings of Our Lord but can't accept his claim of Divinity. It is all of a piece or it leads frankly to relativism as Spong and others have gone down the path to IMHO.
Originally posted by comet:
quote:'course it is. so is assuming he wouldn't have gotten along with Spong. Until our Man drops back in to set us aright, they're all big assumptions.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:and that is called making a very big assumption
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Jesus fought people like the bishop his whole life. I suspect him and Spong woulda got along fine.
At the same time, I find it really entertaining to see how many people are so willing to say or imply that Jesus would have totally supported their point of view on this. Jesus got very worked up over the powers-that-be making their little rules of who can and cannot play. Healing on the Sabbath, anyone?
i]
quote:okay, so how rich is he, then? You claimed he's rich and famous. Famous/infamous, obviously. But where do you get that he's rich?
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I think actually how rich Spong is is quite relevant.
quote:Whoa! again with the assumptions. you're saying he's using his position as bishop to enrich himself. By writing a few books? pahlese.
He's using his position as Bishop - which he hasn't got the integrity to resign from, which he really should do, considering that he doesn't agree with any of his own church's teachings - in order to enrich himself. I don't think Jesus "woulda got along fine with him." I think Jesus woulda thought he was a tremendous hypocrite.
quote:If he's in trouble for this, then the whole system is fucked. the cheapest bible I can find on Amazon at the moment is $3.95 plus S&H.
He sells what should be given away: ideas about God. If the Church and its theology are as dangerously out of touch as he says they are, why doesn't Spong go on speaking tours for nothing? Why does he write books for sale, rather than offer his philosophy for nothing on his website? He's drawing a fat pension from the church as it is.
quote:Good grief, you'd think he was skinning babies.
He's the very opposite of somebody like St. Francis - or, for that matter, like any parish priest who works hard to help his parishioners, and who keeps the vows he took at ordination, something Spong can't be bothered with, apparently.
quote:err...okay.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
I find it entertaining but more puzzling frankly when people can accept the moral teachings of Our Lord but can't accept his claim of Divinity. It is all of a piece or it leads frankly to relativism as Spong and others have gone down the path to IMHO.
quote:And yet he still is part of it; imagine that. What a maroon.
"I had to fight for that title," Spong said. "Religion in America is totally unattractive. It's associated with priests violating someone, people condemning gay America, or keeping Terry Schiavo alive in the name of religion. Most of the debates have to do with sexuality. If that is what religion has come to mean then I don't want to be a part of it."
quote:I'm not a "Spong-defender", until the Ship I'd never even heard of him and I couldn't name a single one of his "best-selling" books. I realy couldn't give a half-shit to defend him.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Now, this is quite funny, actually. The Spong-defenders on this thread all bash the church at every possible opportunity, demanding that it, and its representatives, be morally better and different from the rest of society - more like Jesus, IOW.
quote:writing ten books doesn't make him wealthy. Even writing ten "best-selling" books doesn't make him wealthy. What's on contract between him and his publisher I suspect isn't available for public review. For all I know he gets none of the proceeds and all of his author's share (often around 5% of net, BTW) goes to the Newark diocese.
Jack Spong is wealthy, BTW, and admits openly to being wealthy. I suppose I'll have to go look for a quote on this, but it's really not too hard to imagine, given that he's written about 10 best-selling books.
quote:need is relative. I could easily say that anyone making more than I do doesn't need the money either, because I'm doing just fine.
As I said before, he's drawing a big fat Episcopal pension as well, so he doesn't need the money.
quote:you do know that publishing costs money, dont you? that there is not a self-respecting publishing house in this country that would give away books? sure, he could pay to have his book published, but then he doesn't get the publicity machine of the big houses and therefore the book goes less places. How much money do you think this one old cleric has? I know we pay pretty much crap for our bishop.
If it's so very, very important - and if his theology is the only solution to the imminent demise of Christianity, as he obviously believes and openly claims - then he really ought to publish for nothing so that all us poor unenlightened schnooks can have access to it. Right?
quote:This creeps me out. Sure, he could resign from the church, but if he wants to effect change behaps he knows what most of the rest of us know - that change starts from within. you can do more as a member. Remember all the Ship flap over the last year or so? Pyx_e, I suspect, knows very well that if he wants the Ship to change at all, he needs to stick around and influence change from within. Flouncing guarentees you're never heard.
But when you suggest that Spong ought to have the integrity to resign from his position because he's not doing his job, or making lots of money bashing the church - while still a representative of the church charged with teaching the faith he doesn't believe in - isn't exactly kosher, all of a sudden Spong should have the right to act exactly like everybody else.
quote:it's a tangent, but I've seen this more than once on the Ship. has "maroon" become an insult when I wasn't looking? I thought it was a color.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
What a maroon.
quote:it wasn't deflecting criticism of him, I was responding to the tone of your posts, which seems over the top and hysterical. Criticize him all you like; but the language you use implies an awful lot of anger than I, personally, would probably reserve for someone like a baby skinner.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
And by the way: how completely lame to try to deflect criticism of Spong because "he's not skinning babies."
Which means, I take it, that you think nothing is really worth bothering with until people start skinning babies? Talk about low standards....
quote:Apparently St. Francis is not required reading amongst the Bishoply bretheren. Good for them. Francis was a Maroon .
Presiding Bishop James De Wolf Perry began the move for voluntary retrenchments last week by pruning his $15,000 salary 10%. He has a rich wife, an independent income. New York's small Bishop William Thomas Manning, who also has a rich wife, a fine Bishop's Palace, a salary of $15,000 and a $5,000 "discretionary fund," followed suit.
From retirement emerged wealthy, 81-year-old Bishop William Lawrence to lend sage counsel.
No salary cut could Long Island's wealthy Bishop Ernest Milmorc Stires take because on assuming office he refused a salary, has only an impressive residence in Garden City with a liberal maintenance allowance and discretionary fund.
quote:Sorry you're "creeped out" by the idea that somebody should actually do the job they've promised to do, or else have the decency to resign. Remind me never to hire you for anything.
Originally posted by comet:
quote:This creeps me out. Sure, he could resign from the church, but if he wants to effect change behaps he knows what most of the rest of us know - that change starts from within. you can do more as a member. Remember all the Ship flap over the last year or so? Pyx_e, I suspect, knows very well that if he wants the Ship to change at all, he needs to stick around and influence change from within. Flouncing guarentees you're never heard.
But when you suggest that Spong ought to have the integrity to resign from his position because he's not doing his job, or making lots of money bashing the church - while still a representative of the church charged with teaching the faith he doesn't believe in - isn't exactly kosher, all of a sudden Spong should have the right to act exactly like everybody else.
As far as the rest of the AC - Groupthink does not help us. Spong has written a bunch of stuff that may or may not be crap. but Rowan has responded and I'm sure so have many others. We become stronger by discussing the faith. it's the diversity of views that begins the conversation that leads to a better understanding of our faith.
Blind following is very unAnglican.
quote:Is this the "tone" you mean:
Originally posted by comet:
it wasn't deflecting criticism of him, I was responding to the tone of your posts, which seems over the top and hysterical. Criticize him all you like; but the language you use implies an awful lot of anger than I, personally, would probably reserve for someone like a baby skinner.
quote:In other words, comparing Spong negatively with a beloved saint, and also with ordinary parish priests who work humbly and hard and out of the spotlight - that's the language that reminds you of "baby skinning"?
He's the very opposite of somebody like St. Francis - or, for that matter, like any parish priest who works hard to help his parishioners, and who keeps the vows he took at ordination, something Spong can't be bothered with, apparently.
quote:I would be very surprised to learn that he was expected to not examine the faith in an academic manner when hired as a Bishop.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Sorry you're "creeped out" by the idea that somebody should actually do the job they've promised to do, or else have the decency to resign. Remind me never to hire you for anything.
quote:Apparently this point is difficult for some people to understand. Here it is again, very slowly:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Well I did a little googling about this absurd notion regarding wealth and the Bishop. Bishops have a Talent for wealth, apparently.
quote:Apparently St. Francis is not required reading amongst the Bishoply bretheren. Good for them. Francis was a Maroon .
Presiding Bishop James De Wolf Perry began the move for voluntary retrenchments last week by pruning his $15,000 salary 10%. He has a rich wife, an independent income. New York's small Bishop William Thomas Manning, who also has a rich wife, a fine Bishop's Palace, a salary of $15,000 and a $5,000 "discretionary fund," followed suit.
From retirement emerged wealthy, 81-year-old Bishop William Lawrence to lend sage counsel.
No salary cut could Long Island's wealthy Bishop Ernest Milmorc Stires take because on assuming office he refused a salary, has only an impressive residence in Garden City with a liberal maintenance allowance and discretionary fund.
quote:No, that's the language that reminds me of hysteria and over reaction. Go back and read it again. I never accused you of baby skinning.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
that's the language that reminds you of "baby skinning"?
quote:if want to insult me you know where to take it.
Interesting. Looks like you've totally lost contact with reality at this point. Must be all those days and nights you spend in Hell, flinging vile insults at other people for no particular reason.
quote:as I have said, oh, a good 4 or 5 times on this thread so far... I don't know anything about him. I'm not an expert.
And BTW, since you've never heard of Spong before, how come you're all of a sudden such an expert about him?
quote:Let's try it again; I know this must be difficult. Dissent is very much allowed; Jack Spong is welcome to be as dissenting as he likes - as an ordinary citizen. I'm also welcome to "dissent" as much as I like, and so are you.
Originally posted by comet:
What I find creepy is the idea that dissent is somehow not allowed. So he's a crackpot. so what? It's got people reexamining their beliefs and studying up and asking questions.
That is a good thing.
as for hiring me: don't worry, there have been plenty of others willing to do so.
quote:So, JC was allowed dissent because he was an ordinary citizen? Good thing he wasn't elected bishop.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
... Dissent is very much allowed; Jack Spong is welcome to be as dissenting as he likes - as an ordinary citizen.
quote:What I said was in no way hysterical; in fact, it was a simple and straightforward statement that expressed admiration for people who work hard and do their jobs and sacrifice for others. Please at least own up to your own hyperbole.
Originally posted by comet:
No, that's the language that reminds me of hysteria and over reaction. Go back and read it again. I never accused you of baby skinning.
quote:Don't push me, TubaMirum.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Let's try it again; I know this must be difficult.
quote:I can't address the content of what he says and writes as I have not read his work. But I can say, again, that I dont think Bishops, priests, or frankly anyone else in a leadership position in any organization should leave their brains at the door when they sign up. Those "within" are actually in a much stronger position to bring about change, as they have made it their careers. I have much less credence in my dissent because I have not dedicated my life to the believability of the divinity of Christ. I'd rather hear a bishop's opinion than a hot dog vendor.
Dissent is very much allowed; Jack Spong is welcome to be as dissenting as he likes - as an ordinary citizen. I'm also welcome to "dissent" as much as I like, and so are you.
quote:again, just for clarity, I cannot address the content of his words, and never meant to imply I did.
A bishop has a different job, though. He is charged to teach the very faith that Spong openly scorns. He calls it "bankrupt." He says that no "thinking person" could believe it.
quote:this, if true, is the first thing you've said that makes me think he should be asked to leave his diocese. That is very unChristlike behavior. At least, ridiculing them is. Criticizing their theological POV is just rigorous debate.
He ridicules people who disagree with him.
quote:could be. or could be he loves the church and the faith and is hoping to bring about change. Or, even more likely, he believes he is doing his job by scrutinizing the faith and advancing academic and spiritual understanding.
imagine because he knows that if he resigns out of principle, he won't be as "outrageous" any longer, and nobody will be interested in hearing him speak or in reading his books.
quote:So you, too, believe a person should not be expected to do the job they promised to do, then?
Originally posted by Gort:
quote:So, JC was allowed dissent because he was an ordinary citizen? Good thing he wasn't elected bishop.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
... Dissent is very much allowed; Jack Spong is welcome to be as dissenting as he likes - as an ordinary citizen.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:What I said was in no way hysterical; in fact, it was a simple and straightforward statement that expressed admiration for people who work hard and do their jobs and sacrifice for others. Please at least own up to your own hyperbole.
Originally posted by comet:
No, that's the language that reminds me of hysteria and over reaction. Go back and read it again. I never accused you of baby skinning.
quote:This is straitforward and positive?
Originally posted by TubaMirum a bit earlier:
He's the very opposite of somebody like St. Francis - or, for that matter, like any parish priest who works hard to help his parishioners, and who keeps the vows he took at ordination, something Spong can't be bothered with, apparently.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum from the same post I responded to with the "baby skinning" comment:
He's using his position as Bishop - which he hasn't got the integrity to resign from, which he really should do, considering that he doesn't agree with any of his own church's teachings - in order to enrich himself. I don't think Jesus "woulda got along fine with him." I think Jesus woulda thought he was a tremendous hypocrite.
quote:These are just a few examples of the posts that made me respond by saying he wasn't exactly skinning babies. like I said - over reaction and hysteria. I am not the least surprised you disagree, and certainly it was hyperbole. But that doesn't mean I wont stand by it.
Originally posted by TubaMirum even further back, when the money was brought up:
I have to point out that Jack Spong is rich and famous, so I really wouldn't waste any tears on him.
In fact, he's a publicity hound with an egomaniacal sense of his own righteousness. He has contempt for those who disagree with him, and doesn't hesitate to express it. He gets paid handsomely to speak in various places across the globe, and sells millions of books. He has a much larger megaphone than any other bishop of the church, with the exception of Rowan Williams. He's really not one of the meek or poor or salt of the earth; in fact, he's still a bishop in the church - part of the power structure, IOW - and yet claims that the teachings of that same church are "bankrupt."
On top of that, he's a tedious read and unoriginal to boot. So, please. Can we tone down the wailing and rending of garments?
quote:Obviously you need a push. I've never seen anybody act so arrogant in arguing about a subject they know so little about.
Originally posted by comet:
Don't push me, TubaMirum.
quote:this gives you credibility. it was worth mentioning quite some time ago.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I do know that Spong is wealthy; I live in his diocese and I know him.
quote:I only insist if you still think his weath matters to the discussion at hand. I don't think it does, and frankly I dont give a shit how much he makes.
He has said so himself, as I've already said; I'll go to the trouble of showing this, if you insist.
quote:as a member of his diocese, yes that is your business. has he actually ignored his duties or just said things you find shocking and heretical? because there is a difference.
what is my business, though, is that Spong ignores his duties and gets accolades for it, while decent and self-sacrificing priests who actually do work hard to teach the faith are ignored. IOW, I have zero respect for Spong and his best-sellers; I think I'm certainly permitted to criticize him on that account.
quote:See? all of this, stated as your opinion from your perspective, is perfectly fair.
Spong doesn't have anything positive to offer at all. The church deserves criticism, no doubt; I say that myself, all the time. The point is that it would be quite possible to criticize the church and at the same time teach the faith. Spong doesn't do this. He's a bad leader because he doesn't do the job he promised to do, and he should resign on that account.
quote:THAT is the $40,000 question. Then again when in recent memory have the Anglicans (as a group) taken a firm stand on anything?
Originally posted by comet:
If Spong's infractions are beyond the coffee point, then why haven't you guys done something about it?
quote:As soon as I hear that Spong actually was skinning babies I'll take it all back.
Originally posted by MouseThief:
How can you say someone is overreacting when by your own admission you have no idea whatsoever what she's reacting to?
quote:I believe that all the myriad christian churches and their elected representatives fall short of what is expected of them. You seem to be content with the condition of christianity in the world today. Others are not. Your arguments are defending the institution and its rules which, by your way of thinking, should be obeyed to the letter.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:So you, too, believe a person should not be expected to do the job they promised to do, then? ...
Originally posted by Gort:
quote:So, JC was allowed dissent because he was an ordinary citizen? Good thing he wasn't elected bishop.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
... Dissent is very much allowed; Jack Spong is welcome to be as dissenting as he likes - as an ordinary citizen.
quote:I know an awful lot about truth in reporting, actually. Which was all I took issue with. I don't like lies or exaggurations used to slander people. Most often the truth is enough to completely ruin our reputations, lies are unnecessary and overkill.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:Obviously you need a push. I've never seen anybody act so arrogant in arguing about a subject they know so little about.
Originally posted by comet:
Don't push me, TubaMirum.
quote:if they are so well known you'll have no problem defending your words then.
The things I'm saying are well-known. Sneering at my "track record" is a bit rich, I'm afraid, given the circumstances.
quote:Ah the "firm stand".
Originally posted by MouseThief:
...when in recent memory have the Anglicans (as a group) taken a firm stand on anything?
quote:Hmmm. I wish people would read what I'm writing instead of responding to what's in their own heads. I've already said that that the church can and should be criticized - that I do it all the time myself - but that in the meantime, the job of a bishop was to teach the Christian faith.
Originally posted by Gort:
I believe that all the myriad christian churches and their elected representatives fall short of what is expected of them. You seem to be content with the condition of christianity in the world today. Others are not. Your arguments are defending the institution and its rules which, by your way of thinking, should be obeyed to the letter.
That doesn't mean the protesters are any less christian. It just may be that those who rail against the establishment are seeking to improve it, not destroy it.
It's been my belief for a long time that organizations literally take on a life of their own and will subordinate the interests of the individual parts to survival of the whole, just like any living thing. It will defend its existence, no matter what the cost.
What is your prime concern? Individual salvation or survival of the faulted organization that represents it?
quote:"The Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ...as this Church hath received the same" has a very clear view of the Eucharist. I can't think of many more "strange doctrines" than allowing laypeople to pretend to celebrate the Eucharist.
The Bishop.
Will you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same, according to the Commandments of God; so that you may teach the people committed to your Cure and Charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same?
Answer. I will so do, by the help of the Lord.
The Bishop.
Will you be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's Word; and to use both public and private monitions and exhortations, as well to the sick as to the whole, within your Cures, as need shall require, and occasion shall be given?
Answer. I will, the Lord being my helper.
quote:No...thats good!!! He's getting out of the 19th century. The next step is restating Neo-Orthodoxy as if Barth never existed and it was something new.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
What really gets me about Spongism is that the Episcopal Church has almost no doctrine in the first place - and is very generous about dissent. Nobody is told what they have to believe.
But Spong apparently can't deal with even minimal doctrine: the two Creeds. That's all there is, and there are a million ways to interpret them.
But this is "bankrupt," according to him, and needs to be done away with. His latest thing is that "God is so far beyond us that we can't say anything about God."
Which is, obviously, something we can say about God. It's just ridiculous, really.
quote:There is a need here to clearly distinguish the content of orthodoxy from the form in which it is presented. The Creeds for example, were written in the language of Greek Philosophy (Homoousius vs Homoiousius for example). Each generation attempts to conceptualize and present the catholic truth in its own way. The content of orthodoxy remains universally constant (Christ as Lord and God, his death and resurrection as the means for our salvation). The form in which it is presented changes.
Originally posted by JimT:
I heard Katherin Jefferts Schori speak the night before last and in an extended response to a question on the "boundaries" of Episcopal doctrine, one of the things she said was that she "could imagine" that the Creeds will be rewritten by the Church. She said that it had happened before and that it was the job of the Church to "recontextualize" the Gospels, canons, and creeds to the people in the times and places that it serves.
I'd like to know now if she thinks they ought to be rewritten, as Spong does. I was kind of hearing it between the lines, but it could be me. I'm also wondering if she thinks the Church might be better off without creeds since they seem to spawn more schism than unity.
quote:Did she reflect on how the ancient Creeds might be "rewritten" in context of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches' position through consultation or will the historic Creeds be written only within the ECUSA? This would be troubling to me and I'm sure many others. One particular church cannot start changing the historic Creeds on their own.
Originally posted by JimT:
I heard Katherin Jefferts Schori speak the night before last and in an extended response to a question on the "boundaries" of Episcopal doctrine, one of the things she said was that she "could imagine" that the Creeds will be rewritten by the Church. She said that it had happened before and that it was the job of the Church to "recontextualize" the Gospels, canons, and creeds to the people in the times and places that it serves.\.
quote:I think we're in a semi-permanent Spong-generated feedback loop now. We can't move forward or make any progress on anything because we're eternally questioning "the basics." Over and over and over again, so we never get beyond Square One - which is really sad, considering we have hardly any basics to begin with.
Originally posted by Matins:
No...thats good!!! He's getting out of the 19th century. The next step is restating Neo-Orthodoxy as if Barth never existed and it was something new.
I can't get upset about Spong. He's too funny.
quote:What in the world are you complaining about now?
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Amazing, us talking about Spong on a thread with the name Spong in it, go figure.....
:rolleyes
quote:In all fairness, I really don't think Spong believes we should be dumping all of tradition. Anglicans generally love singing, and it will be a cold day in hell when they stop singing the hymns of Wesley, Watts, etc.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
What really gets me about Spongism is that the Episcopal Church has almost no doctrine in the first place - and is very generous about dissent. Nobody is told what they have to believe.
But Spong apparently can't deal with even minimal doctrine: the two Creeds. That's all there is, and there are a million ways to interpret them.
But this is "bankrupt," according to him, and needs to be done away with. His latest thing is that "God is so far beyond us that we can't say anything about God."
Which is, obviously, something we can say about God. It's just ridiculous, really.
quote:Well, I didn't say anything about Tradition or worship styles; I was talking about doctrine. (I sort of wonder what will be left of "Tradition" if the doctrine gets tossed - not much, is my guess - but that's another thread.)
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
In all fairness, I really don't think Spong believes we should be dumping all of tradition. Anglicans generally love singing, and it will be a cold day in hell when they stop singing the hymns of Wesley, Watts, etc.
I think what he is saying is that we shouldn't be taking any of it literally. His argument is you can't have it both ways. You can't support tolerance for gay people for example if you are orthodox. Because the orthodox line of thinking is dangerous, an acceptance of the Scriptures as literal.
I think that is his view, and I don't think it is as outrageous as people make it out to be.
quote:And exactly how well do you know the mind of ++Jensen?
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
CJS, I put it to you that ++Jensen has knowingly and deliberately broken the vows he took at ordination.
quote:Look, I'm not saying that we should allow lay presidency, but there is nothing in those vows that rules it out.
And so, for that matter, has any other priest who supports the notion of "lay presidency" at the Eucharist.
Here's the service for the Ordination of a Priest.
And here's the segment he (and his fellows) have most egregiously violated:
quote:"The Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ...as this Church hath received the same" has a very clear view of the Eucharist. I can't think of many more "strange doctrines" than allowing laypeople to pretend to celebrate the Eucharist.
The Bishop.
Will you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same, according to the Commandments of God; so that you may teach the people committed to your Cure and Charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same?
Answer. I will so do, by the help of the Lord.
The Bishop.
Will you be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's Word; and to use both public and private monitions and exhortations, as well to the sick as to the whole, within your Cures, as need shall require, and occasion shall be given?
Answer. I will, the Lord being my helper.
quote:You do realise that evangelicalism is a firm part of the Anglican tradition, don't you?
If ++Jensen and his posse want to dump all pretense at Anglican doctrine and tradition to become some sort of wacko-Calvinist NSP (Non-Specific Protestant), they should have the courage of their convictions and Just Do It.
Ah, but that would mean giving up the power and the glory and the real estate and the money, wouldn't it? And they don't have the guts to do that. So they wear their goofy Geneva gowns and "schedule" the Eucharist, on a very occasional basis, and otherwise act in a totally unAnglican fashion.
By planting NSP churches in other jurisdictions and playing their other little games while still pretending to be Anglicans, they're no better than +Spong.
quote:I can see your point and I do have some agreement, but, living in Sydney, I'm not sure this is making news outside of religious circles: yes, it did make the news, but I think most people read it and moved on.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I am of the opinion that information delivered and controlled (if absolutely neccesary) or rebutted, is often better than information that is hidden or surpressed. By banning Spong, people give him a louder voice than he ever would have had they simply let him have his say in a controlled situation.
quote:I've been trying to think of a response to this from yesterday, and still can't. Not sure what that says. I looked at comparing religion to geology [what your profession is by your profile] and wondering what you'd do if someone claimed the Flying Spaghetti Monster was in every rock, but it is comparing apples and oranges, and, as far as I am aware, geologists had no founder saying 'Be nice'.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
To No One In Particular
I woke up this morning and thought about how Jesus would react to the divisiveness of his church. How many sects there are, given his strong emphasis to love one another and love thy neighbor, etc, etc. I thought about how this story (true or not) in the OP and the reactions herein describe a pattern of behaviour where people are looking for an excuse, any excuse, to ban, seperate, disagree, etc. etc.
Somehow I think Jesus woulda been disappointed with that whole way of approach.
'Course his people killed him for being of a different opinion, so I doubt he woulda been surprised.
quote:if you were responding to this:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Amazing, us talking about Spong on a thread with the name Spong in it, go figure.....
quote:I dont think Tuba was talking about the thread, but about the church in general.
TubaMirum:
I think we're in a semi-permanent Spong-generated feedback loop now. We can't move forward or make any progress on anything because we're eternally questioning "the basics." Over and over and over again, so we never get beyond Square One - which is really sad, considering we have hardly any basics to begin with.
quote:Sorry. Won't happen again.
Professor Kirke:
Comet and Tuba Mirum, please feel free to continue whatever furious debate you're having, so long as it sticks to the issues and leaves off the directly personal attacks.
quote:I think that's just about the right attitude to Spong. I've met the guy three times - friendly at first, but hates being challenged. My third interview with him was acrimonious and unfriendly and then he wrote some fairly unpleasant things about me in his autobiography (which I'm quite proud about). TubaMirum is right that he treats his theological enemies with contempt and ridicule, and is quick to turn on his erstwhile allies with ferocity when they dare to disagree with him. He was a disastrous diocesan bishop who failed to get to grips with mission in Newark. His theological thought is unoriginal and lacks any insight and humour. Basically, he's a fundamentalist.
Originally posted by Matins:
I can't get upset about Spong. He's too funny.
quote:Not just between him and his diocese. He sits in the House of Bishops where he has voice and vote until he dies. Bishops govern particular dioceses until they retire, but they are bishops in the church, the whole church, for the rest of their lives.
Originally posted by comet:
quote:I would be very surprised to learn that he was expected to not examine the faith in an academic manner when hired as a Bishop.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Sorry you're "creeped out" by the idea that somebody should actually do the job they've promised to do, or else have the decency to resign. Remind me never to hire you for anything.
Did he lead his diocese? Did he confirm and ordain and represent his diocese as they asked him to do when they hired him? Thing is, whether or not he was doing the job he was hired to do is between him and his diocese.
quote:He wasn't just supposed to keep the budget balanced and show up in parishes on a regular basis.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, I, N.N., chosen Bishop of the Church in N., solemnly declare that I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church.
quote:What I find ridiculous is the idea that it's okay, even a good thing, for bishops to go back on their promises.
What I find creepy is the idea that dissent is somehow not allowed.
quote:Personally, I think it's very important to make sure you have your fundamentals straight before moving forward. If you have your basics right, everything else ought to fall into place. If you don't, you'll never get anything else right. I think a lot of honest religion involves trying to get back to square one, so to speak.
Originally Posted by TubaMirum:
I think we're in a semi-permanent Spong-generated feedback loop now. We can't move forward or make any progress on anything because we're eternally questioning "the basics." Over and over and over again, so we never get beyond Square One - which is really sad, considering we have hardly any basics to begin with.
quote:Doesn't that make you a fundamentalist?
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Personally, I think it's very important to make sure you have your fundamentals straight before moving forward. If you have your basics right, everything else ought to fall into place. If you don't, you'll never get anything else right.
quote:Yes, in a manner of speaking. I've been thinking lately that it's really quite impossible to be religious and not be a fundamentalist of one stripe or another, at least if you take it seriously.
Originally Posted by Johnny S:
Doesn't that make you a fundamentalist?
quote:That's funny, 'cos one of the words that conservatives want to reclaim is 'liberal'.
Originally posted by mirrizin:
I think liberals need to do some serious linguistic reclamation in the future.
quote:Oh, if you mean liberal as in the liberal free market, I'm pretty liberal already on that front (though not quite libertarian, I'll admit). I was thinking of theological liberals, you know, the types that think loving, taking care of people, and trusting God is more important than controlling folks' bedroom behavior or bludgeoning sinners with their own mistakes.
Originally Posted by Johnny Squote:That's funny, 'cos one of the words that conservatives want to reclaim is 'liberal'.
Originally posted by mirrizin:
I think liberals need to do some serious linguistic reclamation in the future.
quote:She said nothing about the mechanics of how a rewriting of the Creeds might proceed. It was not 100% clear when she said that "we" might rewrite the creeds who "we" were. Again, this was a spontaneous offhand remark in response to a question from the audience, not a prepared statement and certainly not a formal proposal.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
Did she reflect on how the ancient Creeds might be "rewritten" in context of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches' position through consultation or will the historic Creeds be written only within the ECUSA?
quote:In this country, the political conservatives have been using "liberal" as a swear word for so long that it's impossible to believe they want it back.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:That's funny, 'cos one of the words that conservatives want to reclaim is 'liberal'.
Originally posted by mirrizin:
I think liberals need to do some serious linguistic reclamation in the future.
quote:I can see your point, mirrizin - but the Creeds are the only doctrine of TEC at all. They say, at the bare minimum, what our faith is about; if we toss them, what would likely be put in their place would be some form of Confession, something I think would be far worse.
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Personally, I think it's very important to make sure you have your fundamentals straight before moving forward. If you have your basics right, everything else ought to fall into place. If you don't, you'll never get anything else right. I think a lot of honest religion involves trying to get back to square one, so to speak.
Creeds are overrated, IMO.
quote:In the UK liberal can still mean generous.
Originally posted by MouseThief:
In this country, the political conservatives have been using "liberal" as a swear word for so long that it's impossible to believe they want it back.
quote:the problem with that statement is that theological liberals are not the only ones who believe strongly in doing the former and often theological "liberals" are just as intolerant as the extreme fundamentalists. There is a lot of middle way between the two extremes. A Via Media if you like.
Originally posted by mirrizin:
[QUOTE] I was thinking of theological liberals, you know, the types that think loving, taking care of people, and trusting God is more important than controlling folks' bedroom behavior or bludgeoning sinners with their own mistakes.
quote:Read it again. I think it's quite clear. ++Jensen is as guilty as +Spong of running roughshod over Anglican doctrine and tradition. He's just not as celebratory about it.
Originally posted by Anselm:
Look, I'm not saying that we should allow lay presidency, but there is nothing in those vows that rules it out.
quote:You do realize that observing jurisdictional boundaries is a firm part of the Anglican tradition, don't you? You do realize that the Africans have been slapped for stomping on others' turf, don't you? Why should Sydney be allowed to flout the rules?
You do realise that evangelicalism is a firm part of the Anglican tradition, don't you?
quote:I don't really care about "significantly different theologies" per se -- see my sig -- but I do care about hypocrisy, and about misrepresentation. If ++Jensen and his followers wanted to start their own overtly Protestant denomination, or to move to another one en masse, I'd wish them fair winds and a safe voyage. (Oh, and leave the keys on the hook by the door.)
And while I can appreciate that you have significantly different theological views to ++Jensen, I don't see why someone having a different theology to you (that leads them to a differing paxis) necessarily means that you can infer a lack of moral integrity on them. It certainly doesn't do your position any service.
quote:Technically this isn't true. The Doctrine of the Anglican Tradition includes the historic episcopate and the principle of common prayer and common worship. The doctrine of TEC like all Anglican churches is summed up in the Lambeth-Quadrilateral.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:I can see your point, mirrizin - but the Creeds are the only doctrine of TEC at all.
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Personally, I think it's very important to make sure you have your fundamentals straight before moving forward. If you have your basics right, everything else ought to fall into place. If you don't, you'll never get anything else right. I think a lot of honest religion involves trying to get back to square one, so to speak.
Creeds are overrated, IMO.
quote:It is true for TEC; the Creeds are the only two pieces of doctrine adopted by General Convention for our church. We don't use the Athanasian Creed, for instance, which others do (if I'm not mistaken). We also don't consider the 39 Articles to be doctrine; they are seen as "Historical Documents" in our church (but also, I believe, offical doctrine adopted by some others, or else still - theoretically - in force?).
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
Technically this isn't true. The Doctrine of the Anglican Tradition includes the historic episcopate and the principle of common prayer and common worship. The doctrine of TEC like all Anglican churches is summed up in the Lambeth-Quadrilateral.
quote:He's not a layperson; he has duties as a Bishop, including responsibilities to other people. If he can't or won't fulfill them, he really should resign, as ordinary people do when they find they can't accept the conditions of the job they've taken on. It's not like the Ordination Vows are secret or something, either. Here's the vow taken publicly by a Bishop at consecration:
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
Is the issue for Spong, in that he holds these beliefs in private, or that he actively promulgates these beliefs? I do know some people say that at least Spong is honest about his heresy. There are people that do not agree with the Creeds (generally these people who don't accept the Trinity or Christ's divinity) in many churches, who go through the motions and pretend every Sunday.
quote:Ordinary people take no such vow. That's life; that's just the way it is, too bad so sad. He's not supposed to be tearing the faith apart; he's supposed to be teaching it and caring for the people he has charge for, as a servant (just as it says). He has, IOW, a job, something he he prefers to ignore.
The Presiding Bishop addresses the bishop-elect
My brother, the people have chosen you and have affirmed their trust in you by acclaiming your election. A bishop in God's holy Church is called to be one with the apostles in proclaiming Christ's resurrection and interpreting the Gospel,
and to testify to Christ's sovereignty as Lord of lords and King of kings.
You are called to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church; to celebrate and to provide for the administration of the sacraments of the New Covenant; to ordain priests and deacons and to join in ordaining bishops; and to be in all
things a faithful pastor and wholesome example for the entire flock of Christ.
With your fellow bishops you will share in the leadership of the Church throughout the world. Your heritage is the faith of patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, and those of every generation who have looked to God in hope. Your joy will be to follow him who came, not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Are you persuaded that God has called you to the office of bishop?
Answer I am so persuaded.
quote:Isn't that nice? I think we should adopt something like this for (optional) parish use, too, maybe using the Nicene for feast days and things.
We believe in the one High God, who out of love created the beautiful world and everything good in it. He created man and wanted man to be happy in the world. God loves the world and every nation and tribe on the earth. We have known this High God in the darkness, and now we know him in the light. God promised in the book of his word, the Bible, that he would save the world and all nations and tribes.
We believe that God made good his promise by sending his son, Jesus Christ, a man in the flesh, a Jew by tribe, born poor in a little village, who left his home and was always on safari doing good, curing people by the power of God, teaching about God and man, showing that the meaning of religion is love. He was rejected by his people, tortured and nailed hands and feet to a cross, and died. He was buried in the grave, but the hyenas did not touch him, and on the third day, he rose from that grave. He ascended to the skies. He is the Lord.
We believe that all our sins are forgiven through him. All who have faith in him must be sorry for their sins, be baptized in the Holy Spirit of God, live the rules of love, and share the bread together in love, to announce the good news to others until Jesus comes again. We are waiting for him. He is alive. He lives. This we believe. Amen.
quote:Denigrating and denouncing their religion while profiting from it monetarily? I don't remember the OT prophets doing that. Which translation are you using?
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I'm not aware Spong has called himself a prophet. I think he's being prophetic because he seems to be doing the same kind of thing for the Church the OT prophets did for the people of Israel.
quote:I think that should be Paul Barnett.
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
+Robert Barnett, then Regional Bishop of North Sydney,
quote:When someone provides evidence that this is fair comment on Bishop Spong I'll take such questions seriously.
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Denigrating and denouncing their religion while profiting from it monetarily?
quote:Genuine insights? That both posters just happen to hold strongly opposing opinions in one respect or another about the Church to +Spong makes me think their 'insights' might be of limited value.
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Many thanks, Spawn and Tuba Mirum, for sharing your genuine insights gained from actual firsthand experience of Spong.
quote:This may be true, but neither I suggest can anyone else except those who adopt simplistic fundamentalist models. You seem to want someone else to tell you what the Church should be; Spong I think is inviting us to take responsibility for the future of Christianity on ourselves.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Spong can't seem to articulate his vision of this New Christianity very well
quote:The problem though is that too many are not prepared to listen to what their grandchildren are saying. Which is basically that they haven't a clue what the Church is going on about. Traditional Christianity simply does not connect with them. That I think is what motivates Spong. Why should we be surprised that he can't come up with all the answers to that scale of problem?
It's not true, either, that people don't want the church to be their for their grandchildren; of course they do.
quote:Nonsense. You just don't like him. You say you know him - perhaps he's told you a few home truths? He didn't mince his words when I heard heard him speak.
Spong would resign as Bishop he'd have a lot more credibility. Nobody in the church takes him seriously anymore
quote:I'd be surprised if that was true. But that he gets attention in the wider world suggests he engages with where they are. Which is more than can be said for most of the Anglican Communion.
in the greater world Spong gets more attention than almost anybody else in the Church
quote:No, Dave, I don't want that. But thanks for demonstrating the kind of arrogance I'm talking about here. It's become the regular thing, when a person criticizes Spong for anything, that one of his supporters will break out the "you can't think for yourself" ad hominem. IOW, if I don't buy into the Spong bullshit - if I actually ask him to be clear for once about what he's saying - there's something wrong with me. Well, that's certainly an easy way to avoid having to deal with the problem.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:This may be true, but neither I suggest can anyone else except those who adopt simplistic fundamentalist models. You seem to want someone else to tell you what the Church should be; Spong I think is inviting us to take responsibility for the future of Christianity on ourselves.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Spong can't seem to articulate his vision of this New Christianity very well
quote:Now please tell me why this should matter to anybody who's not Spong, and how it advances the cause of "the future of Christianity." Why should anybody care how Spong "experiences God"? What does this do for anybody else's faith? Where does it go? Does it address anything outside Spong's head? Does it attempt to explain anything?
I said in Perth last Sunday that though I am a Trinitarian, I could never say that God is a Trinity because I don't think a human being can ever tell anybody what God is like. But I experience God.
....
That's right. The Trinity is an attempt to explain my experience. I experience God as beyond anything I can imagine, otherness, transcendence, that's what the symbol, rather patriarchal symbol, but the symbol Father means. I experience God as a depth within myself, deeper than my own breath, and that's what spirit means. And I experience God as incarnate in the lives of other people, and incarnate particularly for me in the defining life of Jesus of Nazareth. But incarnate in all people. And since I think God is only one God, then my experience has to sort of find a way to put these different elements together, and that's where the Trinity comes from. It's not what God is, it's what my experience of God is.
quote:OK, rather than trade generalities, what that Spong has actually said are you not clear about? I don't have an inside track on his thinking, but I'd be happy have a go at clarifying what he's getting at.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
It's become the regular thing, when a person criticizes Spong for anything, that one of his supporters will break out the "you can't think for yourself" ad hominem. IOW, if I don't buy into the Spong bullshit - if I actually ask him to be clear for once about what he's saying - there's something wrong with me.
quote:I agree that put like that, it's untrue. But a defining characteristic of traditional Christianity is acceptance of whatever selection of religious truths define it for you. If you're unwilling to consider the possibility that those 'truths' are only your personal preferences for a view on truth, and that using them to define church excludes people who can't see any truth from that point of view, you're still a block to the church becoming a truth-embodying institution for other truth-seeking people.
It reminds me of atheists who call themselves "free-thinkers" in opposition to religious believers - implying that religious believers are all mind slaves and half-wits. Boring - and also patently untrue.
quote:Does it?
Religion actually involves formulating ideas and conveying their meaning to others - or at least to somebody.
quote:Yet you seem to end up doing next to nothing beyond tinkering with presentation.
Anyway, I hate to mention it, but lots of us who participate in the church actually do think quite a lot about its future
quote:So what exactly am I (and I guess Spong) missing? Just a few examples will give me an idea of what you mean.
Probably you're not aware of what's going on, since you don't participate yourself.
quote:Essentially, the fight was about salvation. Not about power, not about arguments, but about salvation. From an Orthodox point of view, because Jesus is God coming in the flesh we can become christs and gods. If the two are not sewn together, if divinity and humanity are not knitted together in Jesus, then man cannot become deified, and there is no salvation.
Originally posted by mirrizin:
So...why was Arius wrong, besides that he disagreed with the Catholic church?
quote:It depends on what one means by inclusiveness. I would pursue the inclusiveness that comes through a lot of sweat and hard inner work that leads to forgiveness and love for all, and this is very difficult. I wouldn't pursue the inclusiveness that blurs the boundaries between different ways of thinking and approaches to life. Hope this is not too vague, but I have to stop because this post is getting rather long.
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
May I ask why? Is "inclusiveness" the only thing we should aim for?
quote:In one post you're complaining that you don't understand what Spong is saying, now in the next you object to his explaining exactly what he means. I guess the confusion comes because your quote doesn't spell out the question, or that it's a tiny extract from a long interview that would provide the context within which it makes sense. If you're not interested, you don't have to read it. Or listen to anything that Spong says or writes.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Now please tell me why this [Spong quote]should matter to anybody who's not Spong, and how it advances the cause of "the future of Christianity."
quote:I wasn't aware he claimed to experience God through the "Christology of the Ages", which I would take to mean that the historical Jesus was literally God incarnate.
How can the "Christology of the ages" be completely bankrupt - and yet at the same time a valid way for Spong to "experience God"?
quote:I see no contradiction in Spong's ideas, even if I don't always think they're especially helpful. I am struggling to follow your logic though.
Why should anybody listen to a person who makes so little sense? Would you pay attention to somebody whose stated philosophy is based in utterly contradictory ideas?
quote:That I imagine would be the one that emerges when the Church moves beyond defining itself in terms of the traditional creeds. We don't know what it will look like yet.
And can somebody please explain the "New Christianity" that's been developed here?
quote:See, this is the basic probelem, ISTM. Dave, you don't want the core Faith as it has been historically understood and passed down for 2000 years at all - you want something else.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:Yet you seem to end up doing next to nothing beyond tinkering with presentation.
Anyway, I hate to mention it, but lots of us who participate in the church actually do think quite a lot about its future
quote:Some laypeople have read Berkhof and Barth and come to the conclusion that Tillich and Bultmann are to theology what fad diet devisers are to nutrition.
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
My attitude towards Spong is that his theology is basically a rehash of Tillich and Bultmann for lay people who can't be bothered to read actual academic theology.
quote:Keep on the soapbox, FD. If you shout loudly enough ++Phillip might hear you and remove whatever license you might hold to stand on soapboxes in the diocese. If you shout even louder, he might even realise what a bad and naughty boy he's been, and come crawling to your door in sackcloth and ashes so you can say to him, "Told you so, you liberal bastard!"
Comparing Spong's destruction of episcopalianism in New Jersey with Sydney's church growth is fruitful, but not for the reasons which some deluded Shipmates think it is. Oh, and Spong's faithful disciple in Brisbane, the Primate of Australia (!!), is engaged on a similar crusade. So I'd better get on my bike and spend the morning observing the Holy Spirit frustrating his devices.
quote:So discouraging scholarship and thinking -- and, in the process, doing your best to destroy Anglican tradition -- is a good thing? Banning graduates of all but one apparently fundamentalist know-nothing seminary produces only one kind of fruit, and it's not a very pleasant one.
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
...Comparing Spong's destruction of episcopalianism in New Jersey with Sydney's church growth is fruitful, but not for the reasons which some deluded Shipmates think it is. ...
quote:The ones that do get planked, MouseThief.
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:THAT is the $40,000 question. Then again when in recent memory have the Anglicans (as a group) taken a firm stand on anything?
Originally posted by comet:
If Spong's infractions are beyond the coffee point, then why haven't you guys done something about it?
quote:It`s the Anglican way with a very broad bum as a base.
How is this any better or, in essence, any different from what +Spong does?
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The ones that do get planked, MouseThief.
At least those who put their need to crusade above the simple rules of a discussion board.
quote:Oh Dear! Oh Dear! Self-amusement!
Originally posted by Gort:
At least those who put their need to crusade above the simple rules of a discussion board.
quote:That might be true, but unless you spell out what you mean by "the Faith" I can't be sure. It's the same issue as whether Spong is being faithful to his vows or not.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Dave, you don't want the core Faith as it has been historically understood and passed down for 2000 years at all - you want something else.
quote:Are you prepared to share the actual number with us?
Originally posted by Gort:
Nah. I have all of my zealot internet friends to keep me company.
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:And yet somehow, Spong's New Christianity is also Trinitarian. What an amazing coincidence that is! Here's a person who's been sneering at traditional views of the faith for decades - yet somehow his own internal "experience of God" comes out Triune, too.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:I wasn't aware he claimed to experience God through the "Christology of the Ages", which I would take to mean that the historical Jesus was literally God incarnate.
How can the "Christology of the ages" be completely bankrupt - and yet at the same time a valid way for Spong to "experience God"?
quote:Except of course, that no authority has been exercised here
Originally posted by Ger:
I am though of the opinion that +Jensen has been unwise in exercising his authority in this fashion
quote:(a) I suspect that +Jensen, like the rest of Christendom, knows exactly what Spong is saying since he has published a book and is going around publicising it.
(2) By allowing Spong to preach from the Sydney pulpits, +Jensen is in a position to (a) absolutely know what Spong is saying,
quote:I'm not really sure I understand the logic of your comment here as it pertains to the present discussion.
(3) +Jensen has himself been fulfilling is episcopal teaching function. Is his clergy sufficiently educated, are his seminaries fulfilling their function, is there effective preaching from the pulpits? If not, then perhaps Spong is showing up deficiencies in +Jensen.
quote:
(4) I suggest there is more likely to be an uprising from the laity by not allowing Spong to preach rather by allowing him.
quote:No.
...The task with Spong I suggest is finding the mote in the bathwater. Throwing out the bathwater without first seeking that mote is just plain wrong.
quote:As do I, as does +Jensen.
(6) Personally I approve of Voltaire (or what is attributed to Voltaire): "I disapprove of what you say, etc etc."
quote:Actually, I think it might be good in a crazy way that the faith loses its attraction for people for a time. It's been too closely aligned with the culture for way too long, and attempts to normalize it have caused it to lose its ability to shock. It's just not the same faith without that, I don't think.
Originally posted by Matins:
People have been proclaiming the coming demise of Nicene Christianity for at least 300 years. Like a Timex, it takes a licking and keeps on ticking. The movements proclaiming its demise always fade into obscurity. At least, this is the case in the United States. Off the top of my head, Western Europe may be the only place on earth the prophecies of doom are coming true. I will pray for a revival in Europe.
quote:Anselm, thank you for pointing out the lack of logic in my comment. I quite agree. (Hopefully, one of these days, a word processor that processes your thoughts rather than the input from your fingers will be produced.)
From Ger quote:
(3) +Jensen has himself been fulfilling is episcopal teaching function. Is his clergy sufficiently educated, are his seminaries fulfilling their function, is there effective preaching from the pulpits? If not, then perhaps Spong is showing up deficiencies in +Jensen.
Anselm's response:
I'm not really sure I understand the logic of your comment here as it pertains to the present discussion.
nor are appropriate reactions to him?
quote:I think this shows a misunderstanding about Anglican ecclesiology.
Originally posted by MouseThief:
THAT is the $40,000 question. Then again when in recent memory have the Anglicans (as a group) taken a firm stand on anything?
quote:Whilst not speaking on Peter Jensen's behalf, I would think this proposal is as likely as the Dali Lama getting a gig at St Andrews Cathedral!
Originally posted by Ger:
I have no particular views on the rightness or otherwise of ideas put forward by Spong or the Archbishop of Sydney. What I would like to see and hear is a debate on the rightness or otherwise of those views. This is not achieved by an argumentum ad hominem attack on Spong. Rather let the views be set out and debated - what better place than from the pulpits of the Diocese of Sydney.
One's own argument is neither strengthened nor the opposing argument diminished by ensuring the opposing argument is not heard. Indeed it could be argued that the Archbishop would strengthen his arguments by inviting Spong to preach in the Cathedral!
quote:Which is a shame, methinks, since I can imagine no other. How can one not doubt things one has no proof of? By definition, without proof, it might have happened, it might not. I can no more stop thinking "it may not be true" by my will, any more than I can make myself stop thinking about blue elephants.
A Christianity where I "doubt" the Resurrection and other generally agreed beliefs of Christian orthodoxy seems a bit like a weak religious cold chicken broth to me.
quote:So? There's a religion focussed around L Ron Hubbard. Plus at least one focussed around Elvis. And Prince Philip. Are you saying they weren't / aren't human?
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
And BTW, if Jesus isn't divine, why is there a religion focused around him? Doesn't that mean we're worshipping a human being?
quote:hmmm...I'm gonna have to get back to you one that one...
Originally posted by Figbash:
There's a religion focussed around L Ron Hubbard. Plus at least one focussed around Elvis. And Prince Philip. Are you saying they weren't / aren't human?
quote:Yeah. We'll get back to you in 2,000 years or so, and see how those religions are holding up. (I don't think they actually worship those guys, BTW. And if they do, well, yes: they're worshipping human beings. If we are, too, then shame on us.)
Originally posted by Anselm:
quote:hmmm...I'm gonna have to get back to you one that one...
Originally posted by Figbash:
There's a religion focussed around L Ron Hubbard. Plus at least one focussed around Elvis. And Prince Philip. Are you saying they weren't / aren't human?
quote:There are excercises that can help with this, grasshopper. Have you looked into Prana Yoga?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider: ... I can no more stop thinking "it may not be true" by my will, any more than I can make myself stop thinking about blue elephants.
quote:Based on his books' sales, I'd say it's more than "a few people" who are feeling put off by the church. I know some of them personally.
Originally Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
My gut feeling is that he speaks to a few people who feel "put off" by the Church.
quote:Funny, I have some non-religious friends who feel that the only reason Mormonism gets a hard time is because its history is recent enough that the warts and gaps are still visible.
Originally Posted by TubaMirum:
Yeah. We'll get back to you in 2,000 years or so, and see how those religions are holding up. (I don't think they actually worship those guys, BTW. And if they do, well, yes: they're worshipping human beings. If we are, too, then shame on us.)
quote:I don't really understand the point you're making. I don't know anything about Mormonism, for one thing, and I don't know what the "non-religious friends" thing is about, either.
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Funny, I have some non-religious friends who feel that the only reason Mormonism gets a hard time is because its history is recent enough that the warts and gaps are still visible.
quote:I don't think Prince Philip even in his stranger moments has ever claimed Divinity
Originally posted by Figbash:
quote:So? There's a religion focussed around L Ron Hubbard. Plus at least one focussed around Elvis. And Prince Philip. Are you saying they weren't / aren't human?
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
And BTW, if Jesus isn't divine, why is there a religion focused around him? Doesn't that mean we're worshipping a human being?
quote:OK, sorry, Mirrizin; I was just having trouble getting what you were saying.
Originally posted by mirrizin:
The idea was that institutional Christianity 2000 years ago might have looked just as unorthodox and strange as any more recent religion would today. Just because a way of thinking is new to the church doesn't necessarily mean it's anti-church.
And there are tons of traditions that have come and gone over those 2000 years as the church has changed to communicate to new generations of people.
Basically, I don't think that longevity is a guarantee of truth. "That's how we did things ten years ago, and therefore that's how they must've done things 2000 years ago so that's the proper way to do them (TM)" doesn't really work for me.
That's the point I was trying to make, albeit awkwardly...
quote:I think that's very much up for debate personally.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
I don't think Prince Philip even in his stranger moments has ever claimed Divinity
but Our Lord did
quote:You mean that Prince Philip has has claimed divinity??
Originally posted by Most Moved Mover:
quote:I think that's very much up for debate personally.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
I don't think Prince Philip even in his stranger moments has ever claimed Divinity
but Our Lord did
quote:It would? I'd have thought it would have made Princess Andrew such!
Originally posted by Anselm:
quote:You mean that Prince Philip has has claimed divinity??
Originally posted by Most Moved Mover:
quote:I think that's very much up for debate personally.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
I don't think Prince Philip even in his stranger moments has ever claimed Divinity
but Our Lord did
That would make QEII theotokos.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:and she was Orthodox too!!
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:It would? I'd have thought it would have made Princess Andrew such!
Originally posted by Anselm:
quote:You mean that Prince Philip has has claimed divinity??
Originally posted by Most Moved Mover:
quote:I think that's very much up for debate personally.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
I don't think Prince Philip even in his stranger moments has ever claimed Divinity
but Our Lord did
That would make QEII theotokos.
Thurible
quote:like the "Empress Frederick" (Vicky Saxe Coburg Gotha)
Originally posted by Matins:
Who names a princess Andrew?
quote:You know what royalty are like. Princess Charles, Princess Edward, Princess Richard, Princess Edward, Princess Michael and that's only a few of them.
Originally posted by Matins:
Who names a princess Andrew?
quote:It was rather customary at that time that a wife take her husband's name. Royalty being no exception.
Originally posted by Matins:
Who names a princess Andrew?
