Katherine's Christological trouble

[gtsecc]

KJS: I came back– I was, uh, raised, you know, in the church– and I came back to the church as an adult when I was in graduate school, and began to read the physicists, who talk about mystery– Heisenberg, and Bohr, and Einstein. Here were people who were going down the same kinds of roads that I had gone down, saying “No, there’s something innately mysterious about creation, something beyond what we can deal with in scientific terms. Hard science asks questions about ‘how, and ‘what’; and faith-traditions ask questions of meaning: what does it mean to be a human being in this world? How can I live a live that is good? Uhh…
RY: TIME asked you an interesting question, we thought, “Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven?” And your answer, equally interesting, you said “We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box.” And I read that and I said “What are you: a Unitarian?!?” [laughs]
What are you– that is another concern for people, because, they say Scripture says that Jesus says he was The Light and The Way and the only way to God the Father.
KJS: Christians understand that Jesus is the route to God. Umm– that is not to say that Muslims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim), or Sikhs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh), or Jains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain), come to God in a radically different way. They come to God through… human experience.. through human experience of the divine. Christians talk about that in terms of Jesus.
RY: So you’re saying there are other ways to God.
KJS: Uhh… human communities have always searched for relationship that which is beyond them.. with the ultimate.. with the divine. For Christians, we say that our route to God is through Jesus. Uhh.. uh.. that doesn’t mean that a Hindu.. uh.. doesn’t experience God except through Jesus. It-it-it says that Hindus and people of other faith traditions approach God through their.. own cultural contexts; they relate to God, they experience God in human relationships, as well as ones that transcend human relationships; and Christians would say those are our experiences of Jesus; of God through the experience of Jesus.
RY: It sounds like you’re saying it’s a parallel reality, but in another culture and language.

[gtsecc]

So, we are now sort of liturgical Unitarians?

[Aymn27]

KJS: I came back– I was, uh, raised, you know, in the church– and I came back to the church as an adult when I was in graduate school, and began to read the physicists, who talk about mystery– Heisenberg, and Bohr, and Einstein. Here were people who were going down the same kinds of roads that I had gone down, saying “No, there’s something innately mysterious about creation, something beyond what we can deal with in scientific terms. Hard science asks questions about ‘how, and ‘what’; and faith-traditions ask questions of meaning: what does it mean to be a human being in this world? How can I live a live that is good? Uhh…
RY: TIME asked you an interesting question, we thought, “Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven?” And your answer, equally interesting, you said “We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box.” And I read that and I said “What are you: a Unitarian?!?” [laughs]
What are you– that is another concern for people, because, they say Scripture says that Jesus says he was The Light and The Way and the only way to God the Father.
KJS: Christians understand that Jesus is the route to God. Umm– that is not to say that Muslims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim), or Sikhs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh), or Jains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain), come to God in a radically different way. They come to God through… human experience.. through human experience of the divine. Christians talk about that in terms of Jesus.
RY: So you’re saying there are other ways to God.
KJS: Uhh… human communities have always searched for relationship that which is beyond them.. with the ultimate.. with the divine. For Christians, we say that our route to God is through Jesus. Uhh.. uh.. that doesn’t mean that a Hindu.. uh.. doesn’t experience God except through Jesus. It-it-it says that Hindus and people of other faith traditions approach God through their.. own cultural contexts; they relate to God, they experience God in human relationships, as well as ones that transcend human relationships; and Christians would say those are our experiences of Jesus; of God through the experience of Jesus.
RY: It sounds like you’re saying it’s a parallel reality, but in another culture and language.
So Mohammed is just a different version of Christ in another cultural context? Whatever...

I listened to this on NPR...just don't get how the PB could hold such positions...

[gtsecc]

It is such a shame. One can even answer those questions being true to the faith, and not damn Muslims, Sikhs, etc... But, she seems to be confused about no one comes to the Father without going through Jesus.

[higgs2]

KJS: I came back– I was, uh, raised, you know, in the church– and I came back to the church as an adult when I was in graduate school, and began to read the physicists, who talk about mystery– Heisenberg, and Bohr, and Einstein. Here were people who were going down the same kinds of roads that I had gone down, saying “No, there’s something innately mysterious about creation, something beyond what we can deal with in scientific terms. Hard science asks questions about ‘how, and ‘what’; and faith-traditions ask questions of meaning: what does it mean to be a human being in this world? How can I live a live that is good? Uhh…
RY: TIME asked you an interesting question, we thought, “Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven?” And your answer, equally interesting, you said “We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box.” And I read that and I said “What are you: a Unitarian?!?” [laughs]
What are you– that is another concern for people, because, they say Scripture says that Jesus says he was The Light and The Way and the only way to God the Father.
KJS: Christians understand that Jesus is the route to God. Umm– that is not to say that Muslims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim), or Sikhs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh), or Jains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain), come to God in a radically different way. They come to God through… human experience.. through human experience of the divine. Christians talk about that in terms of Jesus.
RY: So you’re saying there are other ways to God.
KJS: Uhh… human communities have always searched for relationship that which is beyond them.. with the ultimate.. with the divine. For Christians, we say that our route to God is through Jesus. Uhh.. uh.. that doesn’t mean that a Hindu.. uh.. doesn’t experience God except through Jesus. It-it-it says that Hindus and people of other faith traditions approach God through their.. own cultural contexts; they relate to God, they experience God in human relationships, as well as ones that transcend human relationships; and Christians would say those are our experiences of Jesus; of God through the experience of Jesus.
RY: It sounds like you’re saying it’s a parallel reality, but in another culture and language.

LOL! If they're going to label her, at least get the label right. In this context I believe one would be hysterical about her alleged "universalist" leanings, not "unitarian".

[longhair75]

Friend gtsecc,So, we are now sort of liturgical Unitarians?

I can't speak for all, but my anglican faith remains unchanged. One of the reasons I came to our church from Rome is my refusal to be defined by the Pontif. I may not agree with some of the positions of the Presiding Bishop Elect but, as far as I have been able to tell, I am not required to.

I remain Anglican in spite of the absurd arguement between my conservative and liberal brothers and sisters.

[karen freeinchristman]

I may not agree with some of the positions of the Presiding Bishop Elect but,
I think she is now the Presiding Bishop, no longer Elect. :)

[longhair75]

Friend Karen,

Sorry, I did not realize the ceremony had taken place. The day came and went and left my faith unchanged and unshaken.

Imagine that.......

[karen freeinchristman]

Friend Karen,

Sorry, I did not realize the ceremony had taken place. The day came and went and left my faith unchanged and unshaken.

Imagine that.......
Well, I'm happy about that, if you're happy.

To my great surprise, the day came and went, and my faith has actually increased! :)

[Colabomb]

She is not my priest nor will I ever have to yield to her as my bishop (and would not due to her heresy). So her election does not effect my faith, nor does it drive me away from the Episcopal Church. But it does make me worry for the future, if the Church continues to make such silly and dangerous decisions.

[JasonV]

I must be a heretic. I actually related to what she was saying and quite enjoyed that little clip from the OP.

[ebia]

I must be a heretic. I actually related to what she was saying and quite enjoyed that little clip from the OP.
Likewise - I really don't see the problem with what she said.

[Finella]

Likewise - I really don't see the problem with what she said.
I suspect most Episcopalians don't have a problem with it.

But if they do, as longhair said, you aren't required to agree with her.

[ebia]

I suspect most Episcopalians don't have a problem with it.

But if they do, as longhair said, you aren't required to agree with her.
And conversely she isn't required to agree with them.

[ChessCastle]

I suspect most Episcopalians don't have a problem with it.

But if they do, as longhair said, you aren't required to agree with her.


Episcopalians are Christians, do you think that most Christians believe there is an alternate route to salvation outside of Christ?

[DeoJuvante]

I agree with what she said.

[cenimo]

So typical.

Resad John 14:6.

"Oh, is that in there? I didn't know the Bible says that".

Pathetic.

Gee, I just don't see The Book of Schori anywhere in the Bible.

[ebia]

So typical.

Resad John 14:6.

"Oh, is that in there? I didn't know the Bible says that".

Pathetic.

Gee, I just don't see The Book of Schori anywhere in the Bible.
I think you'll find she is quite familiar with that verse, but has a rather more open understanding of what it means than some.

[SumTinWong]

I have been all for her nomination and election. Up to this point I have agreed with most of what she has stood for. But this is wrong.

We were told to go and tell everyone the "Good News" but if it is believed that people already have a version of the good news based on their ethnicity or whatever, what is the point? There is but one way to god, otherwise what are we doing here?

JMHO of course

[RedneckAnglican]

But if they do, as longhair said, you aren't required to agree with her.

And conversely she isn't required to agree with them.

schism in the Church?!?!?!?!?...I just don't see it...

no wonder there are so many arguments...

[SumTinWong]

The price we pay i guess for allowing s many different views is that eventually we end up with a view we do not like in the PB.

I think the problem with this kind of a view is that i do not think (I say think but do not have raw data) this view is the general view of the church itself. But because she is the head of the church, I am going to be looked at as having that view. I love the lady, i admire her spirit and I admire her courage to be the first female PB, but I do not envy having to repeat the same message over and over again that the views expressed do not resemble my own.

Plus if you are a fundie or an Evangelical looking to go liturgical, and you read this, what are the chances you will make the leap to the Episcopal church now? I dunno, I wish sometimes that people in high places would keep their collect mouths shut when it comes to stuff like this. Yes she is allowed to have an opinion, but for pete's sake this is so Universalist.

[DeoJuvante]

There is but one way to god, otherwise what are we doing here?

Um, following one of several ways?

[Fairbairn]

The price we pay i guess for allowing s many different views is that eventually we end up with a view we do not like in the PB.

I think the problem with this kind of a view is that i do not think (I say think but do not have raw data) this view is the general view of the church itself. But because she is the head of the church, I am going to be looked at as having that view. I love the lady, i admire her spirit and I admire her courage to be the first female PB, but I do not envy having to repeat the same message over and over again that the views expressed do not resemble my own.

Plus if you are a fundie or an Evangelical looking to go liturgical, and you read this, what are the chances you will make the leap to the Episcopal church now? I dunno, I wish sometimes that people in high places would keep their collect mouths shut when it comes to stuff like this. Yes she is allowed to have an opinion, but for pete's sake this is so Universalist.
I doubt that many people come to church because of who the primate is. They come to church because they feel at home and valued within the local congregation.

[No Swansong]

And conversely she isn't required to agree with them.
But as a Bishop she is required to agree with the Christological view that Christ is the only way to the father. I don't use the word Cola used earlier very much any more but a rejection of this dogma falls into that category.

[Fairbairn]

Does she believe in the Virgin birth and the Resurrection?

[No Swansong]

Um, following one of several ways?
So Christ didn't mean it when He said there was only one way?

[SumTinWong]

I would echo Jt's question.

While I am hopeful of the idea that all mankind may one day be saved, I have no evidence for this hope considering the words of our Lord. Jesus said He is the way the truth and life and that no one comes to the Father except through Him. This is very clear.

[SumTinWong]

Um, following one of several ways?
Please explain. Do you mean you are following God through someone other than the Christ? What other ways are there?

[gtsecc]

I think you'll find she is quite familiar with that verse, but has a rather more open understanding of what it means than some.
More open understanding?
She has a directly contrasting understanding.
She could have phrased it in a different way, saying all who are saved, including Muslims are saved through Christ.
But, she did not say that.
What she said was directly contrary to scripture.

[gtsecc]

She knows this, I beleive, and she could have said this. It is inclusive and true to the faith. The way she said it was inclusive BUT not true to the faith.


John 10:1-18 1 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber; 2 but he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the gatekeeper opens; the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers." 6 This figure Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them. 7 So Jesus again said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All who came before me are thieves and robbers; but the sheep did not heed them. 9 I am the door; if any one enters by me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. 11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 He who is a hireling and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. 13 He flees because he is a hireling and cares nothing for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, 15 as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

[IowaLutheran]

I have had this discussion with a Muslim who is a friend of mine.

I believe that the Word of God, whom we believe was made incarnate in Jesus Christ, has cleared the path between humans and God the Father. However, the precise nature of how Jesus is the conduit to the Father for each individual is beyond our understanding.

[gtsecc]

I have had this discussion with a Muslim who is a friend of mine.

I believe that the Word of God, whom we believe was made incarnate in Jesus Christ, has cleared the path between humans and God the Father. However, the precise nature of how Jesus is the conduit to the Father for each individual is beyond our understanding.

Sure, I really believe most people will be saved, if not all.

I believe they will be saved through Christ.

When a Bishop talks about this, they must be particularly clear to say, “All who are saved, are saved through Christ.” They must strictly avoid saying some others are saved through their faith, or that other faiths are just as relevant as Christianity.

So, where Muslims are true to the Gospel, we don’t deny that. We proclaim they have a portion of the truth because some of it is the same as the gospel. We don’t say they have truth because there are multiple truths in parallel universes, one universe have Christ, and another a different but equally true faith.

[Colabomb]

He who believes and is Baptized shall be Saved. He who believeth not shall be damned.

Sure, Paul makes exception for those who know not the law. But I don't see Jesus stating anywhere that you can blow him off and be cool with the Father.

Since when did John 14:6 read

"I am the Way (sort of, maybe A way), the Truth, and the Life.... For you maybe.... unless...you know.... you wanna like sit cross legged and go ohm. Maybe Muhammed's for you man, you know, I've always been fond of robes. (Dodn't worry about that whole Allah has no son thing man, not a biggy)"

[CSMR]

Christianity isn't Islam or Hinduism talked about in terms of Jesus.

[karen freeinchristman]

I think it would be helpful to read other things she has written regarding her beliefs in this area. I mean, maybe we are not understanding her. The quote in the OP isn't all that clear and could be misunderstood, couldnt' it? Or am I just trying to give her the benefit of the doubt?

[gtsecc]

I think it would be helpful to read other things she has written regarding her beliefs in this area. I mean, maybe we are not understanding her. The quote in the OP isn't all that clear and could be misunderstood, couldnt' it? Or am I just trying to give her the benefit of the doubt?
I did not quote her next response in the interview. Had, I , it would clarify her position.


RY: It sounds like you’re saying it’s a parallel reality, but in another culture and language.
KJS: I think that’s accurate.. I think that’s accurate.


Full interview here:
http://www.anglican.tk/?page_id=793

[gtsecc]

You know, it is a shame. If the first female pb was at least a Catholic Christian, it would really help gather people around her.

As I have said here many times, I want to see female Priests, but it must be done properly, or it does nothing for either side on the issue.

[karen freeinchristman]

You know, it is a shame. If the first female pb was at least a Catholic Christian, it would really help gather people around her.

As I have said here many times, I want to see female Priests, but it must be done properly, or it does nothing for either side on the issue.
Why do you have to equate her theology with that of all women? Because that is what you are saying in your post. Or have I mis-understood?

[JasonV]

I did not quote her next response in the interview. Had, I , it would clarify her position.


RY: It sounds like you’re saying it’s a parallel reality, but in another culture and language.
KJS: I think that’s accurate.. I think that’s accurate.


Full interview here:
http://www.anglican.tk/?page_id=793

Glen, what I see here is that she is telling us that God can touch people all around the world without their being Christians. God makes contact with his creation in many ways.

[chalice_thunder]

Glen, what I see here is that she is telling us that God can touch people all around the world without their being Christians. God makes contact with his creation in many ways.
Agreed.

And I do not think her catholicity is in question.

[DeoJuvante]

So Christ didn't mean it when He said there was only one way?
No, John said that Jesus said that. About 80 years after Jesus' death. But let's not get into that debate again. My post was in response to Uncle Bud's implication that if Christianity is not the only way to God, there is no reason to be Christian.

[JasonV]

My post was in response to Uncle Bud's implication that if Christianity is not the only way to God, there is no reason to be Christian.

I would be a Christian even if I believed it was not the only way. It's my way, and that's good enough for me.

[SumTinWong]

My post was in response to Uncle Bud's implication that if Christianity is not the only way to God, there is no reason to be Christian.
I never said that.

What I said was:
"There is but one way to god, otherwise what are we doing here?"

It was a question. If one is a follower of Christ, and Christ said he was the only one . . . the only way . . . Now i realize you may doubt the veracity of what John wrote because he wrote it eighty years after Jesus said it, but the fact remains that the time in between what he wrote and when he wrote it, Christians, followers of Christ believed & taught there was but one way, through Jesus. It is a rather new invention that he is optional.

[DeoJuvante]

I never said that.

What I said was:
"There is but one way to god, otherwise what are we doing here?"


Yes, I know. And what I said you implied is a hidden assumption of your question. In my earlier post, I was merely answering your question.


It was a question. If one is a follower of Christ, and Christ said he was the only one . . . the only way . . . Now i realize you may doubt the veracity of what John wrote because he wrote it eighty years after Jesus said it, but the fact remains that the time in between what he wrote and when he wrote it, Christians, followers of Christ believed & taught there was but one way, through Jesus. It is a rather new invention that he is optional.

It is so convenient to have someone on hand who can authoritatively elucidate for us precisely what was said and believed before the written accounts were made. So thanks for clearing that up :thumbsup:

[ebia]

More open understanding?
She has a directly contrasting understanding.
She could have phrased it in a different way, saying all who are saved, including Muslims are saved through Christ.
But, she did not say that.
What she said was directly contrary to scripture.
It's hard to tell what her really are from a few lines snipped from an interview without further clarification.

I read her as saying that we are all saved through essentially the same thing expressed differently in different contexts. In Christianity the label we have for that is Christ. That could be compatible with Christ's words quoted in John, if not with the usual understanding of them.

[ChessCastle]

No, John said that Jesus said that. About 80 years after Jesus' death. But let's not get into that debate again. My post was in response to Uncle Bud's implication that if Christianity is not the only way to God, there is no reason to be Christian.


What is the difference between John quoting Jesus, and Jesus saying something Himself?

[DeoJuvante]

What is the difference between John quoting Jesus, and Jesus saying something Himself?
I'm not going to enter into that debate on this thread.

[ChessCastle]

I'm not going to enter into that debate on this thread.


I did not ask you to enter into a debate. You made a statement in this thread, and I asked you for clarification, I had no intention of debating it, and I would much rather ask someone for their intended meaning than to incorrectly assume their position.

[DeoJuvante]

I did not ask you to enter into a debate. You made a statement in this thread, and I asked you for clarification, I had no intention of debating it, and I would much rather ask someone for their intended meaning than to incorrectly assume their position.
The answer is no. I have done as much clarification as I am going to.

[No Swansong]

What is the difference between John quoting Jesus, and Jesus saying something Himself?
I cannot and would not ever presume to speek for Saepius. Therefore what I am about to write is not to be attributed as an exposition upon his earlier comments. I have no idea what my brother Saepius meant. But the conversation led me to ponder the following.

There are those who doubt the veracity of anything purportedly said by Jesus. The usual comment is the one that Saepius used, something like well we don't really know that is what He said, all we know is that someone said He said it". This is actually very common among those those who wish to pick and chose which scripture they want to believe. For instance I know those who say Jesus wasn't really talking about hell or demons but He really did say Love God and Love your neighbor. Now of course the question is why believe Love God and Love Neighbor if you don't believe "it takes much prayer to drive these out?" It is the same authors who report both.
The Jesus Seminar is very well kinow for forwarding this type of tripe. But I would argue for consistency. If you do not believe that Jesus said "There is only one way." Then there is no logical way to believe He said "Love God, Love your Neighbor."

As for Schiori. I do remember other things (I'll have to find references) that pretty much make her out to be a universalist. Not only that but I have never heard her answer the criticism that she has never affirmed the Diety of Christ. However this could simply be a deficiency in my knowledge, perhaps she has answered this criticism and I simply am not aware of it.

[SumTinWong]

Yes, I know. And what I said you implied is a hidden assumption of your question. In my earlier post, I was merely answering your question.
Please I am usually a very frank person. If I mean something I say it outright. I never implied what you said so either take it back or this conversation is over between us.

:thumbsup: It is so convenient to have someone on hand who can authoritatively elucidate for us precisely what was said and believed before the written accounts were made. So thanks for clearing that up
Well I am not sure if i should be insulted or laugh at this, but . . . Look we have oral teaching that have been handed down as well as liturgies that were used from the beginning (some written by the brother of the Lord James himself - I guess you would dispute that as well?) and they all speak of our only salvation,the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Colabomb]

No, John said that Jesus said that. About 80 years after Jesus' death. But let's not get into that debate again. My post was in response to Uncle Bud's implication that if Christianity is not the only way to God, there is no reason to be Christian.

I guess then that Paul may have never wrote that God was Love. Jesus Never may have said Blessed are the Poor, the Peacemakers etc.

Heck,, who said we are worshipping the God of Abraham.....

This is ridiculous

[SumTinWong]

I did not ask you to enter into a debate. You made a statement in this thread, and I asked you for clarification, I had no intention of debating it, and I would much rather ask someone for their intended meaning than to incorrectly assume their position.
In his defense (I have seen this happen before) and to his credit, if he had answered that question it would have led to a derailing of this thread even more than it has.

I would like to know as well what he meant, but if he does not want to talk about it, I can respect that.

[gtsecc]

LOL! If they're going to label her, at least get the label right. In this context I believe one would be hysterical about her alleged "universalist" leanings, not "unitarian".
Actually, I did mean Unitarian, which I beleive is the belief that all religions point to the same thing, which it sounds to me like she is saying, and thereby coming up with her universalist result.

[higgs2]

Actually, I did mean Unitarian, which I beleive is the belief that all religions point to the same thing, which it sounds to me like she is saying, and thereby coming up with her universalist result.

I thought Unitarian was basically believing in one God, but not in a trinitarian concept of God.

I don't think she's either one, actually.

[SumTinWong]

JUST FYI:
"Historic Unitarianism believed in the oneness of God and not the Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in one God) proclaimed at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Historic Unitarians believed in the moral authority, but not the deity, of Jesus. Unitarians are characterized by some as being identified through history as free thinkers and dissenters, evolving their beliefs in the direction of rationalism and humanism."

You can read about them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism

[chalice_thunder]

Heck,, who said we are worshipping the God of Abraham.....



Umm, Anglicans and all other Christians worship the God of Abraham.

[No Swansong]

Umm, Anglicans and all other Christians worship the God of Abraham.
I think the point he is making is that you can only know that through Scripture. Just as you can only know that there is only One Way To The Father through Scripture. If we can't depend on what the Gospel writers recorded how can we depend upon anything written in Scripture? Including the idea that our God is the God of Abraham, or that Abraham even exists?

[Colabomb]

Umm, Anglicans and all other Christians worship the God of Abraham.

Of course we are worshipping the God of Abraham. And what is pertinent to this discussion is that we are worshipping the God of Abraham, the Great I Am, YHWH in the Flesh, who gave His Life on the Cross at Calvary, was Buried and was resurrected on the Third Day for the Forgiveness of our sins. This is Gospel that we are called not only to believe but to Preach to the Masses along with Baptism for the forgiveness of sins, so that they too may be Saved.

My point was if we can question so easily the Word of God (Please don't anyone drag us into that silly semantical debate about Christology please, I know the difference between the Word and the Logos), how are we sure of anything?

In attempting to give Tradition its proper respect, we have inadvertantly so devalued Scripture that we end up with nothing we truly believe to be Dinvinely Inspired other than the good fuzzy thoughts in our mind....

And we end up Unitarian Universalist.

[gtsecc]

In attempting to give Tradition its proper respect, we have inadvertantly so devalued Scripture that we end up with nothing we truly believe to be Dinvinely Inspired other than the good fuzzy thoughts in our mind....

And we end up Unitarian Universalist.

Not so hasty please.
What she did is contrary to tradition, and has nothing too do with it.
Her conclusions are largely a result of protestant exegesis.
Mainstream Protestants look at what the bible means in the context of the society it was written in, and then transfigure it to modern society. This sort of form critical approach came out of the reformation, not the church.

[higgs2]

Jesus Christ is the Word.

:P

[ChessCastle]

My point was if we can question so easily the Word of God (Please don't anyone drag us into that silly semantical debate about Christology please, I know the difference between the Word and the Logos), how are we sure of anything?

In attempting to give Tradition its proper respect, we have inadvertantly so devalued Scripture that we end up with nothing we truly believe to be Dinvinely Inspired other than the good fuzzy thoughts in our mind....

And we end up Unitarian Universalist.

While I agree completely with your point that scripture should not be devalued, or its authenticity questioned, I don't think we can attribute this to anything dealing with tradition. The comments made by the PB are not supported by any Church tradition. In fact the case could be made that the ideas of the Universalist stem from an absence of tradition, and an overeliance on reason.

[gtsecc]

Let me reiterate: Her conclusions come from a protestant form of exegesis, form criticism, not a catholic one.

[chalice_thunder]

I think the point he is making is that you can only know that through Scripture. Just as you can only know that there is only One Way To The Father through Scripture. If we can't depend on what the Gospel writers recorded how can we depend upon anything written in Scripture? Including the idea that our God is the God of Abraham, or that Abraham even exists?
I was concerned with his statement:
"Heck,, who said we are worshipping the God of Abraham....."

Did Abraham have Scripture to encounter God?

Yes, we can depend on the Gospel to find out how to experience God. But God reveal's God's own self in a myriad of ways beyond that.

[chalice_thunder]

Of course we are worshipping the God of Abraham. [/QUOTE]
Good. I am glad we are clear on that.


This is Gospel that we are called not only to believe but to Preach to the Masses along with Baptism for the forgiveness of sins, so that they too may be Saved.
But it is only God who saves. Our preaching, while it may bring some to Christ, also may drive others away. We do not have the whole picture - we cannot, we are human.


My point was if we can question so easily the Word of God (Please don't anyone drag us into that silly semantical debate about Christology please, I know the difference between the Word and the Logos), how are we sure of anything?
First - I don't think ++Katherine or any of the rest of us are "questioning easily" the word of God.

Second - if you need to be "sure" about anything in God, then it does not involve faith. Certainty is the OPPOSITE of faith.


In attempting to give Tradition its proper respect, we have inadvertantly so devalued Scripture that we end up with nothing we truly believe to be Dinvinely Inspired other than the good fuzzy thoughts in our mind....

And we end up Unitarian Universalist.

That's one way to look at it. I would conclude that people who take the Bible completely literally have frozen it and robbed it of its inherent power and life. That's the ultimate devaluing, in my opinion.

And if we end up having a one or two UU facets to our Via Media Jewel, perhaps that's a good thing. We have Catholic facets; protestant facets; Oxford Movement facets; the list goes on and on.

I believe ++Katherine is going to help us continue to grow in spirit and understanding in God.

[Tomoz]

Not so hasty please.
What she did is contrary to tradition, and has nothing too do with it.
Her conclusions are largely a result of protestant exegesis.
Mainstream Protestants look at what the bible means in the context of the society it was written in, and then transfigure it to modern society. This sort of form critical approach came out of the reformation, not the church.

Just because liberal theology was first developed by protestants doesn't mean it is mainstream protestant theology. Orthodoxy has been defended by as many protestant theologians as it has been attacked.

I think the rise of liberalism has more to do with the enlightenment than it does with the reformation.

If the the reformation is to blame for liberal theology in any way, it is only in that it encouraged all Christians to read and explore the Bible themselves, rather than accepting what version of the truth the church chose to shovel into them.

[gtsecc]

Just because liberal theology was first developed by protestants doesn't mean it is mainstream protestant theology. Orthodoxy has been defended by as many protestant theologians as it has been attacked.

I think the rise of liberalism has more to do with the enlightenment than it does with the reformation.

If the the reformation is to blame for liberal theology in any way, it is only in that it encouraged all Christians to read and explore the Bible themselves, rather than accepting what version of the truth the church chose to shovel into them.
You didn't understand what I said.
The sort of form criticism, which is what most main stream Protestant do to understand the Bible, is the meathod by which this theology is birthed.
I am not pointing at main stream Protestants - I am pointing to form criticism.
I am also pointing to the corrective for this - Tradition.
Often, the blame for liberalism is placed on the Catholics, for not being Bibical, but that is not the case.

[gtsecc]

I think the rise of liberalism has more to do with the enlightenment than it does with the reformation.
It Does! Here I agree with you.

[karen freeinchristman]

For anyone here who wasn't aware of what 'form criticism' is, here is a wiki description (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_criticism)of it. (I had to look it up).

and here are links to the various other types of biblical criticism:
Types of Biblical criticism


Textual criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism)
Source criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism)
Documentary hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis)
Form criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_criticism)
Redaction criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redaction_criticism)
Socio-historical criticism
Rhetorical criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_criticism)
Narrative criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_criticism)
Tradition history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition_history)
Psychological Biblical Criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Biblical_Criticism)
Linguistic Criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_Criticism)

[gtsecc]

I am going to call all of these forms of Biblical Criticism, Form Criticism.
The point is that they rely neither on fundamentalism nor Tradition for understanding.

There are various ways to do it.
Here is the long and the short, and how it relates to today.
I am making this example up here, which is far from perfect, so don’t over analyze, but rather see how the different forms of exegeses miss understand each other:
Thou shall not weareth shoes in the house.

It was ritually unclean to wear shoes in the house in 1st century Palestine. Doing so was a sign that you were unfamiliar with the culture, and were of a lower class or undesirable culture.

Form Criticism conclusion:
Christ calls us to be culturally sensitive when we go into someone’s home.
In today’s culture it is ok to wear shoes in the house.

Fundamentalist conclusion:
Episcopalians are wearing shoes in the house! Don’t they read the Bible? They are not a Biblically based religion.

Tradition:
We are made clean by our Baptism.

[No Swansong]

I was concerned with his statement:
"Heck,, who said we are worshipping the God of Abraham....."

Did Abraham have Scripture to encounter God?

Yes, we can depend on the Gospel to find out how to experience God. But God reveal's God's own self in a myriad of ways beyond that.
Absolutely but if one of those "ways" is communicating something contrary to Scripture then it is not a communication from God. Additionally the post he was responding to was a post that questioned the accuracy, and thus the truthfulness, of the Gospels. What Cola is pointing out is that if we can't trust the Gospel writers to be accurate then we can't trust anything that comes from Scripture. A point I agree with wholeheartedly.

[No Swansong]

Of course we are worshipping the God of Abraham.
Good. I am glad we are clear on that.


But it is only God who saves. Our preaching, while it may bring some to Christ, also may drive others away. We do not have the whole picture - we cannot, we are human.


First - I don't think ++Katherine or any of the rest of us are "questioning easily" the word of God.

Second - if you need to be "sure" about anything in God, then it does not involve faith. Certainty is the OPPOSITE of faith.



That's one way to look at it. I would conclude that people who take the Bible completely literally have frozen it and robbed it of its inherent power and life. That's the ultimate devaluing, in my opinion.

And if we end up having a one or two UU facets to our Via Media Jewel, perhaps that's a good thing. We have Catholic facets; protestant facets; Oxford Movement facets; the list goes on and on.

I believe ++Katherine is going to help us continue to grow in spirit and understanding in God.
By denying that Christ is the Only Way to the Father? There is a word for that.

[karen freeinchristman]

What do people think about this postulation?:

Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through him.
If we enter into relationship with Jesus Christ through repentance, Baptism, the Eucharist, and prayer, we are able to gain intimacy with the Father. If people in other faiths are seeking God with all their heart, then although they cannot have intimacy with the Father here and now, they can come to the Father through Jesus upon their death and the judgement that will follow that death.

[No Swansong]

What do people think about this postulation?:

Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through him.
If we enter into relationship with Jesus Christ through repentance, Baptism, the Eucharist, and prayer, we are able to gain intimacy with the Father. If people in other faiths are seeking God with all their heart, then although they cannot have intimacy with the Father here and now, they can come to the Father through Jesus upon their death and the judgement that will follow that death.
How would your postulate answer the difficulty of one who denies Christ after learning enough of Him to not be ignorant of His claim? What about for instance the devout Muslim who learns of Christ's claim to be the Only Way to the Father and yet rejects Christianity to continue in Islam?

[gtsecc]

I think we are better off leaving it a mystery.

[karen freeinchristman]

How would your postulate answer the difficulty of one who denies Christ after learning enough of Him to not be ignorant of His claim? What about for instance the devout Muslim who learns of Christ's claim to be the Only Way to the Father and yet rejects Christianity to continue in Islam?
That is a really good question. Obviously, I don't have the answer, but I just wonder: since God knows what is in our hearts, if that devout Muslim were truly seeking God (even though he rejected the claims of Christianity), after death, under judgement, he may accept Christ.

That means the other faiths do not have intimacy with God in this life, though, and so we still need to witness to them that through Christ and what he has accomplished for us on the cross, we have life to the full, and we have access to the Father. It means that the other faiths do contain some truth, just not the whole truth.

[chalice_thunder]

By denying that Christ is the Only Way to the Father? There is a word for that.
Inclusive.

[karen freeinchristman]

I would say that if you deny Christ as being the only way to the Father, you really have an unorthodox faith. I think it is not helpful to be inclusive to others by denying Christ's role. Standing firm in our believe of Christ as the Way is actually a way that we can witness about God's love for all of us.

I mean, that kind of inclusiveness isn't what we are about, is it?
If the mission of God is to reconcile people to him, then we are bound, as Christians, to point to Christ as the Way.

[higgs2]

http://blog.edow.org/weblog/2006/11/orthodox_soteriology.html

I found this to be very interesting. The excerpts from the RC catechism are interesting. The concept of the "anonymous Christian" is interesting. Could we discuss some of these ideas?

[karen freeinchristman]

http://blog.edow.org/weblog/2006/11/orthodox_soteriology.html

I found this to be very interesting. The excerpts from the RC catechism are interesting. The concept of the "anonymous Christian" is interesting. Could we discuss some of these ideas?
That is very interesting and I agree with it. But I would feel more at ease if the Presiding Bishop would have stated it that way, instead of the way that she has, which was not very well understood as having this meaning.

[No Swansong]

Inclusive.
No I was thinking along the lines of Heresy.

[No Swansong]

That is a really good question. Obviously, I don't have the answer, but I just wonder: since God knows what is in our hearts, if that devout Muslim were truly seeking God (even though he rejected the claims of Christianity), after death, under judgement, he may accept Christ.

That means the other faiths do not have intimacy with God in this life, though, and so we still need to witness to them that through Christ and what he has accomplished for us on the cross, we have life to the full, and we have access to the Father. It means that the other faiths do contain some truth, just not the whole truth.
I understand the distinction and just recently had a conversation with an Orthodox Bishop concerning this very matter. He believes as do you, I am not sure that I agree. But I do recognize that he is much better educated in the matter than I.

[IowaLutheran]

The idea of an anonymous Christian makes sense. To believe otherwise implies that God has created a "birth lottery". Those born to Christian parents or who were born in an environment where Christianity is not a foreign religion (thus creating a realistic opportunity for conversion) win the lottery and receive salvation. Those who were not raised in the Christian faith or whose environment eliminates any realistic chance for proper exposure to the Gospel lose the lottery and are damned.

[No Swansong]

The idea of an anonymous Christian makes sense. To believe otherwise implies that God has created a "birth lottery". Those born to Christian parents or who were born in an environment where Christianity is not a foreign religion (thus creating a realistic opportunity for conversion) win the lottery and receive salvation. Those who were not raised in the Christian faith or whose environment eliminates any realistic chance for proper exposure to the Gospel lose the lottery and are damned.
Wouldn't that in a rather uncharitable manner describe Calvinism?

[gtsecc]

Wouldn't that in a rather uncharitable manner describe Calvinism?
Calvinism in the most charitable light, would still be described that way.

[higgs2]

That is very interesting and I agree with it. But I would feel more at ease if the Presiding Bishop would have stated it that way, instead of the way that she has, which was not very well understood as having this meaning.
I understand what you're saying. She was responding to a question about *belief* in Christ as the only way to salvation as opposed to *Christ* as the only way. I think people are overlooking the question she was responding to.

[CSMR]

The idea of an anonymous Christian makes sense. To believe otherwise implies that God has created a "birth lottery". Those born to Christian parents or who were born in an environment where Christianity is not a foreign religion (thus creating a realistic opportunity for conversion) win the lottery and receive salvation. Those who were not raised in the Christian faith or whose environment eliminates any realistic chance for proper exposure to the Gospel lose the lottery and are damned.
Whereas in reality, instead of being like a lottery, what is it like?

[CSMR]

What do people think about this postulation?:

Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through him.
If we enter into relationship with Jesus Christ through repentance, Baptism, the Eucharist, and prayer, we are able to gain intimacy with the Father. If people in other faiths are seeking God with all their heart, then although they cannot have intimacy with the Father here and now, they can come to the Father through Jesus upon their death and the judgement that will follow that death.
Those who seek will find so I would say you are right about that part. I think one does have to understand that other religions are not compatible with seeking God: they have some other gods than the true God or no gods at all, and are do not attempt to look for God in repentence and faith. So if people of other religions are saved it would have to be said of them that "I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me." Which would have to be true of all of us that would be saved. Faith is after all a very intangible thing.

[IowaLutheran]

Whereas in reality, instead of being like a lottery, what is it like?

I don't know if I agree with this exact formulation, but I agree with the general sentiment found within the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337 848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

[Tomoz]

You didn't understand what I said.
The sort of form criticism, which is what most main stream Protestant do to understand the Bible, is the meathod by which this theology is birthed.
I am not pointing at main stream Protestants - I am pointing to form criticism.
I am also pointing to the corrective for this - Tradition.
Often, the blame for liberalism is placed on the Catholics, for not being Bibical, but that is not the case.

Oh ok glenn I understand.
Sorry I misunderstood you.

[chalice_thunder]

I would say that if you deny Christ as being the only way to the Father, you really have an unorthodox faith. I think it is not helpful to be inclusive to others by denying Christ's role. Standing firm in our believe of Christ as the Way is actually a way that we can witness about God's love for all of us.

I mean, that kind of inclusiveness isn't what we are about, is it?
If the mission of God is to reconcile people to him, then we are bound, as Christians, to point to Christ as the Way.

First of all, my personal understanding is that Christ is THE way; (I do not care too much for terms such as 'only') and that is how I live my own life, in the context of my family and community of faith.

However, my understanding is that other people of faith may come to God in different ways. It is not my business to try and shake them from that to my own way of thinking and belief. It IS my business to share my story, and to seek Christ on the face of every person I meet. By our baptismal vows we are also called to respect the dignity of every human being. If they come to God in a way that is different than mine, and they are living in love and charity with God and their neighbor, why should I not honor their own faith journey?

Now, if this is unorthodox faith, so be it. I do believe that inclusiveness IS the answer. We need to stop being so obsessed with some legalism that God will not own, and get back to the radical hospitality that Jesus taught us by example.

[chalice_thunder]

No I was thinking along the lines of Heresy.
People like to throw around terms like 'heresy,' 'apostate,' 'schism' 'abomination' and the like.

IMO, these are not helpful terms for the people of God. They build walls rather than bridges.

[CSMR]

I don't know if I agree with this exact formulation, but I agree with the general sentiment found within the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Unfortunatly it is rather tainted by the Catholics' natural grace ideas ("seek God with a sincere heart" and "try to do his will" - apart from the gospel), and the notion that while we cant just be good altogether, we can be good enough to accept Christ, or bad enough to reject him (conclusion: since ignorant people haven't been so bad as to reject Christ they are not to blame but let them try to be good in other ways!).

So if you don't have the gospel, if you try to be a good person that is OK, and they will call that faith although not in the gospel :scratch: . A bit of hocus pocus and faith has become works to save the embarrasment of "works alone".

Also guilty of adding to biblical texts (restricting the necessity of "water and the spirit" to a certain group of people).

In short, they are up to their usual tricks! ;)

[CSMR]

It is not my business to try and shake them from that to my own way of thinking and belief. It IS my business to share my story, and to seek Christ on the face of every person I meet. By our baptismal vows we are also called to respect the dignity of every human being.
We are called to teach others what Christ has taught us and to make disciples. This is more than seeking Christ in others; this is bringing others to Christ. The gospel gives us no reason to respect people as they are, but every reason to value what they can be in the ressurection: "sown in dishonour, raised in glory".
If they come to God in a way that is different than mine, and they are living in love and charity with God and their neighbor, why should I not honor their own faith journey?
Being a virtuous person is a very hypothetical way to God. In practice people need the gospel.
get back to the radical hospitality that Jesus taught us by example.
What are we to invite people into?

[karen freeinchristman]

However, my understanding is that other people of faith may come to God in different ways. It is not my business to try and shake them from that to my own way of thinking and belief. It IS my business to share my story, and to seek Christ on the face of every person I meet. By our baptismal vows we are also called to respect the dignity of every human being. If they come to God in a way that is different than mine, and they are living in love and charity with God and their neighbor, why should I not honor their own faith journey?

I agree that people of faith 'come to God in different ways'. But I don't believe non-Christians have the same kind of 'access' to God that Christians have. In our understanding of what Jesus did for us on the cross, breaking that barrier between us and God, we cannot affirm that people of other faiths actually attain intimacy with the Father here and now. If we were able to believe in that premice, then we would end up dissolving many other tenets of our faith. What would Jesus have been crucified, resurrected, and ascended for, then? There wouldn't be much purpose for those events. Without those things happening, we really don't have anything.

[No Swansong]

People like to throw around terms like 'heresy,' 'apostate,' 'schism' 'abomination' and the like.

IMO, these are not helpful terms for the people of God. They build walls rather than bridges.
opinions vary

[No Swansong]

First of all, my personal understanding is that Christ is THE way; (I do not care too much for terms such as 'only') and that is how I live my own life, in the context of my family and community of faith.

However, my understanding is that other people of faith may come to God in different ways. It is not my business to try and shake them from that to my own way of thinking and belief. It IS my business to share my story, and to seek Christ on the face of every person I meet. By our baptismal vows we are also called to respect the dignity of every human being. If they come to God in a way that is different than mine, and they are living in love and charity with God and their neighbor, why should I not honor their own faith journey?

Now, if this is unorthodox faith, so be it. I do believe that inclusiveness IS the answer. We need to stop being so obsessed with some legalism that God will not own, and get back to the radical hospitality that Jesus taught us by example.
Actually according to the Gospel it is your business to share the Gospe.l. Concerning the use of the word only, take it up with He who used it. I am sure He is knowledgeable enough in the subject to accurately debate its use.

[ebia]

Actually according to the Gospel it is your business to share the Gospe.l. Concerning the use of the word only, take it up with He who used it. I am sure He is knowledgeable enough in the subject to accurately debate its use.
I presume you think he would back you up.

[No Swansong]

I presume you think he would back you up.
My post would be kind of ridiculous if I didn't, wouldn't it? Of course I think He would. He did say "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Can I be wrong? sure I am not infallible. Can Christ and His words recorded in Scripture and the Church's understanding of that Scripture be wrong for the past 2000 years? Highly unlikely. I am not claiming a special revelation here.

[Groce]

I have held my tongue on this thread for as long as I can. To belive that Christ ins't the only Way, is complete Hersey. Its is an affront to God and His church. If Christ wasn't the only way there is no point in living a Christian life. Heck if you belive that there are other ways the why limit yourself to just one, why not do all. One of you said something to the effect that people of other faiths experience God though a different way, that is more than unorthodox, it is heresy. (and words like this are helpful) You can't live the Way with out believing that it is the only way. This New Age Anglicanism is destroying the Church that Christ founded and is rasing in its place a church that is nothing more than an engine socio-political change corrupting its members and spreading its poison to the greater masses. We are the laughing stock of Christianity, we have turned our back on all that was given to us and have perverted the Holy and Infallible Word of God to make it say what it does not or we just flat ignore parts that we don't like. A friend told me once "we don't join the Church to change it, rather we join the Church to be changed in to the image of its creator." We can be inclusive with out being heretics, we are called to love others, but on God's terms not the worlds. Other faiths worship something, is it God, no. Can we still love them, yes. Besides the fact that the "PB" is a woman, with statements like this there is no wonder other primates wont recognize her. Its not like Christology is a minor part of Christianity, there is no room for interpretation on some doctrines and this is one of them.

[IowaLutheran]

I agree that people of faith 'come to God in different ways'. But I don't believe non-Christians have the same kind of 'access' to God that Christians have.

In reviewing this thread I have also looked at the question this way. But upon reflection, I think the proper question is not "How do people get to God", but "How does God get to us?"

[higgs2]

I have held my tongue on this thread for as long as I can. To belive that Christ ins't the only Way, is complete Hersey. Its is an affront to God and His church. If Christ wasn't the only way there is no point in living a Christian life. Heck if you belive that there are other ways the why limit yourself to just one, why not do all. One of you said something to the effect that people of other faiths experience God though a different way, that is more than unorthodox, it is heresy. (and words like this are helpful) You can't live the Way with out believing that it is the only way. This New Age Anglicanism is destroying the Church that Christ founded and is rasing in its place a church that is nothing more than an engine socio-political change corrupting its members and spreading its poison to the greater masses. We are the laughing stock of Christianity, we have turned our back on all that was given to us and have perverted the Holy and Infallible Word of God to make it say what it does not or we just flat ignore parts that we don't like. A friend told me once "we don't join the Church to change it, rather we join the Church to be changed in to the image of its creator." We can be inclusive with out being heretics, we are called to love others, but on God's terms not the worlds. Other faiths worship something, is it God, no. Can we still love them, yes. Besides the fact that the "PB" is a woman, with statements like this there is no wonder other primates wont recognize her. Its not like Christology is a minor part of Christianity, there is no room for interpretation on some doctrines and this is one of them.

God bless you, Groce. I can tell how very painful this is for you and it makes me sad. :crossrc:

[karen freeinchristman]

In reviewing this thread I have also looked at the question this way. But upon reflection, I think the proper question is not "How do people get to God", but "How does God get to us?"
Can you expand on this a little? I think there is something to what you are saying.

edited to add: I forgot you are Lutheran, and so perhaps aren't able to freely expand as much as you might like to here...

[Tomoz]

First of all, my personal understanding is that Christ is THE way; (I do not care too much for terms such as 'only') and that is how I live my own life, in the context of my family and community of faith.

However, my understanding is that other people of faith may come to God in different ways. It is not my business to try and shake them from that to my own way of thinking and belief. It IS my business to share my story, and to seek Christ on the face of every person I meet. By our baptismal vows we are also called to respect the dignity of every human being. If they come to God in a way that is different than mine, and they are living in love and charity with God and their neighbor, why should I not honor their own faith journey?

Now, if this is unorthodox faith, so be it. I do believe that inclusiveness IS the answer. We need to stop being so obsessed with some legalism that God will not own, and get back to the radical hospitality that Jesus taught us by example.

As someone whose beliefs are, for the most part, 'orthodox' (at least I think they are...) I don't think that Jesus being *THE* only way is a question of legalism or "my God is bigger than your God". It is more that the other faiths don't deal with sin in an adequate way. It is only through Christ that sin is dealt with seriously and justly, and yet with complete mercy.
So while I don't believe that other faiths are completely devoid of truth, I don't understand how someone, a sinner like any one of us, who knowingly (knowingly - that is important) rejects Christ's sacrifice can still inherit eternal life with God without God's justice or holiness being compromised.

I want to understand though. I want to believe that all paths are equally valid and will lead to salvation. But I can't work out how that can be without reducing the seriousness of sin or removing justice from God's nature.

[Aymn27]

As someone whose beliefs are, for the most part, 'orthodox' (at least I think they are...) I don't think that Jesus being *THE* only way is a question of legalism or "my God is bigger than your God". It is more that the other faiths don't deal with sin in an adequate way. It is only through Christ that sin is dealt with seriously and justly, and yet with complete mercy.
So while I don't believe that other faiths are completely devoid of truth, I don't understand how someone, a sinner like any one of us, who knowingly (knowingly - that is important) rejects Christ's sacrifice can still inherit eternal life with God without God's justice or holiness being compromised.

I want to understand though. I want to believe that all paths are equally valid and will lead to salvation. But I can't work out how that can be without reducing the seriousness of sin or removing justice from God's nature.
Great post tom - and I agree with you 100%.:thumbsup:

[chalice_thunder]

The gospel gives us no reason to respect people as they are
Really?

I'm pretty sure if you read the gospel you will find plenty of examples where Jesus respected people as they were. And by doing so, he changed their lives.

The only people who were truly unable to hear, understand and receive his message were most of the smug and jealous religious leaders, who put more faith in legalism than in God.


Being a virtuous person is a very hypothetical way to God. In practice people need the gospel.
Please do us both a favor and go back and read what I said. You missed the mark on this one.


What are we to invite people into?
Well, I have been called to welcome people as they are. Personally, I share my story and I welcome them to share theirs with me. It's called relationship.

[Groce]

I want to understand though. I want to believe that all paths are equally valid and will lead to salvation. But I can't work out how that can be without reducing the seriousness of sin or removing justice from God's nature.

Agreed, and that means a lot from you since you came from another faith.

[chalice_thunder]

I agree that people of faith 'come to God in different ways'. But I don't believe non-Christians have the same kind of 'access' to God that Christians have. In our understanding of what Jesus did for us on the cross, breaking that barrier between us and God, we cannot affirm that people of other faiths actually attain intimacy with the Father here and now. If we were able to believe in that premice, then we would end up dissolving many other tenets of our faith. What would Jesus have been crucified, resurrected, and ascended for, then? There wouldn't be much purpose for those events. Without those things happening, we really don't have anything.

I am just unwilling to discount the faith journeys of other people. I find nothing in the gospel that commands me to do so.

Yes, Jesus' work on the cross is for us the perfect example of God's amazing love.

And OUR story of faith is not discounted because other people happen to encounter the Holy and Living God another way.

[Groce]

God bless you, Groce. I can tell how very painful this is for you and it makes me sad. :crossrc:

Thank you.

I just can't understand how the belive that other faiths can be equal to ours can be held by a christian. I used to read William Barclay when I was in college, I liked a lot of his work, especially his commentary on James, but once I found out he was a Universalist I could no longer bring my self to read his works. It seems the problems that I am having with the Church are growing as I am discovering more. Three years ago when I joined the ECUSA I was proud to be Episcopal, then I read more about the liberalization of the church, and just said I was Anglican, now I am coming to question even that. Sometimes I feel like Im in love with a girl that doesn't want me. It will be a hard road ahead, but I think I have to leave once I go back to the states. It really makes me sad, to have to look for a new spiritual home, but I think if I don't leave the AC that I will just stop going to church all together. I know that there are faithful orthodox Anglicans out there, and I applaud those of them that stay and fight, but I no longer think that it is a winnable battle.

[chalice_thunder]

To belive that Christ ins't the only Way, is complete Hersey. Its is an affront to God and His church.
Well, I know one thing for sure: God can absorb it.
His Church ought to be able to as well, but the Church is often nasty, brutish, and faithless, as well as being beautiful, humble and blessed; so we can't expect it to do so.


If Christ wasn't the only way there is no point in living a Christian life. Heck if you belive that there are other ways the why limit yourself to just one, why not do all.

I don't buy that for one minute. That sounds like you want to buy your salvation by living a Christian life.


One of you said something to the effect that people of other faiths experience God though a different way, that is more than unorthodox, it is heresy. (and words like this are helpful)


So the Hebrews did not experience God. Is that what you are saying?

You may find words like 'heresy' to be helpful, but really, they only either chase seekers away, or make them laugh at you.


You can't live the Way with out believing that it is the only way.
No. YOU can't.

For me, Christ is the Way. But I'm unwilling to be an Anglican Inquisitor to all the brothers and sisters I meet, who have a deep love of God, but do not live it out in the Anglican Church. They are still precious in God's sight, and they are doing the work of the gospel.

This New Age Anglicanism is destroying the Church that Christ founded and is rasing in its place a church that is nothing more than an engine socio-political change corrupting its members and spreading its poison to the greater masses. We are the laughing stock of Christianity, we have turned our back on all that was given to us and have perverted the Holy and Infallible Word of God to make it say what it does not or we just flat ignore parts that we don't like. A friend told me once "we don't join the Church to change it, rather we join the Church to be changed in to the image of its creator." We can be inclusive with out being heretics, we are called to love others, but on God's terms not the worlds. Other faiths worship something, is it God, no. Can we still love them, yes. Besides the fact that the "PB" is a woman, with statements like this there is no wonder other primates wont recognize her. Its not like Christology is a minor part of Christianity, there is no room for interpretation on some doctrines and this is one of them.

My heart breaks because of the division in the church. Is not your heart broken as well, brother?

[Groce]

I don't buy that for one minute. That sounds like you want to buy your salvation by living a Christian life.


So the Hebrews did not experience God. Is that what you are saying?


If I wanted to buy my salvation I would be Catholic. (joke) I can not earn my salvation though good works. The only salvation is though a Christian life any other attempt is fruitless and will result in separation from God for eternity.

The Hebrews did, but they are no longer the chosen people.

[Groce]

You may find words like 'heresy' to be helpful ... or make them laugh at you.


Im sure Nestorian laughed all the way to the grave, then it wasn't funny anymore.

[Colabomb]

Good. I am glad we are clear on that.


But it is only God who saves. Our preaching, while it may bring some to Christ, also may drive others away. We do not have the whole picture - we cannot, we are human.


First - I don't think ++Katherine or any of the rest of us are "questioning easily" the word of God.

Second - if you need to be "sure" about anything in God, then it does not involve faith. Certainty is the OPPOSITE of faith.



That's one way to look at it. I would conclude that people who take the Bible completely literally have frozen it and robbed it of its inherent power and life. That's the ultimate devaluing, in my opinion.

And if we end up having a one or two UU facets to our Via Media Jewel, perhaps that's a good thing. We have Catholic facets; protestant facets; Oxford Movement facets; the list goes on and on.

I believe ++Katherine is going to help us continue to grow in spirit and understanding in God.
Protestant=Christian

Catholic=Christian

Oxford Movement= Christian

Unitarian Universalist=Non Christian anything goes feel good theism.

And concerning "freezing" Scripture....

We see it as obeying Scripture, taking it at its word. Not merely using it to back whatever we want to believe and ignoring the hard parts.

[kiwimac]

Of course we are worshipping the God of Abraham.
Good. I am glad we are clear on that.


But it is only God who saves. Our preaching, while it may bring some to Christ, also may drive others away. We do not have the whole picture - we cannot, we are human.


First - I don't think ++Katherine or any of the rest of us are "questioning easily" the word of God.

Second - if you need to be "sure" about anything in God, then it does not involve faith. Certainty is the OPPOSITE of faith.



That's one way to look at it. I would conclude that people who take the Bible completely literally have frozen it and robbed it of its inherent power and life. That's the ultimate devaluing, in my opinion.

And if we end up having a one or two UU facets to our Via Media Jewel, perhaps that's a good thing. We have Catholic facets; protestant facets; Oxford Movement facets; the list goes on and on.

I believe ++Katherine is going to help us continue to grow in spirit and understanding in God.
Amen!

I am so very tired of this "let's attack others who believe differently from us" tripe. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE PB, LEAVE!

I'm finished with this conversation, finished with those who would like to be Anglicans, if only the church or the leaders wouldn't take positions I can't personally agree with, if only they did not let the Spirit influence their theology.

BAH! HUMBUG!

[Colabomb]

Oh and to those who say "God reveals himself in a myriad of ways" to different people....

God does reveal Himself in different ways, but never outside what he has proclaimed as truth. Do you believe that God would come in the Flesh and die for our sins, and then proclaim through a "prophet" that "Allah has no son"?

Did God tell people to blow up abortion clinics? Did God inspire the Crusades? Did God inspire the mass murder of Jews, Kurds and other religious and ethnic Minorities?

How DARE we question their experience of God?

[Colabomb]

1st Cor. 15

1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

Galatians 1:8

8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

1 John 4:!

1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.


Ephesians 4:4-6


4There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

2 Corinthians 4:4

4The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

[Groce]

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE PB, LEAVE!


Why don't you leave and take her and all the other like minded people with you. Its funny when liberals get all upset because we don't accept the new turth lies they try to feed us.

[~Karin~]

now I see why there are so many branches of Christianity....very sad

[ebia]

My post would be kind of ridiculous if I didn't, wouldn't it? Of course I think He would. He did say "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Can I be wrong? sure I am not infallible. Can Christ and His words recorded in Scripture and the Church's understanding of that Scripture be wrong for the past 2000 years? Highly unlikely. I am not claiming a special revelation here.
You are kind of missing my point; everybody here thinks (albeit with the possibility that they could be wrong) their view is Christ's view (and the views they disagree with are not) or they wouldn't hold that view.

So "go argue with Christ" doesn't progress the conversation at all - it just makes the person who says it look arrogant.

[No Swansong]

You are kind of missing my point; everybody here thinks (albeit with the possibility that they could be wrong) their view is Christ's view (and the views they disagree with are not) or they wouldn't hold that view.

So "go argue with Christ" doesn't progress the conversation at all - it just makes the person who says it look arrogant.
I am not missing your point and if you feel I am arrogant then you have a right to your opinion. Did you miss the part however where I admitted that I am not infallible, but that I also have the backing of 2000 years of Holy Tradition? You cannot say that and also say that Christ is not the Only Way.

[higgs2]

Good. I am glad we are clear on that.




I am so very tired of this "let's attack others who believe differently from us" tripe. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE PB, LEAVE!

I'm finished with this conversation, finished with those who would like to be Anglicans, if only the church or the leaders wouldn't take positions I can't personally agree with, if only they did not let the Spirit influence their theology.

BAH! HUMBUG!


No, that's not right. It is not Anglican to tell him to leave. I am sure Bishop Katherine would not say that.

[higgs2]

Oh and to those who say "God reveals himself in a myriad of ways" to different people....

God does reveal Himself in different ways, but never outside what he has proclaimed as truth. Do you believe that God would come in the Flesh and die for our sins, and then proclaim through a "prophet" that "Allah has no son"?

Did God tell people to blow up abortion clinics? Did God inspire the Crusades? Did God inspire the mass murder of Jews, Kurds and other religious and ethnic Minorities?

How DARE we question their experience of God?

Maybe it would be helpful for you to think about this and study it a little bit more. You seem so angry and sarcastic that I wonder if you are hearing what people are trying to say. :)

[higgs2]

now I see why there are so many branches of Christianity....very sad

Anglicans disagree and talk about their disagreements. It can be uncomfortable for those who are used to more conformity of thought.

[TomUK]

I beginning to wonder the continued worth of this thread. We are all adults here i don't think it is too much to expect to treat each other with at least a little respect.

I humbly request that all posters take a pause before they hit the submit button. Our lives should be a reflection of Christ's love; therefore if this thread continues with this endless bickering then we will be forced to close it.

[karen freeinchristman]

Anglicans disagree and talk about their disagreements. It can be uncomfortable for those who are used to more conformity of thought.
This is true.

[kiwimac]

I beginning to wonder the continued worth of this thread. We are all adults here i don't think it is too much to expect to treat each other with at least a little respect.

Perhaps that could be extended to ++Katherine who I see being attacked here?

[Groce]

Perhaps that could be extended to ++Katherine who I see being attacked here?

What is being attacked is not a person, rather an idea. An idea that is contradictory to Christianity. An idea that degrades what our faith is about. She just happens to hold this idea and then proceeds to spread it as if it were truth, this is one problem with her.

[Tomoz]

Anyone fancy a cup of tea?

[higgs2]

Anyone fancy a cup of tea?
Thanks so much. :) I've been drinking a green and white tea blend, and I'm hoping it will help with this nasty cold I can't get rid of.

Cookies anyone?

[ChessCastle]

Cookies anyone?


Coconut please. :clap:

[longhair75]

I am a coffee drinker myself, but maybe a cup of tea would be nice this morning.

[chalice_thunder]

Thanks so much. :) I've been drinking a green and white tea blend, and I'm hoping it will help with this nasty cold I can't get rid of.

Cookies anyone?
Healing blessings to you, sister! :hug:

oh, and chocolate chip, please :)

[Aymn27]

I am a coffee drinker myself, but maybe a cup of tea would be nice this morning.
I was too until I started drinking green tea..I think I'm addicted! I don't mind steeping my own, but my favorite is the Arizona Diet Green Tea with Ginseng - great stuff!

BTW, green tea is an anti-oxidant, so it's a tad healthier than coffee - just something to consider.

[Colabomb]

Perhaps that could be extended to ++Katherine who I see being attacked here?
We won't talk about Katherine if you and others stop talking about Akinola. Fair?

No its not fair. Schori has serious issues. Akinola has serious issues. Are we not allowed to discuss them? Its seems that some, on BOTH sides of the aisle have their pet bishops whom they consider untouchable, yet feel free to criticize another. I was the same way until I realized how silly that was.

It is a fact that Schori has made statements that could be construed (rightly or not) as heretical.

It is a fact that Akinola was behind jailing homosexuals.

It is a fact that Both are sinners.

It is a fact that since both are leaders in the Christian Church that they are rightly put up to higher scrutiny than we are. It is a fact that unlike other denominations, Anglican bishops are NOT untouchable. When Katherine puts her foot in her mouth, we rightly may criticize. When Akinola does the same, we rightly Criticize.

The Presiding Bishop is not the Pope. When he/she does something potentially Damaging to the name of Christ, and the purpose of His mission, we not only may, but MUST speak against it. It is our duty.

Instead of defending our favorites, lets instead discuss what needs to be discussed in a Christian Manner.

On a much different issue, Liberals often call Conservatives closed minded, and then tell us to leave if we don't like what's going on. I find that Extrememly Ironic.

[longhair75]

Friend Colabomb,

instead of defending our favorites, let's instead discuss what needs to be discussed in a Christain manner

You show wisdom beyond your years, my friend. When the discussion slides towards argument, I tend to drop out.

[gtsecc]

I started this thread to point out a specific problem about the PB, related to her stated theology, not her sex or stance on other issues.

I pointed out specifically why it was a problem.

Higgs is correct to point out that "belief" in Christ as the only way, and Christ as the only way are different.

Unfortunately, when given the opportunity in the interview to clarify her position, Schori makes her position less Christian, proclaiming that the other paths are really the same in parallel universes.

People appealed that she was merely trying to be inclusive. I pointed out how to be inclusive and true to the faith. A Path she could have taken, but by not taking reveals she maybe doesn’t believe it.

[~Karin~]

Why don't you leave and take her and all the other like minded people with you. Its funny when liberals get all upset because we don't accept the new turth lies they try to feed us.
it seems as though liberals aren't only ones telling people to leave if they don't like something, so I guess it's more of an individual issue instead of a "liberal" - "conservative" one.

[No Swansong]

it seems as though liberals aren't only ones telling people to leave if they don't like something, so I guess it's more of an individual issue instead of a "liberal" - "conservative" one.
While I am not sure I have seen it, this statement rings trut to me. See Kpfp you weighed in and noone screamed "Off With Her Head". Well yet anyway.

It is nice to see you contributing.

[~Karin~]

:) thank you jtbdad...

[higgs2]

We won't talk about Katherine if you and others stop talking about Akinola. Fair?

No its not fair. Schori has serious issues. Akinola has serious issues. Are we not allowed to discuss them? Its seems that some, on BOTH sides of the aisle have their pet bishops whom they consider untouchable, yet feel free to criticize another. I was the same way until I realized how silly that was.

It is a fact that Schori has made statements that could be construed (rightly or not) as heretical.

It is a fact that Akinola was behind jailing homosexuals.

It is a fact that Both are sinners.

It is a fact that since both are leaders in the Christian Church that they are rightly put up to higher scrutiny than we are. It is a fact that unlike other denominations, Anglican bishops are NOT untouchable. When Katherine puts her foot in her mouth, we rightly may criticize. When Akinola does the same, we rightly Criticize.

The Presiding Bishop is not the Pope. When he/she does something potentially Damaging to the name of Christ, and the purpose of His mission, we not only may, but MUST speak against it. It is our duty.

Instead of defending our favorites, lets instead discuss what needs to be discussed in a Christian Manner.

On a much different issue, Liberals often call Conservatives closed minded, and then tell us to leave if we don't like what's going on. I find that Extrememly Ironic.


I'm fine with discussing Bishop Katherine and her statements, I thought that is what I have been doing. Bringing up the crusades and genocide etc. just seems a bit melodramatic. I know you mean well, Cola. We all just need to listen to each other better.

One person suggested that people should leave. Let's not generalize that. Suggesting people leave, and people threatening to leave are not really very productive in my view.

[higgs2]

Healing blessings to you, sister! :hug:

oh, and chocolate chip, please :)

Thank you. I'm a bit better today.

Here are coconut, chocolate chip, m&m and butterscotch cookies! Everyone dig in! :wave:

[chalice_thunder]

I'm fine with discussing Bishop Katherine and her statements, I thought that is what I have been doing. Bringing up the crusades and genocide etc. just seems a bit melodramatic. I know you mean well, Cola. We all just need to listen to each other better.

One person suggested that people should leave. Let's not generalize that. Suggesting people leave, and people threatening to leave are not really very productive in my view.
Agreed.

We are stronger when we are united in Christ.
Even if our doctrine differs a little.
We still worship and serve the same Lord;
reason enough to be thankful.

[CSMR]

Really?
I'm pretty sure if you read the gospel you will find plenty of examples where Jesus respected people as they were. And by doing so, he changed their lives.

The only people who were truly unable to hear, understand and receive his message were most of the smug and jealous religious leaders, who put more faith in legalism than in God.
I suppose it is not clear to me what you mean by respect. I was assuming it saw some sort of good qualities in others, and that is what I was arguing against. However there may be other sorts of respect. "Render therefore to all their dues" as we are told.
Please do us both a favor and go back and read what I said. You missed the mark on this one.
If they come to God in a way that is different than mine, and they are living in love and charity with God and their neighbor, why should I not honor their own faith journey?
You are thinking of another person who approaches God through a "faith journey" and lives in obedience to the great commandments. I assumed that such a person was just straightforwardly good, which as I said was hypothetical. Otherwise what is the nature of his goodness? It could of course be Christian faith, subject to sin but righteous in faith in Christ; but then you would be saying that you have some other faith, which you do not seem to be trying to say. What other possibility is there?
Well, I have been called to welcome people as they are. Personally, I share my story and I welcome them to share theirs with me. It's called relationship.
Welcome them... to what? That was my question.
People share their life stories all over the place, especially Americans. It is not really specific to any persuasion. For all I know the people here whom you think are not being welcoming also like to share their life stories.

[chalice_thunder]

You are thinking of another person who approaches God through a "faith journey" and lives in obedience to the great commandments. I assumed that such a person was just straightforwardly good, which as I said was hypothetical. Otherwise what is the nature of his goodness? It could of course be Christian faith, subject to sin but righteous in faith in Christ; but then you would be saying that you have some other faith, which you do not seem to be trying to say. What other possibility is there?
And what I said was: "If they come to God in a way that is different than mine, and they are living in love and charity with God and their neighbor, why should I not honor their own faith journey?"


Welcome them... to what? That was my question.
People share their life stories all over the place, especially Americans. It is not really specific to any persuasion. For all I know the people here whom you think are not being welcoming also like to share their life stories.
I simply welcome them. One doesn't need an agenda to share the love of Christ.

[Colabomb]

No. We don't necessarily need an agenda to be Christlike, to do charity to do sacrifice.

But we are all called to live the evangelistic lifestyle. Christ did tell us to go and preach the Gospel, baptising in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

To ignore this is to be in direct disobedience to God. Our agenda is Christ. He tells us to be evangelistic, we live lives of evangelism.

If Islam or Zen Buddhism are valid paths to God, why then did he send us out to convert the World?

[chalice_thunder]

No. We don't necessarily need an agenda to be Christlike, to do charity to do sacrifice.

But we are all called to live the evangelistic lifestyle. Christ did tell us to go and preach the Gospel, baptising in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

To ignore this is to be in direct disobedience to God. Our agenda is Christ. He tells us to be evangelistic, we live lives of evangelism.

If Islam or Zen Buddhism are valid paths to God, why then did he send us out to convert the World?
Did he actually say "to convert?"

I thought he said, "Go into all the world and preach the Good News."

[Aymn27]

Did he actually say "to convert?"

I thought he said, "Go into all the world and preach the Good News."
Well if he wants us baptizing I would assume he wants conversion....I think it is sorta haphazard to "preach" the gospel but at the same time say there are "other" paths to God. We either stand on the truth or we don't. There is little point to being a Christian unless we believe that Jesus is THE way, truth and life. I'm not saying we have to beat it over others heads, force them by the sword to convert or anything - but we need to be zealous about our faith and the truth that can be found ONLY in Christ. We don't have to pass judgment on other faiths - Christ will deal with them as He sees fit - but we don't need to water down revealed truth either.

[chalice_thunder]

Well if he wants us baptizing I would assume he wants conversion....

But this is TRANSFORMATION OF LIFE, not conversion to a stance of doctrine.


I think it is sorta haphazard to "preach" the gospel but at the same time say there are "other" paths to God.
I just don't see how the two MUST be mutually exclusive.

We either stand on the truth or we don't.

That's like saying "Every word of the Bible is literally true, or none of it is." ...which is meadow muffins.


There is little point to being a Christian unless we believe that Jesus is THE way, truth and life.


I believe He is the Way.
He said "Follow me."
Not "Worship me."


I'm not saying we have to beat it over others heads, force them by the sword to convert or anything -

Good, because that would be terrible!

but we need to be zealous about our faith and the truth that can be found ONLY in Christ.

My zeal (I like the word 'passion' better) is not about doctrinal "truths." My passion is for Jesus, who has called us Beloved. This call in Love is far more important to the People of God than believing He is the ONLY way, in my opinion.


We don't have to pass judgment on other faiths - Christ will deal with them as He sees fit - but we don't need to water down revealed truth either.
Nobody is advocating watering down of anything.
Least of all ++Katherine.
She is showing the Love of God in the gesture of welcome to ALL.

Let me share a hymn...many of you might have already seen it or sung it:

Will you come and follow me,
If I but call your name?
Will you go where you don't know
And never be the same?
Will you let my love be shown,
will you let my name be known,
will you let my life be grown
in you and you in me?

Will you leave your self behind
if I but call your name?
Will you care for cruel and kind
and never be the same?
Will you risk the hostile stare
should your life attract or scare,
will you let me answer prayer
in you and you in me?

Will you love the ‘you' you hide
if I but call your name?
Will you quell the fear inside
and never be the same?
Will you use the faith you've found
to reshape the world around
through my sight and touch and sound
in you and you in me?

Lord, your summons echoes true
when you but call my name.
Let me turn and follow you
and never be the same.
In your company I'll go
where your love and footsteps show.
Thus I'll move and live and grow
in you and you in me.

To me, this is the ESSENCE of Christ.
Thomas said, "Lord, we do not know the way."
Jesus responds, "I am the Way..."

And that "Way" is reflected beautifully in this hymn. If you are doing these things in your life, you are living in Jesus...whether you've been "converted" or not.

[ChessCastle]

I cannot and would not ever presume to speek for Saepius. Therefore what I am about to write is not to be attributed as an exposition upon his earlier comments. I have no idea what my brother Saepius meant. But the conversation led me to ponder the following.

There are those who doubt the veracity of anything purportedly said by Jesus. The usual comment is the one that Saepius used, something like well we don't really know that is what He said, all we know is that someone said He said it". This is actually very common among those those who wish to pick and chose which scripture they want to believe. For instance I know those who say Jesus wasn't really talking about hell or demons but He really did say Love God and Love your neighbor. Now of course the question is why believe Love God and Love Neighbor if you don't believe "it takes much prayer to drive these out?" It is the same authors who report both.
The Jesus Seminar is very well kinow for forwarding this type of tripe. But I would argue for consistency. If you do not believe that Jesus said "There is only one way." Then there is no logical way to believe He said "Love God, Love your Neighbor."

As for Schiori. I do remember other things (I'll have to find references) that pretty much make her out to be a universalist. Not only that but I have never heard her answer the criticism that she has never affirmed the Diety of Christ. However this could simply be a deficiency in my knowledge, perhaps she has answered this criticism and I simply am not aware of it.

I somehow missed this response, thank you jtbdad for attempting to clarify the muddy waters on this. It seems to me that selectively accepting scripture is a convienient way to rationalise our own failures, or ignore our own sin. I struggle every single day with the whole concept of 'Love thy neighbor', and it would be lovely to reconcile my failure to live up to this commandment by convincing myself that it was something some random person just threw into the gospel for effect.


As for the pb not answering criticism that she has never affirmed the diety of Christ...there seems to be a bit of that going around now. Since we cannot say emphatically that all Anglicans affirm ALL of the nicene creed, is it truly a requirement that one believe in the divinity of Christ to be Anglican? Maybe this is a question better as