Episcopal Church Throws Race Card and Plays the Martyr After Suspension

[seeker_two]

Yep.  Thought that sign seems to imply they also believe that all religions point to the same God which I think it another step out there. 

Bingo! If your truth is no different than anyone else's truth, why bother going there?

[Ron]

Bingo! If your truth is no different than anyone else's truth, why bother going there?

It's just post modernism in religious language.

Hegelian dialectic seems quite similar to syncretic religious views. There is no such thing as objective truth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_religion

[dogmush]

I honestly think at least some of it is that less children are raised in a church,  and those that are, it's less of a defining part of the community then it has been in the past.

From the outside, most of the distinctions between flavors of Christianity vary from ridiculous, to so obscure as to be impossible to care about.  And so many stop caring about them.

[Ron]

Small "o" orthodoxy and the historic creeds have been around for centuries.

Most every "flavor" of Protestantism as well as Roman Catholicism adhered to the essentials of Christianity up until more recent history.

New theology based on post modern thought re-imagined Christianity and that was basically the end of the mainline Protestant denominations.

They abandoned objective truth for the feelz good gospel.  

[Perd Hapley]

I honestly think at least some of it is that less children are raised in a church,  and those that are, it's less of a defining part of the community then it has been in the past.

Those are symptoms, actually, not causes.

From the outside, most of the distinctions between flavors of Christianity vary from ridiculous, to so obscure as to be impossible to care about.  And so many stop caring about them.

I thought we were talking about syncretism between major religions, not interdenominational feuds within Christianity. In any case, to those on the inside, the distinctions are neither ridiculous, nor obscure. Well, OK, some of them may be rather silly. Some are important. If people stop caring about them it's because they cease to think of their religion as reality, and begin to see it as superstructure.

http://sociology.about.com/od/Key-Theoretical-Concepts/fl/Base-and-Superstructure.htm

[dogmush]

Ron, Did you just use the term "Objective Truth", non ironically, referring to differences in dogma between christian denominations?

I thought we were talking about syncretism between major religions, not interdenominational feuds within Christianity.

Is this not a thread about Anglicans being pissed at Episcopalians?  I know we got off on a tangent about the the sign a little.

In any case, to those on the inside, the distinctions are neither ridiculous, nor obscure.

This has not been my experience.  I know a large number of practicing Christians and they have a hard time explaining many of the denominational differences, or investing much care in them. Several can switch back and forth between churches of different denominations with no crisis of faith.

I'll not comment on the veracity of either your or their faiths, except to point out that your proclamations don't match observed reality.

[Perd Hapley]

They may not match your observed reality.

You seem to think of the current Anglican schism as a struggle between two groups of Christians. I beg to differ.

[dogmush]

That's remarkably arrogant, if at least consistent.

[Ron]

Ron, Did you just use the term "Objective Truth", non ironically, referring to differences in dogma between christian denominations?

No, the belief that objective truth was knowable was the tie that bound all the disparate schisms together.

Post modern thought has sundered that tie.

Post modern thought basically denies the existence of objective truth.

[dogmush]

Ah.  I see.  That makes more sense.  Thanks for the clarify.

[Hawkmoon]

You seem to think of the current Anglican schism as a struggle between two groups of Christians. I beg to differ.

If it's not a struggle between two groups of Christians, what is it? Are you saying that Anglicans or Episcopalians (or both) aren't Christians?

[Ron]

This has not been my experience.  I know a large number of practicing Christians and they have a hard time explaining many of the denominational differences, or investing much care in them. Several can switch back and forth between churches of different denominations with no crisis of faith.

The seminaries adopted post modern theologies and left orthodoxy behind.

In many cases folks in the pews are being led like sheep by pastors who no longer believe what the folks in the pews started out believing and hired them to preach.

If you unhook your beliefs from historic Christianity (see the Apostles Creed) and just use the same words devoid of the original meaning and content is it still Christianity? If a religion denies that Jesus actually existed in time and space, preached He was the way of salvation, was crucified and resurrected are they really Christian?

To say there is some confusion in the modern "church" would be an understatement.

Yet orthodoxy and the original creeds remain. The logical conclusions of orthodoxy and the creeds also remains the same. A rational God created a rational world that we can know and understand.

There is a reason that the (post) "Christian" west now dominates the globe. Even those who aren't practicing Christians operate under that Christian presupposition.  

This is the epistemological basis of the scientific method that post modernism cannot provide.

We can actually know something about reality.

[Perd Hapley]

If it's not a struggle between two groups of Christians, what is it? Are you saying that Anglicans or Episcopalians (or both) aren't Christians?

I do reserve the right to examine issues, and use critical thinking to discern the truth. Many alleged Christians on the far, far left behave, and speak, in a manner calculated to make clear their disdain for the teachings of Christ. (This has been going on for quite some time, about many more issues than the current sex/gender/marriage schism.) Those quoted in the article show themselves to be of that type. The matter is not obscure.

That's remarkably arrogant, if at least consistent.

   Yeah, OK. You make up whatever nonsense keeps you happy.  

[roo_ster]

I do reserve the right to examine issues, and use critical thinking to discern the truth. Many alleged Christians on the far, far left behave, and speak, in a manner calculated to make clear their disdain for the teachings of Christ. (This has been going on for quite some time, about many more issues than the current sex/gender/marriage schism.) Those quoted in the article show themselves to be of that type. The matter is not obscure.



   Yeah, OK. You make up whatever nonsense keeps you happy.   

How arrogant to actually believe in your beliefs!  And then reason from them, too.

Will wonders never cease.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Small "o" orthodoxy and the historic creeds have been around for centuries.

Most every "flavor" of Protestantism as well as Roman Catholicism adhered to the essentials of Christianity up until more recent history.

New theology based on post modern thought re-imagined Christianity and that was basically the end of the mainline Protestant denominations.

They abandoned objective truth for the feelz good gospel.  

That's a very succinct summation. And tragically accurate

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

The Episcopal Church has been co-opted by the Liberal leadership to go in a direction its membership is not comfortable with
 when I worked for that church one of their gay seminarians  called them on it and asked in a sermon if they had lost direction and become a political action committee and stopped preaching the gospel of Jesus

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[Hawkmoon]

The Episcopal Church has been co-opted by the Liberal leadership to go in a direction its membership is not comfortable with
 when I worked for that church one of their gay seminarians  called them on it and asked in a sermon if they had lost direction and become a political action committee and stopped preaching the gospel of Jesus

Through a series of coincidences, my late wife and I wound up attending an Episcopal church semi-regularly. My wife, being from South America, was (of course) Roman Catholic, but she didn't like the RC church in our town, and there wasn't a Spanish-language mass. We found a church in a nearby small city that looked like a Roman Catholic church and that advertised a "Misa en Espanol." I had no idea the Episcopalians had started calling their services "masses" and their ministers "priests." It wasn't that way when I was a teen-ager and was chasing the local Episcopal minster's hot nanny. So we went to some services, and only then discovered that it was an Episcopal church.

There was also an RC church up the street, with a Spanish language mass, but my wife by that time had become friendly with the Latino assistant rector at the Episcopal church. For some time we alternated between the two. When the priest at the RC church was convicted of having embezzled well over a million bucks from the parish (to support his gay boyfriend), my wife decided that we would thereafter attend the Episcopal church.

It quickly became obvious to me that they were very sincere in saying (and believing) that they were indeed proclaiming the truth of scripture -- it's just that their interpretation of that "truth" didn't quite square with what I had learned in Sunday school, and what I could read in the Bible for myself. As I became aware of the growing schism between the Episcopal Church USA and the Worldwide Anglican Communion over homosexual priests and same-sex marriage, I did some on-line research and I came upon a couple of lengthy explanations by Episcopal theologians purporting to explain why the Bible doesn't really say what most of us here probably believe it says (such as that men shall not lie with men, etc.). My overriding impression of these articles was that I had never in my life encountered such a mess of twisted logic. The level of cognitive dissonance was staggering.

[Perd Hapley]

My overriding impression of these articles was that I had never in my life encountered such a mess of twisted logic. The level of cognitive dissonance was staggering.

From what I've seen, in my admittedly limited experience, teh gayz is just one of many issues the left treats in this vein. Not to say that Episcopalians, or lefties, are the only ones that play fast and loose with scripture...

[Perd Hapley]

It's amusing that every so often we must explain why some of us do not refer to the heterodox (Mormons, the far left, etc.) as Christians, yet we rarely have to explain why we call Lindsey Graham a RINO. A person may call themselves whatever they like, and they can claim the mantle of Reagan conservatism, or whatever. That doesn't mean they are what they claim to be, and we have the freedom to judge for ourselves. And as a Christian, the Bible commands me to make such judgments, so as to guard myself against the wolves in sheep's clothing.

[dogmush]

Oh I know why.  You don't have to explain it.

You feel that your readings and understanding of your God's instructions are somehow better or more accurate then other's who read the same books and contemplated the same questions. 

Basically, you think you're smarter, or better at understanding your God then they are.  That's the attitude that I call out as arrogant, and it comes across quite clearly in several posters around here.  You guys are right, the slide from your definition or Christianity is the cause of problem du jour (or bad music), and they aren't real Christians anyway.

What's really funny (to me anyway) is that religions clearly change over time. Some slower, some faster.  Christianity appears to be in a faster period of change right now.  It appears (at least from the outside) to be going through the same polarization that western politics in general is, and seems to be leading to the same kind of inevitable split.  Your interpretation of the bible may very well hold on to some number of believers, but it'll be a small and cold church.

[Ron]

Are you saying you feel that your readings and understanding of the Bible are somehow better or more accurate then other's who read the same books and contemplated the same questions?

Basically you are saying you think you're smarter, or better at understanding these issues then we are. 

That's just like the attitude that you call out as arrogant and it comes across quite clearly, even in a particular poster around here you probably weren't thinking of when you responded.

[Ron]

What's really funny (to me anyway) is that religions clearly change over time. Some slower, some faster.  Christianity appears to be in a faster period of change right now.  It appears (at least from the outside) to be going through the same polarization that western politics in general is, and seems to be leading to the same kind of inevitable split.  Your interpretation of the bible may very well hold on to some number of believers, but it'll be a small and cold church.

Well the fast change is due in part to the adoption of post modern thought into theology that actually started as far back as the 1920's.

When there is no truth, just thesis/antithesis/synthesis there is going to be perpetual change.

In the political realm they like to call it progressivism.

I suspect your obituary of Christianity that holds to the historic creeds and a Thomistic influenced theology is a bit premature.

Most of the largest and fastest growing churches in the US as well as the world are the churches that hold to an authoritative view of scripture and profess the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. Many of them are very modernistic and anything but cold and stuffy. Many of them are mega churches with flourishing "small groups" that meet in homes during the week.

[dogmush]

Are you saying you feel that your readings and understanding of the Bible are somehow better or more accurate then other's who read the same books and contemplated the same questions?

Basically you are saying you think you're smarter, or better at understanding these issues then we are. 

That's just like the attitude that you call out as arrogant and it comes across quite clearly, even in a particular poster around here you probably weren't thinking of when you responded.

I wasn't trying to come across as saying that.  I hope I didn't.  Let me try and be clearer:
I have only a passing understanding of the bible, and Christianity's tenants.  Basically what was shoved at me as a child, and what I picked up from 3 or so readings of the bible, the most recent of which was a decade ago.  Which is why I try never to argue actual doctrine with folks that are better versed than I.  I'm DEFIANTLY not arguing the Episcopalians are right here.  Or that the Anglicans are. 

But, I have to live as minority in a largely aggressively christian country. So I tend to keep an eye on them.  And what I see is that there are a LOT of Christians in this country that devoutly believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, and that God loves them.  And many of those Christians devote a lot of time and effort into trying to understand what their God wants out of them, and how to live closer to his ideal. And that all those individuals, reading that text, earnestly trying to understand God, sometimes come to different conclusions about questions they have on how to live.  And one of the common reactions among Christians, when this happens is to assume that THEIR reading is right, to the point they will (depending on exactly the issue in disagreement) attempt to cast out or "No True Scotsman" other Christians.

As if their interpretation, or that of the group  they like, is somehow confirmed to be more Christian then another groups equally devout and earnest reading on how to be Christian.  That somehow, absent a burning bush, they have indisputably arrived at understanding of God's word. That is the arrogance I call out when I see it.

Personally, the idea that one can look around this world and see the work of one supreme being, much less a benevolent one, is delusional, but I really don't care what you guys think as long as you aren't arrogant and condescending about it.

[Ron]

Personally, the idea that one can look around this world and see the work of one supreme being, much less a benevolent one, is delusional, but I really don't care what you guys think as long as you aren't arrogant and condescending about it.

Quoted just for the unintended irony 

[Perd Hapley]

dogmush,

With all due respect, and with Christian charity, might I suggest that you aren't exactly accomplishing anything good by your comments earlier in the thread? Your comments seem equally arrogant to some of us, as others' may seem to you.

Which is why I try never to argue actual doctrine with folks that are better versed than I.

But you are. The Bible specifically warns against those who will claim to be Christians, and aren't. It is a part of the doctrine that some "Christians" aren't Christians, and that we must make a distinction between ourselves and the heretics.

But, I have to live as minority in a largely aggressively christian country. So I tend to keep an eye on them.  And what I see is that there are a LOT of Christians in this country that devoutly believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, and that God loves them.  And many of those Christians devote a lot of time and effort into trying to understand what their God wants out of them, and how to live closer to his ideal. And that all those individuals, reading that text, earnestly trying to understand God, sometimes come to different conclusions about questions they have on how to live.  And one of the common reactions among Christians, when this happens is to assume that THEIR reading is right, to the point they will (depending on exactly the issue in disagreement) attempt to cast out or "No True Scotsman" other Christians.

As if their interpretation, or that of the group  they like, is somehow confirmed to be more Christian then another groups equally devout and earnest reading on how to be Christian.  That somehow, absent a burning bush, they have indisputably arrived at understanding of God's word. That is the arrogance I call out when I see it.

Call it out, if you like. Just keep in mind that if you're going on arrogance patrol, you can't complain if I call out heresy or false teaching when I see it.

Frankly, many Christians agree with you that some people make too much out of lesser issues. I see a lot of it, and it makes me tired. There is a difference, however, between whether dancing/drinking/snake-handling is proper Christian behavior, and core issues like the authority of scripture, or the divinity of Christ. If I call out a whole group of supposed believers as non-Christians, it is because of core issues. If not, call me out on that.