Be loving in everything you do." - I Corinthians 16:13-14
|
"Be on your guard. Stand firm in the faith. Be brave. Be strong. Be loving in everything you do." - I Corinthians 16:13-14 |
No sense explaining this all over again. If you read this and don't know what it's about, consider yourself fortunate. If the regulars want to explain it to anyone, feel free.
UPDATE: Just had to share this with everyone.
Posted by Greg Griffith at April 7, 2005 03:01 PM (GMT -6:00)Of course, if conservatives had not raised the issue of his un-orthodox beliefs in the first place he would still be masquerading as an Episcopal priest.
# Posted by: Tony at April 7, 2005 04:02 PMTBTG he has been somehow smoked out. How many others remain?
# Posted by: Gulfstream at April 7, 2005 07:07 PMFinally, a Pagan with enough Integrity to actually admit it and stop masquerading as a Christian!
Gulf, MCJ has found another one...
# Posted by: Marty at April 7, 2005 07:55 PMGulfstream: The answer is not many, at least not as explicit as that guy. But there are a whole lot of 'palians who hear about such shenanigans and think, Wow, that's really cool!
# Posted by: WTF at April 7, 2005 07:56 PMSo he had to become fed up with ECUSA and out his druid religion and leave! Why doesn't some one deal with Spong and the others who don't even try to hide their heresy. Seems the EC is a haven for every unclean bird and pervert with no fear of ever being dealt with.
# Posted by: Prophet Micaiah at April 7, 2005 10:35 PMGreg--You might want to pick up on the new statement from Peter Akinola. It would open up a new and fruitful thread about our big situation. You have the link at Titusonenine.
# Posted by: Jim at April 8, 2005 08:40 AMIt pains me that once again members of your group are so bent on promoting their own agendas that they get the news all wrong, and in the process slander and hurt many other people. While it is true that I have resigned from the Episcopal priesthood, it is not true that I have "left the church." I remain a member of the Episcopal Church in good standing. My views on the sanctity of nature, and the essential unity of human faith systems have been questioned to the point of being accused of heresy by some in the church. But those views are not inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus. I continue to support wholeheartedly the many members of my family who remain in the Episcopal priesthood. I trust that one day Episcopalians such as the members of "Stand Firm" will realize that Jesus' teachings were not about jealously guarding their own version of religious dogma, but about how we treat one another.
# Posted by: William Melnyk at April 8, 2005 04:58 PMLiberals tend to carry on about "Scripture, Tradition, and Reason" -- and then make assertions that show no grasp of logic whatever.
Mr. Melnyk speaks of "the sanctity of nature, and the essential unity of human faith systems." The various faiths of the human race have many practices in common (nearly all of us pray, for instance)and we have many basic moral positions in common -- but it is impossible for Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam to have anything more in common than an acknowledgement that there is a spiritual dimension to life. What "faith systems" believe about who God is (or who the gods are), the character and nature of the divinity (ies) and how the divine is known are all things which are logically irreconcilable to each other. Likewise, what the human plight is and how it is solved are questions that have mutually contradictory answers in the various world faiths.
Jesus did teach us a lot about how we are to treat each other. He also made some claims about himself and his role in people's lives that, if true, demand allegiance to him alone -- and if not true, mean that he was either a fool or a con man.
When I first heard about Melnyk's renunciation of his orders, I was thankful that he had the integrity to acknowledge the difference between Druidism and Christianity. From his comment above, something other than intellectual and personal integrity were at work.
# Posted by: anglicanxn at April 8, 2005 09:12 PMWell said, Bill+. I find it kind of ironic that folks who claim to follow Jesus Christ are talking about various ways to punish anyone who doesn't blindly conform to the demands of others on matters of faith. Lots of crosses to go around--reserved for the rest of us, of course.
Cheers,
TH
# Posted by: TH at April 8, 2005 09:14 PMThank you, TH. Many blessings to you.
# Posted by: William Melnyk at April 8, 2005 09:42 PMDear Oakwyn, some day you will bow the knee to the Lord Jesus Christ and your tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of the Father, but if you don't repent of your heresy and believ God now in this fact it will be too late to keep you from severe judgment. The Lord Jesus Christ proclaimed that NO ONE can come to the Father except my Him. Believe it or burn. May God grant you the grace and faith to believe him.
# Posted by: Prophet Micaiah at April 8, 2005 10:12 PMMr. Melnyk,
1. What did we get wrong?
2. Please explain how your full embrace of Druidism is remotely compatible with your ordination as a priest of the Christian faith. No one here is claiming that there is no overlap between the teachings of Jesus and that of Druidism - just as there are overlaps between the teachings of Jesus and Buddha, or Jesus and Mohammed. The point is that while you were a practicing Episcopal priest, you embraced a faith of which Christ has no part whatsoever.
And if by "jealously guarding [our] own version of religious dogma" you mean "preferring that those who would call themselves priests believe, at the very least, that Jesus Christ is the son of God," then we are guilty as charged, but that hardly makes it some kind of doctrinal kristallnacht.
# Posted by: Greg at April 8, 2005 10:16 PMTH, I don't know of any believers "folks who claim to follow Jesus Christ are talking about various ways to punish anyone who doesn't blindly conform to the demands of others on matters of faith." It is not SFIF believers but God Almighty who makes the demands and it is God who has promised to do the punishing. We are merely crying aloud to warn of the wrath to come. To deride and ridacule this effort by trivializing it is to blaspheme the One who does make the demands and is very risky on your part. God won't be using a cross the next time.
# Posted by: Prophet Micaiah at April 8, 2005 10:21 PMGreg,
Shame for posting the Oakwyse website -- very tasteless -- the worst of all Episcopal sins -- and besides, we can only stand so many facts and so much truth and posting the web site was way over the top.
Mr. Melnyk says that his "views are not inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus", but . . . since he has apparently reduced Jesus's teaching -- and by extension, Christianity -- to "how we treat one another", it seems that there aren't a whole lot of religions, other than perhaps Aztec human sacrifice, that he would find "inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus." And who knows -- if the Aztecs had living wills allowing human sacrifice, who are we to say?
And of course, it is unsurprising that Tom Head finds so much empathy with Mr. Melnyk's beliefs.
Apparently, just as long as one believes in affirming and blessing sex between same genders, there isn't a whole lot that can be found "inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus."
I can only pray that any Episcopalians who are silent auditors of this blog and have yet to make up their minds can see the connection and compatibility between the thought that it's okay to worship nature, and it's okay to celebrate same-sex activity -- as long as it's not inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus to be nice to people.
And just in case you've missed it yet, check out this commentary -- and tender quotes from another druid ritual -- http://mcj.bloghorn.com/1230c
"It pains me that once again members of your group are so bent on promoting their own agendas that they get the news all wrong, and in the process slander and hurt many other people."
Since WM has made this charge, I hope that he will back it up with some proof.
"My views on the sanctity of nature, and the essential unity of human faith systems have been questioned to the point of being accused of heresy by some in the church. But those views are not inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus."
Maybe WM would be open to explaining his views in this forum for discussion.
# Posted by: Tony at April 9, 2005 09:38 AMDid I miss something? Does Billy Oakboy say anywhere in his post that he is still a Christian?
And I am curious, what kind of Seminary Training does one get that fails to emphasize the uniqueness of Christ's claim? Does one have to be a well educated Episcopalian to not see the conflict between being a practicing, believing Druid and declaring oneself a member of the Episcopal Church in good standing? I would hope that this would still be considered a conflict by the humble persons in the pew.
"Did I miss something? Does Billy Oakboy say anywhere in his post that he is still a Christian?"
PJL -- Is everyone in your state as civil and articulate as you are? I certainly hope you do not represent the fine State of Mississippi. Do you have the slightest idea what a "practicing, believing Druid" even is, let alone whether it is compatible with Christian belief? Can you, with theological literacy describe what the "uniqueness" of Christ is? Do you have any knowledge of the the history of Celtic Christianity? Compared to the average Episcopal priest, what formal theological training do you have?
And Tony - No one on this forum has yet taken a stab at affirming they know what "druidry" is, let alone explain why they think it is incompatible with Christianity. It seems to me members of Stand Firm need to become a bit more informed on the historical nature of Anglican theology. Anglicanism is not synonymous with Pat Robertson and the 700 Club.
Let's stop all the rude name calling, and the judgmental fundamentalism, and then perhaps an intelligent dialogue might take place. But not until then.
Peace to all,
Bill
PJL,
Taking the likes of Spong, Pike, Borg, and Melnyk together, you can see that formal training in Episcopal "theology" is more - not less - likely to produce agnostics, atheists, and pagans.
# Posted by: Greg at April 9, 2005 01:07 PMMr. Melnyk, don't you think it's better not to end a plea for civility with an accusation that we're all big-haired bible thumpers?
Class, take your seats for a Paganism 101:
Druidry is known today under three broad time periods: paleo-Druids, meso-Druids, and neo-Druids. There is little historical connection between the three, but all have sought to manifest in the world the continuing spirit of Druidism.
Little is know about the paleo-Druids except what was written by those who opposed them: the Roman Emperor and the Christian Church. We do know that the Druids were not only priests, but rather the intellectual elite of Celtic society in the same way that Brahmins were in Indian society. They were polytheistic, based their ritual upon the movements of the sun, and looked to Earth Mother as a source of life. While their gods and goddesses had personalities, the Druids mostly saw the divine manifested in all of nature. Liminal, or boundary, places were important locations of the holy. Gates to the Otherworld were found in sacred wells, fire, and trees.
Meso-Druids appeared in England in the 18th and 19th centuries, and while some were an effort to reclaim ancient Druid practice, for the most part they were little more than Masonic or Christian gentleman's clubs.
Neopagan Druidism is an attempt to recapture the spirit of ancient Druidism in the modern world, even while we recognize that re-enactment of ancient Druid practice is no longer possible. Druidry today embraces the presence of the holy in the Three Kindreds: Spirits of the ancestors, earth spirits (of animals, plants, streams, rocks, etc.), and spirits of the gods & goddesses. We celebrate the fire festivals of Samhain, Imbolc, Beltaine, and Lughnassad, as well as the soltices and equinoxes. We venerate the Three Kindreds, and we inhabit the Three Worlds of Air, Sea, and Land. While Druidry is distinct from witchcraft and Wicca, many neopagan Druids in a spirit of pagan unity incorporate such rites into their personal devotional lives. In general, whereas Wicca tends to be private, small groups oriented, and lunar, Druidism tends to be public, large group oriented, and solar. If, while walking through the woods, you feel the pull of comradeship from the trees that surround you, and in the singing of a brook you hear the words of the gods, if you have ever understood a rock, or seen the kinship between a human being and a blade of grass, then you have been touched by the timeless spirit of Druidry.
Stop laughing.
I mean it.
Now...
That description is from none other than Oakwyse himself, from his web page here.
In addition to this pagan rite authored by Melnyk and posted to ECUSA's Office of Women's Ministries web page, there is this lovely one:
---------------------------------------
[G] The Song of Bel:
Bold and burning, God of Light,
Bel, now bringing Love to sight:
Passion great and Body strong,
Fertile power, living song;
All are manifest in thee,
God of Fire, naked be!
She removes his clothing, and caresses his body.
[B] The Song of Boinn:
Boinn’s Moon upon us shine,
Vigot of life is always thine:
Strength of Cattle, strength of Love,
Strength of Beauty, toward us move;
Migickal thy ways may be,
River Goddess, naked be!
He removes her clothing, and caresses her body.
They take some of the small wildflowers strewn about, and weave them into each other’s hair, on the head and in the pubic area.
Prayer of Offering
An offering of bannock is made, and cup of ale, with appropriate words of praise from the heart for Boinn and for Bel.
The Omen
One seeks the Omen through means of choice (rune, ogham, tarot, etc.) and interprets the Omen.
Receiving and Using the Returned Power
All sit.
[B] Let us now in silence or aloud offer prayer for our several needs.
Holding hands, participants express needs either silently or aloud, followed by a period of silent
meditation.
[G] Join we now our hands in communion and agreement,
Consecrate we now ourselves to one another and to the Goddesses and Gods.
New incense is lighted and pass around the circle, Sunwise, each censing the other, in token of Divine
Blessing.
The couple join in love-making on the mattress, taking whatever time is needed.
(If there are more than one couple, appropriate actions agreed upon as a group beforehand now take place.)
Other workings may be done as needed.
At the conclusion of this joining, share in Bannocks and Ale.
---------------------------------------
[what, no cigarette? - Ed.]
Now, I'm not ordained, but I can say with something approaching 100% certainty that this is not of our Christian God. Mr. Oakwyse is strongly encouraged to explain how anyone who promotes this sort of "worship" should be considered even vaguely Christian, much less tolerated as an ordained priest of the Christian faith.
Frankly, Mr. Melnyk, for you to suggest that you can call yourself a "Druid Priest" as you do on your site; author or engage in such rites as quoted above; and still consider yourself a Christian; calls into question your intelligence, not ours.
# Posted by: Greg at April 9, 2005 01:57 PMMr. Melnyk:
You write, “Let’s stop all the rude name calling, and the judgmental fundamentalism, and then perhaps an intelligent dialogue might take place. But not until then.” You are right, the rude name calling should stop; however, that might not be enough for us to have an “intelligent dialogue” by your definition.
I’m a 47-year-old lifelong Episcopalian. While I certainly don’t entirely agree with their theology or style of worship, my belief system has far more in common with Pat Robertson and 700 Club, Billy Graham, John Hagee, and Jerry Falwell than with Pike, Spong, Borg, and other heretics. Maybe I practice “judgmental fundamentalism.” I’m not sure of your definition but I presume it means not finding some religious beliefs and personal lifestyles to comport with traditional Christian teaching and values. Even if I am guilty of “judgmental fundamentalism,” I still believe in treating others with kindness and welcoming them in the Church.
Without using judgment, we would never be able to determine what is true and what isn’t. “What, can’t we trust our feelings? If it feels like it’s from God, then it must be, right?” Jeremiah 17:9 says otherwise. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Even Christians can be deceived by our feelings. That’s why we hold that Scripture is the ultimate authority on all matters.
We are told throughout the Scriptures to be wary of false doctrine, false teachers, false prophets who would come right into the Church. Jesus said false prophets would come as wolves in sheep’s clothing. Matt. 7:15. I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore, be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. Matthew 10:16. The need for righteous judgment and spiritual discernment in the church today is evident For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God. Acts 20:27. “As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer.” 1 Tim. 1:3. “But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked man from among you.” 1 Cor 5:11-13.
If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed. 1 Tim 4:6. And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will. 2 Tim 2:24-26. Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 2 Tim 4:2. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 2 Tim 4:3. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 2 Tim 4:4. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. Titus 1:9.
Yours in Christ,
David Wilder
Greg,
Now, now . . . when did Jesus ever say anything about group sex????
# Posted by: Sarah at April 9, 2005 02:47 PMSigh. When did I ever say anything about it. Can't say I did not try for a constructive dialogue. But this is getting nowhere. I sincerely apologize to all kind-hearted readers that all the above was generated by angry, giggling schoolboys. Rant and rave to your hearts' content. I will not return to this den. Thank God there are indeed places in your diocese where the work of Christ is actually being done. Not here.
# Posted by: Bill Melnyk at April 9, 2005 03:46 PMDavid Wilder: You are a most rare Episcopalian who uses the Scripture so well. PM could not have said it better. As Archbishop of the Dixie Diocese I hereby confer upon you the degree of BSD (back side of desert) from Burning Bush Seminary. So much richer than that poison some get at certain seminaries!
"Professing them selves to be wise they became fools." (Rom. 1:22) OPSS, that was that judgmental fundamentalist name calling Apostle Paul again.Sorry. ++Oakwyn, please plead to the Lord God of Creation to lift the blindness and deliver you from the lies and deception of the Devil. Jesus wants you to worship Him only.
Oh, golly, I'm sorry I'm so slow. I'm trying real hard to see the connection between the passion, death, and resurrection of our Lord, on the one hand, and ritually annointing each other's genitalia (excuse me, just ABOVE the genitalia) with aromatic oils, etc., on the other, but for the life of me I just can't. I guess it's all the dirt-eating we Mississippians do as children that makes us so backward.
I gotta tell you, there's a part of me that wishes I could work this out the way Mr. Oakwyse has. Those rituals of theirs sound like serious fun, and no mistake! But I can't get past that stuff about dying to sin in order to be born again in Christ. It's a constant struggle which would be hopeless except for Jesus' supreme, agonizing sacrifice. (Think for a second about Good Friday: the scourging, the pain, the scorn, the forsakenness...) In the light of such love as He has shown us, how can we look upon something like "the kinship between a human being and a blade of grass" and react in any other way but to laugh out loud?
# Posted by: WTF at April 9, 2005 04:21 PMDavid Wilder,
Good job.
# Posted by: Sarah at April 9, 2005 04:59 PMDear William Melnyk My apologies for the nickname, it was uncalled for and rather uncivil. Now as to your other points do I have any idea what a practicing Druid is? I have a feeling like the sects of Christianity, Druidism most likely also has some shifting theologies and were I to find one site's defintion of Druidism. You might rightly reply that their practice of Druidism is not yours. So I will leave it up to you to define the Druidry you practice. It has been a while since I did any major reading on Druidism, and that was not on any modern version of the sect. Rather it was concerning pre Christian practices among the Celts. But maybe some basic concepts have not changed. My understanding is that it is a pagan religion. It consider's nature sacred and by its own virtue divine. Am I over reaching to say that Druidry allows the worship of nature ? It is also my understanding that Druids are not monotheists. Again, I will stand corrected if you can say that you believe that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and along down that line to the NT is the One God Father Almight, Maker of Heaven and Earth. Affirm the creeds and I will take you at your word. As for can I with any Theological Literacy explain the uniqueness of Christ? Please be patient with me. I have MS and at times my cognitive facilites are wanting. It is frustrating but I do get to hide my own Easter eggs. To put it simply there truly no point in being Christian if Christ's claim to be God incarnate, sent for atonement of sins and ressurected in glory ( again the Creeds come to mind) are not unique. If Christ is only a messenger or prophet or very holy man sent to teach us how to live with each other you are right in claiming that it is not incompatible for you to practice Druidism. Rather, and again correct me if I have assumed wrongly, it would seem that such a view of Christ would simply reinforce the view that all life ( animal, human and botanical) is interdependent, the holy fruit of a creator god and must be treated with true devotion and love. That any tears in the wholeness of this creation harms us both physically and spiritually. Christ is not above the created but a part of it. Christ is still sacred but not because of the claim He is Lord, but because He is a part of the sacred wholeness of creation. I said that awkwardly and I beg your kind indulgence. Now if you hold to the orthodox view of Christ- Druidism is not compatible with being Christian. Who do you say Christ is? Now as to the question do I have any formal theological training. I will have to say no. Though my parish priest strongly encouraged me to seek a degree in Theology. I find readings in Theology somewhat daunting now- with the MS, I think I would have to settle for the MY First POP Up Book of the Summan Theologica. But my concern does not rise from any Theological training or lack thereof. But from my deep love of Jesus and my true belief in Jesus as Lord. I affirm the Creeds- yep hook, line and sinker. I am Roman Catholic. I strongly agree with Flannery O'Conner's quote. " If it is only a symbol the hell with it". She speaks on the Eucharist, but to me the same can be said of all of orthodox Christian belief. Either it is real and true or to hell with it. I am also not from Mississippi. I am a Floridian and I guess I am as articulate as most.
I have no problem with you being Druid- I hope you find happiness and peace within that religion. But I do believe it is wrong to claim allegience to both Christianity and Druidism. I think for a Episcopal Priest to not see the problem with this is very sad. Again I apologize for being snippy in my post. It was beneath me and unfairly insulting to you. That sort of personal attack- even in the most mild of forms, is unChristian and petty. Please remain at peace and be well in all you do.
Paula
WM: And Tony - No one on this forum has yet taken a stab at affirming they know what "druidry" is, let alone explain why they think it is incompatible with Christianity. It seems to me members of Stand Firm need to become a bit more informed on the historical nature of Anglican theology. Anglicanism is not synonymous with Pat Robertson and the 700 Club.
Let's stop all the rude name calling, and the judgmental fundamentalism, and then perhaps an intelligent dialogue might take place. But not until then.
Reply: I didn't do any rude name calling or judgemental fundamentalism that I can see. But if I did I hope that you will call it to my attention.
Secondly, I did suggest that you might explain your views in this forum. What I see you doing is attacking others, both in your comment about the knowledge of SFIMers about druidry and your comment about name calling and fundamentalism.
If you can raise the level of your rhetoric and actually explain how you see Christianity and Druidry compatible, then let the conversation begin.
# Posted by: Tony at April 9, 2005 07:18 PMWM: And Tony - No one on this forum has yet taken a stab at affirming they know what "druidry" is, let alone explain why they think it is incompatible with Christianity. It seems to me members of Stand Firm need to become a bit more informed on the historical nature of Anglican theology. Anglicanism is not synonymous with Pat Robertson and the 700 Club.
Let's stop all the rude name calling, and the judgmental fundamentalism, and then perhaps an intelligent dialogue might take place. But not until then.
Reply: I didn't do any rude name calling or judgemental fundamentalism that I can see. But if I did I hope that you will call it to my attention.
Secondly, I did suggest that you might explain your views in this forum. What I see you doing is attacking others, both in your comment about the knowledge of SFIFers about druidry and your comment about name calling and fundamentalism.
If you can raise the level of your rhetoric and actually explain how you see Christianity and Druidry compatible, then let the conversation begin.
# Posted by: Tony at April 9, 2005 07:19 PMPJL ~
I've come back to the blog briefly because of the very gracious Email you sent to me. And because you have posted an apology here, I also wanted to answer you publicly. In my Email to you I wrote:
"Thank you very much for your very caring Email. I do appreciate and accept your apology, and I apologize to you for my response, which was also a bit uncivil. I do not expect us to see eye to eye theologically. But be assured that I am as sincere in my spirituality as you are in yours. I honor your relationship with Jesus Christ, even though mine is different. I think it is important for us all to learn that we do not have to attack someone else's faith in order to affirm our own. All we can do is respond to God's call to us with the strongest integrity and faith we can muster, and hope that in the end God will understand if we didn't get it all correct."
You expressed very well in your post above the difficulty in understanding what "Druidry" is. Imagine a Muslim try to understand "Christianity" by visiting websites of Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Southern Baptists, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, and Eastern Orthodox! We human beings are so very complicated, and even within a single faith system we have so many variations in understanding, mostly coming out of how each of us hears God calling to her or him.
It would be hard for me to "explain" Druidry on this blog, and take up much more space than most subscribers would wish. Beginning tomorrow, April 10th, I will be building a page on www.OakWyse.org which deals with ways in which Celtic Druidry and Anglican Christianity can speak peaceably to one another. Perhaps those who are interested will take a look and see.
I do agree with you that I have reached a point in my spiritual journey where it is best not to function as an Episcopal clergyperson. That was a wrenching decision, especially because seven of my family members are Episcopal priests. But I have not left the Church, even though I have many disagreements with that institution. And I have a full and meaningful relationship with Jesus Christ, even though it is not the same one the rest of you have.
Many, many thanks, PJL. You are a person of grace and faith.
Peace,
Bill
Mr. Melnyk, the objection isn't simply that you choose to be a Druid. If that were the extent of it, you never would have made national news last fall, never would have come under the scrutiny from sites such as this one... we never would have heard of you. You would simply have been one of the millions of non-Christians in America, one of the evidently thousands who have chosen to instead follow Druidism.
The objection to your life as a pagan priest is that while you were praying to Baal and authoring rites such as the Beltaine love-in, you were also passing yourself off as an Episcopal priest. I use the term "passing off" deliberately, because what you were doing was committing a fraud. You may wish to believe that ordained Episcopal priests are free to profess a belief in polytheism, that in your life outside the church you're free to worship rocks and trees just as you (presumably) worship Jesus Christ inside the church, but I assure you you're wrong.
You committed what amounts to pastoral malpractice. I don't know if it's simply because it was a "job" that helped you reconcile in your head a day-job that assumed a belief in Christ as the only Son of God and the Savior of the world on the one hand, and the worhsip of "earth, sea, and sky, animated with the sacred Awen" that you profess at your website on the other hand, but it is absolutely essential, for the sake of those to whom you ministered as an Episcopal priest, that you practice at home what you preach in the church. This isn't like being a car dealer, where you can extol the virtues of a Ford to unsuspecting customers during the day, but drive a Chevy home at night. People's souls are at stake here, and you made a mockery of God's offer of salvation.
I have to assume that the copyright date on those rites you authored - 1998 - indicates that you were deeply involved in paganism for at least a couple of years before that. So a conservative estimate is that, before you resigned a few months ago, you had been committing this pastoral malpractice for at least 8 years.
Mr. Melnyk, with all due respect, you are the reductio ad absurdum of the central problem of the Episcopal church, and it is this: Revisionists, through their dogged efforts in the seminaries; and conservatives, through a combination of laziness and allowing themselves to be cowed by political correctness; have let the Episcopal church be turned into one giant comparative religion course, where the Gospel of Christ has been replaced by the Gospel of Doubt. This is no longer just a church where one is free, in the context of faith, to admit and try and come to terms with one's doubt. It is now a church where doubt has become the faith. But since doubt alone is Nothing, and a silly reason to keep going to church, it had to be replaced by Something: Spong's and Borg's sugar-coated atheism, your paganism... anything as long it's not Christ.
Despite the fact that in your Druidism you pray to many gods - and Christ is nowhere to be found - you say you have a "full and meaningful relationship with Christ." This is all the evidence one needs to see that you're not fit - if you ever were - to be a Christian priest. I give you "props" for coming onto this forum, but I hope that everyone here will pray - to God the Father through His son Jesus Christ - that you realize the errors of your departure and repent. I know I will.
# Posted by: Greg at April 9, 2005 10:07 PMGreg ~
I appreciate your unhappiness. But your post is filled with (gasp!) errors. I have never in my life "prayed to Baal." I am most assuredly not a polytheist. (Though I think Animism is the logical implication of Incarnation.) I do not worship rocks and trees. (Druids do not "worship" trees. They understand themselves and trees to be equally a part of nature. One does not "worship" equals.) Nor do I worship or advocate the worship of, "earth, sea, or sky," but recognize the divine presence of the Holy in those places, as well as everywhere. (God cannot be contained in a building.)
People's souls are not at stake here, Greg. That is a matter between each individual and God. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone can come between another person and God. (Thanks be to God!)
As far as the Episcopal Church's spirituality goes, Greg, you have confused blind spouting of doctrine with Faith, and you have confused wonder at the mystery of creation with Doubt. Parroting someone else's doctrinal statements will not win you favor with God. Thank goodness you don't have to win favor with God, who offers you favor whether you get it right or not. I offer no less authority on that than CS Lewis in his Chronicles of Narnia, the last works of his long career.
I do not pray to "many gods," nor have I ever done so. I also do not pray to the God you seem to have allegiance to, and I do not apologize to you for that.
As far as your "anything as long as it's not Christ:" Greg, what you mean is "Greg's understanding of Christ." There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your Christology, Greg. You are not the infallible possessor of Truth. To so claim would be the greatest of sins. It would be claiming to be God. I daren't do so - do you? No one is bound to see Christ as Greg does, or as Stand Firm does. Not I, nor any other child of God.
Peace,
Bill
I have never in my life "prayed to Baal."
To whom does "Bel" refer in this rite?
I am most assuredly not a polytheist.
I quote from your website:
There are no dogma's, no sacred texts, no tradition beyond the memories of sacred stories, the honouring of the ancestors, the celebrating of the gods and goddesses of nature that surround us.
And:
These are the gods of a Druidry of the Heart: earth, sea, and sky, animated with the sacred Awen, the inspiration and wonder of beauty, honour, and peace.
what you mean is "Greg's understanding of Christ."
Yes, right, of course... because really, Christ can be anything to anybody... how dogmatic of me to describe him as the only Son of God, made incarnate through the Virgin Mary, who died for our sins.
You are truly a piece of work, Oakwyse.
I'll just leave this one to linger in everyone's thoughts:
People's souls are not at stake here, Greg.
# Posted by: at April 9, 2005 11:01 PMSay, have I stumbled into a Monty Python skit?
# Posted by: Prophet Micaiah at April 9, 2005 11:10 PMGreg,
As you know . . . it's hopeless. I would say that this little thread is such a picture of the end result of postmodernism -- the practice of words and ideas and worldviews being whatever you *say* that they are, regardless of inherent inconsistencies and contradictions, because chillingly, where there is no Truth, there are no lies -- only definitions written in water.
PM: yes.
It's called the Episcopal church.
# Posted by: Sarah at April 9, 2005 11:26 PM
Folks, we are listening to and responding to the rantings of a fool here. What he says is unimportant, only the fact he comes from the same church we (most of us) do. But tell your local revisionist priest or bishop about this exchange and he will disavow any knowledge or responsibility. Instead of arguing with a fool we ought to be screaming at our clergy, especially our bishops, in outraged disbelief, demanding they accept accountability for tolerating this monstrous blasphemy, and others.
WTF ~ Is everything with which you disagree "the rantings of a fool?" My goodness, makes life awfully easy for you, doesn't it?
Greg ~ Thank you for confirming my suspicions. You indeed do hold yourself up to the church as having the infallibility of God. Such vanity makes for formidable armor, doesn't it?
I can see no conversation is possible here.
# Posted by: Bill at April 10, 2005 07:05 AMWTF -
You're right - we're listening to, and responding to, the rantings of a fool. I sat back yesterday at one point, shook my head and said, "I'm arguing with a pagan..." I'm through doing that. There are good lessons to be learned here, and to me it is very obviously the hand of God that has brought Mr. Melnyk back into this debate at this exact time.
You are 100% correct that we should be expressing our outrage about people like this being allowed to masquerade for years as priests, but I think what the Melnyk episode teaches us is not simply that there are self-declared pagans in our midst. I suggest the real lesson is that Mr. Melnyk is:
a) almost certainly not the only self-declared pagan who is also an ordained Episcopal priest; only the most visible, who has decided he will no longer lead a double life. Mrs. Melnyk, I believe, has not resigned from her ministry.
b) an extreme version of the kind of cleric that has helped bring us to our present crisis.
A realization of this second and more subtle point is the framework within which any conversation, call or letter to the bishop or your clergy should be made. Mr. Melnyk is not simply an aberration so extreme that he deserves his own category. He has simply moved just a little further away from the faith than some of his colleagues, who themselves have moved just a little further than others. It is a continuum of beliefs the left side of which extends into heresy, and which has found its terminus in Mr. Melnyk.
For example, there are priests in this diocese who have stripped the liturgy of its gender-specific language, referring not to "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," but to "Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer." There is one very prominent cleric in this diocese who has flatly stated that the 39 Articles have nothing to do with our faith. He is considered a leading candidate to be our next bishop. And on and on it goes.
The problem starts in the seminaries. Sewanee, for example, the support of which this diocese plays a major role, still employs a faculty member who believes that "Jesus is a bag of bones rotting outside of Jerusalem." How likely is it that he's alone in this belief just at Sewanee, to say nothing of GTS, Seabury, EDS, and others? This is why any serious reform of Anglicanism in America must include dealing with heretics in the seminaries.
I have often described the Windsor Report as an attempt by a communion held together mainly by trust, to deal with a member province it has decided it can no longer trust. This is a macro problem that has a micro mirror within ECUSA: There are few substantive ways for authorities in the church to deal with heretical clerics, and of those that exist, few authorities take advantage of them. Indeed, the mere suggestion that church authorities should presume to decide what is and is not acceptable behavior for priests - much less enforce those decisions - is seen by most as draconian and unacceptable, a kind of betrayal of one brother by another. The system is held together by trust - trust that when one is ordained, one will not later on beginning spouting off about things like paganism and denying the bodily resurrection. At least that's what supposed to be happening. Sometimes you have to wonder, though, if that's actually the expectation.
There are many quotes incorrectly attributed to Churchill, and this may be one of them, but it's no less true if it is: "Communism fails because it is a system designed for saints, of whom there are few. Capitalism succeeds because it is a system designed for sinners, of whom there are many." In communism, there are all sorts of incentives for not playing by the rules, and few punishments for breaking them. Capitalism, for all its faults, at least has built-in rewards and punishments.
What we are trying to run in the Episcopal church and in the Anglican communion is a kind of communist system, a communal one... a communion. And it worked for a while, as many communal systems do in their early days, but at some point, as with most communal systems, there emerges an element that decides not to play by the rules. Absent a way to deal with rule-breakers, the trust of the communion breaks down, and you end up with an ECUSA.
This is also what I mean when I say the Episcopal Church is being turned into one giant course on comparative religion. The fine line that drew me to the church was what I referred to above - the freedom to admit one's doubts in the context of striving to strengthen one's faith. As with most fine lines, it's very difficult to maintain, and this church has failed miserably at it. Once doubting the basic tenets of the faith - indeed, going so far as to make a career out of doing so - was in vogue, it was only a short trip to the point where firmly stating one's belief in orthodox Christianity got you branded a freak. ECUSA is fulfilling Richard John Neuhaus's prediction that "where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will soon be proscribed."
I have a sportscaster friend who has long since stopped watching the NBA. He says, "Don't get me wrong - I love basketball. I just wish the NBA would start playing it." In the same way, I love Christianity - I just wish ECUSA would start practicing it.
# Posted by: Greg at April 10, 2005 09:46 AMI sense that the Lord is rubbing the faces of believing Episcopalians in it as a means of causing you to stand up to what you are going to have to do. He is taking off the roof of your house and shaking out the foolishness that over the years you have tolerated and supported. No one could have told you about it and you would have acted, but now the enemy has come out and pulled of the mask. Flee the wrath to come. Who is on the Lord's side? Praise be to His name.
# Posted by: Prophet Micaiah at April 10, 2005 10:06 AMI think that if you were to ask Andrei Sakharov's widow, you would find that the problem with communism isn't that it doesn't punish people enough. The problem is that it's such a bureaucratic nightmare, in all of the forms in which it has existed so far, that it creates a government too powerful to do much else but become progressively more powerful. Gorbachev had some ideas on reforming communism and making it compatible with a government that is otherwise libertarian, but they haven't really been tried yet and I don't know that they ever will be.
The 39 articles don't describe our faith as it exists today--that's why they're classified as historical documents. Anyone who claims otherwise does not understand how the prayerbook is organized and why it is organized that way.
I see no evidence that orthodoxy has been proscribed; only that some orthodox folks don't want to share the church with people like me and Bill+, which is certainly their right. Most of the church obviously has no problem with the fact that we're here.
As far as liberal scholars go, the same "problem" exists in the Roman Catholic Church. If you were to eliminate tenure and make employment contingent on whatever the people writing the checks think constitutes orthodoxy, you'd find that liberalism would be the least of your worries.
I also don't think you're using the word "pagan" correctly. Paganism refers to the absence of "civilized" religion, not the influence of "uncivilized" religion. If pagan influences were enough to reclassify elements of the Christian faith into...well, paganism, then we would not be celebrating Christmas (look up the etymology of "Yuletide") or Easter (a word derived, here again, from "Ishtar"), and certainly not on a Sun-day. Besides, by contemporary standards the honest Christianity of the Gospels is a pagan religion; there's nothing "civilized" about it.
I got a delightful email from a like minded soul yesterday and find myself vaguely wondering if the hand of God really might have brought Bill+ here, though not for the reasons you believe.
Cheers,
TH
# Posted by: TH at April 10, 2005 10:12 AMAs a Catholic, I like many Christians am still grieved over the death of the Holy Father Pope John Paul II. If anyone wants to read a heartfelt and sound defense of the uniqueness of Christ and the message of His gospel, please go to www.vatican.va. The writings of the Pope can be accessed there. It will refresh your minds and souls to read Jesus declared as Savior in no uncertain terms. Now the comment was made that no one's soul was at stake here. The sad thing is, that is what exactly is at stake. And trutfully in the long run of eternity it is all that matters. Each thing we do, each choice we make either enhances our choice for God or moves us away from Him. We would be poor Christians indeed if when we see an error that leads away from the Gospel and the Grace of Christ we did not send out alarm bells. I am not advocating a sort of wandering Inquisition. But standing for Truth in this and all forums is a great charity to others. As long as it is done without rancor and with respect for other's views. As for me and my house we will serve the Lord.
# Posted by: PJL at April 10, 2005 10:21 AMTH ~ It's good to see someone of your calibre posting here. I think we can compliment Stand Firm Mississippi for hosting the comments of religious liberals, and interfaith representatives on their blog. I would have to say Stand Firm has given more publicity to my ideas than any other conservative blog. Many thanks, folks.
Bill
# Posted by: Bill at April 10, 2005 11:53 AMGreg, there's no doubt that you are right in your evaluation, that there are many 'Druidists', 'wiccans', and other less colorful forms of anti-Christians in the Episcopal Church, many of them members of the clergy. And your analysis of how they came to be where they are is right on. When ECUSA opened itself up to the destructive spirits of the Sixties, and conservatives allowed it to happen, it gave up its institutional soul. Christians are going to have to leave in order to avoid being soiled by association. The incredible, crazy 'beliefs' discussed in this thread have made that clearer than ever. Maybe in Anglicanism as embodied by people like Peter Akinola, Sam Rucsyuhana, and John Stott, there is something to cling to and fight for, but ECUSA is dead and lost forever. It will be harder for some to accept than for others, particularly when there are people hanging in there whom we like and admire, like +Duncan Gray. We're back to the story of Lot's wife, though.
The peace of Christ. WTF
# Posted by: WTF at April 10, 2005 02:52 PMThere are many other blogs that would be happy to dissect the theology of Bill Melnyk.
I would recommend he post right here . . . I'm certain the blog would revel in it.
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/
:)
It would be as entertaining -- and elightening -- over there as it has been for Mississippi Episcopalians. Hey, I'm all for giving the views and theology of Mr. Melnyk as wide and deep an airing as is possible. It's important that everyone know what sorts of clergy remain within ECUSA, as it is certain there are many.
# Posted by: Beyond the Misty Mountains at April 10, 2005 03:27 PMYou all needn't stand on formality and call me "Mr. Melnyk." "Bill" works just fine.
# Posted by: Bill at April 10, 2005 06:43 PMBill,
Amid all the elbow-throwing, I am genuinely curious about your recantation-of-your-recantation. First you signed a letter shortly after all the controversy last fall, then a few days ago a letter from you shows up on IRD saying your statement was "forced." What's the deal?
# Posted by: Greg at April 10, 2005 08:22 PMBill,
A more apt example from the "The Last Battle" is the ape who dabbled with a false god. He should have known better. He was born in Narnia.
God's Peace.
David Hey
# Posted by: David Hey at April 10, 2005 09:07 PMBill, I believe that you are a gentle man, and that our gentle God loves you very much. Scripture tells us that our gentle God is also a jealous God. I believe that He is a jealous God because He is trying to protect us. I believe that He asks us to be obedient to His word because by doing so, we remain under His protective wing. As we move into disobedience, we move out from under His protective covering.
God instructs us to avoid idolatry and sorcery so that we will look to Him and Him alone for our source of strength and knowledge. Looking to the presence of the holy in the Three Kindreds (spirits of ancestors, earth spirits, and spirits of gods & goddesses) is looking outside the one true God, and it is moving beyond God's protective wing.
But our gentle God is still calling for you, asking you to look to Him and Him alone. He is ready to offer you a bridge from the lonely path of alienation from Himself to Himself, and that bridge is the cross. Won't you ask Him to show you the moment you set foot on this wrong path and ask forgiveness for that moment? Won't you renounce all that has transpired since that first small step? Won't you reach out for our gentle Lord?
Bill, He loves you so very much. Please turn.
(I have a long day at work and won't be returning to my computer any time soon. You can e-mail me if you wish.)
Sincerely,
Jill
David ~ You may remember also from "The Last Battle" the Calormene soldier who finds himself, to his amazement, in Aslan's Country after the battle, face to face with Aslan. He fears for his life, but Aslan welcomes him. Even though he has served "Tash," the "false god" all his life, he has done so in love. Aslan tells him "All service to Tash that is loving and good I count as service to me. And all service in my name that is not loving I count as service to Tash." In otherwords, Lewis has Aslan saying that its the condition of your heart that counts, not the "correctness" of your doctrine. And the ape gets in trouble not because of his doctrine, but because of his actions. Lewis gets this from, among other places, the end of the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says, "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say?"
Jill ~ I appreciate the loving gentleness of your comments. But, if there is indeed only one God, then all the peoples of the earth, in their own gentle seeking for that God, if they do so in love and integrity, find (him.) I am not lost, Jill, but find God through many paths that are meaningful to me. That those paths are not always the one you are on does not mean they are not legitimate. God is bigger than you think. And broader and deeper, and, yes, even gentler. What if, instead of fighting over whose path is the only true path, we spoke gently together about the joys and sorrows of our various paths? What might we all learn from one another. I respect your path, Jill. I walked along it myself for many years. But you don't need for it to be the "only" one in order for it to be right for you.
Peace to all,
Bill
So all paths lead to heaven, and "souls are not at stake". Got it.
# Posted by: Marty at April 11, 2005 10:51 AMAlmost, Marty. But no cigar.
Not all paths lead to heaven, only many -- the one's paved with the cardinal virtues. Roads paved with hatred, sarcasm, ridicule, etc., do not lead there. Websites that quote Scripture demanding all be done with love, but don't love, don't lead there.
Souls are not "at stake" because you and I cannot help or harm another person's soul. Do you really think you have the power to come between someone else's soul and God? Do you really?! Really??
# Posted by: Bill at April 11, 2005 11:01 AMAs a priest, do you really think you have no power to help or harm another person's soul? Really?! Really??
No wonder you were willing to resign from the priesthood. What's the point of being a priest if that's what you think.
# Posted by: Wilson at April 11, 2005 11:10 AMDo you really think you have the power to come between someone else's soul and God?
You're damn right i have the power to lead others astray, to cause them to stumble, and to lure them straight down the road to hell. Don't you?
Likewise, are all of our Missionaries just wasting their time? Or are they quite literally coming between someone elses soul and God -- with the express purpose of drawing the two together.
# Posted by: Marty at April 11, 2005 11:15 AMForgive me, i just realized that i'm arguing with a druid... How silly of me.
# Posted by: Marty at April 11, 2005 11:19 AMGosh, this blog was fairly quiet all week last week. Then I go to prison for ONE weekend and everything breaks loose while I'm gone! : )
This statement intrigues me:
"I am not lost, Jill, but find God through many paths that are meaningful to me. That those paths are not always the one you are on does not mean they are not legitimate. God is bigger than you think. And broader and deeper, and, yes, even gentler. What if, instead of fighting over whose path is the only true path, we spoke gently together about the joys and sorrows of our various paths?"
Bill, do you agree with Jesus' statement, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." (John 14:6)?
Marty, I think the single biggest difference between liberal and conservative Christians might be that we liberals don't buy into the concept of accidental damnation. Some folks have a vision of divine judgment that resembles the Bridge of Death from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where Mean Old God is sitting there with a lever, just itching for an excuse to toss some poor schmuck into perdition.
Yeah, I know, it's all about following the rules--God can't save us unless we know which of our actions bear repentance, and get our Christology straight. Which I guess explains why God condemns the mentally handicapped, those suffering from severe brain damage, unbaptized infants, and the victims of the Holocaust. Oh, wait, you mean God doesn't? So God isn't bound by the rules? Well, then! Why are we worried? Oh, I see, because God only makes exceptions in extreme cases. Well, I'm sympathetic to what you're saying, but if God can save whomever he likes, why are you worried? Have you no real faith? The Hymn of Elijah doesn't go like this:
Surely it is the Council of Nicea that saves me.
I will trust in it and not be afraid;
for the Council is my stronghold and my sure defense,
and it will be my Savior.
Little children, keep away from idols. All this talk of biblical orthodoxy, as if the Bible is some kind of ridiculous manager's contract and you've got God by the short hairs and can dictate who is and is not to be saved. Ridiculous. You have no power, no authority, no say in the matter. You can't even resurrect an earthworm. God will be God. The grave will humble all of us--no exceptions. We will all be completely powerless, and all the proof-texting in the world won't bring us back. We don't have the power to save, and we can't use the Bible like some kind of sorcery book to achieve that power by proxy.
Oh, I know nobody's going to say "By golly, you're right!" But if you're worried why Bill+ and I are so unconcerned about our personal salvation, it's because we're comfortable leaving that decision entirely in God's hands. When we're good and dead, it will be God who saves us--not the pathetic arrogations of humanity. And contrary to what others may think, I think the power to save rests entirely with God. The Bible does not take that power away from him.
Cheers,
TH
# Posted by: TH at April 11, 2005 12:12 PMYes! What TH said. There is a balm in Gilead after all.
Wilson, the point of being a priest is not to have power over someone's eternal salvation. It's to teach them about the limitless love of God so they don't go around condemning themselves or others based on sets of rules they make up. That's why it's called "Good News."
TH is correct. This blog stands firm in the practice of flagrant idolatry on many counts. You don't need to do that. To paraphrase someone's post further up, Heaven most certainly IS a "love-in" -- the Great Love-In of God.
Oh, right, Jesus already said that.
# Posted by: Bill at April 11, 2005 12:29 PMSo glad to see that TH and druids are 5 point Calvanist!
# Posted by: Prophet Micaiah at April 11, 2005 12:37 PMActually, Micaiah, not.
Basically, Calvinism's Five Points are known by an acronym: T.U.L.I.P.
1. Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)-- Do not agree with this at all.
2. Unconditional Election -- Insofar as this means election to salvation, yes.
3. Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement) - Nope. I'm a universalist.
4. Irresistible Grace -- Absolutely. It's why you bloggers can't stand between someone else and God's grace.
5. Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved) Absolutely. God doesn't take back gifts.
So that's only three out of five - and one of those only conditionally. Nope. No Five Point Calvinist here.
Bill
I can agree with much - by no means all - of what TH has written, above. (I disagree, for example, with his writing that "between liberal and conservative Christians might be that we liberals don't buy into the concept of accidental damnation". Not that liberal Christians - egad! how I despise these politics-laden terms we use - believe in "accidental damnation", mind you. It's just that I don't really know that we conservative/orthodox/traditionalist Christians believe as a body in "accidental salvation". Or that, even were we to believe in such a thing, it would constitute "the single greatest difference" between us and liberal/progressive/revisionist Christians.)
But, and bringing Bill into the conversation with his having written above, "Not all paths lead to heaven, only many -- the one's paved with the cardinal virtues."
How precisely is this any less an arrogation of the sovereign mercy and gracious prerogative of God than the damning "conservatism" to which TH and Bill are objecting? Does this not presume to know the mind of God in a way that you reject in "conservative" Christians?
(To say nothing of this notion - a notion that even "conservatives" can erroneously hold - that the object of the Christian life, or its hope, is to "go to heaven"! That is perhaps a "religious" hope, but not a particularly Christian hope.)
TH (and Bill), I am not fearful in the least of my own salvation in Christ Jesus, while I am mindful of the apostolic admonition to "work out [my] salvation with fear and trembling". God is indeed faithful, even when we are faithless.
Of course, there are those New Testament warnings to teachers not to teach wrongly, because of their being more rigorously judged than those whom they teach (cf. the epistle to the Hebrews).
# Posted by: Todd Granger at April 11, 2005 12:52 PMWM: Not all paths lead to heaven, only many -- the one's paved with the cardinal virtues. Roads paved with hatred, sarcasm, ridicule, etc., do not lead there. Websites that quote Scripture demanding all be done with love, but don't love, don't lead there.
Bill, what is the basis of the belief you cite above?
# Posted by: Tony at April 11, 2005 01:11 PM"Bill, what is the basis of the belief you cite above?"
Umm... The Gospel?
Todd makes a good point. I was just trying to sound a tad reasonable to the group. No - you certainly don't have to know what the "cardinal virtues" are to "be saved."
# Posted by: Bill at April 11, 2005 01:18 PMTH and Bill: just steped outside today and the Spirit of the Wind spoke to me. She said you were both wrong and in a heap of trouble!
# Posted by: Prophet Micaiah at April 11, 2005 02:16 PMTodd, excellent post. Thanks for the kind words. I have always found C.S. Lewis' approach to these questions to be very sensible--where he has his beliefs about judgment, but is very clear on the fact that he believes God is not confined by them and can trump them at any time.
Prophet, a little Beano should clear that up for you right away.
Cheers,
TH
# Posted by: TH at April 11, 2005 03:03 PM:-)
# Posted by: at April 11, 2005 03:04 PMI thought y'all might find this a breath of fresh air.
Notification on the Book
Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism
By Father Jacque Dupois, SJ
From the introduction: The present Notification is not meant as a judgment on the author’s subjective thought, but rather as a statement of the Church’s teaching on certain aspects of the above-mentioned doctrinal truths, and as a refutation of erroneous or harmful opinions, which, prescinding from the author’s intentions, could be derived from reading the ambiguous statements and insufficient explanations found in certain sections of the text. In this way, Catholic readers will be given solid criteria for judgment, consistent with the doctrine of the Church, in order to avoid the serious confusion and misunderstanding which could result from reading this book.
On the sole and universal salvific mediation of Jesus Christ
1. It must be firmly believed that Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man, crucified and risen, is the sole and universal mediator of salvation for all humanity.[2]
2. It must also be firmly believed that Jesus of Nazareth, Son of Mary and only Saviour of the world, is the Son and Word of the Father.[3] For the unity of the divine plan of salvation centred in Jesus Christ, it must also be held that the salvific action of the Word is accomplished in and through Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of the Father, as mediator of salvation for all humanity.[4] It is therefore contrary to the Catholic faith not only to posit a separation between the Word and Jesus, or between the Word’s salvific activity and that of Jesus, but also to maintain that there is a salvific activity of the Word as such in his divinity, independent of the humanity of the Incarnate Word.[5]
II. On the unicity and completeness of revelation of Jesus Christ
3. It must be firmly believed that Jesus Christ is the mediator, the fulfilment and the completeness of revelation.[6] It is therefore contrary to the Catholic faith to maintain that revelation in Jesus Christ (or the revelation of Jesus Christ) is limited, incomplete or imperfect. Moreover, although full knowledge of divine revelation will be had only on the day of the Lord’s coming in glory, the historical revelation of Jesus Christ offers everything necessary for man’s salvation and has no need of completion by other religions.[7]
4. It is consistent with Catholic doctrine to hold that the seeds of truth and goodness that exist in other religions are a certain participation in truths contained in the revelation of or in Jesus Christ.[8] However, it is erroneous to hold that such elements of truth and goodness, or some of them, do not derive ultimately from the source-mediation of Jesus Christ.[9]
III. On the universal salvific action of the Holy Spirit
5. The Church’s faith teaches that the Holy Spirit, working after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, is always the Spirit of Christ sent by the Father, who works in a salvific way in Christians as well as non-Christians.[10] It is therefore contrary to the Catholic faith to hold that the salvific action of the Holy Spirit extends beyond the one universal salvific economy of the Incarnate Word.[11]
IV. On the orientation of all human beings to the Church
6. It must be firmly believed that the Church is sign and instrument of salvation for all people.[12] It is contrary to the Catholic faith to consider the different religions of the world as ways of salvation complementary to the Church.[13]
7. According to Catholic doctrine, the followers of other religions are oriented to the Church and are all called to become part of her.[14]
V. On the value and salvific function of the religious traditions
8. In accordance with Catholic doctrine, it must be held that «whatever the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the history of peoples, in cultures and religions, serves as a preparation for the Gospel (cf. Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 16)».[15] It is therefore legitimate to maintain that the Holy Spirit accomplishes salvation in non-Christians also through those elements of truth and goodness present in the various religions; however, to hold that these religions, considered as such, are ways of salvation, has no foundation in Catholic theology, also because they contain omissions, insufficiencies and errors[16] regarding fundamental truths about God, man and the world.
Furthermore, the fact that the elements of truth and goodness present in the various world religions may prepare peoples and cultures to receive the salvific event of Jesus Christ does not imply that the sacred texts of these religions can be considered as complementary to the Old Testament, which is the immediate preparation for the Christ event.[17]
I know this is a long post. But what it says seems very important and essential to the discussions being held.
# Posted by: PJL at April 11, 2005 03:40 PM
To clarify. The above Notification is from the
Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, January 24, 2001. The book was authored by Father Dupois.
# Posted by: PJL at April 11, 2005 03:44 PM
PJL ~
That would be meaningful and important were this a Roman Catholic Blog. But it isn't. Nor is this issue/discussion taking place within the Roman Church. And we Anglicans have no Magisterium, no Inquisition, no Canon Law regarding what may be taught, and no official silencing of our theologians. Thank goodness, we have freedom of thought.
~ WWM
# Posted by: Bill at April 11, 2005 03:48 PMDear Bill,
I know this is a Episcopalian blog. Though I do think many identify themselves as Anglo-Catholic. The reason I posted this, was not because it is Catholic but it seemed for the most part to address common beliefs about Christ and salvation held by most Christians who identify themselves as believing to one Holy, Apostolic and Catholic church. I also know that some,not all Episcopalians believe the Anglican Church is a branch of the Catholic Church. Though by no means Roman and by no means under the Papal See.
And I by no means dislike freedom- but I do distrust and reject anarchy. As I am sure you and most people would.
Thanks, PJL, for a very useful and relevant contribution to this discussion. You seem to have struck a nerve with someone, which only shows how to-the-point and truthful your citation is. As an Anglican who considers himself part of the Church, if temporarily separated, I welcome legitimate, learned observations from any source.
# Posted by: WTF at April 11, 2005 04:08 PMHey, Oakwyse, if a self-styled 'Druid' can participate on this blog, a Roman Catholic sure can.
# Posted by: WTF at April 11, 2005 04:11 PMThanks for the kind words. In Bill Melnyks defense I must say that I do not think he intended to limit my participation on this blog. I think he just wanted to remind all that the means used by the Catholic Church to formally define doctrine is not used by the Anglican Church. I did not take his remarks as personal criticism and I hope none of you will either.
It was not my intention to touch any sore spots on anybody. I got too many of my own to do that.
Many thanks, PJL. Ihave truly enjoyed our exchanges. Though we disagree, we are able to do so in a polite and civil manner. You're right, I was only pointing out that you were quoting a Roman and not an Anglican source, and that no Anglican source would have written such a document. To be fair, however, I'd also have to agree many think this is a great Anglican weakness - the lack of any centralized authority. I suppose many on this blog would agree with you on that.
As is likely obvious, I tend to appreciate intellectual freedom more than doctrinal purity, so I'd not agree with Fr. Dupois. But he did present the Catholic position quite well.
One of the interesting things about Anglicanism, of course, is that its heritage sits smack in between the Roman Church and the Celtic Church, the latter having been greatly influenced by Druid thought. I suspect if you (PJL) and I began a debate here, it would be hard to tell us apart from Augustine and Pelagius!
Peace,
Bill
Bill:
I'd be interested to know what was so unsatisfying about Christianity that you chose Druidry as a supplement to or a substitute for Christianity. Do you or did you ever believe that Christ was literally resurrected and ascended into heaven?
You also stated at the IRD website that your previous recantation was coerced. How was this accomplished? Was Bishop Bennison the one who coerced you? If you were so firm in your convictions, why did you sign the letter in the first place? How were you coerced, exactly? Why did you send this to IRD? What happened after the letter to cause you to renounce your vows. Your wife is still rector of a church, yet she would appear to share your same theological views, although I could be wrong on this point.
Also, I'd like to know who "Bel" is from that prayer.
I realize I have a lot of questions for you, Bill. Please know that I am not asking these questions out of a mean spirit. I am looking at you as a microchosm of a phenomenon in the church, that being dissatisfaction with Christianity as a majority of Christians seem to understand it. The main reason I've gleaned so far is that many find Christianity too judgmental and exclusive for their tastes. However, I'd like to know what you think.
Brad Drell
Alexandria, Louisiana
William Melnyk said one true thing: there is no possibility of dialogue here.
However, given the current state of affairs in ECUSA, I just had a brainstorm:
I hereby nominate William Melnyk for Presiding Bishop. He'd fit right in.
# Posted by: I'd rather not say at April 11, 2005 06:28 PMBrad ~
Fair questions, all.
First, you are incorrect about my wife. She does NOT share my Druidry, though we respect and honor one another. (You can't believe "everything" IRD and Christianity Today say. Her women's liturgy may have been feminist, but it wasn't Druid).
Christianity is not at all unsatisfying to me. Though I wish the Church took its wonderful doctrine of Incarnation seriously enough to actually care about the environment. I do find the judgmentalism and exclusivism of some Christians difficult to accept, and that is quite unsatisfying, but we've been discussing that above.
Are you referring to the "Bel" in the old ritual on the TdB site? Bel, or Belenos, is the Celtic sun god. (No, "Bel" in Irish Gaelic is not a translation of Ba'al in Phoenecian. Though, interestingly, Adonai -- Lord -- in Aramaic means the same thing as Ba'al!)
You probably know that in the South it was common to see billboards claiming "The wages of sin is death." Completely ignoring the second half of the sentence: "But the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus." If the Church could stick with proclaiming the Good News rather than hunting down and destroying sinners, the world would be a happier place, and there would be more Christians.
Why did I say the things I said? October/November was rather horrible last fall. People can be overpoweringly hateful. I now wish I had not written that first recantation. I won't comment here on what went on between me and Bishop Bennison, except to point out that I went down in five days, which was much quicker than his actions against the conservative priests.
What I have learned from all this is that there is a true lack of knowledge in our country of the history, nature, and theology of Druids and Druidry. My goal is to develop better public understanding of this rich tradition that is truly one of the roots of Celtic Christianity, and is followed today by the most spiritual, loving, and educated folks I've ever met.
Do I believe in a "literal" resurrection and ascension? I did, once. But years ago I came to learn that there can be far deeper "truth" in metaphor than in literal statements. I don't expect anyone on this blog to accept that, so please, folks, spare the comments.
Brad, do you really want to know my disappointment with the church? Look honestly at the tone of most of the comments above.
Hope that helps.
Peace,
Bill
No thanks, "Rather Not," I'm not interested!
# Posted by: Bill at April 11, 2005 06:52 PM"Bill, what is the basis of the belief you cite above?"
Umm... The Gospel?
Bill, this is not the Gospel that I read in my New Testament. Could you be more specific, please.
Bill, for instance, would you please interpret "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
# Posted by: Tony at April 11, 2005 07:43 PMTony ~ I'd suggest you get a good, reputable New Testament textbook from a major seminary bookstore, and read it.
# Posted by: Bill at April 11, 2005 07:50 PMBill:
As one who, when a Cursillo lay rector, picked Joseph of Arimethea as the patron saint for the weekend, I understand how neat Celtic Christianity can be. The Glastonbury Thorn and the well containing the Holy Grail...that's much more inspiring than Speilberg's take on the Grail, in any event. "And did those feet, in ancient time..."
I had read your wife went by the name "Glyspa" (sp?) and was also into Druidry; forgive me if I am incorrect about this.
Did belief in the physical resurrection need to give way to understand the powerful nature of what occurred in the Christian community thereafter? You are not the first person to say what you said about the resurrection. What changed your mind? You believed once, but that changed - why? (I know I am pressing this, but therein may lie the key to understanding. Pike and Spong went through this; you did too, so it seems.) I mean, that would have to be an incredible revelation.
As one who does prison ministry, I'm trying to stick with proclaiming the Good News. I'm certainly not trying to hunt down sinners to destroy them, but to offer them Jesus Christ. He saved a sinner like me; He can save anyone.
As far as your disappointment with the church - I try to abide by the Ignatian Preface (to his Spiritual Exercises), which I was introduced to as a Cursillo leader. However, it is tiresome work. A number of folks have commented on how patient I can be with folks on the HOBD listserv, considering I am as conservative as I am. But, the preface works for me - I've been present when Wiccans, Muslims, Hare Krishnas, and ardent Atheists have been brought to Christ (mostly through Kairos Prison Ministry - that's my main ministry). These things didn't happen because I told them they were sinners. The Holy Spirit did that. All I did was love them. If we could put the Ignatian Preface into practice, TEC could probably remain together.
Realize, Bill, that this is difficult for all of us. But, some of us, as ardently conservative and orthodox as we are, truly want to walk with Jesus Christ, and bring all of our brothers and sisters along with us. You may not recall this, but I sent you an email during your horrible fall, telling you I was praying for you in the hopes that you would return to Jesus Christ and that your ministry as priest would continue. I'm sure you deleted it among all the hate mail you surely received. Know that I wanted the above prayer to come true - that you would still be a priest, and find your faith again. I know that sounds like I'm judging you for not having faith, but I honestly want the best for you, whatever you believe.
I frankly thought Bennison is a jerk; your comments, as sparse as they are, don't tend to change my opinion.
Thank you for your frank answers to my questions!
Brad Drell
Alexandria, Louisiana
Bill,
Consider backward engineering. If one were to accept Druidism and Christianity as essentially compatible, how would one account for "false" shepherds, "false" teachers, "false" worship, and spiritual adultery, all of which are biblical concepts with a considerable pedigree? Don't make this a conflict between nice, gracious people and southern fundamentalists. It is not. This is between Elijah and the priests of Ba'al. Your identifying the latter as merely meaning Adonai is disingenuous. The Creator of all things spoke through the prophets of Israel and considered Himself Other than the Ba'al of Jezebel.
The ancient Celtic church accepted the authority of the Word of God through the Hebrew prophets, and the apostles of Christ, as their illumination of those manuscripts bear witness, as does the triumph of the Celtic cross over the Druid gods. It *is* a cross that contains Celtic mythological symbols, not the other way around. Athanasius cites the Church of Britain as concurring with Nicea, and it wasn't the logic of the Church of Rome that Whitby found persuading. It was their exegesis. They had no better way to understand the words of Matt 16:18, and the Scripture cannot be broken.
If Druidism is compatible with Christianity, then there is no "false" spirituality and the Scriptures themselves enshrine a falsehood; indeed Jesus does. Christianity plus Druidism reduces to Druidism, which is the case whatever the "plus" is, because Jesus Christ Who fulfills the words of the prophets of Israel is unique in all the world in terms of God's action in redemption of a humanity fallen from a pristine natural state. The argument of Colossians 2 can't be clearer. The religion prevalent in Colossae is perfectly respectable in comparison with Driudism. Yet, the apostle sees Christ as its antithesis.
As for Tash, once again the liberal perspective is disingenuous. The Calormene was sincerely deceived. He did not know it. He was entirely devoted to Tash, and so opposed to Aslan. Those sincerely devoted to Aslan were opposed to Tash. These were mutually exclusive systems of thought. Lewis used this to describe how sincere religionists might be wrong in knowledge, and yet right in heart. Yet you use this scene from Lewis to propose that one devoted to both Aslan and Tash might just as well be received by Aslan, as if a right heart could mix two systems, which is the only thing that cannot possibly be true. The state of our heart is more important than our knowledge, but when Jesus spoke to someone whose religion was close, but distinctly different from the biblical faith of Israel, He said, "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews." (John 4:22)
Do the backward engineering. If the Samaritan faith can't be mixed with Israel's according to Jesus, how can Druidism? If Druidism can, then Jesus isn't the Jesus of the Gospels, which the Celtic saints illuminated as the Word of God. The Anglican Church, then, simply becomes Druidism, or African polytheism, nature worship, etc.
In contrast, all of that existed at the time of Christ and the earliest Church, and the gospel is clear in relation to it:
Acts 17:30-31 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."
# Posted by: Joe at April 11, 2005 08:31 PMI'm back, after spending the last several weeks plowing the fields to and fro - pace St. Paul, I must be a faithful servant to my master as a good Christian ox - but now the rains have set in, and we oxen are confined to our barns and our hay. Oh yes, and our internet addictions.
Maybe I'm just too dumb, but I don't understand what all the fuss is about with druids and the Anglican Church.
I thought that druidism goes all the way to the top in your church. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury has taken vows in a prominent Druid order. See here.
So what's with this double standard?
I thought that the Anglican Church was broad enough to embrace Christians of all sorts and conditions ....
# Posted by: Dumb Ox at April 11, 2005 09:31 PMBill, I don't think you've answered my question, nor did you answer the same question when Tony put it to you. Here it is again. Do you believe the following statement attributed to Jesus Christ and recorded in the Gospel of John:
I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me.
While I'm at it, I'll put this question to you as well-- do you believe it was necessary for Jesus Christ to die on the cross in order for you or for me to obtain salvation?
And, oh yeah, one thing more. When you talk about the many paths to heaven being the ones paved with the cardinal virtues, are you saying that I should as a faithful Christian try to become virtuous so that I can go to heaven? Because that sounds to me an awfully lot like a works-based doctrine of salvation. Are cardinal virtues attributes that we should struggle to attain, or are they attributes that are exhibited by those whose faith in Jesus Christ has led them to crucify their former, sinful selves and become resurrected into the life of Jesus Christ?
My suspicion, Bill, is that leading lights of the majority liberal wing of ECUSA, people such as yourself are advocating a social gospel-- salvation by good deeds, rather than the Gospel of John 3:16, the verse in Scripture that Luther called, "The Gospel in miniature." So, please, disabuse me of this notion, or, confirm my suspicions.
Brad Drell, thank you for your post and your mention of Kairos. I just returned from a Kairos weekend. One of our pilgrims was a self-proclaimed witch from the Wiccan movement. He began the weekend by telling us he had an empty heart. Using the Kairos technique of Listen, listen, love, love, we did show him the saving love of Jesus Christ. I'm not certain that we penetrated through all the darkness, but we were able to shine a light and plant a seed.
# Posted by: Rick Harris at April 11, 2005 09:44 PMHey, St. Thomas Aquinas. Welcome back. You may well be right that those of us Episcopalians who, er, have doubts about the compatibility of Druidism and Christianity are just tilting at windmills. But of course, the original Dumb Ox was quite the church reformer himself. He came from a wealthy and very prominent family who wanted to pull strings to make him the abbot of a conventional monastery. Instead he donned the Dominican habit and adopted a life of poverty. As a result of this, he was kidnapped by his brothers and held in the family castle against his will for quite some time, but that is another story. He challenged church leaders on many dotrinal issues, not the least of which was their adulation of Plato and rejection of Aristotle. He was actually charged with heresy for these ideas and tried before the Bishop of Paris, but his earnestness and sincerity won the day, even if his theology remained suspect for a number of years afterward. Of course, in Dumb Ox's day, there was only one church (at least in Europe). Not like today, when there are so many from which we can choose.
# Posted by: Rick Harris at April 11, 2005 10:01 PMBill,
As someone whose favorite Narnia book is "The Horse and His Boy" I must admit an attraction to Colormans in general. The account of Emeth's translation into the new earth has also been a stunning and moving read for me over the last 30 years. It is sad, therefore, to me that in your discussion of this story, you left out the most important lines, IMHO.
"Then he breathed upon me and took away the trembling from my limbs and caused me to stand upon my feet. And after that, he said not much but that we should meet again, and I must go further up and further in. ..."
"And since then ... I have been wandering to find him and my happiness is so great that it even weakens me like a wound. And this is the marvel of marvels, that he called me, Beloved, me who am but as a dog---"
God's Peace.
David Hey
# Posted by: David Hey at April 11, 2005 10:01 PMTo lift a couple of comments from another thread in this weblog (and revising them a bit):
Just to interject a little history here: what is claimed as "druidism" by latter-day adherents is a mélange of an 18th and 19th century fantasy concocted by people who had little evidence of what actual Iron Age Celtic religion in Gaul or Britain was, well-larded with 20th century ecotheology and "creation theology". So far as we are able to reconstruct (there being no druidic writings because of their committing everything to memory), mostly from legendary material (like the Mabinogi, the legends (and histories) about Merlin, Guortigern (Vortigern), Ambrosius and the like; from Roman authors (though, like Caesar's Commentaries, it must be remembered that the Romans frequently wrote as propagandists of the might and civilization of Rome contrasted with the barbarism of those whom they conquered); and from some archaeological material, druidism wasn't about nature worship per se. Druidism appears to have been about what much Iron Age religion was: celebrating what creation offered, yes, but also propitiating not always benign, and always frightening, powers. We have precious little evidence that actual druids gathered quietly in groves to chant and dance and whisper prayers to various and sundry benign ruling deities, as many a modern "druidic" website, with their faux-druidic rites, would suggest. There are at least a couple of practices that we can surmise, that are supported by legendary and archaeological data: that Celtic chieftains and kings were sometimes ritually killed when they because impotent or blemished or weak; and children were sometimes sacrificed to the powers, their bodies placed into the foundations of a new building (this is hinted at in the story of Vortigern's stronghold Dinas Ffaraon, when Merlin is brought as a child to be killed and placed under the foundation to keep it from falling over as it had done time and time again). Whatever the real druids were - and that includes their being keepers of knowledge, judges, and essentially the institutional memory of whole tribes of people - they were not gentle priests of nature.
The notion of "Celtic Christianity" as "druidic Christianity" is just as much a fantasy, usually advanced by those who want to disconnect the Christian churches of Ireland and Britain from Rome. Yes, yes, I know - St Alban and the Synod of Whitby and Easter dating and a different tonsure and the practice of the pedelavium as part of the baptismal rite (as in the Ambrosian liturgy) - but the fact is, Christians in Ireland and western and northern Britain were orthodox Christians who very much wanted to be in communion with and under the primacy of the Pope of Rome. We Anglicans have for years contributed to this sort of thing and have laid ourselves bare to uncritical acceptance of speculative notions about Celtic Christianity because we have for long claimed ties to a non-Roman native British Christianity so as to disconnect ourselves from Rome. Seems to me to be a slightly - only slightly - more nuanced version of the "Trail of Blood" theory that some Baptists use to trace their apostolic succession (!) through outrageously heretical groups like the Cathari to avoid any contact with Rome.
Certainly medieval Christians in Celtic lands (including, for some time, the north of England) had a high regard for nature - good heavens, they lives were very much affected by nature and the elements in ways that ours (whether rural or urban) are not. They also had a high - and I would characterize it as biblical - regard for creation as a witness to the glory of God, a regard that modern Christians must recover to be faithful to biblical teaching on stewardship and dominion. But ecotheologians? "Green" Christians in some modern ecopolitical sense? No. Those appellations are anachronistic at best and wholly inaccurate at worst.
Those interested should read competent historians of medieval Celtic culture in the British Isles - avoid the speculative writings of those who wish to prove religious fantasies of proto-protestantism or proto-cosmic Christianity or cavorting Masonic lodge druidism.
As for Christianity in Celtic Britain (and the north of England) and Ireland, just about anything written by Nora Chadwick (esp. The Age of Saints in the Early Celtic Church) or Kathleen Hughes (esp. The Church in Early Irish Society) is good. Both of those volumes, if not available in a local (used) bookstore or on the internet, should be in the stacks of your local university or college libraries (but then, I'm blessed to be in an area with several excellent university libraries within driving distance!).
I've not read Ian Bradley's 1999 volume, Celtic Christianity: Making Myths and Chasing Dreams (St Martin's Press), but it's probably worth a read.
Avoid assiduously anything that purports to link Celtic Christians with Essenes or that claims some sort of druidic Christianity in the vein of the 18th century eccentrics who tried to connect the druids and prechristian Celtic religion (sanitized of human sacrifice and auguries and whatnot for Enlightenment drawing room sensibilities) with "Abrahamic religion" based on druid reverence for oak trees and Abraham's dwelling beneath the oaks of Mamre. Stick to good, solid, well-researched writings based on undisputed documentary evidence.
And, by the way, TH and Bill, I'm not suggesting that God hasn't proclaimed what the way of salvation is - I'm simply saying that one cannot out of hand dismiss the orthodox understanding of salvation through Christ alone as arrogant and then proceed to supply the criteria that God really uses (good works, cardinal virtues, brotherhood, aligning yourself with the currents of the universe, etc.) to decide who inherits the kingdom of heaven. The latter is no less arrogant, and for Christians may indeed be a great deal more arrogant, as it involves rejecting the majority witness of the catholic and apostolic Church.
# Posted by: Todd Granger at April 11, 2005 10:07 PMDumb Ox, one of the saving graces of the current Archbishop of Canterbury is that he has a pretty highly trained sense of the ridiculous, which I think I think I can safely say, based on his website, is something "Oakwyse" is completely lacking.
# Posted by: I'd rather not say at April 11, 2005 10:49 PMDumb Ox,
Interesting that you should bring up Rowan Williams. I wrote something about his theology and the "druid" thing back when he was first appointed ABC. Stand Firmers might be interested in this background . . . but certainly it reveals the difference between the organization that Rowan joined, and the religion that Oakwyse believes.
*********************************
General thoughts about Druid Story
. . . I was at first distressed over the first
media trumpetings of this story. But upon closer examination I discovered that all was not as it was being reported. . . .
1. Williams has been accepted into the Gorsedd of Bards, the Welsh body of poets, musicians, writers and artists.
2. There are three orders that one can be accepted as -- a Welsh honor system of literature, poetry, and arts: ovate, bard, and druid. The druid order is the highest order, for that of true poet -- Williams' book of poems, Remembering Jerusalem, is currently high on the religious bestsellers list.
3. Members of the Gorsedd of Bards include [or included]: the Queen of England, the actor Richard Burton, Lloyd George, retired Roman Catholic bishop Right Rev Daniel Mullins, and former Archbishop of Wales, the Right Rev George Noakes. Only fluent Welsh speakers are admitted.
4. The Gorsedd is closely linked to the Welsh national festival, National Eisteddfod, which attracts thousands of attendees and where
three ceremonies take place: the crowning of the best free verse poet and the awards for prose and strict metre poetry.
5. The Gorsedd of Bards was created about 200 years ago. A description of its origins appeared in a British newspaper. "It was invented in the 18th century by the Welsh scholar Iolo Morganwg (Edward Williams), a
Welsh cultural icon suspected of sympathies with French revolutionaries and American rebels. On June 21, 1792 he laid out a circle of stones on the grass and proclaimed a Gorsedd of Bards - not in Wales but on Primrose Hill in Camden, North London.
Morganwg, who claimed to have found an ancient Welsh manuscript with the ceremony but in fact wrote it himself, pronounced his first Welsh Gorsedd at the Eisteddfod in Caermarthen, Wales, in 1819.
6. A funny quote from one of its members follows: Dr Lewis said: "We are not like the English druids. The Stonehenge druids are a pot-smoking crowd. Ours is a very respectable society. The ceremony is not pagan. It is just a ceremony. It is quite innocent, there is no serious paganism about it at all. It is a society for the furtherance of the arts in Wales, nothing more. We are not theistic, atheistic, pantheistic, agnostic or anything." He added: "All sorts of people have been members. The Queen was given a green robe although not
all of us want her and she never turns up. . . . Quite frankly, we do not want him to go to Canterbury. We feel he deserves it, but we feel we need him here. He is a fluent Welsh speaker for a start, and that will be wasted in Canterbury, wasted on the desert air.
7. . . . I have to say, this situation is very
similar to my founding a Tolkien society and establishing levels called dwarves, elves, hobbits, men, and wizards, and appointing you a member of the wizard order, having a poky little ceremony with some flashes of
fire and pointed hats with stars on it a-la-Mickey Mouse, all made up by me, and then leaking your name to the press with the following headline: Ex-Fundamentalist Casts Off Shackles of Biblical Authority and Becomes Warlock!!!!!!!
********************************
More detailed facts about Williams' theology
There are some signs that, though he is certainly liberal, he is not even close to the equivalent of, say, Jack Spong -- which is cold comfort indeed.
1. He is in the minority of the Affirming Catholics group (his niche group within the British Anglican church) in that he believes in the Virgin birth and bodily resurrection and is reputed to be solid on all points of creedal orthodoxy.
2. He is a member of the English pro-life group, Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, and the national director of SPUC is
ecstatic that he is going to be archbishop: quote from Williams, "I know this will surprise some people who see me as a liberal, but I am very worried about the abortion situation. I believe abortion is taking human life and that the Church ought to declare itis position on this more clearly than it often does. . . . They are not just a bit of somebody, whether a bit of the mother's body , or a bit of "my" fantasy
and "my" planning. The more one has a sense that from the moment of conception there is a moral other involved, the harder it becomes either just to be blase about abortion, or to say it is proper and possible to
manipulate the destiny and character of the unborn."
3. He likes and supports Alpha.
4. He speaks seven languages, author of 14 books, and is the only person to have been professor of theology at both Oxford and Cambridge. I say this because of #5 . . .
5. He described Jack Spong's questions about the faith as "questions that might be asked by an intelligent sixth former" and "obvious"; FitzSimons Allison, a very conservative evangelical . . . says about Williams "I think we ought to be very grateful for Williams incomparable defense of the Christian Faith against Spong's "atheism".
6. Although Williams has received much conservative outrage, he has also
received some very interesting words of support from some (I mean beyond the standard polite public congratulations that everyone sends) including, the following letter to the editor.
**********************************
The Times (London)
Sir,
As an evangelical minister in the Church in Wales, may I offer some words of comfort to my English brethren on their new Archbishop.
Rowan Williams is totally committed to biblical Christianity; his powerful grasp and proclamation of the wonderful truths of our faith will be music to the ears of those who have worried that they have received a tainted gift from across Offa's Dyke. I think a little
ignorance has gone a long way in recent news broadcasts, and perhaps patience will reveal the fullness of the treasure we have sent.
He is not a pagan priest (Druids in Wales are figures of cultural respect, and nothing to do with dodgy earth worship), he is not a
wishy-washy liberal, and he has challenging but hardly unscriptural views on social ethics in the Church in Wales - a Church that for some time has remarried divorcees, and has been disestablished for more than 80 years with no loss of status.
I am saddened at our local loss of Rowan, but thrilled that a man of such spiritual integrity and faith has been chosen to lead the wider
Anglican Communion. My non-Celtic evangelical friends should not fret, and refrain from being aggressively defensive: this man is your best friend, and will be your greatest leader for many years.
Yours sincerely,
MARCUS GREEN,
St Catherine's Vicarage, Gelliwastad
Grove, Pontypridd CF37 2BS.
Here's a (somewhat) reassuring story about ++Rowan's "Druid-esque" activities:
# Posted by: Greg at April 11, 2005 11:04 PMA good idea in theory, Todd, but in religion there is very little undisputed documentary evidence. (What do you think most secular historians believe about the Bibe, for instance?) I don't think many people would argue with my assertion that neo-paganism is a reconstruction, an attempt to get back to what people believe the spirit of a tradition is because the letter has been lost through time. Or, more to the point, burned.
The bit about Anglo-Christian tradition applies not only to Abraham and the oaks of Mamre, but also to a good chunk of Anglican folklore. To whit:
"And did those feet in ancient times
walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
on England's pleasant pastures seen?"
etc.
Majority witnesses are all well and good, but the majority witness of the Roman empire during the time of Christ was that the Emperor was Lord, Son of God, and Savior, and the majority witness of the fertile crescent during the time of Abraham was that orgies and human sacrifice were brilliant agricultural innovations. The majority witness of today's United States is that 17 is a great age to lose your virginity, and the real reason you go to college is to get drunk and live irresponsibly, taking full advantage of the fact that your parents aren't watching (a crucial sign of adulthood, of course). Documentary evidence is all well and good, but I know majority witness all too well to ever build my faith on it. If that's arrogant, it still beats the alternative.
Cheers,
TH
# Posted by: TH at April 12, 2005 12:05 AMRick, as far as what liberals believe about salvation, I hope I've been clear that I don't believe in salvation by works or faith. I think salvation, when it occurs at all, must by definition be an act of pure grace. There is nothing we can do or believe to bring it about.
We can effect "salvation"--the earthly "Kingdom of Heaven"--through good deeds, but acts of love should be done for the sake of love, not in exchange for celestial goodies.
Cheers,
TH
# Posted by: TH at April 12, 2005 01:09 AM