What Do You Say?

[cathromang]

this is an excerpt from an episcopal church website:

The cathedral sees transformation as process rather than event. In response to the question ‘Have you been saved?' we warm to the answer given by Fr Raymond Raynes, sometime Superior of the Community of the Resurrection; ‘I'm damned if I know.' Like St Paul, we ‘press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus' (Phil 3:14)

The cathedral seeks to be inclusive in every way, and operates an open table in its worship, at which every seeker after God is welcomed, no questions asked. We serve the Episcopal Church, but welcome Christians of every label. We are a Christian community, but welcome people of any faith, or none. Our community is diverse in terms of age, race, gender and orientation. Jesus is our Way, but not to the exclusion of all other paths to God. Our liturgical space is designed to be user-friendly to members of both Jewish and Muslim traditions, who share with us spiritual descent from Abraham.

Our community sees faith in terms of exploration as we encounter in a spirit of wonder the ever-unfolding revelation of God's love.

We seek to be progressive in our faith, grateful for the Biblical scholarship which now uncovers the deep meaning of the Scriptures beneath their literal face value. Inerrant Scriptures seem to us about as believable or supportable as infallible popes. The cathedral is affiliated to the Center for Progressive Christianity (www.tcpc.org (http://www.tcpc.org/))

History, and a glance at world events today, shows only too well the tragic and brutal consequences of absolute certainty in religious conviction. Total certainty of an exclusive relationship with God leads to the dismissal of others and a denial of their right to find God in accordance with their own tradition. It leads eventually to crusades and inquisitions and militant fundamentalism.



Paragraph 1: We cannot be sure of our salvation.

Paragraph 2: Christ is not the only way to salvation.

Paragraph 4: Scripture is fallible just as the Popes are fallible.

Paragraph 5: You cannot put complete trust in your beliefs and convictions.


Does this represent your church?


(I will not give the name of the church although the Diocese Bishop was just asked to step down by his entire diocese and refused to do so.)

[TomUK]

Hold your horses there. You seem to be taking quite a few liberties with what is said in the passage and your statements.

[cathromang]

No, I'm not. Unless you would like to revise what it actually says.

[cathromang]

Let me give you another quote from this same place/bishop:


"This is what causes fear - Jesus forgives sins. He claims the authority of God in doing so. His resurrection vindicates his claim. He acknowledges his own sin. He knows himself forgiven. His call is to preach repentance and forgiveness."


Does your church believe Christ was a sinner?

By the way, I am an Anglican.

[cathromang]

How bout this one?



“Just simply to say that something goes against tradition and the teaching of the church and Scripture does not necessarily make it wrong.” Bishop Robinson


or this one?



“Because we wrote the Bible, we can rewrite it. We have rewritten the Bible many times.” Bishop Griswold



C'mon, do these quotes represent the Episcopal/Anglican church???

[SirTimothy]

Well, let me put it this way. I'm an MK in the middle east, does that give you any clue what my feelings about whether moslems go to heaven or not? We at St. Helena's preach Christ as THE way, THE truth, THE light. And if any minister ever dares to preach otherwise, I along with the entire PCC/Vestry (which consists mostly of missionaries and ex-missionaries) will be requesting his removal to our bishop.

Timothy

[cathromang]

Well, let me put it this way. I'm an MK in the middle east, does that give you any clue what my feelings about whether moslems go to heaven or not? We at St. Helena's preach Christ as THE way, THE truth, THE light. And if any minister ever dares to preach otherwise, I along with the entire PCC/Vestry (which consists mostly of missionaries and ex-missionaries) will be requesting his removal to our bishop.

Timothy


well said sir.
My prayers are for you in the middle east. Be not afraid.

I agree 100%.


I am simply curious as to the state of the "Episcopal/Anglican" church. Whether most persons (on this site) believe it to now be a Unitarian/Universalist church as some dioceses now believe or whether there are still actual Christians inside.

[Wiffey]

It is a slippery slope. I believe that salvation comes through Christ...yet I do believe that it is possible for non-Christians to go to heaven (through Christ, even though they may be unaware of Him).

Actually, I think that extending open arms to those of other faiths is a good first step to a quiet sort of Evangelism. I think aggressive prosyletizing can turn people off to Jesus, which is terribly sad. Mother Teresa was a wonderful witness for the love of Christ...without prosyletizing. By caring for, feeding and loving the poor she showed them the face of Christ. And her simple actions led many to wonder what motivated her giving spirit...and probably brought more to Christ than any other missionary in India.

So I don't automatically reject welcoming all to participate and share in God's mercy through the sacraments. It depends on the spirit in which it is being done. Since I don't know what the motivation is and what exactly happened....

[karen freeinchristman]

The words on the cathedral website quoted in the OP are extremely liberal, and as one who vears towards the liberal side herself, this still seems shocking to me.

I believe similarly to Wiffey that there may be non-Christians in heaven, but that they will still have got there through Christ somehow. Christ is still the way.

I think being inclusive and accepting is good to a point, but there should always be a movement towards Christ, or an attempt to help move them towards Christ. I mean, there are lots of non-Christians in churches everywhere, aren't there. People who haven't made that whole-hearted commitment.

[TomUK]

No, I'm not. Unless you would like to revise what it actually says.

Sorry, but i do not intend to debate with an individual who is intentionally manipulating quotes.

[Simon_Templar]

People need to be careful how they say things.

The church has always believed that the "un-evangelized" can find salvation through the revelation of God in nature. Many people instantly re-act but only through christ!!! yes... God revealed in nature is Christ. Jesus made it clear that no one has seen the Father except him.. yet it is also clear that many people have seen revelation of God. Thus it must be that they have seen revelation of God the Son (ie Christ).

To say that there are other paths and Jesus is simply our path is absolutely wrong and totaly unchristian. However, there are many paths to finding Jesus.

Also, we can be sure of our salvation, but that does not mean that our salvation is not a process. The scriptures teach that we HAVE BEEN saved, ARE BEING saved, and WILL BE saved. One aspect of salvation is a moment in time, another is a process, and another still is a moment in the future (specificly the resurection). These three things correspond to our three-fold being, spirit soul and body.. the spirit is saved when it is born again, the soul is being saved through the process of conversion, the body will be saved when we are raised to Glory with Christ.

[SeenAndUnseen]

I loved our readings yesterday:
1 Corinthians 8: 1 - 13

It seems so appropriate to this topic, supporting the idea that there are many ways to find the only God there is. Provided we respond in the best way possible to our own calling, there is no good reason God cannot find us or will not accept us -- but the readings also caution those called to God under specific teachings not to abandon their traditions, lest those of weaker mind and faith be led astray, reminding me of that phrase "of those to whom much has been given, much more is required" (or something like that.)

[higgs2]

I didn't find this particularly shocking. I looked at the website (it was not hard to find), and I think it looks like a wonderful cathedral. I don't think you are interpreting the statements correctly.

[ebia]

Likewise. None of that is very shocking, let alone unorthodox.

[PaladinValer]

I must side with my good friend TomUK. This is a bait, and one I'm not going to bite.

[Naomi4Christ]

this is an excerpt from an episcopal church website:

Total certainty of an exclusive relationship with God leads to the dismissal of others and a denial of their right to find God in accordance with their own tradition.

I can see some truth in this statement, but I don't agree with cathromang's interpretation.

You can see on this very board, where we are all Anglicans, how prevalent and divisive this behaviour is.

[cathromang]

Ah, just as I thought.

It is a sad state to believe kind of in everything and nothing at the same time.
To stand or take a stand for nothing, except whatever we believe in our own reasoning to be right.

This was not bait - you've already eaten and swallowed that.


Karen, you are on the right track - stay the course my sister. Give your heart and life to Christ, Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, True God of True God. No one can come to the Father except through Him - always remember that in the coming days, regardless of what they may say on this site or even in your church (may God forbid). The days are here when men proclaim that God now exalts man, and they display their sins proudly for everyone to see saying they are blessed of God. Their destruction is foretold. Do not be deceived by those that will say God is in a rock, or a tree, or a piece of dead wood, for this is what the agnostics taught. Do not be deceived by those who will say that God is simply a divine energy and we are all part of that energy or life force with "love" binding us together regardless of beliefs. As Ignatius said, these are only foolish fables, followed by those with empty heads.
Stay on the lookout for those who would proclaim how much they love their brother, but lock the followers of Christ out of their churches and attempt to discredit them for following in the traditions of the chosen, instead of the vices of the world.
Beware of those who exalt in their own education and knowledge, puffed up in themselves, belittling the childlike faith of others. Like the apostle, stay a fool for Christ, and know nothing but the Cross, which is a stumbling block for all the wisdom of this world and those who do not know Him.
Know that those churches, or cathedrals, or tombs that place false gods on the same level as the Son and the Holy Spirit lead people away from the Way of Life and into the Way of Death, for the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit - these Three are One and our God is a jealous God.

Continue on and let your spirit rejoice with the Spirit that dwells in you and know that the Spirit is not just some form of your conscience, as some may say, or some basic instinct, but is the actual part of the Three that leads you into joy with the Father and the Son. This is the mystery they do not comprehend, but instead they rail against in futility.
Be at peace with all, love all, but do not suffer any teachings other than what you have received from the fathers.
Be filled with the Spirit of the One True God. May His love shine upon you and lead you and those with you out of the darkness the leaders of sin in this world are attempting to keep you in and into the beautiful knowledge of His truth and glory.

Peace

[Finella]

this is an excerpt from an episcopal church website:

The cathedral sees transformation as process rather than event. In response to the question ‘Have you been saved?' we warm to the answer given by Fr Raymond Raynes, sometime Superior of the Community of the Resurrection; ‘I'm damned if I know.' Like St Paul, we ‘press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus' (Phil 3:14)

The cathedral seeks to be inclusive in every way, and operates an open table in its worship, at which every seeker after God is welcomed, no questions asked. We serve the Episcopal Church, but welcome Christians of every label. We are a Christian community, but welcome people of any faith, or none. Our community is diverse in terms of age, race, gender and orientation. Jesus is our Way, but not to the exclusion of all other paths to God. Our liturgical space is designed to be user-friendly to members of both Jewish and Muslim traditions, who share with us spiritual descent from Abraham.

Our community sees faith in terms of exploration as we encounter in a spirit of wonder the ever-unfolding revelation of God's love.

We seek to be progressive in our faith, grateful for the Biblical scholarship which now uncovers the deep meaning of the Scriptures beneath their literal face value. Inerrant Scriptures seem to us about as believable or supportable as infallible popes. The cathedral is affiliated to the Center for Progressive Christianity (www.tcpc.org (http://www.tcpc.org/))

History, and a glance at world events today, shows only too well the tragic and brutal consequences of absolute certainty in religious conviction. Total certainty of an exclusive relationship with God leads to the dismissal of others and a denial of their right to find God in accordance with their own tradition. It leads eventually to crusades and inquisitions and militant fundamentalism.



Paragraph 1: We cannot be sure of our salvation.

Paragraph 2: Christ is not the only way to salvation.

Paragraph 4: Scripture is fallible just as the Popes are fallible.

Paragraph 5: You cannot put complete trust in your beliefs and convictions.


Does this represent your church?


(I will not give the name of the church although the Diocese Bishop was just asked to step down by his entire diocese and refused to do so.)
Cathromang,

Since I was able to find the Cathedral easily through your direct quotes of the site (thereby not really hiding its identity well -- although I could have guessed which it was anyway), I can clearly say that you have made one glaring error in your OP:

The Bishop was NOT asked to leave by the entire diocese, he was asked to leave by the Standing Committee, which has little to no power in the diocese. The fact that he was asked to leave does indicate problems, yes, and I applaud the bishop for wanting to work with people to address the systemic problems rather than leave the dysfunction as it is. I will not go further in discussing those matters here.

The Cathedral is, in fact, an amazing place. It is home to a multi-faith spirituality center where Christians and non-Christians can safely come together to dialogue about religious and poltical issues affecting us today. The re-design of the space lends to movement in the liturgy, showing in a physical way the journey of our Christian faith. It is beautiful, and I welcome the attitude in which it opens its doors to the world. I have visited it, played concerts in it, and hung out in it for diocesan conventions. I have considered making it my parish home on many occassions, and thanks to your quote, Cathromang, I am quite seriously considering it again, as I'm church shopping now. :)

[gitlance]

Not to break my sabbatical, but I'll take St. Clement's down the road anyday. They don't compromise with other "faith traditions" in order to be "welcoming, accepting, and diverse"; neither do they desecrate the holy places by having interfaith "worship" services that serve to "stretch one’s faith in dialogue with others".

For heaven sakes, their altar sits on a Muslim prayer rug. Need there be anything else said?

http://www.s-clements.org/

I must side with Cathromang, as I have heard this language used many times, and the vast majority of the people using it have no desire to maintain traditional Christian orthodoxy, but rather to invent a new, "progressive" Christianity that eliminates all uncomfortable doctrines that may turn people off to the Faith. I'll pass, and accept the Truth (no matter how tough it may be) anyday.

Now I shall return to my solitude.

[cathromang]

The Cathedral is, in fact, an amazing place. It is home to a multi-faith spirituality center where Christians and non-Christians can safely come together to dialogue about religious and poltical issues affecting us today. The re-design of the space lends to movement in the liturgy, showing in a physical way the journey of our Christian faith. It is beautiful, and I welcome the attitude in which it opens its doors to the world. I have visited it, played concerts in it, and hung out in it for diocesan conventions. I have considered making it my parish home on many occassions, and thanks to your quote, Cathromang, I am quite seriously considering it again, as I'm church shopping now. :)


Multi-faith spirituality is not Christianity.

Good luck on your journey.

[Inside Edge]

Finella...

How about sending me the link to the site?

Nothing like watching someone/something being unjustly maligned to bring out my sympathy and interest. :)

[higgs2]

Finella...

How about sending me the link to the site?

Nothing like watching someone/something being unjustly maligned to bring out my sympathy and interest. :)
Google the first sentence in the OP :)

[higgs2]

Cathromang,


The Bishop was NOT asked to leave by the entire diocese, he was asked to leave by the Standing Committee, which has little to no power in the diocese. The fact that he was asked to leave does indicate problems, yes, and I applaud the bishop for wanting to work with people to address the systemic problems rather than leave the dysfunction as it is. I will not go further in discussing those matters here.



This is a serious misrepresentation of the facts and I'm really glad you corrected the error.
:thumbsup:

[higgs2]

Not to break my sabbatical, but I'll take St. Clement's down the road anyday. They don't compromise with other "faith traditions" in order to be "welcoming, accepting, and diverse"; neither do they desecrate the holy places by having interfaith "worship" services that serve to "stretch one’s faith in dialogue with others".

For heaven sakes, their altar sits on a Muslim prayer rug. Need there be anything else said?

http://www.s-clements.org/

I must side with Cathromang, as I have heard this language used many times, and the vast majority of the people using it have no desire to maintain traditional Christian orthodoxy, but rather to invent a new, "progressive" Christianity that eliminates all uncomfortable doctrines that may turn people off to the Faith. I'll pass, and accept the Truth (no matter how tough it may be) anyday.

Now I shall return to my solitude.
I take issue with your use of the word "desecrate".

Life, the world, religion... it's not all so "black and white".

[Naomi4Christ]

It is home to a multi-faith spirituality center where Christians and non-Christians can safely come together to dialogue about religious and poltical issues affecting us today.

I think this sounds like a fantastic initiative. It is so important to have a place for people of faith to share what we do have in common (eg: respect for the environment, family life, care for the needy in our society, ethical technologies etc.). This is not the same as saying their beliefs are 'the truth', nor does it mean we should not be evangelising them. These people are our neighbours (remember The Good Samaritan?) and we are called to love them as much we love those who are easy to love.

It seems right that the Episcopal Church USA, with its culture of social outreach, should lead this initiative.

[cathromang]

It seems right that the Episcopal Church USA, with its culture of social outreach, should lead this initiative.


And this is exactly why 23 of the 38 dioceses in America have broken away from ECUSA.

[cathromang]

oh, and I do stand corrected on the Bishop's call to resign. Allow me to post their words...


Dear Sisters and Brothers of the Diocese of Pennsylvania

We thank you for the patience and concern expressed by many of you over the past few days.

On January 24, 2006, the ten member elected Standing Committee voted to respectfully request the Bishop’s retirement or resignation. This unanimous decision, that was agonizing for all of us, followed years of repeated attempts at reasoning with the Bishop about fiscal management and trust matters, beginning with mediation in the early days of his Episcopacy in 1999. The most recent effort in this direction was held on January 5, 2006 upon the request of the Standing Committee and included representatives of the Standing Committee, the Church Foundation, the Comptroller, the Program Budget Chair, the Chancellor and the Bishop.

The reasons for this vote on January 24, 2006 were the following:

Fiscal management –
*It is our belief that at least $11.6 million has been spent from Diocesan trust funds over the past few years.
*At this point we do not know whether we have $4 million or zero available trust funds to fund the 2006 budget.
*Endowment funds have been used and are gone that had previously provided income for our on-going ministries. The Diocese was forced to propose a mandatory assessment at the last Convention.
*The level of spending is such that we are relying on trust funds, that may no longer exist, to cover a budget deficit for 2006.

Trust -
*We believe that we were misled about the basis upon which capital projects would be funded.
*Failure to mount a timely capital campaign resulted in the use of trust funds instead of the promised capital campaign funds.

We are both surprised and saddened to find ourselves in this position; however, we have an obligation to look after the general welfare of the Diocese. Our energies and resources need to be focused on carrying forth the Gospel of Jesus Christ in ministry and witness. Consequently, after thoughtful and prayerful deliberations, we requested the retirement or resignation of the Bishop.

Yours in Christ,

The Standing Committee
Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania

The Rev. William Wood, President
the Rev. Mary Laney, Vice President
Arlene McGurk, Secretary
the Rev. Samuel Adu-Andoh
Christopher Hart,
the Rev. Glenn Matis
the Rev. Isaac Miller
William Powell
Joseph Suprenuk
Diane-Louise Wormley

Why do you suppose one of the most revisionist Bishops in the church is now having to rely on trust funds and endowments to keep his churches going?
But this is nothing compared to what you will soon see....

[Finella]

oh, and I do stand corrected on the Bishop's call to resign. Allow me to post their words...


Dear Sisters and Brothers of the Diocese of Pennsylvania

We thank you for the patience and concern expressed by many of you over the past few days.

On January 24, 2006, the ten member elected Standing Committee voted to respectfully request the Bishop’s retirement or resignation. This unanimous decision, that was agonizing for all of us, followed years of repeated attempts at reasoning with the Bishop about fiscal management and trust matters, beginning with mediation in the early days of his Episcopacy in 1999. The most recent effort in this direction was held on January 5, 2006 upon the request of the Standing Committee and included representatives of the Standing Committee, the Church Foundation, the Comptroller, the Program Budget Chair, the Chancellor and the Bishop.

The reasons for this vote on January 24, 2006 were the following:

Fiscal management –
*It is our belief that at least $11.6 million has been spent from Diocesan trust funds over the past few years.
*At this point we do not know whether we have $4 million or zero available trust funds to fund the 2006 budget.
*Endowment funds have been used and are gone that had previously provided income for our on-going ministries. The Diocese was forced to propose a mandatory assessment at the last Convention.
*The level of spending is such that we are relying on trust funds, that may no longer exist, to cover a budget deficit for 2006.

Trust -
*We believe that we were misled about the basis upon which capital projects would be funded.
*Failure to mount a timely capital campaign resulted in the use of trust funds instead of the promised capital campaign funds.

We are both surprised and saddened to find ourselves in this position; however, we have an obligation to look after the general welfare of the Diocese. Our energies and resources need to be focused on carrying forth the Gospel of Jesus Christ in ministry and witness. Consequently, after thoughtful and prayerful deliberations, we requested the retirement or resignation of the Bishop.

Yours in Christ,

The Standing Committee
Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania

The Rev. William Wood, President
the Rev. Mary Laney, Vice President
Arlene McGurk, Secretary
the Rev. Samuel Adu-Andoh
Christopher Hart,
the Rev. Glenn Matis
the Rev. Isaac Miller
William Powell
Joseph Suprenuk
Diane-Louise Wormley

Why do you suppose one of the most revisionist Bishops in the church is now having to rely on trust funds and endowments to keep his churches going?
But this is nothing compared to what you will soon see....
Cathromang,

I take issue with your airing of the Diocese's problems in this way. I also take issue with your selective reporting on these issues. The issues are more complex than your one letter from the Standing Committee seems to indicate. For instance, the fact that most parishes in the Diocese have historically not pledged anything close to their assessments (which is much lower than most Dioceses in the ECUSA) certainly contributes to the fiscal problems. Yet the Diocese has millions in restricted endowments -- it is hardly in the most dire straits the Standing Committee claims it is.

The Bishop was elected by the diocese and is the tenured leader of the diocese. But lately this diocese seeems to want to act as if it were a Quaker or Congregationalist denomination by not recognizing the heirarchical structure of the church.

This is quite a personal matter to me -- my campus ministry and my proposal for funding for Vocare is on the chopping block because of several parish's actions that have been going on since last fall's convention. It boggles my mind that people with personal vendettas against what you call a "revisionist bishop" will undermine valuable ministries that THIS BISHOP has initiated, and long overdue ones at that. These are evangelical, missional Christian ministries that will be swiped away because people aren't willing to work together with their common interests in mind.

God have mercy on us for being so stubborn.

[Finella]

Multi-faith spirituality is not Christianity.

Good luck on your journey.

::shrug:: to me, it is.

Good luck on your journey as well.

[cathromang]

Finella,

This is exactly the problem we need to be addressing!!
As we are all called to be in the Light why do we insist on hiding in darkness?
If there is a failing in one of our churches should we not all attempt to correct and exhort???

There is so much that has now gone awry within the Episcopal/Anglican community that these issues must be aired - everyone must know - if the vine has a disease in it do we just cover it up and let the vine die? Or do we attempt to treat the disease to save the vine?

I am truly and sincerely sorry that this has effected you personally.
But these things have effected all of us personally because these things are destroying our church!

The fact that a supposed "Episcopal" church has a mass dressed in clown/mime costumes while blowing soap bubbles and miming the reading of the word of the Lord offends me to the core of my soul. How many of those who call themselves "Episcopal" know this type of thing is happening in our church?

These things must be brought out - we must all deal with them together or we will forever stand apart.

Which do you choose?

[Finella]

Cathromang,

It is not that the issues are being aired at all that troubles me, it is the way in which you are airing them. you are telling only partial truths, you have misrepresented the situtation (bearing false witness), although I do not know if it was intentional or with your awareness that you have done so. Perhaps others have misled you regarding the situation.

The problem is I don't think we all agree on what the nature of the disease in the vine is. I don't think there's any problems with Christian clowning, for instance -- my first Vocare had this as a component of the Reconciliation talk and it was (surprisingly!) one of the most proufoundly moving experiences in my Christian journey. I think that part of the disease is the assumption that if we disagree on some things, we must therefore disagree on all things. Which is patently not true. But there are some who delight in division, I think.

I will be happy to openly discuss (or air) problems, but I ask that if we do so you are willing to discuss the whole truth of the matter. There's not just theology involved, there's political factions, there's money, there's lust after power. The problem with airing all of it is that people get implicated, good and bad alike, and people get hurt. So the discussion must be done diplomatically and with love for our Christian brothers and sisters. If you can do that, then I'll be happy to work with you. There are problems that need to be resolved. But if the discussion will turn into bashing anyone, then I'll not be a part of it.

[cathromang]

I take issue with your airing of the Diocese's problems in this way. I also take issue with your selective reporting on these issues. The issues are more complex than your one letter from the Standing Committee seems to indicate. For instance, the fact that most parishes in the Diocese have historically not pledged anything close to their assessments (which is much lower than most Dioceses in the ECUSA) certainly contributes to the fiscal problems. Yet the Diocese has millions in restricted endowments -- it is hardly in the most dire straits the Standing Committee claims it is.

The Bishop was elected by the diocese and is the tenured leader of the diocese. But lately this diocese seeems to want to act as if it were a Quaker or Congregationalist denomination by not recognizing the heirarchical structure of the church.

Why do you believe those parishes are no longer pledging?
Why do you think they are no longer recognizing the heirarchy?

In those answers lie the root problem of the entire church.

Return to Christ, I beg you.
Return to that which you were once called.
Turn away from the teachings of "any faith is ok, they're all the same way to God".
It is the Prophets that call you.
It is the Apostles that call you.
It is the the blood of the martyrs that calls you.
It is the words of the church fathers that call you.
It is the Heavenly Hosts that call you.
It is the Blessed Mother that calls you.
It is the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit that calls you.
It is God Almighty that calls you.

My prayers for you and the church....:crossrc:

[Finella]

Why do you believe those parishes are no longer pledging?
Why do you think they are no longer recognizing the heirarchy?

In those answers lie the root problem of the entire church.

Return to Christ, I beg you.
Return to that which you were once called.
Turn away from the teachings of "any faith is ok, they're all the same way to God".
It is the Prophets that call you.
It is the Apostles that call you.
It is the the blood of the martyrs that calls you.
It is the words of the church fathers that call you.
It is the Heavenly Hosts that call you.
It is the Blessed Mother that calls you.
It is the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit that calls you.
It is God Almighty that calls you.

My prayers for you and the church....:crossrc:
I believe I am called by all of those things you pray for. I am sorry that you do not believe this is so, but I cannot make you see it that way.

You act as if you know God's mind on our Diocese. Your signature has an interesting (and different) view on the matter.

I think that's as far as we can go discussing this. God bless.

[cathromang]

Finella,

You just do not see.
It is not just your diocese. For example, it is my understanding the Soper Trust is becoming the only money for the revisionist diocese of DC. And how many churches are actually left in the Florida diocese??? There really is an exodus going on whether you would like to believe it or not.

Christians will not support non-Christian beliefs nor support those that do. We are a peculiar people that the world really does not understand.

This isn't about politics. It's not about what bishop is greater or what location you're in.
It's about faith and belief. This transcends dioceses, church rules, or whatever social issue is in vogue today.
Do you really believe that the apostles would have laid hands upon and transferred power to someone in a clown costume blowing soap bubbles at the cross?

Don't you think it's interesting that our current leading bishops could care less if we turn away from 38 of the 39 articles but if they receive 1/39th less money they are up in arms?
(and I believe Karl Marx said something to this effect...)

I certainly do not know the mind of God and by calling you to return to Christ am not stating I do. Your words, not mine.
And I am certainly not a Prophet, just a fool, but I will make one prediction....The name "Episcopal" will be on very few Christian church signs in America in the future while the name "Anglican" will flourish and become known as those who kept the faith. "Episcopal" will become the same as "Unitarian".

and yes, now I'm through....the dust is heavy upon my feet here.

[higgs2]

Well god speed you on your way. This isn't the first time you've left after a dramatic flurry of hysterical postings. Quite unpleasant, but we're all God's funny little creatures, so bless you, brother.

[cathromang]

Well god speed you on your way. This isn't the first time you've left after a dramatic flurry of hysterical postings. Quite unpleasant, but we're all God's funny little creatures, so bless you, brother.

ha HA HA!:)
God has a sense of humor! Thank you Higgs...

My wife says I'm a funny little creature as well.

Dramatic....hmm...dramatic.
Dramatic like the "Book of Daniel"?
The show certain leaders of the Episcopal church said was great, but was actually quite "unpleasant"?
The show that crashed and burned?

Nah, I'm not that dramatic.

And not to worry, I'll be back with more hysteria as soon as your leaders give me occasion :)

[higgs2]

ha HA HA!:)
God has a sense of humor! Thank you Higgs...

My wife says I'm a funny little creature as well.

Dramatic....hmm...dramatic.
Dramatic like the "Book of Daniel"?
The show certain leaders of the Episcopal church said was great, but was actually quite "unpleasant"?
The show that crashed and burned?

Nah, I'm not that dramatic.

And not to worry, I'll be back with more hysteria as soon as your leaders give me occasion

:) I have to give you credit for mentioning as many of your hot buttons as possible in your posting flurry :)

I like the Book of Daniel :D But I was not comparing you to it. :confused:

[cathromang]

:) I have to give you credit for mentioning as many of your hot buttons as possible in your posting flurry :)

I like the Book of Daniel :D But I was not comparing you to it. :confused:


You said my flurry was dramatic (I prefer mint chocolate chip) so I was just trying to think of something dramatic that you would know...
come on, keep up with me!!
I at first started to say something about drama queens and New Hampshire, but figured I would be the only one to find that funny.
(and that's hot button #347, by the way - in a different forum)

[higgs2]

You said my flurry was dramatic (I prefer mint chocolate chip) so I was just trying to think of something dramatic that you would know...
come on, keep up with me!!
I at first started to say something about drama queens and New Hampshire, but figured I would be the only one to find that funny.
(and that's hot button #347, by the way - in a different forum)
I can't deny that it's dramatic. "Desperate Episcopalians", that's what we call it :D

[cathromang]

I can't deny that it's dramatic. "Desperate Episcopalians", that's what we call it :D

I didn't see it.
After my rantings did you think I would watch that??? :)

Jesus portrayed as some kind of burned out 60's hippie...

uh oh....feel hysterical flurry coming on.....

[Wiffey]

Not that this has anything to do with the OP, but...I also kind of liked "Book of Daniel" and was miffed to see it cancelled.

Mostly because it shows how much power the thought-police have to impose their fundagelical vision of how Christianity must be portrayed on the rest of us. I have no problem with them not watching it. But a campaign to ensure that none of the rest of us can watch it, either? :sick:

There's a lot on TV that I don't care for, either...but I have this thing called a remote control that ensures that I can change channels. If I had unlimited resources I'd personally send every member of the Southern Baptist Convention a remote and an Ativan!

[cathromang]

If I had unlimited resources I'd personally send every member of the Southern Baptist Convention a remote and an Ativan!


ahh, but God bless the Southern Baptists for believing in and taking a stand for something...anything....and not being inclusive to the point of nothingness...

Could be why they are the second largest (to RC) in America.

No clowns will be serving their communion.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

My views:


Paragraph 1: We cannot be sure of our salvation.

No, we cannot be.

Paragraph 2: Christ is not the only way to salvation.

Christ is the only way to Salvation.

Paragraph 4: Scripture is fallible just as the Popes are fallible.

Scripture is inspired, but not the sole authority.

Paragraph 5: You cannot put complete trust in your beliefs and convictions.

Alas, then there would be nothing to put complete trust in.

[cathromang]

Thank you AnglicanCrusader. You and I are within an arm's reach of each other.

Christ is the only Way to Salvation and putting a Muslim rug under the altar holding the Eucharist is, as Gitlance said earlier, desecration.
To put Christ and Mohommed together as one? Nope, that dog won't hunt...

I would ask:

Why can we not be sure of our salvation?

And what is the entire authority, if Scripture is not the sole?

(No arguing - just curious as to your answers - please elaborate and I'll most likely join you - I think everyone is tired of me :) )

[Finella]

Finella,

You just do not see.
It is not just your diocese. For example, it is my understanding the Soper Trust is becoming the only money for the revisionist diocese of DC. And how many churches are actually left in the Florida diocese??? There really is an exodus going on whether you would like to believe it or not.

Christians will not support non-Christian beliefs nor support those that do. We are a peculiar people that the world really does not understand.
There are more of the "revisionist" Christians than you realize. My band is affiliated with the Center for Progressive Christianity. We are deeply faithful and our voice is growing. Please do not insist such Christians do not exist.

This isn't about politics. It's not about what bishop is greater or what location you're in.
It's to do with local politics and people's need for recognition, power, control and money regardless of secular or sacred offices. You are the one who is blind if you can't see that. And I'm not talking about just one side of the issue here, either. (Nationally or locally.)

It's about faith and belief. This transcends dioceses, church rules, or whatever social issue is in vogue today.
Do you really believe that the apostles would have laid hands upon and transferred power to someone in a clown costume blowing soap bubbles at the cross?

As I said before about Christian clowns, don't knock it til you tried it! ;)

Seriously. I believe you are being sincere, and I am as well. Don't put something down (or go beyond that and call it an abomination) just because you have not experienced it -- that's disrespectful and not being open to God's working in the world.


I certainly do not know the mind of God and by calling you to return to Christ am not stating I do. Your words, not mine.
I said it was your actions, not your statements, that led me to that observation.
And I am certainly not a Prophet, just a fool,
We are to be fools for Christ, right? yeah... there's that Christian clowning thing again, that's their motto. I really think you'd like it if you gave it a chance....

but I will make one prediction....The name "Episcopal" will be on very few Christian church signs in America in the future while the name "Anglican" will flourish and become known as those who kept the faith. "Episcopal" will become the same as "Unitarian". If Christianity has to be the way you see it, then I hope your prediction comes true. Because I see that as stagnation.

Thanks for your prayers, I'll be thinking for you.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Thank you AnglicanCrusader. You and I are within an arm's reach of each other.

Christ is the only Way to Salvation and putting a Muslim rug under the altar holding the Eucharist is, as Gitlance said earlier, desecration.
To put Christ and Mohommed together as one? Nope, that dog won't hunt...

I would ask:

Why can we not be sure of our salvation?

And what is the entire authority, if Scripture is not the sole?

(No arguing - just curious as to your answers - please elaborate and I'll most likely join you - I think everyone is tired of me :) )
In many regards, I also believe the teaching of the Early Fathers and the received Apostolic Tradition of the Church to have equal authority with the Holy Scriptures. Together, in unison, they provide us with a deposit of Faith.

The reason I say I cannot be sure of my own salvation is that, I am, like Saint Paul am "working out my salvation in fear and trembling" Through Christianity one has the only true means of salvation, nonetheless, I believe sin can seperate us from God.

Hope that explains it?

[gitlance]

In many regards, I also believe the teaching of the Early Fathers and the received Apostolic Tradition of the Church to have equal authority with the Holy Scriptures. Together, in unison, they provide us with a deposit of Faith.

The reason I say I cannot be sure of my own salvation is that, I am, like Saint Paul am "working out my salvation in fear and trembling" Through Christianity one has the only true means of salvation, nonetheless, I believe sin can seperate us from God.

Hope that explains it?

Agreed. :crossrc:

[cathromang]

In many regards, I also believe the teaching of the Early Fathers and the received Apostolic Tradition of the Church to have equal authority with the Holy Scriptures. Together, in unison, they provide us with a deposit of Faith.

The reason I say I cannot be sure of my own salvation is that, I am, like Saint Paul am "working out my salvation in fear and trembling" Through Christianity one has the only true means of salvation, nonetheless, I believe sin can seperate us from God.

Hope that explains it?

Very well my brother!
Stay upon that course!!! and may God bless you! :thumbsup:


I have read back over this thread and have had quite the revelation. Progressive Christians believe we still have new revelations from the Spirit, yes? or some spirit, but anyway...

... I'm finishing up an arbitration hearing and don't have the time yet so my hysteria will continue soon...

[Inside Edge]

You just do not see.
Or maybe it's you who does not see. You appear blind as a bat (based on your posts), to me.

I have read back over this thread and have had quite the revelation. Progressive Christians believe we still have new revelations from the Spirit, yes? or some spirit, but anyway...

That's a rotten little snipe at "Progressive Christians," and I don't even know what they are, exactly. But I do know an insult when I see one. I hope you have the conviction and courage to say such things to those you disagree with in person, and not simply under the protective anonymity of the internet.

I'd throw my own comments in, but suffice to say I'd come off like a plagarist. I haven't read a thing from Finella that I wouldn't say myself (likely with less tact, I'm sure).

As for the Anglican/Episcopal Church standing for nothing...well, I think it stands right well for things like inclusion, acceptance of God being capable of working in many different ways; of reaching, inspiring and calling a diverse creation in equally diverse ways. I think it stands rather strongly for principles and values involving love, acceptance, welcoming, sensitivity and spiritual growth. Just because some can't handle life in smaller territories, divided by stronger fences (often lined with barbed wire), doesn't mean there are others who can't flourish (in Christ) in more wide open spaces.

God is not limited by the many petty things that have been mentioned in this thread.

[ebia]

God is not limited by the many petty things that have been mentioned in this thread.:thumbsup:

[higgs2]

Not that this has anything to do with the OP, but...I also kind of liked "Book of Daniel" and was miffed to see it cancelled.

Mostly because it shows how much power the thought-police have to impose their fundagelical vision of how Christianity must be portrayed on the rest of us. I have no problem with them not watching it. But a campaign to ensure that none of the rest of us can watch it, either? :sick:

There's a lot on TV that I don't care for, either...but I have this thing called a remote control that ensures that I can change channels. If I had unlimited resources I'd personally send every member of the Southern Baptist Convention a remote and an Ativan!
You can still see it, go to www.nbc.com and you can get last week's unaired episode. Another new one will be available Sunday.

[higgs2]

Or maybe it's you who does not see. You appear blind as a bat (based on your posts), to me.


That's a rotten little snipe at "Progressive Christians," and I don't even know what they are, exactly. But I do know an insult when I see one. I hope you have the conviction and courage to say such things to those you disagree with in person, and not simply under the protective anonymity of the internet.

I'd throw my own comments in, but suffice to say I'd come off like a plagarist. I haven't read a thing from Finella that I wouldn't say myself (likely with less tact, I'm sure).

As for the Anglican/Episcopal Church standing for nothing...well, I think it stands right well for things like inclusion, acceptance of God being capable of working in many different ways; of reaching, inspiring and calling a diverse creation in equally diverse ways. I think it stands rather strongly for principles and values involving love, acceptance, welcoming, sensitivity and spiritual growth. Just because some can't handle life in smaller territories, divided by stronger fences (often lined with barbed wire), doesn't mean there are others who can't flourish (in Christ) in more wide open spaces.

God is not limited by the many petty things that have been mentioned in this thread.

Spot on. God bless you! And thank God for the ECUSA! And for progressive Christians everywhere.

[karen freeinchristman]

As for the Anglican/Episcopal Church standing for nothing...well, I think it stands right well for things like inclusion, acceptance of God being capable of working in many different ways; of reaching, inspiring and calling a diverse creation in equally diverse ways. I think it stands rather strongly for principles and values involving love, acceptance, welcoming, sensitivity and spiritual growth.

I add my agreement to this, Inside Edge!

[Simon_Templar]

I take issue with your use of the word "desecrate".

Life, the world, religion... it's not all so "black and white".

Actually I think "desecrate" is exactly the word.

The word desecrate means to take what was sacred and to make it unsacred.. it, of course, carries a strong implication of impropriety and sacrelige.

Even among those christians still provincial and backward enough to believe that Jesus really is the only way to come to God the Father, there is a growing mindset that views other faiths simply as views which are not their view, but may be equally valid. Thus they see no real problem with inclusion of other faith's worship in christian holy places. This view point, I'm sure, is due to the indoctrination of secular humanism, which is pushed by the mass media and by the public school system.

Anyway, getting back to the point... Other faiths are not simply different but equally valid views. They are false religions. False religions that involve the worship of idols, demonic forces (yes I'm still silly enough to believe in such things), and religions that are sending people to hell and keeping them in slavery to the powers of darkness.
To allow those things place, to allow them to even be praised and elevated in a christian sanctuary is a desecration. It is taking a place set aside for God and handing it over to the devil. Allowing the worship of idols and demons in the temple of God.

hehe I thought it was bad enough when churches started opening book stores and starbucks inside their church...

[Wiffey]

Seriously.

I've spent plenty of time in very strict and dogmatic religious environments...RC then converted to Greek Orthodox before marrying my husband. There is a downside to "infallible" churches that place preserving Tradition far above loving their neighbors. Environments where if you question the rules, or even think you have a right to an opinion, you are supposed to run to your Spiritual Father/Confessor and tearfully repent.

I've been there and done that. Tried to be good and strict and trust that I was only a layperson and that I'd be far better off letting my Spiritual Father guide every aspect of my life. So I desperately tried not to question and prayed and fasted like mad...add up the days and it's nearly half the year vegan, repenting and not allowed to engage in intimacy with one's spouse. And, of course, the Church is THE Church, and whoever leaves it leaves the Body of Christ and will be lost...what a burdensome load to lay on people!

And of course...what I managed to do was never good enough, or right enough, and when I finally caught my breath and looked up I noticed that I was so busy fearing the wrath of God that I no longer loved Him. He was being presented as a harsh and unbending taskmaster rather than as a loving and welcoming Savior. My daughter wanted nothing to do with Him, and I was miserable. Of course, the party line would be that my child and I were at fault (because Orthodoxy is perfect) and in need of more repentance.

:thumbsup: So I repented all the way to the door of the local Episcopal church. And I heard something fabulous there....joy. And heard about a loving and forgiving Savior who loves us (presumably even if we eat olive oil and get physical with our spouse on a fast day). And we were welcomed. Treated like sisters in Christ, invited to partake in Holy Communion. Love and acceptance and welcome are profound and healing things for folks whose faith journeys have included travel in harsh weather.

So I love the ECUSA for restoring my faith in Christ's abundant goodness, and for my daughter who is now happy and looking forward to Sunday mornings.

There is a place and time for holding fast to Tradition...but there is also a place and time for just reflecting God's all embracing love to the broken and downtrodden. It's a careful balance.

[gitlance]

Actually I think "desecrate" is exactly the word.

The word desecrate means to take what was sacred and to make it unsacred.. it, of course, carries a strong implication of impropriety and sacrelige.

Even among those christians still provincial and backward enough to believe that Jesus really is the only way to come to God the Father, there is a growing mindset that views other faiths simply as views which are not their view, but may be equally valid. Thus they see no real problem with inclusion of other faith's worship in christian holy places. This view point, I'm sure, is due to the indoctrination of secular humanism, which is pushed by the mass media and by the public school system.

Anyway, getting back to the point... Other faiths are not simply different but equally valid views. They are false religions. False religions that involve the worship of idols, demonic forces (yes I'm still silly enough to believe in such things), and religions that are sending people to hell and keeping them in slavery to the powers of darkness.
To allow those things place, to allow them to even be praised and elevated in a christian sanctuary is a desecration. It is taking a place set aside for God and handing it over to the devil. Allowing the worship of idols and demons in the temple of God.

hehe I thought it was bad enough when churches started opening book stores and starbucks inside their church...

One of the Fathers (which one escapes me at this moment), was witnessing similar practices among some of the Christians of his day... he said that they were being "whores to other gods."

Indeed, the Bride has ONE Husband, not many. And the moment the Bride accepts other gods as true and good, is the same moment she has become a whore to her Husband.

And I am with you, Simon -- I, too, still believe in those "silly things" called demons, and I happen to think that a lot of people in Christianity have been listening to them lately. Just because somebody says they're hearing from the Holy Spirit doesn't actually mean that they are really hearing from the Holy Spirit...

[artrx]

As for the Anglican/Episcopal Church standing for nothing...well, I think it stands right well for things like inclusion, acceptance of God being capable of working in many different ways; of reaching, inspiring and calling a diverse creation in equally diverse ways. I think it stands rather strongly for principles and values involving love, acceptance, welcoming, sensitivity and spiritual growth. Just because some can't handle life in smaller territories, divided by stronger fences (often lined with barbed wire), doesn't mean there are others who can't flourish (in Christ) in more wide open spaces.

God is not limited by the many petty things that have been mentioned in this thread.

since I cannot rep you yet again, I'll second the:thumbsup: .

[artrx]

Seriously.

I've spent plenty of time in very strict and dogmatic religious environments...RC then converted to Greek Orthodox before marrying my husband. There is a downside to "infallible" churches that place preserving Tradition far above loving their neighbors. Environments where if you question the rules, or even think you have a right to an opinion, you are supposed to run to your Spiritual Father/Confessor and tearfully repent.

I've been there and done that. Tried to be good and strict and trust that I was only a layperson and that I'd be far better off letting my Spiritual Father guide every aspect of my life. So I desperately tried not to question and prayed and fasted like mad...add up the days and it's nearly half the year vegan, repenting and not allowed to engage in intimacy with one's spouse. And, of course, the Church is THE Church, and whoever leaves it leaves the Body of Christ and will be lost...what a burdensome load to lay on people!

And of course...what I managed to do was never good enough, or right enough, and when I finally caught my breath and looked up I noticed that I was so busy fearing the wrath of God that I no longer loved Him. He was being presented as a harsh and unbending taskmaster rather than as a loving and welcoming Savior. My daughter wanted nothing to do with Him, and I was miserable. Of course, the party line would be that my child and I were at fault (because Orthodoxy is perfect) and in need of more repentance.

:thumbsup: So I repented all the way to the door of the local Episcopal church. And I heard something fabulous there....joy. And heard about a loving and forgiving Savior who loves us (presumably even if we eat olive oil and get physical with our spouse on a fast day). And we were welcomed. Treated like sisters in Christ, invited to partake in Holy Communion. Love and acceptance and welcome are profound and healing things for folks whose faith journeys have included travel in harsh weather.

So I love the ECUSA for restoring my faith in Christ's abundant goodness, and for my daughter who is now happy and looking forward to Sunday mornings.

There is a place and time for holding fast to Tradition...but there is also a place and time for just reflecting God's all embracing love to the broken and downtrodden. It's a careful balance.

I took a similar journey through my teen and young adult years. When I found the Episcopal Church, I felt like God had been leading me here for years and He/She was welcoming me home. I love and respect the Tradition. It's very meaningful to me. However, tradition and even our theological knowledge has to be kept in the perspective of an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent Creator. Otherwise,we run the risk of deifying our own understandings at the expense of learning from God's continuing revelation.



Seriously. I believe you are being sincere, and I am as well. Don't put something down (or go beyond that and call it an abomination) just because you have not experienced it -- that's disrespectful and not being open to God's working in the world.
:thumbsup:

[cathromang]

"Blind as a bat"? Ok, let me put on my armor.
Hmmm, perhaps I am, but I can hear my Lord in the midst of this darkness. I can at least say I know Who and What my Shepherd is. Christ is not a way, but the way, and you will never ever change the way we believe.

And stagnation? Ok, I'll sit in my stagnant little pond with the RC's and the Easterns and the Baptists, etc. as we have for 2000 years. Your good Bishop Spong predicted us dead by the turn of the century - but guess what? We're still here.
In the meantime, let your waters flow into every little crack and crevice you can find, searching for your truth in your various passions.
In another 2000 years, should the Lord continue this earth as is, we will see who remains and who has dried up. We have dealt with your beliefs since the beginning and have withstood them since the beginning.
And yes, I know there are many of you. You are legion.

Looking back over this thread I have noticed the majority of persons stating that we should have a "multi-faith" christianity and striking down any semblance of orthodoxy are women. The men who lead this type of charge in our church are men who have taken on the role of female in their lives, such as Robinson, or Crew (or his/her alter ego Lutibelle) and the men confused about gender roles such as Spong and Griswold and Bennison and Lee.
The majority of ones upholding orthodoxy on this thread are men.
Isn't that interesting?
I was immediately led to 2 Timothy 3.1 - 3.9. Perhaps Paul was onto something in his instructions to the Corinthians???
I now understand FiF and see more clearly the scriptures, so thank you all for this revelation.

The church is not here to "love all and serve all". That is the logo of Planet Hollywood. And it upset Judas that Jesus rebuked him for believing this.
You do not serve God by serving man.
You serve man by serving God.
If you simply want to help others and feel good or holy about yourself, become a social worker.

Not too long ago I visited a Progressive (revisionist - you say tomato, I say tomahto) episcopal faith place. Walking through the lot, I was looking at the bumper stickers. (You can tell a lot about a church by the bumper stickers). In amidst all the gay equality stickers I found a car that below the equality had two others.
The one on the left said, "Abortion is a choice".
The one on the right said, "Do not kill babies for oil" (anti-war).
Can one of you Progressives explain that to me? So it's not ok to kill babies for oil, but it's ok to kill them as a matter of convenience? (Not that very many believe we have soldiers running around shooting babies)

And I never called what you believe an abomination. That is your word. But it is interesting you picked that word.

For you who has Benedict's "anti-war" statement as your signature, I would invite you to also read his book, "Truth and Tolerance", in which he very intellectually disassembles the Progressive point of view. It is very ironic you would quote him.

And I find it equally as interesting that when I said I would pray for you, you said you would "think for me". No thanks. The problem with revisionist/liberals is they think they know what is best for everyone. They think their own reasonings can overcome thousands of years of theological orthodoxy. Less time thinking and more time praying would be the best course.

The Book of Daniel failed.
The much revered "Brokeback Mountain" only opened in select cities and at last glance, has only brought in $15 million, which is horrible for Hollywood.
On the other hand, "The Passion", that orthodox movie, which Hollywood wouldn't touch, and revisionist/liberals painted as being discriminatory - smashed records.
Who exactly is blind?

One question I would ask of you, you who are "many" -
Why did you pick the Episcopal church? Was it easier to infiltrate due to the lack of dogmas? I know the RC's or the Baptists would be out of the question, but why did you not pick, say,
Free Methodists? or the Wesleyans?
Or are you working on those too?

We'll talk again.... and yes, I would love to do it face to face, only allow me to bring my Roman missal.

[karen freeinchristman]

Cathromang,

You may be a Prophet (far be it from me to be able to discern that), but I think you are going over the line in your personal attacks on people here. The gospel of Christ is predominantly about love, and there is precious little of it in your words, in my view. Your message may contain some truth, but the way you are putting it across is not beneficial, again in my view. And the stuff you wrote about women; I will not even go there.

Your sister in Christ,
Karen

[Wiffey]

Uh-Oh, ladies...looks like our evil plot has been exposed!

It is true that we, the Uterus People, have infiltrated your churches and contaminated them with the most highly toxic substance in the Universe: Estrogen. We seek to emasculate the Testicle People and overthrow the long-dominant influence of the heady, noble and musky Testosterone. Soon you will grow breasts and have periods and our stock in the Kotex and Tampax companies will soar. This will fund the final stage of world domination when all boy-children will be made to kneel before the Ovary.
:P

[artrx]

Cathromang,

You may be a Prophet (far be it from me to be able to discern that), but I think you are going over the line in your personal attacks on people here. The gospel of Christ is predominantly about love, and there is precious little of it in your words, in my view. Your message may contain some truth, but the way you are putting it across is not beneficial, again in my view. And the stuff you wrote about women; I will not even go there.


..as well as being rife with prejudicial stereotyping :sigh: . Is this aimed to further your discussion or a rant to end it? I appreciate and learn from the differing views expressed in this forum. For the most part people are respectful of others, which facilitates learning, Christian understanding and, I believe, the voice of God.

[artrx]

Uh-Oh, ladies...looks like our evil plot has been exposed!

It is true that we, the Uterus People, have infiltrated your churches and contaminated them with the most highly toxic substance in the Universe: Estrogen. We seek to emasculate the Testicle People and overthrow the long-dominant influence of the heady, noble and musky Testosterone. Soon you will grow breasts and have periods and out stock in the Kotex and Tampax companies will soar. This will fund the final stage of world domination when all boy-children will be made to kneel before the Ovary.
:P

^_^ ^_^

[pmcleanj]

http://www1.christianforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=31232&stc=1&d=1108586559
This is an official moderator post

This forum is a place of fellowship, communion, and discussions of mutual interest for Anglicans and Old Catholics. It is not a place for internecine sectarian bashing and unkindness. So keep it civil.

In reading this thread, I've seen a lot of pejorative terms used against brother and sister Christians in this forum: "intentionally manipulating", "bait", "puffed-up", "false gods", "dysfunction", "desecrate", "selective reporting", "hysterical", "snipe", "blind", "infiltrate", "revisionist". Such terms create an unfortunate tone that is unpleasant for everyone on the board.

Take note of the following three points:

Rule 1.5 You will not directly state or otherwise imply that another member is not a Christian if he or she falls under Rule 6.5 and 6.6 and he or she does not have a hidden faith icon without providing substantiation from scripture or doctrine or historic church writtings.
Any further posts refering to members of this board as infiltrators or as Unitarians will be dealt with under this rule; and any further posts refering to an Anglican or Old Catholic church as non-Christian or Unitiarian/Universalist will be dealt with under the closely related rule 1.3

Rule 4.2 You will restrict any posts relating to homosexuality to the Ethics & Morality, Liberal Theology or Christian Philosophy forums.
If any further posts mentioning Bishop Robinson, New Hampshire or Dr. Crew (or any other controversial current Church events) include any references to homosexuality whether covert or overt, those posts will be deleted or moved to the Congregation-specific Ethics section of the Christian Philosophy forum.

Rule 6.6 You MAY post in the "Christians Only" forums and MAY use a "Christian" faith icon in your profile if you consider yourself a "Christian" and DO adhere to the contents of the Nicene Creed AND believe in Universalism or Universal Salvation. BUT the specific discussion of these doctrines must be posted in the Open forums (for example, Unorthodox Theological Doctrines) and not in the Christian Only forums.
Christian Forums rules specifically recognize that you CAN be Christian and hold to Universalism. However, you may not discuss Universalism in this forum. You may not promote Universalism in STR -- and by symmetry, if you want to oppose Universalism, you'll have to do that, too, in the Open forums such as Unorthodox Theological Doctrines.

Raise the tone of this thread, please. Remember that it is a witness to our non-Christian guests, and a means of hospitality to all our guests, and a means of fellowship with one another. That being said, credit is due to all the posters who have been able to share their perspectives on this thread in a positive and upbuilding light, and who have debated with civil candour and mutual respect.

Regards,
Pamela

[Finella]

Cathromang,

I'm not even sure to whom you address your last post. Your post has references to comments made by several different authors in this thread. Your remarks are, unfortunately, quite insulting, and lack any logical basis for any kind of meeting of the minds. I decline to discuss things further with you, either here or face to face (would that ever be an option), as long as you continue this rhetoric. I'll probably lurk here, though, because the discussion does interest me all the same.

God bless.

[Inside Edge]

Looking back over this thread I have noticed the majority of persons stating that we should have a "multi-faith" christianity and striking down any semblance of orthodoxy are women. The men who lead this type of charge in our church are men who have taken on the role of female in their lives, such as Robinson, or Crew (or his/her alter ego Lutibelle) and the men confused about gender roles such as Spong and Griswold and Bennison and Lee. The majority of ones upholding orthodoxy on this thread are men.Isn't that interesting?

Yes, it is very interesting. It says to me that most of us (men) haven't grown out of our childish insecurities and chauvenistic tendencies. We're still failing to transcend our most base passions and desires, and in giving into these things of the flesh, are turning our backs on God.

The Book of Daniel failed.The much revered "Brokeback Mountain" only opened in select cities and at last glance, has only brought in $15 million, which is horrible for Hollywood. On the other hand, "The Passion", that orthodox movie, which Hollywood wouldn't touch, and revisionist/liberals painted as being discriminatory - smashed records. Who exactly is blind?

You sir, appear to have a serious problem with pop culture and go much too far in your projections of it onto the Episcopal Church. This latest example of yours only betrays your desire to find blame, to find somewhere to channel whatever hangups you have with popular American culture.

Spiderman made way more that the Passion of the Christ. So did Titanic, Star Wars, and countless other secular examples. I'm sure if I thought about it, there are films with anti-Christian sentiments that made plenty more than Mel Gibson's blockbuster. You've only grabbed a recent example, clearly implied your disdain for its subject matter, and ineffectively tried to link it with the some of the things discussed in this thread.

Although Finella beat me to it (again), I will repeat her sentiment: If you really want to discuss the issues you rail at, I suggest you discontinue the implicit insults and poor examples you've put forth thus far. Secondly, if you insist on addressing "Progressive Christians," at least afford us the respect to name who in this thread you categorize as such. That way, when you make questions to a group, we know who you're [supposedly] requesting a response from.

[gitlance]

Indeed, we must not resort to insults, as that is not the mission of Mother Church, nor of Her Founder. Their mission is love for all people.

With that in mind, it must be understood that love does not equal blind acceptance of everybody's individual viewpoints. There are wrong beliefs, and the Church's job is to love people into seeing where they hold wrong beliefs, and to correct that.

Pax Christi.

[Aymn27]

Yes, it is very interesting. It says to me that most of us (men) haven't grown out of our childish insecurities and chauvenistic tendencies. We're still failing to transcend our most base passions and desires, and in giving into these things of the flesh, are turning our backs on God.



You sir, appear to have a serious problem with pop culture and go much too far in your projections of it onto the Episcopal Church. This latest example of yours only betrays your desire to find blame, to find somewhere to channel whatever hangups you have with popular American culture.

Spiderman made way more that the Passion of the Christ. So did Titanic, Star Wars, and countless other secular examples. I'm sure if I thought about it, there are films with anti-Christian sentiments that made plenty more than Mel Gibson's blockbuster. You've only grabbed a recent example, clearly implied your disdain for its subject matter, and ineffectively tried to link it with the some of the things discussed in this thread.

Although Finella beat me to it (again), I will repeat her sentiment: If you really want to discuss the issues you rail at, I suggest you discontinue the implicit insults and poor examples you've put forth thus far. Secondly, if you insist on addressing "Progressive Christians," at least afford us the respect to name who in this thread you categorize as such. That way, when you make questions to a group, we know who you're [supposedly] requesting a response from.:scratch: Me thinks it's pretty self evident who the "progressive" Christians are in this thread.

Also, why oh why is it that orthodox posters are always "reeled in" when making their comments?? I have just been observing lately (not posting much) and it always seems that "progessives" are allowed to go on many tangents - refering to orthodox and evangelicals as "extreme right wing" "fungelical" "to the right of Attilla the hun" and yes oh yes, even being equated with Hitler - but Heaven help us should the word Universalist come up! Assault orthodox bishops ad nausem, but dare mention VGR and the like and holy cow!! It's outrage!

It is rather amusing to watch who the real "thought police" are and exactly how "inclusive" they are of those who do not agree with their doctrine.

[higgs2]

http://www1.christianforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=31232&stc=1&d=1108586559
This is an official moderator post

This forum is a place of fellowship, communion, and discussions of mutual interest for Anglicans and Old Catholics. It is not a place for internecine sectarian bashing and unkindness. So keep it civil.

In reading this thread, I've seen a lot of pejorative terms used against brother and sister Christians in this forum: "intentionally manipulating", "bait", "puffed-up", "false gods", "dysfunction", "desecrate", "selective reporting", "hysterical", "snipe", "blind", "infiltrate", "revisionist". Such terms create an unfortunate tone that is unpleasant for everyone on the board.

Take note of the following three points:

Rule 1.5 You will not directly state or otherwise imply that another member is not a Christian if he or she falls under Rule 6.5 and 6.6 and he or she does not have a hidden faith icon without providing substantiation from scripture or doctrine or historic church writtings.
Any further posts refering to members of this board as infiltrators or as Unitarians will be dealt with under this rule; and any further posts refering to an Anglican or Old Catholic church as non-Christian or Unitiarian/Universalist will be dealt with under the closely related rule 1.3

Rule 4.2 You will restrict any posts relating to homosexuality to the Ethics & Morality, Liberal Theology or Christian Philosophy forums.
If any further posts mentioning Bishop Robinson, New Hampshire or Dr. Crew (or any other controversial current Church events) include any references to homosexuality whether covert or overt, those posts will be deleted or moved to the Congregation-specific Ethics section of the Christian Philosophy forum.

Rule 6.6 You MAY post in the "Christians Only" forums and MAY use a "Christian" faith icon in your profile if you consider yourself a "Christian" and DO adhere to the contents of the Nicene Creed AND believe in Universalism or Universal Salvation. BUT the specific discussion of these doctrines must be posted in the Open forums (for example, Unorthodox Theological Doctrines) and not in the Christian Only forums.
Christian Forums rules specifically recognize that you CAN be Christian and hold to Universalism. However, you may not discuss Universalism in this forum. You may not promote Universalism in STR -- and by symmetry, if you want to oppose Universalism, you'll have to do that, too, in the Open forums such as Unorthodox Theological Doctrines.

Raise the tone of this thread, please. Remember that it is a witness to our non-Christian guests, and a means of hospitality to all our guests, and a means of fellowship with one another. That being said, credit is due to all the posters who have been able to share their perspectives on this thread in a positive and upbuilding light, and who have debated with civil candour and mutual respect.

Regards,
Pamela
You''re right, and I was the one to initiate using the word "hysterical". I agree that it doesn't contribute to a pleasant tone. Consider me reeled in.

[Finella]

:scratch: Me thinks it's pretty self evident who the "progressive" Christians are in this thread.

Also, why oh why is it that orthodox posters are always "reeled in" when making their comments?? I have just been observing lately (not posting much) and it always seems that "progessives" are allowed to go on many tangents - refering to orthodox and evangelicals as "extreme right wing" "fungelical" "to the right of Attilla the hun" and yes oh yes, even being equated with Hitler - but Heaven help us should the word Universalist come up! Assault orthodox bishops ad nausem, but dare mention VGR and the like and holy cow!! It's outrage!

It is rather amusing to watch who the real "thought police" are and exactly how "inclusive" they are of those who do not agree with their doctrine.

::blinks::

::Searches::

Your search - site:www.christianforums.com "fungelical" - did not match any documents.

and

Your search - site:www.christianforums.com "to the right of Attilla the hun" - did not match any documents.

or, spelled correctly, even:

Ss. Benedict & Francis Lounge (for those interested in seeking ...
To the right of Attila the Hun...
Hunh. One result, the profile of a self-described conservative on this board.

I admit to using the terms "stagnant" and responding to being told that I cannot see by using the term "blind" to my respondent. For which I apologize. But I will not admit to being anywhere near as inflammatory as some here.

My honor defended, I return to lurking.

[Fish and Bread]

Wow. This is quite a thread. I wanted to toss a few things out there:

- Firstly, there was the notion expressed that somehow progressivism is being imposed from above on a a fairly uniformly moderate to conservative laity. What I think folks are forgetting is that the laity elects the vestries which elect the delgates who select the bishops and the delegates to General Convention. The bishops and delegates are there because the the laity votes for the people who selected them. They may not *perfectly* reflect the views of the majority of the laity, but I don't think it's likely that they're completely out of synch either. ECUSA is becoming more progressive because the average pewsitter is becoming more progressive. Obviously, that doesn't mean all the laity is progressive, but there are more progressives than covervatives in ECUSA at this point in history. The bishops and conventions haven't just started running amock and doing wacky things that everyone disagrees with. :)

-Secondly, let's agree that Unitarians are nice folks. :) We can disagree with them theologically without implying that they're the religious equivalent of a leper colony. :)

- Thirdly, it is true that ECUSA projects a more sterotypically feminine worldview than many churches nowadays in the sense that liberalism itself is more sterotypically feminine than the conservatism. It's not really any issue of sex, though. Personally, I like love, tolerance, inclusion, and peace; but that doesn't make me a woman. :) I still watch football and wrestling, and like to kiss pretty girls. :)

[Simon_Templar]

Fish and bread,

I noticed that your missing the swastika in your little around the world of religious symbols there. Now before you get the wrong idea.. I'm not accusing you of being a nazi :). However, any table which has a seat for Osama, Stalin, Mao, and Polpot must also have one for Hitler.

Pam RE the mod post:

among the phrases you quoted were "false gods" and "desacrated" both of which I used in a post. I would like to point out that in the warning it indicated that such phrases were being directed at brothers and sisters in christ. I did not direct those statements at brothers and sisters in christ.. I don't have a problem with baptists celebrating in an anglican church, I don't have a problem with Catholics, Orthodox, Nazarenes, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, non denominational, being invited to celebrate in an Anglican church (tho maybe some would). What I do have a problem with, and what I addressed specificly was the inclusion of non-christian worship in christian churches.
Thus the words "false gods" and "desecrate" are entirely correct and appropriate to those cases. Unless of course the bible itself is no longer allowed here, because thats what it has to say about allowing heathen worship in God's house.


Lastly addressing "progressivism"... Finella and I had a bit of a discussion that brushed on progressivism a ways back so she probably remembers some of my opinions on the topic.

Progressive philosophy is fataly flawed, and thats the good news for progressives :). Virtually every major movement, ideology, and project that the progressive movement has undertaken has ended in total failure and disaster. About the only exception I can think of is the opposition of slavery, but that wasn't solely a progressive project and wasn't really based ultimately on progressive philosophy.
Almost invariably progressive movements end up doing exactly the opposite of what they start out to achieve. this is largely because their view of human nature and of history itself is so badly flawed. Progressive philosophy is tied up with utopian idealism and the belief that humanity and history are moving towards a pinnacle of achievement, a veritable golden age which can be achieved through education, and "raising awareness".

This flies in the face of the historical record which is one of constant ebb and flow of culture and technology, but through all the one thing that never really changes is the evil of human nature. Culture, awareness, education, have never served to lessen the wickedness of man and never will. Tolerance of evil does not make evil less evil. It makes good less good.
I'm sure all of you are familiar with the oft quoted words of Edmund Burke "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"... the greatest danger facing any society in any age is that good people would tolerate evil, because then they do nothing about it.

[Inside Edge]

Progressive philosophy is tied up with utopian idealism and the belief that humanity and history are moving towards a pinnacle of achievement, a veritable golden age which can be achieved through education, and "raising awareness".

This flies in the face of the historical record which is one of constant ebb and flow of culture and technology, but through all the one thing that never really changes is the evil of human nature. Culture, awareness, education, have never served to lessen the wickedness of man and never will. Tolerance of evil does not make evil less evil.
And again, I'd like to know who - in this thread - actually subscribes to this utopian goal/theory which you describe. I've disagreed with a lot of what you and other orthodox/more conservative members have said. However, I comepletely agree with your comments about the human condition, waves in human history, and the needed diligence of good people.

Problem is, I think, that we disagree on what is evil, and therefore what requires rebuke and what does not.

Aymn said it was rather apparent who the progressives were in this thread. Your "clarification" leads me to believe there are even fewer than I would have guessed. Furthermore, I figured I was among them, for the purposes of this thread. But according to your definition, I am not.

I won't speak for anyone else in this thread - but I haven't read anything from anyone that indicates they buy into your utopian theory. If there are, I would hope they'd come forward and say so, it would help me a lot in sorting out some of these posts.

Progressive philosophy is fataly flawed...
So really, it's only fataly flawed by your fataly flawed definition.

The term "Progressive," as I've followed in this thread, is entirely relative. I'm glad you want to put some meat on its bones, because it helps set the context for those who really do ascribe to what you've explained. However, the way I've read it so far, it is simply a term which applies to those who are "not conservative enough," by some individual's standards.

Relative to the rest of North America, I live in a very "progressive" diocese. Relative to my diocese, I am rather conservative. And yet, I have not come across a single person (Anglican-Christians) in all my discussions that touts anything close to your utopian-goal definition.

So what does all this mean? Well, I guess it means that Progressives as you have described are indeed in the tiny minority, and will pass just like similar movements and groups have throughout history.

But us rank and file - that big mass of us who are all in the middle, in varying degrees, will be the ones who move the Church at God's will.

That is, moving it forward. ;) Progress included.

[Fish and Bread]

I noticed that your missing the swastika in your little around the world of religious symbols there. Now before you get the wrong idea.. I'm not accusing you of being a nazi :). However, any table which has a seat for Osama, Stalin, Mao, and Polpot must also have one for Hitler

Well, I do want to note that I didn't design the avatar, so I might have made a few choices differently in terms of which groups to include and which groups to exclude. I do understand why Islam was included, though. People want to judge Islam based on terrorist groups, but to me that's a little like judging Christianity by the inquisitions or the crusades. They're not really mainstream examples of what these religions have to offer.

Islam actually can be a very tolerant religion. At it's apex, the Ottoman Empire, Islamic society offered freedom of religion to Christians and Jews, a great atmosphere for scientific and cultural advancement (Which was surpassed Europe in terms of mathmatics and astronomy), and even allowed their men to marry Christian and Jewish women on the condition that they'd have to respect their wives' beliefs and not force conversion on them. I haven't had a chance to read the Koran, but I don't doubt that there are some keen insights into the human condition in parts of it. It's not entirely a bad religion, it's the way it's practiced by terrorists and such that makes it bad sometimes, just as Christianity has been misused at times as well.


Almost invariably progressive movements end up doing exactly the opposite of what they start out to achieve. this is largely because their view of human nature and of history itself is so badly flawed. Progressive philosophy is tied up with utopian idealism and the belief that humanity and history are moving towards a pinnacle of achievement, a veritable golden age which can be achieved through education, and "raising awareness".

This flies in the face of the historical record which is one of constant ebb and flow of culture and technology, but through all the one thing that never really changes is the evil of human nature. Culture, awareness, education, have never served to lessen the wickedness of man and never will. Tolerance of evil does not make evil less evil. It makes good less good.

I do think there is a human inclination towards what in religious terms would be called sin. I don't think things will ever be perfect. I do think, though, that things can be improved, not because of a basic improvement in human nature, but because of an improvement in human philosophy. In days past, you could be trying to do the best you can morally and ethically speaking and society would tell you that it was okay to be bigoted against women and blacks, for example. By taking the cultural step forward of recognizing the ideal of equality between the sexes and between races, we give people more of an opportunity to go good. And I think that is what many progressives want to do, have a better model for what constitutes good. They might look at, for example, caring for groups of people who have traditionally been thought sinful or inferior in some way and reevaluate that, while saying that we need to focus more on feeding the poor.

Jesus himself in some ways might be considered an example of improving the model. By his words and actions, he helped define what constituted morality in the popular consciousness, affirming the dignity and worth the poor and of lepers and Samaritiansm etc. There was a progression from Adam to Abraham to Moses to David to Jesus that can be seen -- things became more sharply defined in some ways and more broadly in others, etc.

[karen freeinchristman]

I don't think things will ever be perfect. I do think, though, that things can be improved, not because of a basic improvement in human nature, but because of an improvement in human philosophy. In days past, you could be trying to do the best you can morally and ethically speaking and society would tell you that it was okay to be bigoted against women and blacks, for example. By taking the cultural step forward of recognizing the ideal of equality between the sexes and between races, we give people more of an opportunity to go good. And I think that is what many progressives want to do, have a better model for what constitutes good. They might look at, for example, caring for groups of people who have traditionally been thought sinful or inferior in some way and reevaluate that, while saying that we need to focus more on feeding the poor.

Jesus himself in some ways might be considered an example of improving the model. By his words and actions, he helped define what constituted morality in the popular consciousness, affirming the dignity and worth the poor and of lepers and Samaritiansm etc. There was a progression from Adam to Abraham to Moses to David to Jesus that can be seen -- things became more sharply defined in some ways and more broadly in others, etc.

Yes! 'Progressives' are concerned, IMO, with moving towards what they view as the 'way' of the Kingdom of God. I suppose where we will have disagreements with conservatives is in the picture we have of what God's Kingdom includes or excludes. Progress is movement towards something higher, something greater. It shouldn't be thought of as a bad word.

We are given the challenge to follow Jesus Christ's example in building the Kingdom. I doubt if any of us think that we will always get it right when it comes to discerning just how inclusive God wants to be, but God alone knows our hearts, and knows when our ways are actually going against his ways. Mistakes might be made by certain bishops, priests or lay people, but God can even use these mistakes and continue on with his purposes, one only has to look at the history of the Israelites for proof.

[karen freeinchristman]

Thinking more about this...

I think one problem that progressives have with traditional conservatives is the appearance of standing still, of simply trying to keep everything the same, of no movement, and no change, as if that is what God's will is for the church. To simply wait patiently for his return, and repeating the same rituals faithfully. On one hand, I feel that if traditional Christians are convinced that this is the way, then they should definitely keep at it (I don't believe liberals or progressives should force their ideas on anyone). But on the other hand, this is not the way that I, and other progressives (I presume), see as the mission of the Church while we are waiting for Jesus Christ to come back.


But I do think that both sides should be more tolerant of the other side, because they need to understand the conviction in our hearts with which we are all acting.

OK, I'll stop rambling on about this now. :sorry:

[Aymn27]

::blinks::

::Searches::



and



or, spelled correctly, even:


Hunh. One result, the profile of a self-described conservative on this board.

I admit to using the terms "stagnant" and responding to being told that I cannot see by using the term "blind" to my respondent. For which I apologize. But I will not admit to being anywhere near as inflammatory as some here.

My honor defended, I return to lurking.
oh,
excuse my poor memory on exactly which terms it is we "fundamentalists" (a "pejorative" by my terms, but that seems to only work one way here) are called -- fundagelical was the exact term used on this thread. The Attila the Hun (however it is spelled - I'm rather ignorant being a fundamentalist and all) is my tag line under my name - put there as a direct quote from a "progressive" response to one of my posts - which I found rather amusing seeing the reverse situation would have been swatted had I said "to the left of Stalin"...

And of course the orthodox bishops are "power hungry, closed minded, etc etc" but the progressives dare not be portrayed as anything but kindly loving shepherds (here I would insert what I truly believe them to be, but it would violate the "RULES")...

[Colabomb]

this is an excerpt from an episcopal church website:

The cathedral sees transformation as process rather than event. In response to the question ‘Have you been saved?' we warm to the answer given by Fr Raymond Raynes, sometime Superior of the Community of the Resurrection; ‘I'm damned if I know.' Like St Paul, we ‘press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus' (Phil 3:14)

The cathedral seeks to be inclusive in every way, and operates an open table in its worship, at which every seeker after God is welcomed, no questions asked. We serve the Episcopal Church, but welcome Christians of every label. We are a Christian community, but welcome people of any faith, or none. Our community is diverse in terms of age, race, gender and orientation. Jesus is our Way, but not to the exclusion of all other paths to God. Our liturgical space is designed to be user-friendly to members of both Jewish and Muslim traditions, who share with us spiritual descent from Abraham.

Our community sees faith in terms of exploration as we encounter in a spirit of wonder the ever-unfolding revelation of God's love.

We seek to be progressive in our faith, grateful for the Biblical scholarship which now uncovers the deep meaning of the Scriptures beneath their literal face value. Inerrant Scriptures seem to us about as believable or supportable as infallible popes. The cathedral is affiliated to the Center for Progressive Christianity (www.tcpc.org (http://www.tcpc.org/))

History, and a glance at world events today, shows only too well the tragic and brutal consequences of absolute certainty in religious conviction. Total certainty of an exclusive relationship with God leads to the dismissal of others and a denial of their right to find God in accordance with their own tradition. It leads eventually to crusades and inquisitions and militant fundamentalism.



Paragraph 1: We cannot be sure of our salvation.

Paragraph 2: Christ is not the only way to salvation.

Paragraph 4: Scripture is fallible just as the Popes are fallible.

Paragraph 5: You cannot put complete trust in your beliefs and convictions.


Does this represent your church?


(I will not give the name of the church although the Diocese Bishop was just asked to step down by his entire diocese and refused to do so.)
Blasphemy.

Jesus is the only Way to God.

[Colabomb]

Thinking more about this...

I think one problem that progressives have with traditional conservatives is the appearance of standing still, of simply trying to keep everything the same, of no movement, and no change, as if that is what God's will is for the church. To simply wait patiently for his return, and repeating the same rituals faithfully. On one hand, I feel that if traditional Christians are convinced that this is the way, then they should definitely keep at it (I don't believe liberals or progressives should force their ideas on anyone). But on the other hand, this is not the way that I, and other progressives (I presume), see as the mission of the Church while we are waiting for Jesus Christ to come back.


But I do think that both sides should be more tolerant of the other side, because they need to understand the conviction in our hearts with which we are all acting.

OK, I'll stop rambling on about this now. :sorry:
Conservatives do not stand still.

We run toward Christ. We wish to move toward Him. We are constantly at battle for His Gospel and His Truth.

[Wiffey]

I am guilty of having used the word "fundagelical", and apologize if it caused offense. I often try to diffuse tense situations with humor, and sometimes fail to be funny.

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding and labelling of folks as either staunchly conservative or give-away-the-store liberal. I think the truth is that most of us live somewhere in between. And I think ALL of us are deeply committed to Christ...that is not the issue. The issue is that we have differences of opinion as to the best way to draw the world to Christ.

I also fear there is a great deal of intentionally misunderstanding one another and twisting the others' words to suit our own preconceived notions of what the other believes. I've seen several places where more progressive Christians are accused of dismissing the importance of Christ...which is NOT true.

If any are saved, it is through the love of Christ. Even those of us who might think that well-meaning individuals of other faiths might be saved believe that this is accomplished through the grace and mercy of Christ. And if we seek to welcome all people, it is to draw them closer to Christ. The idea being that if we reflect Jesus' love and welcome to others, that they might get past their own preconceived negative notions of Christianity and see the beauty and redemtion available in Christ.

Ironically, our goals are the same: that Christ may be glorified on earth...we just have differing views on what approach works best: hard or soft sell.

What gets downright painful is when folks assume that just because you favor the softer approach, that you aren't serious about Jesus.

[ContraMundum]

To the OP- what you quoted is Christian in name only.

It's a false Jesus they preach. He's more a Santa Claus figure to them. They need the real Jesus, Christ the King.

[Finella]

oh,
excuse my poor memory on exactly which terms it is we "fundamentalists" (a "pejorative" by my terms, but that seems to only work one way here) are called -- fundagelical was the exact term used on this thread. The Attila the Hun (however it is spelled - I'm rather ignorant being a fundamentalist and all) is my tag line under my name - put there as a direct quote from a "progressive" response to one of my posts - which I found rather amusing seeing the reverse situation would have been swatted had I said "to the left of Stalin"...

And of course the orthodox bishops are "power hungry, closed minded, etc etc" but the progressives dare not be portrayed as anything but kindly loving shepherds (here I would insert what I truly believe them to be, but it would violate the "RULES")...




::sigh::

Dear Amyn27,

I feel your frustration. I hope you believe me when I say that I, too, feel overly censored on this board. Is it in our best interests? I don't know -- at this moment I think it could be. I want to think that, despite our very polar differences, we can at least discuss things civilly and sincerely without resorting to name-calling. It is the potential to civilly co-exist that, I think, makes the Anglican church the beautiful thing that it is. Can we do it??

This is the ultimate test of our faith, yes -- I do agree on that. But I agree with Inside Edge that most of us are more moderate than we make each other out to be. If you and I sat down and we outlined our political and religious beliefs, there are some things about me which might surprise you in their conservatism; there are some things about me which may not surprise you about their liberalism. And many things that are quite moderate. But somehow (I think) I have been labelled as a left-wing [unspeakable] and suddenly every person here is automatically supposed to know what I believe in and what I don't.

The fact is, you know nothing about me apart from what I type here. And even then, it's possible I'm playing devil's advocate and I'm simply making logical arguments from the other side to test out a person's case.

It would be easy for us to go our separate ways and camp out with like-minded people. I have been soooo tempted to do that, many many times. Often after I come here, sad to say. But that would not challenge me. That would not make me a better Christian. So I come and go, and debate when it seems right. And try to see Christ in others here, even those with whom I violently disagree. This means not making assumptions about others based on what I think they believe, but rather on what they actually say and do.

Can we not do that as a community? Can we not appreciate the uniqueness of individuals here, and not lump each other into "them" and "us"? Does Christ do that? I don't think so. If we cannot even attempt that, then the ECUSA, and the Anglican communion, is done.

[Finella]

Lastly addressing "progressivism"... Finella and I had a bit of a discussion that brushed on progressivism a ways back so she probably remembers some of my opinions on the topic.

And a good discussion it was, too!

I don't have time at the moment to get into this, but I do still have some questions about your definitions and assumptions. Until then, could you give me a source for your understanding of progressivism?

[ContraMundum]

I don't know if it's against the "Rules" or not, but I'll take a chance and say what's on everyone's mind.

These people are not Christians. They are something, but not Christians. Sorry to be so blunt, and I am heavy of heart to even have to say it, but if it isn't said, we are condoning it and letting Satan try to steal the Gospel from us.

Pray for our brothers and sisters.

[Simon_Templar]

And a good discussion it was, too!

I don't have time at the moment to get into this, but I do still have some questions about your definitions and assumptions. Until then, could you give me a source for your understanding of progressivism?

yes I enjoyed it. Not to stroke your ego but you are among those who came to mind as "liberals on this board who can take disagreement well".
Despite the fact that I disagree with most of your views I've always found your conversation amiable and enjoyable.

My views on most topics are drawn from a wide variety of sources. I studied history, philosophy, and political science in college so alot of the base structure of facts, who what when where sort of stuff goes back to that. Since college those things have also been one of my hobbies as has conversation and debate on those topics. So alot of my understandings of various views have been formed by talking with people from those view points. Admittedly progressives are not a group I've encountered much in person. There aren't as many around anymore. The world wars did alot to kill off the progressive philosophy as a popular movement.
I also do alot of research on the internet reading both original documents (primary historical documents) and also reading various editorial style essays and secondary history essays things like that. I generally don't take anything I find on the web as terribly credible other than primary documents unless I can coroborate it from several sources and it seems reasonable to my own thought process.

As for my own opinions theologically and philosophicaly, probably the three biggest influences on me have been J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, and G.K. Chesterton.
After them would come Francis Schaefer and A.W. Tozer.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention two classes I had in college as well, classical, and modern political thought in which we studied political philosophy from Plato's republic up through Bacon's new atlantis and Locke's treatises on government. Those classes formed the foundation of my views on utopian literature. In the classes we read only the original primary sources and discussed them in class with the professor leading by asking us questions. The class focused on developing critical reading skills, it was fairly revolutionary for me.


My views on progressivism are mostly based off of my understanding of it in the mid to late 19th century and the turn of the century. G.K. Chesterton's writings have been very influential in forming my opinions on progressivism as he lived during its hey day and many of his debates were with progressive view points.

Its not that I don't think it has changed since, but rather that the foundational ideas are still the same though they have changed clothes, as it were. Basicly the progressive world view pretty much controled the western world in that time period and what it produced was so bad that it was largely rejected in the popular arena.
"what it produced" included everything from eugenics and nazism, to communism, and ultimately WWI and WWII. I'm sure progressives today bristle at such assertions but those things did grow out of the progressive movement as strange as that may seem.
I would like to point out that I don't really lay WWI at the feet of progressives. I list it because it was a major factor the lead to the demise of progressivism as a popular movement. After WWI the general populace were so shaken and shocked by the horror of the war that they could no longer believe in the idea of human progress in the same way that they had before. This is even visible in the world of art and literature. Inherent in the progressive philosophy is the idea that history is building towards something (which in itself I would say is right) and that man can control and guide that process if he is educated and enlightened enough (this part I disagree with). After the war many people began to reject the idea that progressive values had any real meaning because they had obviously not made things better. Coming out of the worst experience the world had seen to that time, it was hard to think of things as better than before (rightly so).
This produced things like the dada movement in art which denied the inherint meaning of everything. This sewed the seeds of what would eventually become post-modernism and deconstructionism in our day. Both of which are built fundamentally on rejecting the idea of inherint meaning in history, and language respectively.

Now going back to the nazi's and communists. Today comparing anyone to the Nazi's is among the greatest insults you can make. In truth the communists should be just as bad but for some reason they seem to have alot better PR. The communists have slaughtered far more people than the nazi's ever managed.
In their time both view point were born out of the progressive movement. The progressive movement always has at its core the idea that humanity can progress forward through enlightenment to achieving something like utopia. Communism holds that historical progress works through the clash of classes, opposed classes war with each other and out of the clash is produced something new, a syncretism that is better and higher than what was before. Marxist