Dispatches from the HoB/D: Time to ‘Get Real’ - Jesus Was Not God

Wow, just wow. (And how sad, and small, someone’s worldview can be!)

Your claim answers nothing; just exposes ignorance, and a pathetic, simplistic, interpretation of scripture.

The “listening process” as participated in by Ernest W. Cockrell.

Your claim answers nothing; just exposes ignorance, and a pathetic, simplistic, interpretation of scripture.

Can’t you just feel the love?

...I really wish I was shocked, I really do.

Yours in Christ,
jacob

PS: Thank you Mr. Aden!!!

~j

Greg - perhaps you missed this earlier (2007) exchange between the Rev. Cockrell and the Rev. Tom Woodward - just an excerpt here:
From Cockrell+:

. . . In the Scriptures and liturgies and hymns, I keep finding a deep unity which supersedes differences of thought and belief - safe places to wrestle with the puzzles and mysteries which confront us in every sphere. If we can only remember to differentiate between the two, I think our path ahead could be clarified, and perhaps we could walk along together, celebrating both while focusing our attention and energy on service beyond ourselves in the name of Christ! I think Jesus would like that!. . .

I guess that would be Jesus the man who would like that, since there is no Jesus, son of God.
And in the same posting, from Woodward+ (the boldface at the end is mine):

. . . Ernest is right: mystery allows for the full presence of the other, while puzzles define the other as “in” or “out.” Jesus taught with mystery – seldom, if ever, through puzzles. We still wrestle with the meaning of Jesus’ parables. While we preach about his interactions with Mary and Martha, with the poor and the marginalized, with Zacchias and the Syro-Phoenician woman and with Pilate, we must know that we are dealing only with surface understanding and not with the mystery of two human beings of incredible complexity, much of which is not known and will never be known even to themselves. . .

So according to the above, Jesus did not know Himself - the Son of God was ignorant of the full import of His interactions with others. Mighty small god you’ve got there!

Another excellent Episcopalian seminary graduate, no doubt!

In the name of the Father, the really good guy that lived 2000 years ago, and the Holy Ghost. Amen.

There’s no Real like El Camino Real, I guess.

That should be the Episcopal Diocese of El Camino Really Deep.

Wow.

My first temptation, as always, is to write some kind of snarky comment.  But, Lent is upon us; let me say instead that, because I believe Christ has done no less than save us from death itself, I’m going to stop and pray for Ernest Cockrell that he might come to join himself to our only possible Savior, Who alone can offer us true Love and eternal life.

I get a little frightened when I read this kind of hatred for Jesus.  Such danger this man is courting!  I know, some people can’t be bothered to deal with Christ and who He really might have been; I pray God will have mercy on them, and I hope they will be saved (as I hope I will be saved); kind of a, “I trust God will work this out,” kind of thinking.  But for people that show such hostility - I wish people would not blaspheme God in this way.  Yet, I still hope He has mercy.

I hope everyone will join me in praying, even quickly, that Ernest will fall away from this anger and come to understand the world-changing meaning of God’s condescension toward us in coming among us via His only begotten Son, “Light of Light, True God of True God.”  It’s not a slogan in a Creed; it’s the fate of our lives laid before us.

Just a thought, I wonder if Cockrell+ and Woodward+ were in the Latin Kings together?

Thugs-4-life,

DoW

Get a load of this!
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/joyanyway/joy208.html

What I Believe
by The Rev. Ernest Cockrell
Sermon Preached on Advent 3, 12/12/99, St. Andrew’s, Saratoga, California<blockquote>And I BELIEVE in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds as theological affirmations of the 4th century, with only seeds of historical fact. So you can un-cross your fingers when you say the creed this morning. I don’t believe it literally, either.

I BELIEVE that Jesus of Nazareth was a real human being with limited and fallible human consciousness, and that Mary and Joseph were his biological parents.

I BELIEVE his death was not pre-ordained, nor was it a sacrifice to placate an angry God, but the outcome of his own integrity - and so it is a viable model for our lives.

I BELIEVE the gospels don’t end with the resurrection; they start with it.

</blockquote>

#10—Well, it’s not Lent yet!
I will join you in praying, but that Rev. Cockenbull will be true to himself and stop living the charade (and earning a wage!) as a minister in the service of a really nice guy. He needs to renounce his vows and go to work for Obama, instead. That would be honest.

Sometimes the plus sign can be used to denote that something has suffered a loss, as when a molecule loses an electron…

This is no fringe Priest, he has served on the Standing Committee of the Diocese of El Camino Real, has been a deputy to four General Conventions, and was appointed by General Convention to the committee for National and International Affairs.

This is the leadership of the Episcopal Church, again repudiating Jesus Christ.

As if we really needed any more “Clarity ...”

This would make a fine addition to the AAC statement regarding heresies in the leadership of The General Convention Church.

Oh boy, two in one day for
A Thread to Document the Heresy

I would like to hasten to point out that Ernest Cockrell is completely orthodox and is, in fact, papally imprimatured.

He is the author of numerous academic books and has led some rather important seminary classes.

He is certified orthodox by people who would know far better than you—and just because he, frankly, interprets the words of scripture somewhat differently from those whose minds are a little more “black and white” does not mean he is not as orthodox as the day is long.

I would also like to note that Father Cockrell was voted for by members of your own Network for some rather high national church positions, and he himself was dear friends with Richard Neuhaus, who would certainly have stood by him.

Not only Richard Neuhaus but Jeffrey Steenson and Brad Drell and Kendall Harmon count him as friends.

Goodie. More clarity.

Sarah, I think you mean “Levodox.”

Cockrell’s “sermon” is a remarkable illustration of what has gone wrong.  People like Cockrell have some kind of religion, but it’s not Christianity by any stretch.

What I Believe
by The Rev. Ernest Cockrell
Sermon Preached on Advent 3, 12/12/99, St. Andrew’s, Saratoga, California

Oh, my.  That doesn’t get one kicked out of the ministry?  I read the whole thing.  It doesn’t sound Chistian at all.  Has he repudiated it?

I used to live in your diocese, Bishop Cockrell.  Have you ever heard the phrase “Word of God Incarnate?”  It applies to Jesus, the last I heard.

Oh, I goofed….it’s “Father Cockrell.”  Didn’t mean to promote the man!

Is it my imagination from being gone a while, or has TEC really reached some sort of critical momentum where the decent into the abyss is now a free fall?

Argh.  Jesus I pray you open the eyes of many of the priests and bishop of TEC to see (maybe for the first time in many cases) that You are the one and only Son of God; that you are God incarnate; that all things were created through You; that you came to earth, became sin and took on the sin of all mankind for all time, was resurrected, sit at the right hand of God and WILL RETURN to judge the living and the dead!  Amen.

“just exposes ignorance, and a pathetic, simplistic, interpretation of scripture.”

Argh…what an ARROGANT statement…I am praying for them, but have to tell you this kind of attitude really turns my stomach.

“and a pathetic, simplistic, interpretation of scripture.”

Thank you Lord for this gift so that I may not think myself wise above your Word.  So that I may be humbled by your Mercy and Justice in making so much of it plain to us.  So that I may read your Word with the light of your love and not the dark arrogance of proud men.

As you lived a rather simple life amongst us till you came to what I dare say is viewed as a pathetic end by many I am honored to be counted among the simple and pathetic for your sake, amen.

Though with a scornful wonder
we see her sore oppressed,
by schisms rent asunder,
by heresies distressed,
yet saints their watch are keeping;
their cry goes up, “How long?”
And soon the night of weeping
shall be the morn of song.

From Cockrell’s sermon on what he believes:

I BELIEVE in eternal life as a quality of life now on earth, not just when you die

That is the only orthodox statement in the entire “sermon.”  Everything else is a mirror image of God’s revealed truth, and a good bit is not only a mirror image, but a distorted image.

The sad thing is that Cockrell is far from alone among the clergy of the Episcopal Church.

I wonder if Father Cockrell believes himself to be guilty of Idolatry?  After all, he probably believes that he is engaged in the worship of “Christ.”  He, after all, agreed to be “loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worhsip of Christ as this Church has received them.” (emphasis mine).

Now “Christ” (particularly when capitalized) is a referant to Jesus Christ - Jesus the Annointed.  If Jesus is not God, then the worship of Christ is simply idolatry.  If Jesus is God, then Ernest Cockrell is guilty of apostacy.

So, Father Cockrell, please choose which it is.  Are you an idolater or are you apostate?  Your own words leave you no choice between these two alternatives.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

To add to Sarah’s comment I should point out that the Early Fathers all stressed the confidential nature of the HOB/HOD listserve and I find it horribly disrespectful for you “so called Christians” to post this priest’s musings without permission. Shame on you Greg. And to link to some so-called sermon he allegedly delivered on one of the internets is just as unexcusable.  We can only listen face to face, folks, not computer screen to computer screen.

Hey Gyre
The “What I believe” crap is posted on Louie Crew’s site, not the HOB/HOD listserv.  It is from a sermon Cockrell preached in church.  Oh - I also think it is copyrighted!

Sorry WG - I missed the tongue in cheek

subscribe

Bishop in training no doubt…
Intercessor

This is one small picture of the BIG problem in tec.

A few notes.
1) I am surprised that Mr. Cockrell was not elected Bp. of N. Michigan yesterday.

2) I am led to wonder if the Lord ever contemplates an “Old Testament moment”- you know, 30 seconds of fire, brimstone and locusts.  Just to remind us that He is indeed the Lord our God.

3) If Mr. Cockrell actually believes what he wrote, what is his point in bothering to read scripture, and why has he not resigned his orders?

4) There would be a certain justice if we were to discover Mr. Cockrell is canonically resident in S. Carolina or Rhode Island.

5) Sarah (#19): Do you need an exorcism?  You seem to be channeling demons rather frequently in recent days.  It has become increasingly difficult to distinguish your posts from those of He-who-shall-not-be-named.

6) Thanks for publishing this.  I received it in email a few hours ago.  Was planning to forward it to most of my email list, but now all I need to do is point them to the thread.

7) Please do send copies to ++Rowan.

Taking this man at his word, why does he sign his name with a + after it? 

A reflective and holy Lent to all,
-ms

This poor priest needs to be inhibited as soon as possible, before he leads more souls astray.  Then he needs to have a long talk with his bishop about whether this is the life he ought to be leading.

I don’t think there will be any consequences.  In fact, I could easily see a diocesan functionary pulling out the template and working up the following for the El Camino Real newsletter (“Along the King’s Highway”):

“The Rev. Ernest W. Cockrell’s understanding of and engagement with a broad spectrum of religious traditions and thought generated some recent conversation. Ernest W. Cockrell was involved for several years in active diverse teachings in the Diocese of El Camino Real. But those most closely involved with the diocese are not concerned by the speculation.

“Denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ is a set of beliefs similar to Christian beliefs, but different.  Denial became the property of many in and around the early church,” said a diocesan spokesperson. “They are beliefs and practices about many diverse things. They can be taught, believed, and practiced without detriment to the doctrine of the Episcopal Church, and they are being restored today in all sorts of organizations. There are a number of bishops in the current House who engage in and have experience of such beliefs and teachings. This is not new.

“The question is ‘Is thinking or teaching a bad thing for priests?’” asked the spokesperson. “I think not. I think being spiritually grounded, thinking things, and then teaching them are essential for every leader in the church.”

H/t Diocese of Northern Michigan

“Sometimes the plus sign can be used to denote that something has suffered a loss, as when a molecule loses an electron…”

Actually TEC is an atom decaying quite steadily but with a decreasing 1/2 life, and giving off alphas, betas and gammas while maintaining that it has lost very few.  It gives off a mysterious particle called litigations, a particle whose existence is now known as an anti-matter particle which destroys much that comes into its path.
God created all of these particles to be nicely balanced in one stable and wonderful whole.

But what about the other guy, the one whose “claim answers nothing; just exposes ignorance, and a pathetic, simplistic, interpretation of scripture”?

Gareth Aden has a broad range of trial experience from over 30 years of practice. He has tried multi-week cases in state and federal courts in Tennessee and throughout the Southeast. He is currently serving on several multi-district panels defending complex tort claims.

Practice Areas: 
Litigation
Mediation
Industries:
Transportation
Real Estate
Railroads
Insurance
Construction
Education:
Vanderbilt University School of Law (1969)
Vanderbilt University (1966)
Bar Admissions:
Tennessee (1969)
Associations:
American Bar Association
Tennessee Bar Association
Nashville Bar Association, board of directors, president (2000), recipient of John C. Tune Community Service Award (2003)
National Association of Railroad Counsel
American Inns of Court, master in the Harry Phillips Chapter
Listed in The Best Lawyers in America® in Railroad Law
Activities:
Episcopal Diocese of Tennessee, vice chancellor
DuBose Conference Center, board member
Boy Scouts of America, scoutmaster and Long Rifle Award recipient
Easter Seals Society of Middle Tennessee, board of directors and president (1978)

So clearly, he’s ignorant, pathetic and simplistic.  Clearly.

[43] I think you are describing the element found in TEC and the ACoC, sometimes referred to as Mysterium.  It is so rare and new, it is not yet on the Chart of the Nuclides.  The emission of litigations in atmosphere causes a rare and unusual interaction with Neon, producing MyNe (i.e., pronounced “mine.”) 

To once more quote Fr. Ray Kasch:  Is Jesus Christ Lord .. or not ????

Okay.

Well, as long as there aren’t any Christological errors, I suppose we can categorize this as adiaphora. 

< / sarcasm >

The emissions of ‘litigation’ (or triple delta muons) must be an extremely powerful particle since Neon is such a stable atom.  However these emissions are all too frequently misdirected and often fail to achieve a stable outcome, thus the element Mysterium (MyNe) remains mysterious and unpredictable, not to say periodically self-destructive.

So, what, exactly, does it take to bring up a priest on heresy charges, and why, exactly, are the “Inside Strategy” people not doing so?

Andrew:  If bishops Pike, Spong et al can’t be convicted of heresy, then no one in TEC can.

Bill, just because the result is a foregone conclusion doesn’t mean that it isn’t worth making the effort.  Something like this would be perfect for adding to the clarity and making the non-Christian nature of TEC quite clear when TEC officially declares belief in the divinity of Christ to be adiaphora. 

If anyone out there has the right to bring him up on chages, do so.

They really have removed Christ as head of the church.  No wonder TEC runs around aimlessly like a headless chicken.

For the life of me, I can’t figure out why Ernie doesn’t sleep in Sunday mornings, knock back a couple of Jack-and-Cokes when he wakes up and just ponder his unbelievably splendid wonderfulness from the comfort of his own home.

He could sleep in and reduce his carbon footprint while thanking his Vague, Ambiguous, Infinitely Malleable Deity Concept that he is not as other men are, particularly those fundie morons who still believe that the Bible means what it says.  Not only that, he’d have one more thing to be sneeringly self-righteous about.

Four birds with one stone.

It gets worse - something for the ladies: ‘A Weekend of the “Feminine Divine” at National Cathedral’ - for those seeking the Earth Mother within presumably.

Please - make it stop!

“Come spirit of many names, come” the medicine woman concluded.

Yes, HER name is legion.

“Shame on you Greg. And to link to some so-called sermon he allegedly delivered on one of the internets is just as unexcusable.  We can only listen face to face, folks, not computer screen to computer screen.”

Heh.

Classic.

We can only listen face to face, folks, not computer screen to computer screen.

PM-
We have it on the authority of the Windsor Continuation Group and the ABofC that the Communion Partners and Episcopal Visitors are quite adequate for the preservation of orthodox practice in the US. So I am sure they will be dealing with the Divine Feminine, the Buddhist Bishop and the open denials of Christ on the listserve at any moment now…..

#54 wow, I felt ‘soiled’ just reading about it.
Excuse me, but aren’t there rules about conducting pagen rituals in a church?
I thought there were rules about what you could do on consecrated ground.
Somebody call the exorcist!
(Please Lord Jesus, Come Soon!!!  this is all heartbreaking)
little mouse

[48] You must be correct.

I have heard speculation that litigation emitted from Mysterium could also be used to excite the other noble gas Rowanium (Rw), possibly in a combined atmosphere with Ubuntium-121 (Ubu), but accelerator research has thus far proved inconclusive and Rw is expected to remain inert.

AndrewA, to whom exactly would anyone bring this esemplar of a TEC priest (and exemplar of other things as well, no doubt) up on charges of heresy?  To a church that could not convict +Pike, +Spong, +Righter?  On the basis of canons that are the firm foundation of shifting sand?  To a Presiding Bishop who also denies the divinity of Jesus, making Him only <i><u>our</u> vehicle to the divine<i>, but not divine Himself?  When you succeed in nailing jello to the wall, let me know.

#58 John 10:25-30

Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.

My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.    I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 

My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE.”

Fear not little mouse.

So that’s the italics end tag I found lying on the floor!

Re: the “Feminine Divine” conference - seems like the IRD had a mole to report on the invocation of “the spirits”, even though their official reps were banned from covering it!   No doubt “the spirits” answered their call, and without 1 John’s test being applied, which would have banished them instantly back to their pit of deep darkness!

Milton, you miss my point entirely.

I’m not looking for a conviction.  I fully expect that if charges were pressed he would still not be removed.

That’s exactly why charges should be pressed.

Andrew A,
Under what canon could you try him?  While it is obvious that he has “abandoned the communion of this church” (not to mention abandoned the communion of the Church), that canon has been redefined to mean “moved to another Anglican province that the PB doesn’t like” (like, say, Nigeria, Southern Cone, or England.  Oops, how did that last one get in there?)  In any case, the responsible party here is his bishop.  So, unless he is canonically resident in one of the dozen dioceses that maintain that heresy is not appropriate for clergy, nothing is likely to happen to him.  If he is indeed resident in El Camino Real, his probable fate is to wake up tomorrow named Canon Theologian.

What a farcical theater of the absurd TEC has become!

tjmcmahon: 
Geez, y’all want me to do all you leg work for you? 

Even in TEC, procedures exist for bringing up priests on heresy charges.  They should be researched and used by those that have the right to bring forth said charges.  I’m not among that number.

The point is not to get in a conviction.  Do I have to make myself any plainer?

Arianism, nothing new here, just a pathetic, simplistic, mis-interpretation of scripture.

Here’s yet another gem from Louie Crew’s website, different from the sermon already referenced.

See:
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/joyanyway/joy206.html

Your claim answers nothing; just exposes ignorance, and a pathetic, simplistic, interpretation of scripture.

Time to get real here, both historically and theologically - and to differentiate between the two.

I have not been called to give up snarkiness or humor for Lent.

However, in all gravity and seriousness, and with what little authority and power might have been given me, I say, “ANATHEMA! Vade retro, Satana. Iesus Dominus et Deus est. Amen.”

Yes, it is indeed time to get real here.

The synoptic gospels are theologized histories with the meaning written in;the Gospel of John was an historicized theology.

By the way, if you ever wondered why it’s important to defend the historicity and integrity of Scripture from modern <s>skepticism</s> scholarship, you just saw a good reason.

carl

It is good and a joyful thing to be in CANA.

Arianism, nothing new here, just a pathetic, simplistic, mis-interpretation of scripture.

More like Socianism.

Jesus was not God, Gareth.  He was a human being on earth with a mind limited to the worldview of his time.

And so, Dear Gareth, I have a fancy title, dress up in special robes, stand on raised platforms and speak at people in one-directional diatribes through a microphone during ceremonies based on this puny Jesus fellow.  I’m also paid, get health benefits, a generous pension plan, travel expenses and many other perks!

Edit: that’s “Socinianism”!

#68 Ita Amen:)

Unfortunately ECR just elected a very liberal woman bishop and a few of my friends down there who are clergy where singing her praises.  So yes the good father will probably wake up to find some red piping lying around to put on his cassock.

Heck I am surprised he wasn’t on the list of candidates for ECR.  I am on the beat of Windows 7 (please no one throw anything at me) and IE 8 has to run in compatibility mode on SFiF, so if anyone can research the lists here for all the chatter when ECR was up for grabs after the horrible Shimfky debacle.

‘How long O Lord!!!”

Alasdair (no longer Alasdair+ as I have gone to Rome for this exact reason).

Sheesh.  A Buddhist Bishop, Muslim priest(ess) and how many atheist and Unitarian pastors?

Nice Church you guys got there.

I BELIEVE his death was not pre-ordained, nor was it a sacrifice to placate an angry God, but the outcome of his own integrity - and so it is a viable model for our lives.

It wouldn’t be a viable model if His death were, as it is, about submission to the will of God and our salvation. No, not for a revisionist. But since it is the outcome of His “own integrity,” well, that’s all right then.

All the I AM statements in John were the beliefs of the early Church, not Jesus’ words.

And children, we all know that those people who were there or who talked with the people who were there, didn’t know a darn thing about what it all meant. They had to wait 2,000 years for me to come along and straighten their mess out. He’s modest, too. I don’t think y’all mentioned that.

This is painful. And it makes it very, very hard to continue Episcopalian because it is clear that such beliefs in the Self over God are now at the core of what TEC has become. Why this man bothered to become a priest is something to ponder over. What call did he hear?

#76 see my #72.  He heard a call to titles, robes, and various perks and entitlements.

The MCJ is reporting a Women’s event in the National Cathedral that tops Buddhist bishops:  http://themcj.com/?p=2899

Actually, skip my #72 and see what Jesus himself had to say about such clergy in Matthew 23.

Andrew A,

tjmcmahon:
Geez, y’all want me to do all you leg work for you?

Even in TEC, procedures exist for bringing up priests on heresy charges.

Andrew, over the last several weeks, I have spent hours of “legwork” on the issue of the bishop of N. Michigan.  That should really have been the job of the Episcopal hierarchy and the bunch of pompous asses on the listserve who were droning on about how unique N. Michigan was and that Buddhism isn’t really at odds with Christianity.  So, please forgive me if I have my hands full right now.
  In any case, I am a layman, just like you.  This is as much your task as mine, and maybe more so, because my plate is pretty full.  If you can find a canon to bring the fellow up on, get together with a few of your friends and clergy (you need fewer if they are in his diocese) and bring charges.  However, I would be quite surprised if there IS a canon against heresy in El Camino Real.  If you are in TEC and it bugs you, do something about it. If you are no longer in TEC, then what are you worried about?

over the last several weeks, I have spent hours of “legwork” on the issue of the bishop of N. Michigan.  That should really have been the job of the Episcopal hierarchy and the bunch of pompous asses on the listserve who were droning on about how unique N. Michigan was and that Buddhism isn’t really at odds with Christianity.  So, please forgive me if I have my hands full right now.
In any case, I am a layman, just like you.

This thread and the one about the self-made buddhist bishop are very wearing to the spirit. There is a total vacuum in the church leadership, isn’t there? Nobody really has a direction, let alone a faith, but it seems that many of them are sure that God is who they say He is, because here in the 21st century, standing on top of mountains of time, they must know better than anyone else. Only the laity seem to really care about what is being done to our cherished Christian faith by these navel- and mirror-gazers and marxist political hacks. God have mercy on us.

Timothy *79, a very salutary reading.

13"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

#70:  Amen, Amen, Amen and Hallelujah!

I LIKE my pathetic, simplistic, interpretation of scripture.  Intend to stick with it, too!

Just when I think TEC has hit the BOTTOM of the sanitary sewer, they produce more and the bottom falls out!  I wish I could send some of this to friends who elected to stay with TEC.  However, because I have tried before, they blocked my e-mail.  May God give them the grace to find out what they are in themselves.

BTW, I’d be very interested in knowing what types of replies Cokrell got in the HoB/D listserve.

http://episcopalmajority.blogspot.com/2007/07/puzzles-and-mysteries.html

About the Author: The Reverend Ernest W. Cockrell, a native Texhoman, is the recently-retired rector of Saint Andrew’s Church & School in Saratoga, CA, after almost 15 years there, preceded by 25 years as rector of Saint Gabriel’s, Marion, MA. Through those years he has worked via teaching and preaching to connect religion with 20th/21st -century reality, so that Episcopalians can be literate without being literal; to bring peace with justice and security to Palestine and Israel (and to the United States!), by honest reporting on the situation there, attempting to bring a balance to a one-sided view delivered to most Americans, especially through his SAMA’ program, “listening” to the words of the peacemakers there: Christian, Muslim, and Jewish - summarized in the “Sama Song.” In addition to serving a four-year term on the Standing Committee of the Diocese of El Camino Real, he has been a deputy to four General Conventions, serving on the Committee for National and International Affairs. As the author of one novel, several smaller books, and composer of a number of musicals, he is presently in the market for an agent!

AndrewA, if you post the lyrics of the “Sama Song,” I’ll never forgive you. :-( Well, I will ... but I’ll have to *work* at it.

http://www.edecr.org/dc2007/DC2007_nomineebios_GC2009.htm

Name: The Rev. Ernest W. Cockrell
Church: St. Andrew’s, Saratoga
Position: Deputy to General Convention - Clergy

What Can I contribute to this particular body?
At each of the four General Conventions as a deputy from our diocese I have served on the Committee for National and International Affairs, chairing the subcommittee on Warfare and the subcommittee on National Concerns.

Church Activities: Recently retired rector of St. Andrew’s, Saratoga, after almost 15 years, and newly-trained member of the Diocesan Team for Fresh Start, a national program for clergy and parishes in transition.

What major issues face the church today?
The integrity of the Episcopal Church nationally and within the worldwide Anglican Communion, as we claim our identity as an inclusive community of faith, welcoming to all perspectives; our continuing commitment to peace with justice and to the Millennium Development Goals.

I especially like the bit about an inclusive community of faith.  Ironic comming from a guy that feels the need to insult those that actually have faith.

Of course, the Anglican Communion is supposed to be committed to peace, justice and the Millenium Development Goals, but the Father, Son and Holy Spirit don’t rate a mention.  Even “Spirit” (without the “The Holy”) and The Divine Feminine don’t get a mention.

I especially like the bit about an inclusive community of faith.  Ironic comming from a guy that feels the need to insult those that actually have faith.

Give them a little time to sort out their language. My guess, either “of faith” will be omitted from such statements very soon, or more likely, an ‘s’ will be added: “of faiths.”

So how does he define faith?  The following gives some insight.  It also, incidently, demonstrates that it is possible for a liberal parish to get good numbers.

http://www.svcn.com/archives/saratoganews/11.26.97/CoverStory.html

People are looking for certainties, an underpinning within realism,” Cockrell says about the burgeoning church population in his care, adding that people’s focus on religion is reflected in the popular culture.

“Why are there so many programs on TV relating to angels?” he asks. “What do we trust in, what can we trust in? These are the questions people are asking themselves. That, after all, is what faith means—trust.”

And the Episcopal church, he points out, is based upon scripture, tradition and reason. “That allows all of us to think for ourselves, allows for great diversity.”

So what, exactly, do we has faith in?  Apparently our ability to think for ourselves.

Another way of approaching this might be through the notion of vocation. Jesus, apparently, wrestled with the meaning of his own vocation throughout his life. Insofar as we believe our vocation is somehow God-given, it is in our wrestling with how God’s purpose is to be fulfilled in each of us and how the incarnated Gifts of the Spirit are expressed in each of us that our shared incarnation with our Lord may be determined or expressed.?

There are subtleties here, and it is probably not helpful to close things down with old formularies without looking a bit closer. Shout outs to Peter and Ernest for sticking their theological necks out!!
Tom Woodward
DRG c; CSW 09

If you are in TEC and it bugs you, do something about it.

I’m not so I can’t.

If you are no longer in TEC, then what are you worried about?

Worried?  More like hopeful, actually.  Hopeful that TEC will do to this guy exactly what was done to Righter, which was officially, publically and undeniably declare his hetrodoxies to be not violating TEC core doctrine.  Because, after all, that is what TEC already thinks, so it would be nice if someone would put them in a spot where they are forced to be honest about it.

Intercessor, do I want to know who Peter is and what he said?

Sheep: I wish to bring this wolf up on charges!
Fox: On what grounds?
Sheep: Being a ravenous wolf and devouring the flock!
Fox: Why, Father Wolf would never do that!  What evidence do you have?
Sheep: Since you installed him as shepherd, the sheep have been disappearing at an alarming rate.  Also, his lips drip blood, bloody sheep skins have been found, and he grows fatter by the day.
Fox: That is just your simplistic, pathetic interpretation of what is actually Father Wolf’s fierce, self-sacrificing devotion to you!  Why, that must have been the blood of other sheep trying to draw you off into another fold by telling you disturbing lies about wolves!
Sheep: But, but, my mother was one of those vanished sheep!  I would know her scent anywhere, and that wolf was licking his lips just after she disappeared!
Fox: Begone!  Away with your lies before I cast you out of the fold to wander in the wild!  All Is Well!  Trust Father Wolf!

This is a day to remember—Fr Cockrell’s diatribe, the Buddhist bishop election, the divine feminine at Washington National Cathedral, and a Native American prayer to the four directions and Eagle dance at a Minnesota ordination, with Spong as a speaker.
Four in one day.  We are not sliding down a steep slope.  We have left land and are falling through the abyss.

AndrewA, if you post the lyrics of the “Sama Song,” I’ll never forgive you. :-( Well, I will ... but I’ll have to *work* at it.

Did someone say they wanted the “Llama Song”?  Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbPDKHXWlLQ

(It’s very Episcopalian in its profundity.)

#90 Utterly, utterly amazing that straight forward denial of Scriptural and credal orthodoxy could be obfuscated as “looking a bit closer”.

I can’t help but think of Yeats’ poem, “The Second Coming”. Yeats apocalyptically wondered in that poem what would come after the retreat of Christianity. In some members of TEC, I think we have begun to see.

Astounding statement.  Thanks for putting it up for all to see.  This pretty well buries the “but we’re fully orthodox!” line.

Alasdair, no longer +, can you download Mozilla Firefox?  That should solve your IE problems.  Dump it.

<i>Arianism, nothing new here, just a pathetic, simplistic, mis-interpretation of scripture. </a>
More like Socianism.

I would say a form of Adoptionism, perhaps close to that of Paul of Samosata.

Only much worse.

#94 Jill,

TEC is cavorting in the abyss, making friends with darkness.  It is a laughingstock among the denominations.

Compare the sort of tripe that comes from the Cockrell, the smudgers in the National Cathedral and the Buddhist bishop with the real message and you can see it for what it is - a faux message from faux priests in a faux church.

I would thoroughly commend Bishop Murdoch’s sermon for the Feast of the Transfiguration.  Spot on Bishop.

“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (Philipians 2: 5-8)

This is not from the Book of John.

This thread and the one about the self-made buddhist bishop are very wearing to the spirit. There is a total vacuum in the church leadership, isn’t there?

Accchhhhh. The devil’s only real power is that of deception, although he mastered that skill a very long time ago. This thread and the others can also be very strengthening to the spirit. Never give up.

Just who is the head of the church? It certainly is not the bishop-elect of the UP, or the PB or the ABp of C, or some foolish retired “priest” who denies the divinity of Jesus Christ.

While there’s a certain amount of negative pressure in temporal church leadership, particularly in certain dioceses and at the 815 offices, there is MOST CERTAINLY NOT a total vacuum. It just seems that way sometimes because the devil wants to make us think that we are being worn down, and that there is no hope.

The only real leadership that TEC has is the Devil himself.

I am curious. Where in the Chalcedonian Formula or any other Ecumenical document is it asserted that Jesus is God? Through the centuries we have made a distinction in referencing Jesus and Jesus Christ. I find it interesting that in all the teeing off on Ernest Cockrell, the assumption of the whole string is cockeyed.

I and the Episcopal Church stake the foundation of our theology on the traditional formulas of the Nicene Creed and the Council of Chalcedon. Does SFIF use a different standard?

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Tom,

Here is the Creed section that seems relevant:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven:

By the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.

Which part is confusing?  The “one Lord, Jesus Christ” or the “God from God…. true God from true God…” or the “one in Being with the Father”?  The rest of the HOBD list is embarassed by having to somehow defend Ernest, but clearly you aren’t.

So which part confuses you?

Here I am, trying to be charitable in my #10, and along comes Tom Woodward.

Mr. Woodward, are you, in fact, an idiot?

Has the following not survived the transition to your paganism, even as a façade?

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of
God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father
before all ages, Light of Light, True God of True
God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the
Father

“Light of Light, True God of True God … of one essence with the Father” asserts that Jesus is God.  Lord, have mercy.

TBW - I can’t speak for SFIF, but every clergy person ordained in TEC swore, in public, that s/he “believes the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, containing all things necessary to salvation.”  That’s a good standard right there, and those Scriptures affirm the divinity of Christ.  It isn’t just John, as Flatlander points out in #101.  See also Colossians 1:15-20. 

Look, it’s fine if you don’t believe all this Christian stuff - but why wear fancy titles and robes?  Why crave pretty buildings?  Why ask people to give money so that a bunch of you can fly here and there to disbelieve together. 

I’m sure you all write of Matthew 23 as “just anit-Semitism from the early church.”  See?  I went to seminary in TEC.  I know the game and the slogans.  But any ordained person who can read Mt. 23 and not be convicted about the excesses of clergy life is not worth the sheet of toilet paper to flush him/her away.

Question - are any of you good folks left in TEC going to file charges, or just complain?

Through the centuries we have made a distinction in referencing Jesus and Jesus Christ.

Who is “we?” That idea is not familiar to me. The word “we” only seems to make sense in the context of, “Throughout the centuries we heretics have made a distinction…”

This pseudoauthoritative statement sounds rather like an attempt at deception.

Rev Woodward, others have mentioned the Nicene Creed; how about the Athanasian (I assume that you still officially accept it authoritative in TEC, along with us Anglicans). I’ll quote it all (because it’s worth it), and highlight the parts of interest:

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are co-eternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

Ralph’s quote of Woodward reminds me that if “we have made a distinction in referencing Jesus and Jesus Christ,” Tom must be a Nestorian.

This is a great thread because it pulls out the truth that is so often obscured to the average person in the pews. A religion that views Jesus as solely human is not Christianity.

Festivus #109 - you raise a good question, which I would expand to be, “Are any of you good folks left in TEC going to network, connect Bishops, other clergy and lay people, protest to your Bishops, Standing Cmtes. and GC Deputies, call press attention to the spin coming out around this travesty, and get together a competent case and file charges?”

If the goal is to glorify God, we have a remarkable opportunity to be in the public eye, saying “People need salvation.  Jesus is the Savior.”  By just making the effort to rebut Thew Forrester, we can speak the Gospel “to those who are near and those who are far away.”

A wordy reply, yes - but my experience of “orthodox Anglicans” in and out of TEC is that too many want box seats, beer and peanuts while watching a gladiator or two get killed in the arena (after which the bloated fans blog about it with much passion).

So, Tom Woodward, do you, yes or no, also assert with Cockrell+ that:

All the I AM statements in John were the beliefs of the early Church, not Jesus’ words.

Yes or no.  I am asking you what you, Tom Woodward believe about the above statement. Yes or no.  Enough of your questions about which of the red herrings of so-called contradictions in Scripture (there are no real contradictions) that we believe, while you escape owning up to the bald facts of your unbelief in the full brightness and clarity of the light.

By the way, once again you ignore responding to direct questions about your beliefs that you prefer to go implied and never questioned or examined.  I refer to my questions to you in my comment #105 on the previous HOBD post:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/20502/#338253

Tom Woodward, I repeat my #33 above - you comment here because you love attention and playing the victim - much like the norm for TEC revisionists.

Apparently you have learned much from the gan.., er, Hispanic culture and social reform organizations you champion and defend.  Except your shanks are verbal, not metal, though they may leave an unwary victim bleeding self-worth and reputation, as you slip away from behind the ribs between which you have slipped your vauge slanderous insinuations.  Brad has defended himself quite well with the mere truth, though none of us here think for a minute that your accusations are any less a vapor than your self-acclamations.

Tom, please set us straight on doctrine instead of begging the question.  Just what specifically are your beliefs on:
* Whether Jesus had a human father also the son of a human father and mother
* Whether Jesus is divine, true God from true God, or is He only a vehicle to the divine, while not being divine Himself
* Whether Jesus’ risen body was “fully enfleshed”, solid to the touch (His disciples took hold of His feet and worshipped Him; “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended” not to scold Mary but to urge her to tell the others quickly, that He would not disappear like a hallucination) as He Himself said, “touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have”
* What really happened at the Ascencion?  Did Jesus leave this earth in a solid, tangible physical body to, as He put it for our limited understanding, sit at the right hand of the Father, to return at the time that then only the Father knew to begin His reign that now would never end?

These questions can be answered with “yes” or “no”.  Any other answer, no matter how detailed or deferring to your favorite authorities, that leaves any doubt as to your beliefs, is an evasion and a dodge, much more so than your accusations of others on comments above of evasion.
The church can and did and does err, and that is sufficient answer to your other questions about our beliefs.  Time to forward your clear, orthodox beliefs on the central Christology issues you so love to muddy.

Also, how dare you make Jesus accuser of forgiven and repentant, though sinful Christians, by stifling His words short and twisting their meaning? I refer to your comment #74:

<blockquote>Now, for your own orthodoxy. Do you believe that observance of the fullness of the Torah is required for those who follow Jesus? After all, Jesus said “not one jot or tittle of the Law. . .”

How you twist the meaning!

Matthew 5:17-20
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

The point Jesus is making in this passage, echoed by the whole New Testament, is that Jesus’ finished work on the cross is the end of righteousness from the Law for all who believe in Him.  All was fulfilled on the cross and at the empty tomb.

If we go a little farther in the same passage, we see that you, Tom Woodward, have some explaining to do.  In your #60 above, you write:

Brad (56) I am shocked that you would assert that I am not a follower of Jesus Christ. ... You, sir, in your accusations against me reveal yourself as a fool.

How free you are with your name-calling!  Now tell us why you disregard Jesus’ warning so lightly:

Matthew 5:21-22
21"You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ 22"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

Well?  We await your answers.  Perhaps this time you will not ignore the questions or bury them with a mountain of accusations or protestations of your certified orthodoxy.  I do not accuse you; your own words stand in stark contrast to Jesus’ words in the passage you wish to use as a verbal shank between the ribs.

[105] Posted by Milton on 02-21-2009 at 04:15 PM • top </blockquote>

We still await your answers, you, Tom Woodward.

Does SFIF use a different standard?

‘Scuse me, Tom.

Are you in fact asserting that Jesus Christ is not God?

Greg, I think that comment 104 deserves its own thread.  Priceless quotes like that should not be buried in obscurity but highlighted for all to see.

You didn’t pay attention, Greg. There is a “Jesus” and “Jesus Christ”. Other than that, Fr. Tom isn’t yet prepared to say anything definite about who either of these personages might be. Christians know, of course. But Fr. Tom, well, he finds it all very subtle and vexing.

Wow.

Just, wow.

I fear that those of you who are becoming exercised over the Rev. Woodward’s obfuscations, evasions and rationalizations are simply playing into his hands. Your interactions reward his psyche by allowing him to think that he can engage you in a battle of wits and, in his eyes, win that battle. It would be better for all concerned were each of you to do two things: <ol><li>Pray for an epiphany from the Lord for him, and</li>

<li>Send him to Coventry.</li></ol>

Fr. Woodward has become so accustomed to viewing everything through the lens of his own distal ileal mucosa that everything which appears normal to the ordinary eye appears distorted to his eye, and vice versa. Better for all concerned, I think, to leave him in isolation to reflect on the remnants of his own umbilicus with no reaction from others. And certainly better for our own spiritual health.

Blessings and regards,
Keith Toepfer

I dunno, MA, I think it is a good opportunity for us to practice our answers to the kind of crazy stuff he voices on behalf of the pagans to whom he’s sold out.

But you’re right about praying for an epiphany for him, and that we should not get too revved up as we frame our arguments.  Kata , not kumite .

In the responses to #104, nobody has yet taken up the challenge concerning Chalcedon:

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood;
truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body;
consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood;
in all things like unto us, without sin;
begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood;
one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;
the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ;
as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

I would be very interested to know how Rev Woodward would explain how the statement

Where in the Chalcedonian Formula or any other Ecumenical document is it asserted that Jesus is God? Through the centuries we have made a distinction in referencing Jesus and Jesus Christ.

or, indeed,

Jesus was not God, Gareth.
He was a human being on earth with a mind limited to the worldview of his
time.

121 & 120, after prayer and then practice a cease fire would bring some pleasant peace to SFiF.  TBW has consumed more than enough cycles with his fatuous soliloquy.  Broken record.  We can’t reset the needle, but we can mute the volume.

TBWSanteFe:

I am curious. Where in the Chalcedonian Formula or any other Ecumenical document is it asserted that Jesus is God?

The Council of Chalcedon’s dogmatic definition of the Hypostatic Union reads as follows:

THEREFORE, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge
one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,
at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood,
truly God and truly man,
consisting also of a reasonable soul and body;
of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead,
and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood;
like us in all respects, apart from sin;
as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages,
but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the Godbearer;
one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten,
recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation;
the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union,
but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence,
not as parted or separated into two persons,
but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ;
even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us,
and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

At the risk of playing Tom Woodward’s game, here is what the Chalcedonian Formula actually says:

Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; “like us in all things but sin.” He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.

Note: Not a distinction between Jesus and Christ, but “one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.”

And to answer Tom’s question: “Where in the Chalcedonian Formula or any other Ecumenical document is it asserted that Jesus is God?”

That would be the part that says “the same perfect in divinity . . . the same truly God . . . consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity.”

No surprise to any here I’m sure, I had to add Amens to both of my fellow L&B;bloggers’ recent comments here.

First re: Jill’s #94 - sadly true, sister.  And you forgot one item, though it’s CoE, so maybe you weren’t counting: but Bp. Hulme’s rant re: the CoE Synod motion re: evangelizing those of other faiths deeply saddened me.

And re: Fr. Tim’s #121, I agree with both his points.  Yes we need to be praying for Tom Woodward and other commenters like him, but also, I think the exercise of responding to his comments helpful.  I learn alot on some of these threads, which wouldn’t happen if we became an echo chamber where only those of us who agreed with one another commented here.

It’s a tough balance to find, not letting Woodward+ or others troll and totally divert a thread, but in some cases, he provides a very helpful foil and a very revealing glimpse into a worldview and belief system that most of us would never imagine were we not to read some of his comments here.  I agree his #104 is worthy of a posting separately for all to see…

#114 - thanks. As an new outsider, I cannot figure out why good folks staying would whine and do nothing. I’m no longer shocked by such drivel from TEC; but I am shocked that most good folks are not actively availing them to the rules before them to publicly refute it.

Re: doing something.  I’m in a weird “mostly out - partly in” status re: TEC.  My home church, Truro is long gone, but I’m still linked to a TEC parish in SE Florida.  I do intend to share my concerns with my rector and a few other friends.  Specifically I will encourage my rector to write the Bp. and Standing Committee and urge them to vote against consents for Forrester.

We should have a replay of the threads we had during the consent process for +Mark Lawrence where we posted names of Std. Committee members for each diocese and their contact info.  Those were examples of SF at its best.

However, at risk of getting slightly off topic, and also a bit too personal…, given that we’re on the eve of Lent, I have to confess that there is real truth to what Tim+ wrote about the temptation to be up in the gallery watching the gladiator fight while enjoying our popcorn.  (to mix metaphors!)  I confess part of me WANTS Forrester to get consents easily.  It’s that longing for clarity, or perhaps more accurately wanting the struggle to be over.  Wanting to be free to get on with sharing the Gospel and forging new partnerships with Global South parishes, dioceses and provinces who share the same evangelistic and missiological vision and goals without having to continue the mental and spiritual struggle for the soul and future of the Anglican Communion.  Part of me wants TEC’s apostasy to become SO notorious as to make it impossible for the AC not to act quickly.  I think there’s a real streak of Jonah in me.  And it saddens my heart to see my pride and my desire to see others get what I feel they deserve for their own sins, while I myself cling to God’s mercy.
Lord, forgive me.

episcopalienated and William Witt, thank you.

This has been an amazingly educational thread:  I have to admit I have never read the Chalcedonian Creed, and am better for having done so.  Thanks:  it’s great to be fed over my lunch break by more than Subways.

Also educational on TBW:  considering what those documents actually say (as posted above), the only way I can interpret his words in #104 is that he believes “Jesus Christ” refers to a non-corporeal deity separate in identity from “Jesus” the man who walked the earth teaching snuggly-bunny goodness.  Further, he implies that this is a long held “traditional” belief.

I have a hard time believing anyone would actually say such a patently ridiculous thing out loud, let alone let it be recorded for all time on the internet.  Is it possible TBW is actually an orthodox mole on a mission to make the revisionist side look as ludicrous as possible?  Could his claims to be certifiably orthodox just be a sly inside joke to his bible-loving overlords?

Karen B.  You are wise in so many things, and not alone. 

Part of me as well almost wants the consents as well because it would be a final stroke—for me.  And yet, the AC is not going to do a thing, much less quickly.  They have been handed lists of heresies.  What have they done?  Nothing.  What would even a handful of bishops not consenting do for those in their dioceses stuck in an organization so diseased that the thought of voting for this man is even conceivable.  That is where I wrestle.

Thank you, Karen, and Fr. Tim for reminding us of our ultimate weapon - prayer.

[121] Fr. Timothy,

You wrote [italics in original]

Kata not kumite.

I don’t disagree with that, although I sometimes have personal difficulty in treating it in that spirit. I have always tended to be either (a) sufficiently disinterested as to make anything beyond a polite token response more effort than I wished to invest, or (b) sufficiently invested in the question under discussion to apply a maxim I learned, I recall neither where nor when, paraphrased as follows:

I don’t play for money, I play for blood. And I have never believed in mixing business and pleasure.

I suppose that is one of the “qualities” that the Lord has not finished transforming in me, but there it is nonetheless.

Of course, I am making an assumption about your usage of the word kata, and guessing at the meaning of kumite. Having former and current friends who engage in the practice of Oriental martial arts, I have heard the first term many times. I believe that this is fortunate, as I suspect that you have made a (faulty) assumption about the meaning of my nom de blog. You might notice that it is not qualified by the adjective “oriental.” This is intentional, as the somewhat more appropriate adjective would be “occidental.” Think epee, not small sword or MILES¹, not rifle, would be the more apt expressions in my case.

God’s blessings and my kind regards,
Keith Toepfer, LCDR, USN [ret]

<hr length=“55”>
¹—The US military’s acronym for its rifle/pistol training system, Multiple Independent Laser Engagement System.

I think RoboDoc has it here:

Also educational on TBW:  considering what those documents actually say (as posted above), the only way I can interpret his words in #104 is that he believes “Jesus Christ” refers to a non-corporeal deity separate in identity from “Jesus” the man who walked the earth teaching snuggly-bunny goodness.

This is what I have read from the modern heretics.  “Jesus,” they say, was merely a man, but the “Resurrection event” made them realize how important his teachings were, and the church then made myths about “Jesus Christ” which are not literally true but contain important insights.  What is not explained is why anybody would bother with such a flabby and historically weak position, except that it makes them feel better, and keeps them from facing their own emptiness too squarely.

Another day, another faulty reading from SFIF. Please note that our creeds and the Chalcedonian formula do not state that “Jesus is God.” They all reference Jesus Christ as fully God and fully human. There is a reason for the distinction.

I am stunned that in affirming the creeds and the Chalcedonian formula that folks here are wanting to remind me of them!!!  Read what you have written—and keep in mind an ancient distinction. I know it is a primary mission here to stay on the attack, no matter what the evidence or what has been written by your target—but this level of misunderstanding???

Tom,

Ernest Cockrell said “Jesus was not God.”  Do you agree, or disagree, with that statement?

Is that too complicated?

How does one reconcile “fully God” and “not God?”

So to be clear: Jesus Christ as fully God does not mean the same as Jesus is God? Fully and is are interchangeable.

Fr. Tom, what a lot of smoke and bells and whistles and incense. With nothing at all under them.

Well, I’m out of here for the duration of Lent, and this thread is really helpful in capping my curiosity for just how bad things can get in TEC.  I have my answer.

My question is, why doesn’t the man just get a job at Home Depot or something?  It’s like staying in the classroom when you don’t like kids.  Some people will do anything for a paycheck.  I will pray for this man tonight and the poor souls in his flock.

Is TEC the reincarnation of the Tower of Babble (pun intended?  Never a straight answer.  No clear statement.  No Covenant.  No creed.  No faith.      NO HOPE!

Do you suppose, just maybe, there’s an outside chance some of these more jaw-dropping and horrific non-Christian statements are made by Episcopalians with an evil sense of humor, just because they think Stand Firm might pick them up and chew them to death with OUTRAGE?

I have heard it said that we cannot say “Jesus is God” because that would locate all of God the Son in one man, or something like that.  It was a very fine theological distinction being made, and I suppose that it has some merit.  To avoid such quibbles, I usually say that Jesus is God the Son incarnate in human flesh.

But Cockrell is denying that Jesus was anything other than an especially wise human being.  He denies that Jesus was the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity in any way.  I imagine that Cockrell does not believe in the reality of the Trinity, either, except perhaps in a modalistic way: “We experience God in three ways.”

Cockrell is as bad as the Buddhapalian elected bishop of the UP.  He denies the core of the Christian faith - and decries those who uphold it as ignorant and simple-minded.  If he had the slightest degree of integrity, he would renounce his priesthood.

Please note that our creeds and the Chalcedonian formula do not state that “Jesus is God.” They all reference Jesus Christ as fully God and fully human.

Once again TBWSantaFe presents a strawman argument.  Nobody said that, “Jesus is God.”  Ernest Cockrell said that, “Jesus is not God.”  To say that Ernest is wrong is not the same as, “Jesus is God.”

Please note that our creeds and the Chalcedonian formula do not state that “Jesus is God.”

Seems that it is necessary for me to quote from the Athanasian creed again:
the Son is God; Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man. How much clearer do you want it? Twice it explicitly says that `Jesus is God.’ (Unless you are saying that Jesus is not the Son, in which case it is only once).

Also, the title of the Virgin, theotokos is pretty clear. I usually hesitate to use Mother of God because of the consequences to Marian devotion when it is misinterpreted (sorry, mad protestant here), but I’m begining to see why it became so popular.

They all reference Jesus Christ as fully God and fully human. There is a reason for the distinction.

I really struggle to follow your logic. None of us here is denying that Jesus is fully human. And none of us, when we say `Jesus is God’ are confusing God the Son with God the Father (or the Holy Spirit). The point is when you are saying `Jesus is not God’ (or an equivalent) you are fairly clearly denying that he is fully God. One cannot be fully God without also being God. You seem to saying something equivalent to `A banana is both fully a fruit and fully coloured yellow, therefore it is not a fruit,’ which is rather strange reasoning (possibly an inappropriate example, but hopefully you get my point).

FWIW, Tom (TBW) and Ernest are good friends and were in the same colleague group for years. 

Tom I admire your defense of your friend, although it is difficult to do as Ernest really does mean what he says, and says clearly what he means.

I like Ernest too, although I find his theology lacking the essentials of basic Christianity.

Soapbox Warning

Last night after I went to bed, I stayed awake a long time thinking about the mess the country is in and the mess my church is in and how interrelated both are.

Moral fiber of any sort seems to be fast disappearing. The sort of moral fiber that makes people suck it up and sacrifice. We’ve had it too good, for too long, and I think that prosperity and the very seductive greed, lust, etc., that came with it hollowed out our best defense against it—the church. You couldn’t keep people coming to church in prosperous times if you kept telling them that sin is real and personal and deadly to the soul. “Greed” couldn’t be our wish to have a house 2/3 again bigger than we could afford, could it? We’re all such nice people, why would we sit in the pew and listen to readings and sermons about a challenging God who loves us but keeps finding fault with us. We’ve lusted after neighbors’ spouses and had flings and been sexually liberated and everybody is doing it, it’s the culture - how could it be wrong? Everybody gets over it? And rectors and preachers have allowed themselves a go at all those deadly sins too, so it’s hypocritical of the thrice-divorced priest to warn us about lust, isn’t it?

So “sin” became “social justice” and that was so much better. We could all sit around talking about what *everybody else* was doing wrong and it was just like a political rally or something. Instead of the sin that accuses each of us, we could *all* accuse someone else: the government, right-wing politicians, left-wing politicians.

And caring for our brother became a matter of writing checks, lobbying Congress - not that uncomfortable stuff of giving a man in the street on a winter night a warm hat and being faced with all his needs that were so much greater than warmth and wondering how much you could do for him, how much God expected you to do for him.

Seminaries turned to justice issues, which seem most often to mirror marxist politics. A violent Latin gang is the privileged voice for Hispanics rather than our good-hearted, hard-working, church-going neighbors.

And I kept thinking of things Jesus (that would be Jesus Christ, the son of God, true God of true God, in case Fr. Tom is reading and gets confused) said and how *personal* He made it.

Jesus didn’t tell us to start a revolution - social or governmental. He told us to love Him and let our lives be changed. He told us to love our brothers. It’s so much easier to man a barricade than to sit down with that hatless man on a cold night and see what can be done. It’s so much easier to stir up a Letter Writing Campaign and Man the Barricades (or carry a nifty placard and spend a month in jail being hailed as a hero), than it is to spread the love of Christ, invite others to be changed by Him, allow Him to change us.

He said: “35 For I was an hungered, and you gave me meat: I was thirsty, and you gave me drink: I was a stranger, and you took me in: 36 Naked, and you clothed me: I was sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we you an hungered, and fed you? or thirsty, and gave you drink? 38 When saw we you a stranger, and took you in? or naked, and clothed you? 39 Or when saw we you sick, or in prison, and came to you? 40 And the King shall answer and say to them, Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me.”

For 21st and late 20th Century Americans, the personal was too much, it brought God and our neighbors too close. It demanded things of us like submission, patience, awareness of the needs of the people we see every day. It didn’t bring us power, wealth, gratification of our vanities, lusts and gluttony.

And our churches have gutted the church, demanding nothing, not even faith in any particular thing. They have kept the ” personal” in one thing - the “faith journey” that we each have through however many trendy faiths we choose to take on. A “faith journey” that isn’t expected to be the shared Christian Journey, but a little potpourri of belief that fails to do justice to any of the faiths involved, twisting them all to the self.

Would it have helped if the church had continued firmly its call to discipline and change of life through the giddy 60s on? It would at least have meant that the church had been faithful and done the work of the Lord.

When we feel the cost of a loss of moral fiber, where do we turn? To priests egging us to support street gangs or try a little Buddha with that caffe latte? The people who need us, down the street, next door, those uncomfortable people are still there, still hungry, still thirsty.

TBW,
Control your use of punctuation long enough to have a civil conversation.  You appear to be screaming at people.

I do not pretend to any titles, certainly none I would trumpet here to convince others of my worthiness to be heeded—reminds me of Margaret Thatcher’s comment that “Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.”  But I know what faithful clergy in many parishes and several countries have taught me for all of my 50 years, and what I know from my plain reading of scripture, and the use of my own reason.

Jesus is God.  That’s why they killed Him, and it’s why people like you continue to try to kill Him.  It’s why the Apostles and Martyrs suffered horribly and died—for the truth that Jesus is God.

You embarrass yourself.  On what basis do you clazim authority to speak of the things of God?  By virtue of ordination into the church of Christ and by His words in scripture which you deny?

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. 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.  1 John 4:1-3

Since you have all kinds of reasons to explain that those words don’t really mean what they plainly say, I’ll quote another spiritual authority which you no doubt consider more authoritative:
“Begone now!  Before someone drops a house on you, too!”  Glenda, Good Witch of the North

Boring Bloke, I don’t think Tom is thinking we deny that Jesus is fully human. 

I think what Tom is trying to say is “Jesus” was a man, and that “Jesus Christ” is a figment of early Christian’s imaginations, i.e. we added on the belief that He is God, that Jesus the man never said it or believed it. I.E. Jesus does not equal Jesus Christ.

Thus if the Creed say Jesus Christ, “only son of the Father, very God from very God,” etc. it does not say the real man Jesus is the Son of the Father or God, but that early Christians who made up “Jesus Christ” claimed Him to be son of the Father, etc.

Tom, have I got what you’re trying to say figured out?

Don’t you all understand that the modern translation of “I AM” is “Me, me, me”?

Try the Athanasian Creed (so-called) else known as the Quincunque vult, T from Santa Fe.  It was written for clarification of folks like you.  That “perfectly human and perfectly God” bit, especially.  Why, those old Christians even made reference to Jesus Christ as “touching his Godhead and touching his Manhood”.  Now, Tom, remember that words have meanings and mean them.  Tough, but I’m sure you can handle it.

oscewicee, thank you for that.

#151, Ditto.  I second your thanks to oscewicee for comment #146.

And our churches have gutted the church, demanding nothing, not even faith
in any particular thing.

I would disagree.  TEC has managed, for now, to visibly change one very small, miniscule, increasingly irrelevant corner of the “Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church;” approximately 1.5 million out of 2.5 billion Christians in the world.  If you go ahead and lump in ALL of the rest of the revisionists, ELCA, UCC, etc. you MIGHT come up with a total of 5+ million.  A tiny tiny number in the grand sweep of Christianity that encompasses this wondrous globe of ours.
So be of good cheer.  Their mendacity looks huge and monolithic from the inside, but truly they would be hard pressed to fill that small crack in the ground that C.S. Lewis said encompassed all of Hell in “The Great Divorce.”  There are millions and millions of Christians who have never head of TEC, and who will live their entire lives without being the least bit affected by KJS, DBB and their dark minions.  Their influence wanes, they become smaller and smaller.  They are being pruned. 
What it all comes down to, is: “Relax: God is in Control.”

Attention Orthodox!  You will never be smart enough to get what Tom and his gang “really” mean.  It is apparently an IQ deficit, coupled with an obvious lack of proper education, that cannot be overcome.

Just acknowledge him and his peeps as your intellectual, and theological betters, and back slowly out of the thread.

I don’t think Tom is thinking we deny that Jesus is fully human.

At the moment, I’m struggling to understand what Tom is thinking. He has given 2 posts so far, neither of which go into detail and both of which are self-contradictory. Your summary is fairly clearly Ernest W. Cockrell’s position, and equally clearly some gentile version of the Ebionite heresy (or possibly some extreme Arian, Adoptionist or Nestorian position; difficult to be sure based just on that one quote). But Tom is claiming that what he believes is consistent with Chalcedon and the creeds, which rules out that option.

“We never doubted that your unorthodox opinions were honestly held.  What we complain of is your continuing your ministry after you have come to hold them.”

C. S. Lewis
Christian Apologetics
GOD IN THE DOCK

In the end, the entire debate over the future of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion gets down to one question:
Who do you say I am?

All of the other issues could be succesfully addressed among those whose hearts hold the right answer to that question. For those that don’t, dialogue on the other church issues is futile.  We should evangelize them, but cannot yoke ourselves to them spiritually.

Yeah, even add up the official bloated “membership” numbers in the United States of UCC, DoC, UMC, TEC, PCUSA, and ELCA…and you still only have…around 17 million…the population of only part of Scandinavia…then there’s around 250-300 million Orthodox…1.25 billion Roman Catholics…75 million Anglicans…and not far behind are world Baptists, Pentecostals, and other conservative Protestants like conservative Lutherans, Wesleyan/Methodists, Churches of Christ/Independent Christian Churches, etc…2.5 billion traditional Christians.

So be of good cheer.

Pilgrim, well said. I should have made clear that in referring to “the church” I meant *my* church and the other “mainline denominations” that have responded to the siren song of the secular. I thank God for the holy and good people of other Christian faiths and to the faithful who yet remain in TEC, the Presbyterian Church, the Lutheran Church, the Methodist Church, who continue to let Christ’s light shine. They offer sustenance to us all.

My point was not despair, only what seems to me my better understanding of what has happened and where we have fallen out of the boat, missing Christ’s clear call.

Although I am often frustrated by my lack of acumen in various manners and disciplines, I guess I should be happy. The scriptures would seem to indicate this.

“At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven…. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”

“Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you,the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you.”

” For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.”

Hmmmm….humble little children, tax collectors, prostitutes, the foolish, the weak, the low, the despised - I suppose that if I were to appeal to my worldly credentials, my great wisdom, my achievements, my high standing, I wouldnt get much traction out of it. But it seems that I’m standing on some pretty firm ground in the kingdom of God.

Become humble like a child, Tom.

Observer, TOUCHE’

Jesus in orthodox Chalcedonian thought is a single person, with two natures, both fully God and fully man, without division, confusion, mixture or separation. Thus the single person, Jesus, may truthfully be described as God. Indeed the Scriptural claim that “Jesus is Lord” carries this meaning and Christian worship of Jesus would be incomprehensible were this not so.

To divide Christ into two persons is obviously heretical.

I’ve sadly come to the view that there is little point in engaging in debate with the progressive activists. I think two tactics are helpful:

1. Calmly point out the truth of the matter: that is bear witness to the faith of the church.
2. Parody - many such folks care little about the truthfulness of theological ideas - and redefine words and arguments as an when it suits - but are very, very prickly about status. What the current crisis really demands is a Jonathan Swift.

drive8, oh for a Jonathan Swift!

Um… It would appear that NO MAINSTREAM MEDIA OUTLET has picked up the story of the Episcopal Buddhist bishop-elect of the Diocese of Northern Michigan!  His name is Kevin Thew Forrester

Religious Intelligence
The Living Church
Christian Newswire / the IRD

and the blogs are all over it.

But my latest search of Google News reveals NOTHING from the non-religious press. Wow.  The election was Saturday.

The Episcopal Life story has NO MENTION of the controversy about his Buddhism!!!!

If any of you feel like forwarding this news to reporters with whom you have contact, here are key links and background:

http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=3964

http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2009/2/23/northern-michigan-elects-christian-buddhist-bishop

http://www.earnedmedia.org/ird0223.htm

Key links here at Stand Firm include these:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/20611
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/19901
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/19887
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/11832

And DON’T MISS THIS THREAD which is what got the Dio. of Northern Michigan on most conservative Anglicans’ radar screen back in Oct. 2007:  http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6799

I should note that the comment I posted above is an e-mail I sent out to some folks who are involved in media.  I titled it “The Sound of Crickets Chirping… or is that One Hand Clapping?”

It will be interesting to see if the media picks this up.  If not, they are truly hypocritical and it will prove that it is THEY who are focused solely on sexuality issues, not orthodox Anglicans!

To the basics: The Episcopal Church and I as a part of it proudly believes in the Lordship of the Risen Christ. We believe that Jesus Christ is fully human and fully Divine, as stated in the historic creeds and formularies of the Christian Church.

Milton, I will be happy to respond to you by email - your questions are good ones and I will be happy to respond if that is what you like. My email is (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

I was asked if I believe that the “I AM” statements in John represent the authentic words of Jesus. I believe the deeper question has to do with the origin and purpose of the Fourth Gospel. Most of the scholarship I have seen and trust holds that these statements reflect the experience, belief and trust of the church, rather than statements of Jesus (earlier accounts have him struggling with his identity, often using the ambiguous term “Son of man.” My standing in the Body of Christ does not stand or fall on my judgment here—neither does yours. We are, as St. Paul notes, saved through Grace through faith.

An addendum: While you may be critical of the content of Ernest Cockrell’s statements and sermons, I can assure you that Jesus Christ has blessed his ministry over and over again. Those who have been fortunate to be involved with direct ministry with Fr. Cockrell—both progressives and conservatives—know about the integrity of his belief and about his absolute devotion to Jesus Christ.

I would hope for all who are loyal to SFIF the same regard by your peers.

I am not so sure there is anymore to say at the “table of coversational dialogue”.  Like Baby Blue Anglican said in a recent article on her blog, TEC maintains the “facades” of the church like the buildings on K Street in D.C….the front facades are all that remains of the historic buildings…but look above and you see the towering office building right behind…you can’t see the Truth until you look down and see that it’s all pretense with no depth…the stamp of the past only in appearance.  TEC may officially have some tradition on paper, but not many pay heed. 

Also…have any of you noticed that many revisionists refrain from the stand-alone name “Jesus”?  That is His personal Name…most can only handle his TITLE “Christ”.  Just throwing that out there.

“Let There Be Light”

“In The Beginning” The Creator(Our Father) said,
    “Let There Be Light, and There Was Light”

              “LIGHT Begets Light!”
  “The Beginning of The Creation of GOD!”

And the revelation that The Messiah received of
The Creator and gave unto the apostle John bore
witness to The Truth that The Messiah, was
“The Beginning of the Creation of GOD(Our
Father, Creator of ALL)”! (Rev 1:1, 3:14)

And The Messiah bore witness to His Brethren
when He testified, “My GOD is your GOD and My
Father(Creator) is your Father(Creator).”(Jn 20:17)

The Messiah testified “I have sent My angel to
you with this testimony for the assemblies. I am
the root and the offspring of David. I am the bright,
Morning Star(Light)”! (Rev 22:16) ) Peter testified
“We have the more sure word of prophecy; and
you do well to take heed, as to a lamp shining in a
dark place, until the day dawns, and The Morning
Star(Light) arises in your hearts.”(2Pt 1:19)  “But
you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood,
a holy nation, HIS own special people, that you
may proclaim the praises of HIM who called you
out of darkness into His marvelous Light.”(1Pt2:9)

And the evening(darkness) and The Morning
(Light) was the First Day.” (Gen 1:5)

“Let There Be Light”!

“The Beginning of The Creation of GOD”!

It is very important to both know and experience
The Messiah as He Is, Was and always Will Be,
and also to know the “glory He had with Our
Father” before He was born in “the likeness of
sinful flesh”. (John 17:5, Rom 8:3) For what The
Messiah Was and Is, Is that which He will always
Will Be.“The Only Begotten Son” of “Our Father”!

First, let me simply state that I do not believe the
“catholic” and “christian” theo’ry’logical doctrines
concerning “The Only True GOD, Father ALL”. For
they “image"ine a three-headed “god” they call
their “trinity”, or they declare their “christ” to be
their “god and father”, or they believe that The
Messiah was but an exalted messenger(angel)
or prophet.

John The Baptist testified, “And I saw, and bare
record that The Messiah is the Son of GOD(Our
Father).”(John 1:34) Peter testified, “You are The
Messiah, The Son of The Living GOD(Father of
ALL)”!(Matt 16:16) And the Ethiopian eunuch
testified, “I believe that The Messiah is The Son
of GOD(Our Father)”. (Acts 8:37) “Seeing then
that we have a great high priest, that is passed
into the Heavens, The Messiah, The Son of
GOD(Our Father), let us hold fast our profession.” 
(Heb 4:14) “These things are written so that you
might believe that The Messiah is The Son of GOD
(Our Father)”. (John 20:31) The Messiah testified
that He was “The Son of GOD”, and that His GOD
was “The Only True GOD(Father of ALL)”.
(John 10:36,17:3)

And The Messiah also testified that He was the
“Son of man” and “The Light of the world”.
(Matt 26:64, John 8:12)

It is needful to believe that The Messiah Was, Is
and always Will Be “The Son of The Living GOD”,
and that there is but “One GOD, HE WHO is
Father of ALL”. (Mat 16:16, Eph 4:6) The Messiah
bore witness to His Brethren when He testified
after being “raised from among the dead”, “My GOD
is your GOD and My Father(Creator) is your Father
(Creator)” (John 20:17)

Is The Messiah’s GOD and Father your GOD
and Father?

Who are The Brethren of The Messiah?

“Let There Be Light”

Once again, It is very important to both know and
experience The Messiah as He Was, Is and always
Will Be. The Messiah simply testified in John 17:5
“And now O Father, glorify Me with YOUR own self
with the glory that I had with YOU before the world
began”.

Prior to that testimony The Messiah had testified,
“Yet a little while is The Light with you. Walk while
you have The Light, lest darkness comes upon
you: for he that walks in darkness does not know
where he goes. While you have Light, believe in
The Light, that you may be the children of Light.”
(John 12:35-36)

And the apostle John testified: “In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with GOD, and
The Word was GOD. (John did not testify that
The Word is GOD)The same was in the beginning
with GOD. All things were made by Him, and
without Him was not any thing made that was
made.  In Him was Life; and The Life was The
Light of men. And The Light shined in darkness;
and the darkness comprehended it not. There
was a man sent from GOD, whose name was
John. The same came for a witness, to bear
witness of The Light, that all men through Him
might believe. He(John the baptist) was not that
Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
That was the True Light, which enlightens every
man that comes into the world. He(The Messiah)
was in the world, and the world was made by
Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto
His own, and His own received Him not. But as
many as received Him, to them He gave power
to become the sons of GOD, even to them that
believe on His name: Which were born, not of
blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will
of man, but of “The Only True GOD, Father of
ALL”.” (John 1:1-13)

It is needful to realize that The Messiah testified
of “The Only True GOD” in John 17:3, and so it is
that The GOD and Father of The Messiah IS,
WAS and always WILL BE “The Only True GOD”.

“The Only True GOD” is “Father of ALL”.

And “The Father of ALL” is “Our Father”, HE WHO
IS “The Only True GOD” and Father of The Messiah
and His Brethren.

And the apostle John testified in John 3:17-21:
“For Our Father sent not his Son into the world
to condemn the world; but that the world through
Him might be saved. He that believes on Him is
not condemned: but he that believes not is
condemned already, because he has not believed
in the name of the only begotten Son of GOD(Our
Father). And this is the condemnation, that Light is
come into the world, and men loved darkness
rather than Light, because their deeds were evil.
For every one that does evil hates The Light,
neither comes to The Light, lest his deeds should
be reproved. But he that does Truth comes to The
Light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that
they are wrought in GOD(Our Father).”

In John 12:34 the people asked, “Who is this Son
of man? Then in John 12:35-36, “The Messiah said
unto them, yet a little while is The Light with you.
Walk while you have The Light, lest darkness come
upon you: for he that walks in darkness does not
know where he goes. While you have Light, believe
in The Light, that you may be the children of Light.
The Messiah spoke these things, and departed,
and hid Himself from them.”

Simply, “In The Beginning” The Only True GOD
spoke The Word, “Let There Be Light”, “And there
was Light”! “And there was evening(darkness) and
there was morning (Light), The First Day”. (Gen 1:5)
Certainly such “Light” was not “natural” light, for
“natural” light, the sun, moon, and stars were not
created until the “fourth day”. (Gen 1:14-19)

“In the beginning”, “The First Day”, The Father of
All created “The Light”, without which Creation and
Life, as we now know and experience it, could not
have been.

The First Day, “The Light”, The Messiah, “The
beginning of the Creation of GOD(HE WHO is
The Only True GOD and Father of ALL)”!
(Gen 1:3, Rev 3:14, John 17:3, Eph 4:6)

And “The Only True GOD” created all “things” by,
through, and for “The Light”, The Messiah, “The
Son of The Living GOD” and “Son of man”.
(Col 1:15, Eph 3:9, Mat 16:16, Mat 12:32)

LIGHT begets Light!

And “The True Light which enlightens every man
coming into the world”, was born as a child
destined to be The Messiah. (John 1:9, Mat 1:21)

The Messiah, “The Light of the world”.
(John 8:12, 9:5)

The Messiah, “The firstborn of every creature
(all creation)”. (Col 1:15)

The Messiah, “Begotten of Our Father”,
“The firstborn among many Brethren”.
(Heb 1:5) (Ps 2:7) (Rom 8:29)

The Messiah, “A servant of The Only True GOD
(Father of ALL)”. (Isa 42:1-7)

The Messiah, “The Lamb of GOD”.
(John 1:29,36)

The Messiah, “The firstborn from among the dead”.
(Col 1:18)

Once again: “In The Beginning” Our Father, “The
Only True GOD” spoke: “Let there be Light, and
there was Light”! The Messiah, “The Beginning of
the Creation of GOD”, “the firstborn of every
creature(all creation)”. (Gen 1:3, John 17:3,
Rev 3:14, Col 1:15)

Thanks Be To “Our Father”!

The Messiah, The Creation of “The Only True
GOD, Father of ALL”! (Rev 3:14)

The Messiah, “made so much better than the
angels”! (Heb 1:4)

The Messiah, “The Light of the world”!
(John 8:12, 9:5)

“The Lamb of GOD”, “The Light of The New
Heavenly Jerusalem”! (Rev 21:22-23)

Paul experienced “The Light ” on the road to
Damascus. “And it came to pass, that, as I
made my journey, and came near unto
Damascus about noontime, suddenly a great
Light from Heaven shone round about me.
And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice
saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why do you
persecute Me? And I answered, “Who are
You, Master”? And He said unto me, I am
Yehowshuwa’(Yeshua, Jeshua) of Nazareth,
Whom you persecute. And they that were
with me saw The Light, and were afraid; but
they did not hear the voice of Him that spoke
to me. And I said, “What shall I do, Master”?
And He said unto me, arise and go into
Damascus, and there you shall be told all
things which are appointed for you to do.
And when I could not see for the glory of
that Light, I was led by the hand into
Damascus.” (Acts 22:6-11)

Paul also testified, “At midday I saw in the
way a Light from Heaven, ABOVE THE
BRIGHTNESS OF THE SUN, shining round
about me and those who journeyed with me.
Continued @
http://asimpleandspirituallife.blogspot.com/2008/06/let-there-be-light.html

“We are, as St. Paul notes, saved through Grace through faith”

Faith in what, exactly, Tom?

I don’t share the same faith as someone that does not believe that Jesus is God and that believes that he was a finate and fallible man with a mind limited to the worldview of his
time.

Tom, do you believe that Jesus is God?  Yes or No.

Clergy have a responsibility to teach the core truths about God as the church has received them. Indeed the baptismal covenant is predicated upon an affirmation of the truth about the character and being of God - without which the other affirmations in the covenant become groundless. Thus the church rightly asks even its lay members to acknowledge and affirm their commitment to the essential truth about God as the church has received it.

It’s heartbreaking to hear clergy teach error about the very essentials of faith. It is profoundly discouraging to see such teaching uncorrected or even encouraged.

Father Ernest’s musings are clearly in error about an essential matter of faith. In other words, he holds as truthful an idea that is false. It would be compassionate to both those who hear such erroneous teaching and to himself if he were to be lovingly persuaded of his error. Of course God rains down his mercies on the creation that he so loves. I’m delighted to hear of the love that God has shown to Father Ernest. I suggest it would be yet another blessing if he were persuaded to understand the truth about Christ more deeply.

The bottom line appears to be that Fr. Tom, in #166 and #167 above, won’t explain his beliefs.  If they are, as he says, fully consistent with the historic creeds, then he cannot agree with Fr. Ernest that Jesus is not God, but he won’t say so.

Tom, you can’t have it both ways.  Either all of the Bible is true, an accurate copy and then translation of what the original human authors wrote, and is the plenary verbally inspired, inerrant word of God to man, or none of it is reliable, and we should put it aside and look elsewhere to find hope instead of despair, meaning instead of meaninglessness, love instead of self-interest, eternal life instead of inevitable and final death.

Either the apostle John is true and recorded Jesus’ words accurately, or he is a liar, and the whole early church was complicit in the lie.  God took the truth seriously in His church, to the point of striking dead Ananias and Saphira because they had lied to the Holy Spirit, not to men but to God.  John is frank about his purposes and about his veracity:
John 20:28-31; 21:24-25
28Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” 30Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. ...
24This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. 25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

The term “son of man” reflects no ambiguity about nor struggle with His identity by Jesus whatsoever.  It simply asserts His full humanity, inherited from Mary.  The term “Son of God” asserts His full divinity, just as Gabriel made clear to Mary at the Annunciation, saying He would called “son of the Most High”, a title every Jew would instantly ascribe to no one but YWHW, the LORD God.  That he was called the “son of David” affirms His Messianic office and also his office as the promised successor to David as the true King of Israel.

If Jesus was not and is not God, then He is a demon, for He accepted worship several times, something even the angel who revealed many of the visions of the Revelation to John rejected, with fear, saying “worship God”.

So the scholarship you have seen and trust holds that the church inserted the I AM statements in John and that Jesus did not say them.  On what grounds?  By what evidence?  By what rebuttal to the assertions of truth by the apostles, all but 2 of whom were martyred for refusing to back down from saying “Jesus is Lord”?  The group that produced the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (which I recommend highly to all), wrestled together over these same issues, in great detail, with affirmations of the truth about the truth and reliability of the written Word and denials of the denials of the same.

I am somewhat heartened to hear you at least say for yourself that you believe Jesus is fully human and fully divine, though you seemed to divide His 2 natures earlier rather than agreeing with the church’s belief that the 2 natures are seamlessly united in ONE, count ‘em, one person, rather than a human non-divine Jesus over here and a divine non-human Jesus Christ over there.  But many of the clergy at all levels of the Episcopal church do not share your stated belief, including Ernest Cockrell+ in his own published words.  But they must speak for themselves, as ultimately must we all.

Karen B., #164/165, good for you!  The Buddhist bishop should be in the news.

Like C.S. Lewis syllogized in his Trilemma:

The trilemma is often summarized either as “Lunatic, Liar, or Lord”, or as “Mad, Bad, or God”. The premises are as follows.

(If): Jesus claimed to be God.
(Then): One of the following must be true.
1-Lunatic: Jesus was not God, but he mistakenly believed that he was.
2-Liar: Jesus was not God, and he knew it, but he said so anyway.
3-Lord: Jesus is God.

Jesus is God…denying his unique divinity and calling him just a good teacher and prophet is disjointed.

#170, AndrewA,

Please don’t hold your breath for an answer to your #170.  TBW is completely incapable of providing a yes or no to your second question there.  Thanks for trying (and others, too)!

Revisionist “doctrine” is whatever suits their individual tastes at any given moment.  It would be easier for a toddler to understand the whole US tax code than for any to grasp any actual truth in the gnostic, plastic dogma of a revisionist.

Andrew A (170). Do I believe that Jesus Christ is all that the Nicene, Apostles and Athanasian creeds say He is? Yes. Unqualifiedly, Yes!  Do these creeds affirm that “Jesus is God?” No, and for good reason. You have plenty of very bright people who can tell why - I don’t understand why they don’t jump in here.

Further, you will find my description of how we are saved repeated over and over again in Paul’s writings. When you read Paul’s letters and come across the phrase “saved by Grace through faith,” just say to yourself “Ah, this is what the Episcopal Church believes, too!”

Milton, the Anglican tradition long ago distanced itself from your understanding of the authority of the Bible and its interpretation. I do not think there are any mainline Biblical scholars of the past one hundred years (probably longer) who believe that either all of the Bible is true or none of it is true. That doesn’t mean that you are unwelcome in the Episcopal Church (or the Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, United Methodist, etc. churches), but your position is very much in the minority in any mainline Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican or Protestant traditions.

Athanasius, I am aware that my response to #170 will be unsatisfactory to you. I believe no response will be satisfactory to you—and that is because I think this is a game you and others play. In Eric Berne’s “Games People Play,” the game is called “Yes, But.” It is an unhealthy game for either side to play. The structure of the game has you and others asking for clarification or explanation and then, when one is provided, to ask for more and more clarifications ad nauseum.

One thing for all to reflect upon: where are all those who assert themselves as scholars of the Bible and of Christian theology when I am being attacked on grounds they well know are wrong? Dr. Witt, Oscewicee (sp) and others jump right in to criticize and often attack, but lie low when someone is attacked on grounds they know are baseless. Interesting, no?

RE:  “I would hope for all who are loyal to SFIF the same regard by your peers.”

If my peers are clueless, or heretics, or apostate, then their opinions be damned.

RE:“Do these creeds affirm that “Jesus is God?” No, and for good reason.”

<center>And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God,
Begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
Very God of very God,
Begotten, not made,
Being of one substance with the Father

And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity
in Unity,
neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.
For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son,
and another of the Holy Ghost.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one,
the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.</center>

Hmmm ... Houston we have a problem ...

Oscewicee (sp) and others jump right in to criticize and often attack, but lie low when someone is attacked on grounds they know are baseless. Interesting, no?

I have never claimed to be a scholar, not on this list! But I sure haven’t heard any “baseless” attacks on you. I do hear the very self-approving goings-on of a man who loves to gut meanings and stand them on their head and stretch them into clowny faces.

As for those who are scholars, I suspect they have grown very weary of your “dialogues”.

Do these creeds affirm that “Jesus is God?” No, and for good reason. You have plenty of very bright people who can tell why - I don’t understand why they don’t jump in here.

The creeds do not state (quote)Jesus is God (unquote).  By stating, as does the Chalcedonian formulation (quote) one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood,truly God and truly man (unquote), and, as does the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed (quote)We believe in . . . one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father (unquote), the creeds are affirming that Jesus is God.  When Chalcedon states that the virgin Mary is theotokos, Chalcedon is affirming that Jesus is God.

The short answer to why this is the case can be found in the Communicatio Idiomatum as well as the doctrines of anhypostasis and enhypostasis. The long answer is found in Athanasius’ dictum: Whatever propositions are true of the Father also are true of the Son, except that the Father is Father and not Son and that the Son is Son and not Father.”

When Nicea says of the “One Lord Jesus Christ” . . . “God from God, true God from true God,” it is affirming that Jesus is God.  When Chalcedon says of “one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ” . . . “truly God and truly man,” it is affirming that Jesus is God.

To claim that one endorses Nicea and Chalcedon while stating that it is improprer to affirm that Jesus is God is either to indicate that one does not understand what it means to predicate one thing of another, or else it means that one is dishonest.  To be clear: the orthodox answer to the question, “Who is Jesus?” is “Jesus is God.”  To deny this is heresy.

One thing for all to reflect upon: where are all those who assert themselves as scholars of the Bible and of Christian theology when I am being attacked on grounds they well know are wrong? Dr. Witt, Oscewicee (sp) and others jump right in to criticize and often attack, but lie low when someone is attacked on grounds they know are baseless. Interesting, no?

I have been silent because it is Ash Wednesday.  I am commenting now only to make clear that the attacks on TBW have not been baseless at all.

Well, Oscewicee, I guess I had credited you with often making astute observations. Given your life in the Episcopal Church and your attention to doctrinal and Scriptural matters, I thought you would have caught the strangeness of such things as “unless you believe as we do that Jesus is God” and the claims of Biblical literalism.

I remember, too, a few times when you seemed open to respectful dialogue. I’m sad that you seem to be recanting what seemed to be the better side of you.  Sir, we are not enemies here. We are both members of the Body of Christ and we both have committed ourselves to living our lives following what we know and believe about Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit.

I have had strong differences with you—should I have characterized your stances the way you just characterized me? I love the way my presence here seems to motivate an effulgence of snarky sarcasm; however, that energy could surely be directed elsewhere.

What has happened to Episcopal theological education in the last 30 years?  Who is this Gareth Aden guy?  I’d like to shake his hand for his courage and his faithfulness.  As for ECR, I guess I can never go home again… unless as a missionary in a strange land.

Tom, exactly what is the difference between being “God” and being “true God” from true God?  Again, you draw a distinction without a difference, at least if words have any meaning at all, unlike Humpty Dumpty’s definition:
Alice: When I use a word, I mean what everyone generally understands that word to mean.
Humpty: What I use a word, it means only whatever I say it means!  The only question is, “Who is to be master?”, that is all.
From reading Anglican writings since Schliermacher, 150 years “long ago”, you are correct, with those qualifiers.  But if one goes all the way back since that relative blink of an eye in the history of the Anglican tradition to Hooker, Latimer, Ridley, then I am solidly in that mainest of mainstreams.  Not that being in the mainstream is terribly important to me, especially if the stream seems inexorably to sweep things toward the sewer grate these days.

Also, I did not say that none of the Bible is true if not all of it is true.  I said that none of the Bible is reliable as true if not all of it is true.  Then everyone’s judgment and discernment will differ, and on some essentials where we differ, some of us may be right, or all of us may be wrong.  But in such a case, one thing is certain.  People asserting mutually exclusive, irreconcilable claims cannot all be right.  I really don’t care whether TEC or any mainline denomination admits me to their clubhouse.  The Athanasius of the early church was told that the whole world was against him in his stand against the heresy of Arianism.  He said, “Then Athanasius is against the world!”, and in such a case, he will find me, by
God’s grace, alongside him.

In answering SFIF’s Athanasius, you accuse him, wrongly,  of playing the same game that you have been playing over and over when avoiding a direct answer to a direct question.  Your “clarifications” only muddy things further while avoiding any clear, unequivocal answers, making vague accusations and insinuations and even directly contradicting some of your own previous statements.  No, SFIF’s Athanasius is not playing games.  But you are.  And neither my opinion nor his nor yours is the final judge.  On the last day God will judge the secrets of men’s hearts through Christ Jesus, who had no need for anyone to tell Him anything, for He knew and knows what is in our hearts.

Typical of revisionist approach and praxis, there appears no common ground for agreeable rules of discussion/engagement.  Witness TBW’s refusal to provide (a non-game playing BTW) YES or NO answer.  A puddle of water is infinitely more solid than the perpetual fluidity of revisionist argument.

Being encouraged by Dr. Witt’s observation of Ash Wednesday silence, I now retire to the same.  The heaviness of this time and season truly merit it.

Kyrie eleison. Christe eleison. Kyrie eleison!

we are not enemies here.

We will indeed be enemies insofar as you deny such a fundamental tenet of Christian faith and make it into a word game.

I will pray for you, and have, but Fr. Tom, your words here deny the plain sense of words that were so, so, so carefully chosen to make sure that we would understand the truth. And there is a levity in your treatment of the issue that is nothing short of blasphemous. In such guise, I can’t take you seriously, nor respond to with the charity I would wish.

Oscewicee, you are way, way out of bounds here. I’m sorry about the beam in your eye. I really am. I have not denied any fundamental tenet of the Christian faith—and you must know that.  Do I deny what I believe is the undercutting of traditional Anglicanism by you and others? Most certainly.

Let me be clear: SFIF is not and never will be the arbiter of faithfulness to the Christian faith and its doctrine. Some of what is expressed here is true and convincing—much of it is a distortion based on a moralism that is neither Christian nor moral. When you make the accusations you have just made, you will get accolades from your cohort—but the mainstream of Christians will simply scratch their heads and say, “What did that guy eat for breakfast.”

#187 Except of course the whole premise of the First Ecumenical Council ...

Reading a certain person’s post just puts me in mind of coming across two dogs in the street having at it.  You wish they would go away, you know they will get stuck in an awkward position and all you want to do is get the hose and blast them.  But mostly you want to bash someone over the head for not keeping the damn things leashed.

Milton, thank you for shining light in a dark place. I fully agree with your statement that “On the last day God will judge the secrets of men’s hearts through Christ Jesus, who had no need for anyone to tell Him anything, for He knew and knows what is in our hearts.”

So true. After all, Christ Himself said that “...and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds.” Of course, YHWH had declared that centuries before through the prophet Jeremiah, when He warned “I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give to each man according to his ways, according to the results of his deeds.”

Hmm.

Of, course, one would expect a quality such as omniscience of the true God. After all, the Psalmist said: “Of old You founded the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. Even they will perish, but You endure; and all of them will wear out like a garment; like clothing You will change them and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will not come to an end.”
Of course, the writer of Hebrews states that this verse was written of Jesus Christ.

Again - hmm.

Yes, the all knowing, transcendent, self-sufficient creator (”..as though He needed anything…”) will judge all souls, as it is written by the Psalmist: “Let the rivers clap their hands, let the mountains sing together for joy before the LORD, for He is coming to judge the earth; He will judge the world with righteousness,  and the peoples with equity.”

Indeed, the Apostle Paul tells us that “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.”
“....I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom…”.

May the LORD give us all the strength to stand firm upon the rock of His truth when the winds of adversity blow.

Fr. Tom, give over. And if anyone wants to know what I had for breakfast, let him ask. In the words of the hymn, I know my Redeemer liveth, and I don’t care at all what revisionist outliers may think of me.

Wishing you all a blessed and holy Lent that finds you more firmly rooted in the faith and more joyful than ever before when Easter comes. Here we’ve had a beautiful Ash Wednesday morning, giving over to clouds and wind now, a presage of stormy weather for all the spring-like beauty. There will be no imposition of ashes at my parish tonight - no priest - but Stations of the Cross, which we will continue through Lent.

Fr. Tom, my prayer for you this Lent will be that you, too, will “turn again.”

“For heresy is not an error of the understanding but an error of the will.”—+ Jeremy Taylor

“Faith is not an accuracy of logic but a rectitude of the heart.” —Samuel Taylor Coleridge

1. We can quote the Creeds all day long:

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
—The Athanasian Creed

2. Reputable scholars like William Witt can offer convincing theological arguments, but at the end of the day, this becomes an exercise in futility because no amount of evidence can change the WILL of another human being.

3. “The usually overlooked human factor in the origin of heresy is indeed the will that stems from the human heart.  Yet authentic Christian orthodoxy is a deeper matter than mere correct doctrine, as important as that is.  It must be something not less than a “rectitude of the heart.”
—C. FitzSimons Allison, The Cruelty of Heresy, pp 23-24.

It’s more than a little disturbing to read Tom Woodward in action, but what is really creepy is the repeated behavior that we see in #177, in which, within the space of only a few contiguous sentences, he flat-out contradicts himself in what he must know is untrue:

“Do I believe that Jesus Christ is all that the Nicene, Apostles and Athanasian creeds say He is? Yes. Unqualifiedly, Yes!  Do these creeds affirm that ‘Jesus is God?’ No…”

This is almost pathological.

I think there’s more than a small possibility that we can understand the behavior of ECUSA itself through the eyes of this, one of its fiercest exponents.  When you play this out to the institutional level, then you can start to understand how a mainline Christian denomination disfigured itself, over a relatively short period, into what it is today.  It is, in its own way, the organizational equivalent of Michael Jackson: a one-time gem with real gifts that, through its own self-hatred and/or neuroses, has come to be nothing more than an object of pity that’s nearly killed itself.

Getting back to the topic, though: reading the jaw-dropping scribblings of a Tom Woodward, who is so much a part of ECUSA, Inc., it’s less bewildering to work out how ECUSA can preach love and tolerance, then turn around and use the courts and its own illegitimate canonical structures to destroy those who move elsewhere for reasons of conscience.  Or, to see ECUSA plead “orthodoxy” of this or that sort, even as it ordains Druids, consecrates Buddhists, puts up MDG placards over the altar in place of the cross and then cuts all MDG-related funding, and so forth.  For understanding the roots of it all, though, it’s no less heartbreaking.

We are both members of the Body of Christ…

No Tom—that is NOT a foregone conclusion. If fact, it’s precisely what is being debated here.

Shoul be “in fact…” not “if fact”.

Maria Lytle, thank you for those quotes. I find them very helpful.

Tom is having fun.  His writing and logic is total gibberish.  He says one thing, then claims another thing 180 degrees different from what he just claimed.  Black is White, Up is Down. 

He’s really loving it.  In the end, his ideas are non-sensical, and lack any real meaning.

I wouldn’t get too worked up about what he says.

These lines from T.S. Eliot’s “Ash Wednesday” seem wholly appropriate.

“And pray to God to have mercy upon us
And pray that I may forget
These matters that with myself I too much discuss
Too much explain
Because I do not hope to turn again
Let these words answer
For what is done, not to be done again
May the judgement not be too heavy upon us”

KTHV Channel 11, the CBS affiliate in Little Rock, has picked up the story.

“We never doubted that your unorthodox opinions were honestly held.  What we complain of is your continuing your ministry after you have come to hold them.”

C. S. Lewis
Christian Apologetics
GOD IN THE DOCK
[156] Posted by Anglican Observer

Ahhhh, one of my very favorite C.S.Lewis quotes and the one that originally got me Banned By Jake many years ago. I thought I would post the entire quote because it is so apropos to priests like Tom Woodward.

“It is your duty to fix the lines (of doctrine) clearly in your minds: and if you wish to go beyond them you must change your profession. This is your duty not specially as Christians or as priests, but as honest men. There is a danger here of the clergy developing a special professional conscience which obscures the very plain moral issue. Men who have passed beyond these boundary lines in either direction are apt to protest that they have come by their unorthodox opinions honestly. In defense of those opinions they are prepared to suffer obloquy and to forfeit professional advancement. They thus come to feel like martyrs. But this simply misses the point, which so gravely scandalizes the layman. We never doubted that the unorthodox opinions were honestly held: what we complain of is your continuing in your ministry after you have come to hold them. We always knew that a man who makes his living as a paid agent of the Conservative Party may honestly change his views and honestly become a Communist. What we deny is that he can honestly continue to be a Conservative agent and to receive money from one party while he supports the policy of the other” (Christian Apologetics).

the snarkster™

Fr. Tom Woodward, you say:

Do these creeds affirm that “Jesus is God?” No, and for good reason. You have plenty of very bright people who can tell why - I don’t understand why they don’t jump in here.

You’re a bright person.  Why don’t you just tell us why the creeds don’t say “Jesus is God,” in your opinion?  Go ahead. I’m not seminary-trained, but there are online dictionaries in case you use a word that’s over my head.  Instead of saying that someone here should be able to explain what you mean, why won’t you do it yourself?

To #192. So, just as homosexual practice is a choice, a decision - so is heresy. That warrants reflection…

The heretic believes that he is correct, because he has been blinded by the devil, whose only power is that of deception.

[Off-topic]
oscewicee: The rubrics of the 1979 BCP would seem to allow a lay person to lead an Ash Wednesday service, including the imposition of ashes. No Holy Eucharist, of course. (In the absence of a bishop or priest, all that precedes may be led by a deacon or lay reader.) Now, that might not set well with everybody, so you might want to call your bishop’s office to see if there’s a diocesan policy on that. If one diocese will elect a Buddhist as bishop, and another will allow same-sex marriages, perhaps your diocese will permit a lay person to lead an Ash Wednesday service!!!

And if you’re successful in getting permission, perhaps Sarah, Greg or Matt will start a thread about YOU tomorrow.

#200 Years back, when I would read/hear what would issue forth from John Shelby Spong, I would (with some bewilderment) ask myself “Why doesnt this man demonstrate a modicum of intellectual honesty and simply lay down his Bishopric, renounce his vows, and get a secular job?”

Lewis, of course, expounds upon this theme with greater eloquence. Thanks for sharing.

I haven’t seen NT Wright join the discussion, but let me refer you to his fine work on the subject.

Ignore comment # 199:  Wrong thread.  Sorry! Too many interruptions.

Pilgrim - I have been incorporated into the Body of Christ through Baptism and that membership by Adoption is nourished through faith, prayer, the Eucharist and God’s grace.  Do you have another criteria, separate from this Biblical one?

Phil, I responded in depth to your question and this issue a few minutes ago on a different thread. Let me put this in a short statement - then I am out of this thread.

There are some divine attributes, such as compassion, creativity and a lot of other things that are completely present in the incarnate Jesus; however, as Paul notes and as Jesus intimates in several places in the Synoptics, there are divine attributes, such as omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence which are not. They are fully present in the pre-existing Word and fully present in the Risen Christ. When “the power goes out of” Jesus, that is a contradiction in holding that is remains omnipotent—and on and on.

I believe this is why Christians have always affirmed that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human. Enough said. Jesus Christ is God of God, Light of Light and all the rest. End of story.

I wish you and others at SFIF a Blessed Lent and a joyous Eastertide.

” ...I see God through Jesus, but to say he was God is something Jesus - as a faithful Jewish man - would have heartily rejected.
All the I AM statements in John were the beliefs of the early Church, not Jesus’ words.
Your claim answers nothing; just exposes ignorance, and a pathetic, simplistic, interpretation of scripture.”

Cockerel has every right ti believe in anything he wants to but it boggles the mind that a man like Cockerel could utter these words in integrity and continue to call himself a Christian.  He rejects the heart of the Christian message which is that we find salvation through Jesus’ atonement on the cross and that only God gives us, through His Grace, the Faith to believe that we can be saved and to become children of god -not God, not coequal with God.  I think that too many people misunderstand what is meant when we say ‘members of the Body of Christ’.  We are at His feet, we are His children, but we are not God, nor are we one with the divine as +Schori has said. 

The only other comment I wish to make is that I am amazed that people here continue to argue with Tom.

Here, Tom, here:  http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/agendas/feb09/mdpaper.pdf

It’s only 66 pages and you ought to be able to whip through it in an hour or so.  Just identify all the parts they got wrong and let us know.

So now it’s an argument about Kenosis? “...to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses, and having committed unto us the word of reconciliation.”

“If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.”
Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”
Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
To what extent His omniscience and omnipresence were diminished by virtue of the Deity being encased in human flesh in time & space during His sojourn on earth has been debated and will continue to be debated, most likely until Christ returns. That His Deity was retained during His sojourn is beyond question.

Heres something fun you can do when you get some free time. Read Psalm 107:23-30. Then, read Mark 4:35-41 [there are paralell accounts in the other synoptics], and John 6:15-21. ‘What manner of man is this?’, asked the disciples. The answer is in Psalm 107 - it is YHWH.

That’s the frustration - the ground shifts again. So, now we’re discussing kenotic Christology. That’s a whole different debate and one that has nothing to do with the bald assertion with which we began, that “Jesus was not God”.

FWIW I’m encouraged by the wonderful Sarah Coakley’s essay on kenotic Christology, in Exploring Kenotic Christology, suggesting that it may rest on an inadequate understanding of the communicatio idiomatum (communication of idioms).

[off-topic]Ralph, bless you. And let me share how Lent this year has opened in my parish like a little miracle, not somberly at all. I have strep throat and missed it all - but it cheered my heart so to read of it. We had a Shrove Tuesday pancake supper last night. Our “chef” said he planned for 10 people - *20* came - they even took a plate of pancakes to the gentleman in the house next door, where all the windows are barred. And during the evening, the junior warden said he would preside over an Ash Wednesday service tonight (no Eucharist, of course). I’m looking forward to the update on tonight’s service.

Tom:
<blockquote>I have been incorporated into the Body of Christ through Baptism and that membership by Adoption is nourished through faith, prayer, the Eucharist and God’s grace.<blockquote>
And you can relinquish that membership by embracing heresy and becoming apostate; two positions that have been more than adequately demonstrated by your posts on this thread and others, to wit: the TEC hierarchy and the revisionistas no longer worship the same Lord, nor do they preach the same gospel that Christendom does.

Please excuse me for being so late to this thread - but personally, I am quite thankful that Cockrell was honest about his heresy - unlike so much of the current leadership of TEC such as madam Schori, the newly elected Buddhist in Michigan, and other ‘progressive’ voices on this thread - their words have helped affirm everything that ‘Choose This Day’ said.

Please pray for this man, and all of those who seek to deceive God’s Children - but even more so for those they deceive with their heretical Ponzi scheme religion.

Per Barrios in today’s Episcopal News: “In an open letter to supporters after his conviction, Fr. Barrios said that the ultimate goal of his social activism is “being able to organize the religiosity of the people, so they can reach their liberation.” He said it is his “duty to our Goddess to build a better world.”

http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2009/2/26/priest-calls-social-activism-duty-to-our-goddess
This is the link to the story at The Living Church

He said it is his “duty to our Goddess to build a better world.”

So much for the benefit of the doubt.  That makes it sufficiently clear to me that Fr. Barrios is practicing some religion other than the one I was raised in.

He couldn’t have made it clearer, could he?

The Pilgrim: You are simply wrong about membership in the Body of Christ—but, of course, no one here will take you up on that. You are wrong, again, about heresy—if you are so concerned, be concerned for your own soul, for while much of the Christian faith propounded by you and others here is authentic Christian doctrine, much simply undermines the Christian faith. I spell it out in “The Undermining of the Christian Church”—others, brighter than I am, have done so elsewhere.

As I read your comments and others, I think what this comes down to is that you folks see yourselves as the last remaining faithful remnant—and that everyone and every other faith group or denomination is outside the Christian fold—Roman Catholics, the real Orthodox churches, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Quakers, United Church of Christ in this and every other country. You take a narrow interpretation of a few verses and declare everyone else “heretic.” 

I see this as a slap in the face of Jesus Christ, for you in your own minds have reduced the wonderful ecumenical Body of Christ into a small band of angry people mostly intent on witch hunting. In my heart of hearts I grieve for you all. What a terrible spirituality and faith to lug through life—and what do you do when, years later, you look back and say to yourselves “Is that what I did with the liberating Gospel of Jesus Christ?” Was that my heritage?

The next step comes when the next real controversy comes and SFer will be aligned against SFer and there will be a new round of charges and accusation and your notion of the Kingdom will be even smaller.  This, gang, is the history of movements like this.

Oscewicee (191) It is probably not a good spiritual practice to mix praying for someone with sarcasm.

You pray for my turning: I do not believe God wants me to spend my Lent turning towards the mean spiritedness which you have consistently demonstrated towards me. If you want to pray for me, pray that I may continue to grow in grace and charity in all things. I will pray the same for you.

Fr. Tom, if any of us see ourselves as the last Christian remnant, that would be within TEC. I thank God for our milliions of faithful brethren and sisters in the Anglican Communion, in the Roman Catholic Church, in the Orthodox Church, in the Presbyterian Church, etc. May they numbers grow and flourish as TEC shrinks into its navel. You would *like to believe* that we are so narrow. Sorry. You’ve got it wrong again.

And what you see here is not anger, but grief and loss for a church that we loved that has been torn apart for people who like to stretch words into clowny faces and such.

But oscewicee, it makes it so much easier to say that those who disagree with our heresy are just “angry people” who have no basis for their anger. It makes it so much easier for us to delude ourselves ourselves that it is not we who have lost the way.
desertpadre

As I read your comments and others, I think what this comes down to is that you folks see yourselves as the last remaining faithful remnant—and that everyone and every other faith group or denomination is outside the Christian fold—Roman Catholics, the real Orthodox churches, Episcopalians, Presbyterians,

Good grief.

It is probably not a good spiritual practice to mix praying for someone with sarcasm.

TBW: I would be more inclined to take legal advice from opposing counsel than I would take spirtual advice from you.

Fr. Tom, there was no sarcasm in that post. Your detector must have been on overdrive. It was an attempt to respond with humor to your rather acid quip ... well, you know what you said.

We all need to turn, Fr. Tom, and sometimes God wants us to turn in directions that we don’t think we want to go.

Well, Tom, which of your “last comments” on this thread are your most recent two?  Sort of like Beverly Sills’ (no disrespect to her) “last concerts” that became rather a series!

By the way, your many comments, as well as my many comments and those of other commenters, disprove your Kenosis theory.  When Jesus said that “power had gone out of Him”, He certainly did not mean that He was drained of power, with no power left in Him.  Rather, He meant that “power had gone forth from Him”, as light goes forth from a flame without the flame going out or ceasing to give off more light.  Likewise, you and I also disprove kenosis.  Many, many words have “gone out of” both of us, and neither of us, though we are but mortal men, seems to have any trouble producing yet more words that have “gone forth from” us!   Seriously, was it somehow utterly draining for Jesus to cure a woman of hemorraghing unawares than to intentionally heal the centurion’s servant at a distance, raise the widow of Nain’s son and Lazarus from the dead, or to calm a stormy sea instantly by simply speaking to it, “Peace, be still!”?  Jesus voluntarily laid aside the full prerogatives of divinity, but not divinity itself, for a time, to live out as the 2nd Adam the full trust in and obedience and submission to the Father in which the 1st Adam failed and fell and with that fall corrupted the human nature of all descended from him, just as a cracked mold must produce a bad cast.  But when it suited (the triune) God’s purposes and gave glory to the Father, the veil over Jesus’ divinity was peeled away for a few moments, hence the Transfiguration, hence the miracles which He really did perform just as they are recorded in the Gospels.

Do you defend Fr. Barrios’ using the “religiosity” of the people (sounds rather condescending) to fulfill “our duty to our Goddess”?  Just wondering.

BTW, I will e-mail my earlier questions to you.  Family matters arising this week have delayed my doing that and may delay my reply as well.

#206 TBWSantaFe writes:

Phil, I responded in depth to your question and this issue a few minutes ago on a different thread. Let me put this in a short statement - then I am out of this thread.

[sarcasm]We all knew that wouldn’t be so.[/sarcasm]

The only major branch of Christianity, that I can think of at the moment, that claims to be the only true way would be the Roman Catholics.

I personally think that we will all someday have some ‘splainin’ to do, though Our Father Who Is In Secret (OFWIIS) already knows these things.

[prayer]I pray that all of us will continue to grow in God’s grace and God’s charity in all things that are Godly.[/prayer]

As I read your comments and others, I think what this comes down to is that you folks see yourselves as the last remaining faithful remnant—and that everyone and every other faith group or denomination is outside the Christian fold—Roman Catholics, the real Orthodox churches, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Quakers, United Church of Christ in this and every other country. You take a narrow interpretation of a few verses and declare everyone else “heretic.”

Actually we are taking a broad view of all the verses, and declaring TEC “heretic.”

But this is not the view of a few people at Stand Firm, Tom.  This is the view of the Holy Father and the Uniate Churches in communion with him; twenty seven, I believe at last count, for a total of over 2.3 billion people.  It is the view of what you call “the real Orthodox churches:” over a quarter of a billion people world wide, and I know this to be true.  I am Orthodox, and have read the pronouncements.  This is the view of world wide Baptists, who can put more people in the pews on a Sunday morning than TEC can manage in a year. It is the view of The Church.

The Roman Catholics have stopped all dialogue with TEC, most notably cancelling any further meetings of ARCIC. The Orthodox Churches in America have curtailed all relations with TEC.  TEC is being pruned. TEC is being marginalized.  TEC is being diminished.

I know this post will get labelled as “mean spirited, but it is not.  It is a simple statement of fact. Hard facts to type, and hard facts to read, but facts none the less.

Today is the first day of Great Lent.  I prepare for the death and resurrection of my Saviour.  We went through “Forgiveness Vespers” last night, and I will repeat here what I said to every member of my parish, one at a time: forgive me, my brothers and sisters, for offending you in the last year. We are working our way to the darkest corner of the Church year: Holy Week.  The majority of us here have the hope of the Resurrection at the end of the darkness, and it grieves my heart that so many in TEC deny that hope; deny the eternal life that comes with the glory of Easter.