Joining the debate over the “uniqueness of Christ” resolution (D058) which was discharged in committee. The House of Deputies is debating whether to affirm the discharge or reject it.
Here is the text of the resolution:
Resolved, the House of _____ concurring, That the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church declares its unchanging commitment to Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the only name by which any person may be saved (Article XVIII); and be it further Resolved, That we acknowledge the solemn responsibility placed upon us to share Christ with all persons when we hear His words, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No-one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6); and be it further Resolved, That we affirm that in Christ there is both the substitutionary essence of the Cross and the manifestation of God's unlimited and unending love for all persons; and be it further Resolved, That we renew our dedication to be faithful witnesses to all persons of the saving love of God perfectly and uniquely revealed in Jesus and upheld by the full testimony of Holy Scripture.
I’m coming in on the tail end of this…
????: TO make Jesus the new law is not fulfilling the gospel. This kind of language was used in the 20’s and 30’s to alienate a group of people who were later executed in the holocaust. The work of Jesus Christ does go on and we continue to follow the living Christ by following where he points nad not the end of his finger.
Mayo: I speak against the discharge of this resolution. The message of Christ and his salvific work on the cross is the only message of hope we can offer to a dying and fallen world. Surely we can say together that Jesus is Lord and if we can’t we have no reason to be here.
Lyton: I would like to speak in favor of discharge. We all affirm the uniqueness of Christ and of the cross. However, we do not have a specific doctrinal committement to one theory of atonement or salvation for that reason I encourage that this be discharged.
Renton: I call
Voting on whether we terminate debate
Vote: Motion passes, debate is ended
Hart: If we reject the motion to discharge, will the matter come before us or will it go back to committee?
Chair: No we will consider the matter as a house.
Call on the discharge of resolution D058
Voice vote is inconclusive.
Machine vote.
578 vote to discharge
242 vote not to discharge
The discharge stands
|
All any of us lay people can do is pray that Christ will come soon and pray that all these false teachers will have their eyes opened and be able to see what they have done and repent before the end or that God will show pity on them when Judgement day comes. I know the path I am following and that is the one that the Old and New Testament tell all of us to follow as best we can and when we fall to ask for forgiveness and repent of our sins not to say that it is OK to sin. May God please show you that what He says in the bible is what He means and not to do what we think is right for society Posted by chulolee on 06-20-2006 at 04:12 PM [link]
|
|
I can’t help but think of Jesus’ Words.... ‘leave them alone. The blind lead the blind.’ One last reminder re. Jesus. Try Him. You’ll like Him. He’s not that hard to find, for we live, and breathe, and move in Him. Just call upon His Name.... He’s far greater than just believing He exists. He wants us to go further....take hold of Him, i.e. receive Him. Wow! this is an easy one. Sorta proves ‘who’ is REALLY behind this discharge & the resolutions of GC 06. Posted by Pidkid on 06-20-2006 at 04:30 PM [link]
|
|
Can someone explain the significance of “discharge?” Did they agree or disagree with the statement? (I would suspect from the comments that they disagree. How sad.) Posted by drjoan on 06-20-2006 at 04:33 PM [link]
|
|
As a Jewish Anglican, and a descendant of people who were killed in the Holocaust, I must say my mind is reeling over this statement: ????: TO make Jesus the new law is not fulfilling the gospel. This kind of language was used in the 20’s and 30’s to alienate a group of people who were later executed in the holocaust It trivializes the committment of the Jews to their vocation as the Chosen People, ignores a whole history of European anti-Semitism (where the problem was not talking about salvation in Christ, so much as slaughtering innocents in an unholy revenge for Christ’s death) and implies complete ignorance of the Nuremberg laws (condemnation was based on Jewish ethnicity, not Jewish practice.) It also implies that somehow talking about salvation through Christ alone is somehow responsible for the Holocaust, when in fact so many of the people who risked their lives to save Jewish strangers, did it for the love of Christ, who alone brings Salvation. Posted by In Newark on 06-20-2006 at 04:47 PM [link]
|
|
Thank you Barbara. The speaker is, indeed, saying that our insistence on the uniqueness of Christ led to the holocaust. It is a sickening, revolting twist of logic, history and truth. Millions of Christian soldiers suffered and died on the battlefield fighting against Nazism. I am ashamed to be associated with a church where so-called leaders think and speak this way. What do you bet these same so-called leaders fully support the resolutions condemning Israel for defending itself against Palestinian terrorism? Posted by Wilson on 06-20-2006 at 04:58 PM [link]
|
|
They’re really going for broke, aren’t they! We expected that TEC might walk away from the Communion-- few could have expected them to so explicitly walk away from Christianity. Different religion indeed… I’m not sure schism is the appropriate language for what needs to happen, now. Schism, as I understand it, can only really happen between Christians. Posted by farstrider on 06-20-2006 at 04:59 PM [link]
|
|
Greg, Matt or Sarah— What’s the status of DO65 (repudiating the Executive Committee’s decision to join the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice) and DO69 (Kendall’s resolution affirming the supreme authority of scripture—which was amended in committee to simply endorse the notion of a “triune God expressed in the Scriptures"). As if any of you have time to read our stuff. Posted by Wilson on 06-20-2006 at 05:01 PM [link]
|
|
The precise ratio of the vote—almost exactly 2 to 1 against a central tenet of Vincentian Christianity—is the most fascinating part of this story. It suggests (since Deputies tend to be more activist and more liberal than the average pew potato) that when push comes to shove, the New Episcopal Communion will lose at least a third and probably half of its membership very, very rapidly. Posted by Craig Goodrich on 06-20-2006 at 05:05 PM [link]
|
|
Many many faithful Christians in the Episcopal Church will be “shaking the dust off our feet” and seeking God’s wisdom as we find a way to continue as Anglicans in the holy catholic and apostolic faith. A stunning convention this has been, truly the final chapter of what was once a gem of Christendom. I am just thankful that my parents are not around to see this. Posted by BettyLee Payne on 06-20-2006 at 05:23 PM [link]
|
|
If there is no right and wrong, then why risk your life for strangers --- including strangers menaced by the Gestapo and the SS? Posted by Irenaeus on 06-20-2006 at 05:25 PM [link]
|
|
Correction: D063 is “Membership in the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.” According to the legislative status web site (http://gc2006.org/legislation/view_Legislation.aspx) it is pending in the House of Bishops. Posted by Uncle Dino on 06-20-2006 at 06:28 PM [link]
|
|
Unbelievable! This is not the church I thought I joined. How sad. I have been seeking a real Reformed Catholic Church, thought I had found it, and GC can’t pass B001 in 2003 and D065 in 2006. However, the “clarity” is certainly there. Posted by El Jefe on 06-20-2006 at 07:33 PM [link]
|
|
I guess I missed the Sunday they explained the part about multiple paths to salvation. Evidently, I just need to zip over to my local reappraiser parish. Although...the last time I looked the Bible had something to say about that -
Hmmm, maybe the speaker was one of those that came over from the Church of LDS. Good grief -don’t these people know - We are suppose to be CHRISTians. The price of membership is BELIEF IN THE SON! AAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHH. Posted by Jackie Bruchi on 06-20-2006 at 10:18 PM [link]
|
Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.
Wow. Two different faiths trying to co-exist under one roof. This will become the B001 of 2006. Who sponsored this resolution? Since it was a machine vote, when do we get to see a breakdown of the votes?