Episcopal Church Throws Race Card and Plays the Martyr After Suspension

[Scout26]

We are, once again, tip-toeing close to very fine line...I might suggest that every take a couple of steps back and re-group.

[Perd Hapley]

Just noting that I didn't see the above until after I posted what's below. I don't think I verged on any fine lines.

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. 

They are more accurate. Not that I can take credit for being more intelligent. I stand on the shoulders of giants. That, and some people are just being blatantly dishonest about what Scripture really says. I "feel" that words (the words of Scripture) have meanings, and that those meanings are well-understood by all who give a flying redacted. Some people are lying about what those words mean, and I'm not buying into their malarkey. It's exactly like the Constitution. Some people are dealing honestly with the text (to the extent they can, being humans), and others are not trying. I feel free to judge who is honest, and who is not. What choice have I?

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.

As has been well-documented, and often cited on this website, churches like the Episcopalians have been hemorrhaging members for a long time, while they have been making their tent bigger, and bigger and bigger. They think people will be more "comfortable" if church is not so churchy. In reality, when church is not so churchy, people realize they may as well stay home, or go to the casino, or whatever. The small, cold church turns out to be the one that has nothing to give anyone, except a pep talk.

Christianity's obituary has been read many, many times. Such eugoogolizers are always wrong.

[roo_ster]

dogmush, you're late to the debate.  About 2000 years too late. 

What you see as "arrogance" is merely small-o orthodox Christians taking their religion seriously, as if it matters.  If you do not understand either the reason why they take it seriously or the underlying topics over which they debate, might I suggest that imposing the label "arrogant" is a bit hasty?

[Perd Hapley]

dogmush, you're late to the debate.  About 2000 years too late. 

Well, yeah, given that Christians have been struggling against heresy since the first century. It helps to understand the difference between change and fundamental transformation.

[Ron]

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.

If you step back and look at discussions regarding one religion vs another or one philosophical outlook vs another you will find the same thing. Folks study the issue and come down on a position they have decided is correct and will defend their position when challenged. You see this in all realms of life, even among hobbyists, athletes pretty much every human endeavor.

In the realm of Christianity think of it like the game of chess. There have been centuries of games played and cataloged. Most every dead end opening has been tried and discarded.

Orthodox theology (meaning based upon the creeds) is the result of centuries of discussions about Christianity. Men of great learning early on using the scripture as their authority studied and debated what the essentials of Christianity were and gave us the creeds as well as our orthodox theology. Thomas Aquinas did a yeoman's work in clarifying as well as answering critics and skeptics.

Over the millennia that work has continued. There is nothing new about the "new" approaches to Christianity we see as in the Episcopal Church these days. They are making the same mistakes and accepting errors that have been carefully discussed and discarded centuries ago. They bring back the errors in theology but never answer the arguments that caused them to be discarded in the first place.

Having said all that, as a non believer I'm not sure all the inside baseball about Christianity is of much help to you. If I were going to offer advice to you I would tell you to read Aquinas or a good commentary on his work. If that is too heavy or dull I would suggest Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. It's a delightful little book IMHO.

Of course reading the New Testament is the best way to re-familiarize yourself with who Jesus really is as well as his message.      

[RoadKingLarry]

[Ron]

The error there RKL is the same error as "one should never talk politics or religion (or lack of)".

Politics, religion and philosophy are the ideas that form a culture. Of course we need to talk about them.

If you don't want to talk religion don't open obviously religious threads.

Better yet join in and add something of value from your point of view.

[dogmush]

If you do not understand either the reason why they take it seriously or the underlying topics over which they debate, might I suggest that imposing the label "arrogant" is a bit hasty?

You may suggest it.  I think not, I didn't come to this opinion quickly, or after one event.

That said,

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.

Fair enough.  We don't always know exactly how our comments come across, and how they may differ, and we each bring our own baggage to a conversation.  I can see how you might think that.  We could continue to argue the finer points of religious arrogance, and the blinders of one's faith and presuppositions (on both sides) but I really don't want to do that.  I fear it will lead nowhere useful for any of us.  Arrogant I can sometimes be, but I'm not arrogant enough to think that my opinions on how you conduct your faith carry any weight at all in your observance of that faith.  

So having gone back and forth for a bit, I'll take Scout's advice and head off in a different direction.

In the article referenced in the OP it talks about the African parts of the Anglican church pushing for the sanction, and being happy about it.  

I gather from our conversations that the Episcopalians in the US are the side of this debate you (the observant orthodox Christians. Is that a decent term for you?) are least happy with. Mostly because of the inclusion open approval of gays.  Is that a decent summation of this particular issue?

So, other than Africans being pretty orthodox about gays, there's not a whole lot about the rest of that culture that we would seem to welcome here in the states.  Culture and religion are intertwined.  Do you think that as the more third world christian denominations gain influence in the worldwide orgs, some of the less nice things might bleed over as well?  Spitballing: Women still get treat pretty crappy, slavery is still a thing in Africa, churches being active in government. Stuff like that.

I wouldn't expect it to come over here like Ebola or anything but worldwide governing churches have been known to sway politically as their populations change.  Or do you think that would lead to more schisims?

[Ron]

So, other than Africans being pretty orthodox about gays, there's not a whole lot about the rest of that culture that we would seem to welcome here in the states.  Culture and religion are intertwined.  Do you think that as the more third world christian denominations gain influence in the worldwide orgs, some of the less nice things might bleed over as well?  Spitballing: Women still get treat pretty crappy, slavery is still a thing in Africa, churches being active in government. Stuff like that.

I wouldn't expect it to come over here like Ebola or anything but worldwide governing churches have been known to sway politically as their populations change.  Or do you think that would lead to more schisims?

Probably just the opposite. Predominately Christian nations were the ones who eventually outlawed slavery, allowed women to vote and focused on human rights.

I would expect them to follow in the same course of actions as that is the logical extension of Christian thought.

Regarding separation of church and state that is a particularly American thing, you can thank the first Baptists for that, especially Roger Williams.

Roger Williams (c. 1603 – between January and March 1683) was an English Puritan theologian who was an early proponent of religious freedom and the separation of church and state. He was expelled by the Puritan Leaders because they thought he was spreading "new and dangerous ideas", so in 1636, he began the colony of Providence Plantation, which provided a refuge for religious minorities. Williams was a member of the first Baptist church in America, the First Baptist Church of Providence.[1]

Williams was also a student of Native American languages, an early advocate for fair dealings with Native Americans, and arguably the first abolitionist in North America, having organized the first attempt to prohibit slavery in any of the British American colonies.

[dogmush]

The error there RKL is the same error as "one should never talk politics or religion (or lack of)".

Politics, religion and philosophy are the ideas that form a culture. Of course we need to talk about them.

Of course we need to talk about religions.  Not only do they shape culture, they shape the way humans interact with the world and each other.

I actually try to talk to outspokenly religious folks to get the how's and why's.  Not always as good as reading books, but generally helpful in understanding how people deal with their faith.

Looking back at this thread, I got cranky when fistful effectively excommunicated the Episcopalians.  In our back and forth he did explain why he feels compelled to do that, and he's constantly applied it.  So I have learned a bit about that portion of Christians I didn't know before.  That's how one gains more understanding. I'm sorry if my crankyness spun us off closer to the impolite side of the conversation then we needed to be.

I try and follow the "inside baseball" about Christianity because it does affect me.  Both my family, and my in-laws are (differently) Christian, and so are my coworkers.  any insight I gain into the byplay between you guys directly makes my life easier, and like I said, it helps me understand the motivations of a bunch of my fellow Americans.  Which is overall just kinda handy.  I'm not sure American Christians really understand just how Christian America is, and how awkward and difficult it can be to interact without that common framework.

[dogmush]

Probably just the opposite. Predominately Christian nations were the ones who eventually outlawed slavery, allowed women to vote and focused on human rights.

I would expect them to follow in the same course of actions as that is the logical extension of Christian thought.

Regarding separation of church and state that is a particularly American thing you can thank the first Baptists for, especially Roger Williams.

Except in Africa, where human rights, women's rights, and slavery being illegal are kind of a lip service left over from colonialism.  I would have said that Classical Western Christian Liberalism did those good things, and it didn't stick in Africa nearly as well as it did in the Americas.  Of course even the Christian Africans are more tribal then the Europeans and Americans, so maybe it's the tribal influence leaking in.

[Hawkmoon]

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.

You're sort of shooting at a moving target, aren't you? The Roman Catholic Church is arguably the modern continuation of "the" original Christian church (unless, of course, you happen to be Greek or Russian or Ukrainian or one of the several strains of Eastern Orthodox Christianity). Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic priest. His rebellion against what he perceived to be abuses by Rome was considered to be heresy. Yet out of that heresy grew any number of Protestant denominations, more or less at the same time that others grew out of other "heresies" in places like Switzerland.

So if you're not a Roman Catholic, or at least an Orthodox Catholic, you're basically a heretic. It's kind of an iffy situation to be a heretic and be cautioning other Christians to be on the lookout for heretics. Who is the heretic and who is the true believer seems to depend a lot on which view you happen to agree with. Regardless of whether you (or I, or anyone else here) agree with Episcopal or Anglican theology, their bishops trace their line directly back to Peter. So do the bishops in the eastern Orthodox churches.

The Biblical caution about watching out for those quoting Scripture for their purposes was not (IMHO) a warning against sincere Christians who happen to disagree with a particular interpretation of Scripture. It was (and is) a warning against those who intentionally twist and misuse Scripture in order to deceive the faithful. I don't think that applies to Episcopalians in general.

[Ron]

Christianity was never intended to be imposed by force so it shouldn't surprise us if the good gets thrown out with the bad.

The Christianity that is growing there now is organic and one would hope have a more lasting influence.

[Ron]

The Biblical caution about watching out for those quoting Scripture for their purposes was not (IMH)) a warning against sincere Christians who happen to disagree with a particular interpretation of Scripture. It was (and is) a warning against those who intentionally twist and misuse Scripture in order to deceive the faithful. I don't think that applies to Episcopalians in general.

If they are preaching a different gospel they are heretics.

Denying the resurrection of Christ and that he is the way of salvation is pretty much a heretical position. 

[Hawkmoon]

If they are preaching a different gospel they are heretics.

Denying the resurrection of Christ and that he is the way of salvation is pretty much a heretical position. 

Neither Episcopalians nor Anglicans deny the resurrection of the Christ. The deity of Jesus the Christ, and his death and resurrection for the salvation of mankind, is the central tenet of their entire theology.

[dogmush]

Addendum question:

When I was a child, and being pushed towards Christianity, I was told that three things made a Christian:  Belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God, Belief that he died for your sins and rose, and Accepting him as your God.  That was it.  You did that, honestly, and you were "Christian", if not necessarily a good one.

So to these folks pretty much all the Christ following churches were "Christian", some were just a little farther off the path. (That's actually a pretty close quote from the preacher)

Have many Christians moved away from this "We're all Christians" thought process?

FWIW It was this church. It was also in like 1990, so I'm not sure exactly how they might have changed.  I admit to not being as thoughtful about belief systems then as I am now and not really paying attention. 

[Ron]

When I was a child, and being pushed towards Christianity, I was told that three things made a Christian:  Belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God, Belief that he died for your sins and rose, and Accepting him as your God.  That was it.  You did that, honestly, and you were "Christian", if not necessarily a good one.

So to these folks pretty much all the Christ following churches were "Christian", some were just a little farther off the path. (That's actually a pretty close quote from the preacher)

Pretty much.

that if you will confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart, one believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in him will not be ashamed.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich to all who call on him. For, “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Once you've made that decision and confession of faith you should get baptized.

That's only the beginning of the journey not the final destination.  





  

[lupinus]

Addendum question:

When I was a child, and being pushed towards Christianity, I was told that three things made a Christian:  Belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God, Belief that he died for your sins and rose, and Accepting him as your God.  That was it.  You did that, honestly, and you were "Christian", if not necessarily a good one.

So to these folks pretty much all the Christ following churches were "Christian", some were just a little farther off the path. (That's actually a pretty close quote from the preacher)

Have many Christians moved away from this "We're all Christians" thought process?

FWIW It was this church. It was also in like 1990, so I'm not sure exactly how they might have changed.  I admit to not being as thoughtful about belief systems then as I am now and not really paying attention. 

If a church gets the big things right, it's a Christian church. We may disagree on certain view points and particulars, often to the point of not being in communion with them, but they are certainly Christians. When you get to the far edges that you get away from the big things is where disagreements on a church being outright not Christian or not. There is a difference between erring on scripture, even severely, and not meeting key beliefs that are the basis of being a Christian church.

[roo_ster]

You may suggest it.  I think not, I didn't come to this opinion quickly, or after one event.

OK, not a suggestion.  

So if you're not a Roman Catholic, or at least an Orthodox Catholic, you're basically a heretic.

Why do I feel like a guy debating RKBA with the Congresscritter who wants to ban "the shoulder thing that goes UP?"

Let me get this straight: Folk are getting wound around the axle about internecine Christian debates about doctrines they neither believe nor understand?  Remind me to pipe up next time the Buddhists get frisky.

Neither Episcopalians nor Anglicans deny the resurrection of the Christ. The deity of Jesus the Christ, and his death and resurrection for the salvation of mankind, is the central tenet of their entire theology.

[Hawkmoon]

Once you've made that decision and confession of faith you should get baptized.

That's only the beginning of the journey not the final destination.  

Even that is the topic of disagreement among Christian theologians. There's a fundamental disagreement over whether we are saved by Grace or saved by acts. If we are saved by Grace, then nothing we do from the moment of birth can either save our souls, or condemn our souls. If Jesus died to absolve us of our sins, we shouldn't need to do anything other than to accept Him as our Saviour.

I remember a very lively discussion involving the board of deacons and the pastor of a pretty fundamentalist, evangelical church about 30 years ago (maybe a bit more). The question was whether we all "are" inherently sinners because of Original Sin. Someone in the congregation had the temerity to ask, if we had all been baptized to wash away our sins, how we could still be sinners. The response of the deacons basically boiled down to "because ... reasons." Finally the pastor had to interject and inform the deacons that the position represented by the question was the view of about 90 percent of Christians in the world [at that time]. And there ended the discussion.

[Hawkmoon]

Let me get this straight: Folk are getting wound around the axle about internecine Christian debates about doctrines they neither believe nor understand?  Remind me to pipe up next time the Buddhists get frisky.

Basically, to an outsider, that's exactly correct. From the inside, the proponents of each side of the argument sincerely believe that they understand the doctrine perfectly, and that the people on the other side are "wrong."

When I give in to the urge to suggest to those on either side that they've overlooked the possibility of BOTH sides being wrong, their brains freeze.

[lupinus]

Even that is the topic of disagreement among Christian theologians. There's a fundamental disagreement over whether we are saved by Grace or saved by acts. If we are saved by Grace, then nothing we do from the moment of birth can either save our souls, or condemn our souls. If Jesus died to absolve us of our sins, we shouldn't need to do anything other than to accept Him as our Saviour.

Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

John 15:5
I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.

Matthew 7:16-20
16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.

We are not only taught to believe, but to be baptized. Belief is the more important, and it comes first. Baptism and everything that follows is the result of that belief. The acts do not save you, they are a result (fruit) of true faith.

[lupinus]

Basically, to an outsider, that's exactly correct. From the inside, the proponents of each side of the argument sincerely believe that they understand the doctrine perfectly, and that the people on the other side are "wrong."

When I give in to the urge to suggest to those on either side that they've overlooked the possibility of BOTH sides being wrong, their brains freeze.

It comes down largely to how one, or a church body, interprets scripture.

There are many that look at scripture as open to interpretation and/or having to be taken in context to the time it was written. That scripture is open to interpretation and can be taken with a grain of salt, if you will, and open to rationalizing or adding to and subtracting from. And this is not simply the liberal or whacky notions, it goes the other way as well.

There are many that look at scripture as inerrant and as the ultimate source and guidance. It does not change, it says and means the same things today as then, and that it is not open to interpretation. It merely says what it says, and that when taken as a whole explains itself. And that some things that are still a little murky don't need humans filling in the gaps as the core stuff is clear and what has been revealed is what has been revealed.

This is the cause of many a large argument on doctrine and why you get so many different denominations, at times to wild disagreement.

[MillCreek]

^^^^It occurred to me that if you substitute "The Constitution' for 'scripture' in the above post, it fits pretty well.

[lupinus]

^^^^It occurred to me that if you substitute "The Constitution' for 'scripture' in the above post, it fits pretty well.