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 |
Day is done,
gone the sun,
from the lakes
from the hills
from the sky,
all is well,
safely, rest,
God is near.
Fading light,
Dims the sight,
And a star gems the sky
Gleaming bright,
From afar,
Drawing, near,
Falls the night.
Thanks and praise,
For our days,
Neath the sun
Neath the stars
Neath the sky,
As we go,
This, we, know,
God is near.
Thank you, Greg for your faithfulness. Another year has come and gone and with it the thankfulness that God only allows us a little each day, needing to trust him for the rest.
Blessings to all who post and lurk on this blog.
Merry Christmas Greg, Snarkster, Gulfstream, Jill, Sarah, John H., rick op, Karen, Jackie, and many others who read more frequentl but who post occasionally. My sense of the communion of Saints has been enriched by our correspondence.
The Peace of the Lord always be with you--
Susan (Summersnow)
# Posted by: at December 22, 2005 05:05 PMAnd a Merry Christmas to you, Susan! May God's blessing rain upon us all and help us find a way forward in this mess ECUSA presents us.
God's Peace,
Jackie
For those who don't know, the passage above is the words of Taps, traditionally played at the end of the day and at military funerals. It is, I think, particularly apropos to our situation today with ECUSA (as we know it)slowly committing institutional suicide. Not to worry though. As we all know, Episcopalians give great funerals.
But enough of that. I would like to wish everyone-posters, lurkers, trolls, and any one else- A Very Merry CHRISTmas and An Exceptional New Year.
the snarkster
ps-That goes for you too Barbara+. I know you are out there lurking.
# Posted by: Michael Ware at December 23, 2005 11:37 AMI add my wishes for a very wonderful CHRISTmas for everyone here. May God bless all the folks on the Coast, and for that matter everywhere. We can only hope for a blessed 2006.
# Posted by: Gulfstream at December 23, 2005 08:55 PMThese words call to mind for me the wonderful words of the Navy Hymn, which, in less politically correct times, we sang in boot camp every Sunday. It was played at the funerals of President Franklin Roosevelt (who had been Secretary of the Navy) and President Kennedy. The words were written by William Whiting, and the tune is by Rev. John Bacchus Dykes, a Church of England clergyman. You can listen to a wav file at http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/.www/eternal.wav
This hymn always brings a lump to my throat. May God bless and protect all of the brave men and women serving in our armed forces throughout the world.
1. Eternal Father, strong to save,
Whose arm hath bound the restless wave,
Who bidd'st the mighty ocean deep
Its own appointed limits keep;
Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee,
For those in peril on the sea!
2. O Christ! Whose voice the waters heard
And hushed their raging at Thy word,
Who walked'st on the foaming deep,
And calm amidst its rage didst sleep;
Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee,
For those in peril on the sea!
3. Most Holy Spirit! Who didst brood
Upon the chaos dark and rude,
And bid its angry tumult cease,
And give, for wild confusion, peace;
Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee,
For those in peril on the sea!
4. O Trinity of love and power!
Our brethren shield in danger's hour;
From rock and tempest, fire and foe,
Protect them wheresoe'er they go;
Thus evermore shall rise to Thee
Glad hymns of praise from land and sea.
Greg and Rick, thanks so much for the patriotic and spiritual reminder of one of the strengths of our nation. ACLU eat your heart out! May the incarnation not only be in history but also in each of our hearts. Merry Christmas and blessed New Year to all.
# Posted by: Prophet Micaiah at December 24, 2005 10:01 PMNice post Greg. Thanks!!
Merry Christmas all! Was especially thinking of and praying for (notably during Grace at dinner) all the Katrina survivors on the Gulf Coast.
[Off topic: It's been annoying me to no end the past week with all the "Christmas post-Katrina" stories on the local and national news, that, unless I've missed something, they have been 100% focused on Louisiana. It's as if Mississippi didn't exist. Good grief. Mississippians, you're not forgotten by many of us, even if the news seems to have forgotten...!)
Nice of you to notice, Karen!!! I've noticed the same things -- a general lack of focus on almost a third of the state being wiped nearly clean.
I'm not certain why this is -- our economy will suffer markedly over the coming years due to this hurricane. I guess it's because there weren't as many screaming mayors and crying governors on television in Mississippi. Our reactions do not seem to have made good press or something.
Signed,
Native Mississippian
# Posted by: Sarah at December 26, 2005 10:21 AMEither Christmas Eve or the 23rd, Fox's Sheppard Smith was in Waveland most of the day, focusing on the plight of those who are still waking up in tents every day, cooking on grills and open fires, etc. Kudos to Fox. However, it was the media coverage exception that proved the rule: Mississippi is definitely getting ignored when compared to New Orleans, and to be fair, N.O. ain't getting as much attention as it should.
# Posted by: Greg at December 27, 2005 12:04 PMLets be honest here, the Mississippi coast area is considered to be a Republican stronghold. If Katrina had hit San Francisco and wiped out a bunch of liberal Democrats and homosexuals, we would be overwhelmed with the press coverage.
the snarkster
# Posted by: Michael Ware at December 27, 2005 12:20 PMWaveland is close to our hearts. Praying for all who find themselves still displaced.
# Posted by: Summersnow at December 27, 2005 04:05 PMGeez, I can't even provoke a conversation by saying something obnoxious. Helloooo. Anybody out there?
Oh well. I guess there's nothing left to do but wish you all (Greg, Tom H., Summersnow, Gentle Jill, Samurai Sarah, John H., Rick op, Karen, Jackie, Barbara+, lurkers, trolls, et al) a
HAPPY NEW YEAR. Regardless of what side you're on, 2006 promises to an "interesting" year.
snarkily yours,
the snarkster
I particularly wish Sir Troll a Happy New Year -- my, my his comments got me through some dreadful reading this past year.
Signed,
Aspiring Samurai Warrior
PS: So why wasn't I "gentle Sarah", Michael, . . . huh????
# Posted by: Sarah at December 29, 2005 09:20 PMWouldn't "gentle samurai" be an oxymoron?
moronically yours,
the snarkster
So now we learn that the Anglican Communion harbors murders and friends of genocidal maniacs.
For details, see here and here and here.
Archbishop Malingo, one of the broken reeds the 'conservative' Anglicans are leaning upon these days, has now been accused of helping to cover up for a Bishop who a) solicited the murder of 10 of the Anglican leaders in his diocese, b) has already been officially reprimanded for taking stolen farms given him by murderous thug Robert Mugabe in appreciation for his support of his genocidal regime, and c) has been excluded from travel in the United States due to his "complicity in crimes and human rights abuses" in Zimbabwe.
What a menu you "conservative" Anglicans have - either stick with ECUSA and its Christ-denying, God-hating, sexual-perversion-embracing leadership - OR - BEHIND DOOR NUMBER 2!
You can have the African Anglican church, which continues to harbor a thief and companion of genocidal maniacs and is powerless to purge him from the church.
Boy, I can't wait to see the gyrations that take place as you all try to explain why union with African Anglicanism is better than just staying put with Bishop Vicki & Friends.
Quit Sodom now before judgment engulfs you all! Leave the apostacy of world-wide Anglicanism and join yourselves unto Christ outside the camp.
# Posted by: John Pittman Hey at January 1, 2006 12:32 AMHere's some more links about the murderer in the Anglican hierarchy:
# Posted by: John Pittman Hey at January 1, 2006 12:41 AMSurely there must be more to this story. I can't believe Abp Akinola and the other primates don't have a plan to deal with this outrage. If not, then they will loose face and be relegated to heap big smoke but no fire. The only other choice would be to just forget a connectional church and go congregational. If they do nothing about this, who should expect them to do anything but talk about bishop Vicky. Developing...
# Posted by: Prophet Micaiah at January 1, 2006 03:54 PMYou are right and wrong.
Right
1. Mugabe is a thug and and has helped reduce the breadbasket of Africa to a nation of hunger and famine. At 81, he is a cold war relic. Like Castro, he will be gone soon.
2. Arcbishop Kunonga is from all accounts a corrupt church leader; he is a supporter of Mugabe and accepted land from the Government's program of redistributing property acquired by white settlers during the colonial and apartheid periods (which extended into the seventies).
3. Neighboring Archbishop Malango has failed to speak out sufficiently against the situation in Zimbabwe and his prior friendship with Kunonga raises serious questions whether the procedural dismissal of the charges was merited.
Wrong.
1. As you know, there is no "African Anglican Church", per se. The contient is comprised on numerous Anglican nations and churches, some well run by courageous leaders, others not.
2. Real leaders like Archbishop Orombi and Akinola do not lack courage or conviction. Orombi was imprisoned by Ida Amin's forces. There is no basis to tie them to Kunonga who, incidentally, got most of his "theological" education in the US. None of the emerging Anglican churches in the US has any ties to the Zimbabwe church.
I believe that Anglican form of worship still has an important role to play in the US; the restructuring within the church is reaching critical mass with Bishop Duncan as its de facto head. Last I checked, there were not connections between Bishop Duncan and Robert Mugabe.
# Posted by: Barnabas at January 1, 2006 08:00 PMBarnabus, I must be confused. I thought all Anglicans were "ccnneted", Do you mean that the African Diosceses and Provences and the Global South are just paper designations of a geographic group and not in fellowship with each other or accountable but rather like the Southern Baptist Convention? Isn't Kunonga, Orombi, Akinola, GVR, Spong and all the others, bishops of the Anglican Communion and in the Apostolic Succession or is that just a title and no real spiritual connection or responsibility? Maybe it is like pastor or grand cyclops---just window dressing. Like politice all of which is local, all churches are really congregational in function. No wonder the RCC can be smug and confident. Are you connected or not, and if so, are you content to share in the groups sins or will some action be done?
# Posted by: Prophet Micaiah at January 1, 2006 08:35 PMEveryone in the church of Jesus Christ is diminished by this and all scandals. I am obvously not aware of the truth of the allegations that the Bishop made an oral suggestion that certain enemies should be eliminated. Perhaps you are. I strongly disagree with the Bishop's position supporting a sinful overreaction to Zimbabwe's colonial history and his personal support for a leader who engages in political and religous suppression.
Yes, in many respects the "connected" nature of the Anglican Communion has been an illusion, as has been aply demonstrated by ECUSA. I do not consider myself connected or under the authority of Bishop Griswold.
I don't think the RCC is smug and confident. I am an admirer of the prior and current Pope and others within the Catholic Church. But the RCC obviously still has miles to go to address its own scandal within the Priesthood within the US.
Given your email, where you would advocate a member of the Episcopal Church end up?
Barnabus, I have to agree with you on most points. The reference to the RCC is because they are the only ones who seem to have a mechanism to make a connectional church work, although they sometimes don't use it in a timly manner. Your position seems to be like mine--a modified congregational position. However, I don't think ECUSA or the Anglican Communion would agree with either of us. Their official position is that you indeed are under Griswold and in communion with all the rest. However, here in America, everyone is doing his own thing--good and bad.
Now the question of where to go actually faces all Chrstians at one time or another. I have been in two congregational type churches that "went bad" and reluctantly had to leave. I think it comes down to this: you must join a local group that holds to the basic historic doctrines, has Godly behavior as a standard for members and officers, and makes corrections as provided in Scripture. If it is connected to other churches then the same standards apply. Now this doesn't mean the church has to be perfect. It is constantly growing and the Ephesian 4 passage tells us how it is continually developing toward that perfection we should all strive for and desire. If there is no such church you are faced with moving to where there is one or enter into starting one where you are if you have those gifts. Even good churches can move out from under the Lordship of Christ and disappear, i.e, Revelation 2-3. Officers can go bad also as Paul warns in Acts 20. As long as the apostacy does not gain control of the levers of reform, we are obligated to continually help keep the group on the right track. Otherwise we have to leave. Jesus and the apostles had to leave the temple and Jewish establishment and the book of Hebrews tell us how to cope with the change. As an aside, in my short life I have never seen a connectional system bring about reform, but only gradually be taken over, in spite of what is stated in their position documents. Maybe others more knowledgable in church history can point to instances for us, and if so we need to study them and try to use what was learned. Now pragmatism is not the standard for whtat is right, but it seems to me that if that is the way the Lord wanted his church governed, it would be more effective. IMHO
# Posted by: Prophet Micaiah at January 1, 2006 11:18 PMCan't disagree with that and in particular your comment "As long as the apostacy does not gain control of the levers of reform, we are obligated to continually help keep the group on the right track. Otherwise we have to leave."
# Posted by: Barnabas at January 2, 2006 12:14 AMCan't disagree with that and in particular your comment "As long as the apostacy does not gain control of the levers of reform, we are obligated to continually help keep the group on the right track. Otherwise we have to leave."
# Posted by: Barnabas at January 2, 2006 12:15 AMOf course the reason the RCC is the only really "successful" connectional "church" is because it is the foundation for the great Babylonian religion that St John describes in the Book of the Revelation.
It has the pagan idolatry. It has the subordination of the Son to the Mother. It has the false gospel that is accursed. It has the moral corruption, the spiritual harlotry, the claim to represent God upon the earth, the ursurpation of the offices of the trinity, the vast money and power, recognition as a sovereign by the great powers of the world, etc.
The Scriptures predict the success of the RCC and its successors right up to the day that God rains fire upon it and destroys it utterly.
So I would say that the "success" of the RCC "connectional" approach is a fulfillment of divine prophecy.
But certainly it is no model for God's people to emulate.
# Posted by: John Pittman Hey at January 2, 2006 11:51 AMJPH, while what you say might be true theologically, I think the RCC is "successful" is the same for a big corporation or government. They have strong centralized power, money, staff, and often in history the power of the state to enforce their dogma. Above all they have the will and stamina to discipline and use that power. Now we are not to use that as a pattern, but they are the only ones who really pull it off. Most other churches just talk abour it but can't or want pull it off. Maybe the Mormans do also, but they are not even in the same league.
Barnabus, to see if you have the levers of reform, just try using them. If you reform, then you do, if not,then they will boot you out. Of course if you do nothing then you are part of the apostacy.
# Posted by: Prophet Micaiah at January 2, 2006 02:18 PMProphet Micaiah, I have no illusions that the levels of reform exist any longer. GC 2003 just underscored a situation that had been in place for a long time. We didnt want to admit it because it would require us to give up secular comforts and security.
# Posted by: Barnabas at January 2, 2006 07:13 PMYou have my sincere sympathy. You are where the Jewish Christians were when the book of Hebrews was written. But the church is not just the smells and bells. God has promised to shake everything that can be shaken so that only the true will remain. If we have the Lord, that is enough and He has promised if we leave ...lands.. etc.he will give us in this world...and in the next world to come, salvation.
# Posted by: Prophet Micaiah at January 2, 2006 10:35 PMSince we learned that African Anglican churches harbor bishops who steal money and lands, evict peasants, and conspire to murder fellow Anglican priests, all without any apparent effective discipline, I thought I would pass along yet further information about "his disgrace" Bishop
Kunonga of Zimbabwe.
Following close after the charges of solicitation to murder his religious opponents being mysteriously dropped, now His Disgrace has started ordaining priests with no formal training to infiltrate the clergy with politically reliable allies of the murderous thug Robert Mugabe.
Click here to view the article.
STILL WAITING... for some of you "conservative" Anglicans to explain why fellowship with a branch of Anglicanism that tolerates solicitation to murder is actually a "step up" from fellowship with ECUSA's Christ-deniers and sexual perverts.
The "conservative" and "correct" answer to John Pittman Hey's request.
John, we all know and detest murder or solicitation to murder as you called it in your post, just as we detest having ordained Bishops deny the divinity of Christ and embrace sexual perversion as the NEW order of the church.
In truth, Christ abhors ALL sin and doesn't tend to rank them as we mortals do.
I hope this answers your question.
In Christ,
George Danz
Nice dodge, George, but you didn't answer the question, which was: why turn on ECUSA over the matter of gay bishops when the "Global South" network embraces extortion and murder?
You see, I am not the one who "ranked" the sins - the "conservative" Anglicans do that when they prefer episcopal oversight from the "Global South" contingent and repudiate oversight in ECUSA.
By doing so, they are saying that they reject oversight and fellowship with a branch of Anglicanism that embraces openly gay bishops (i.e., ECUSA), while they embrace oversight with a branch of Anglicanism that embraces extortion and solicitation to murder (i.e., "Global South").
Last time I checked my Bible, all these open crimes are reason enough for separation - indeed, the Scriptures demand that Believers not even 'eat with' those who call themselves Christians who do such things.
So I renew my question: when will a single "Conservative" Anglican explain the difference, and why "Global South" - with its extortion and murder - is preferable to ECUSA - with its gay bishop?
# Posted by: John Pittman Hey at January 6, 2006 04:52 PMThe proper response to John is this: There is not a concerted effort in the Global South to make sacraments out of murder and extortion. What has happened in Africa is criminal, it is abhorrent, and it is an anamoly. It is not an attempt to turn it into policy. We feel an allegiance with the Global South despite this horrible event, for the same reason we feel allegiance to the United States despite the fact that bad things are sometimes done by our leaders. So pack up your straw man, John, and hit the road.
# Posted by: Greg at January 7, 2006 11:33 PMThe question I have in this terrible situation is what is the use for a connectional church if it is unable to do something about this bishop? Seems that with all the costumes, pagents, speaches, etc. when it gets down to it there is no provision for any sort of discipline. He is still a bishop in the Anglican communion with all the rights and privileges of being a bishop in good standin just like GVR. Everyone agrees what is happening is bad and not Christian, but it seems that there is not any such thing as "Episcopal oversight." Wonder what the Baptist would be able to do if he was a Baptist leader? Probably nothing either. So doesn't that mean that connectionalism is really just a quaint old impotent tradition? IMHO
# Posted by: Prophet Micaiah at January 8, 2006 10:59 AMGreg, your claim that the Global South group has not made murder and extortion into policy as the ECUSA liberals have of gay marriage - but that's not the point.
The point is, under the Anglican connectional scheme, all believers are responsible for such sin whether it's policy or not. After all, you cannot claim to be a part of the great Anglican Church unless it means communion with its membership. One of its leaders is a murderer and extortioner.
Do you really think that God draws a distinction between making a sin into a "policy" and ignoring sin and thereby embracing it? After all, Paul says that you become a "partaker" in the evil deeds of the leadership of the church when you fail to judge it.
Seems the problem keeps going back to a refusal to follow God's clear commands in I Corinthians 5. Check out the list of notorious public sins that Paul commands we separate from. Notice that it includes both ECUSA's and Global South's particular sins. Paul says you cannot so much as eat with such persons. Communion is forbidden by God.
Interesting, isn't it, that even the "good" faction of the Anglican "Church" has a real problem obeying the clearest commands of Scripture. My own theory of why this is so is that your system of church government, coupled with your elevation of tradition over the authority of the Scriptures, are incompatible with those Scriptural commands.
More and more, it becomes apparent that it is impossible to maintain the Anglican communion while obeying Scripture at the same time. That is what the latest from Zimbabwe really demonstrates.
Switching alliance from ECUSA to Global South may make you feel better about your church, but it really doesn't bring you into compliance with the clear teachings of Scripture.
Stay with ECUSA and embrace open sexual perversion, or flee to "Global South" and join yourselves to murder and extortion. What a menu!
Why not simply join yourself to a congregation of Believers who Worship God and try to obey His Word? What's so hard about trying that option?
It was Samuel Rutherford, the old persecuted Puritan theologian of the 17th century, who wrote of how important it is to be willing to "let go of the small change and grab hold of the Great Inheritance". The irony of that statement is that Rutherford was a Scotsman.
Let go of the Great World System in all its manifestations and grasp hold of Christ and His Word. So let it be, for Jesus' sake.
# Posted by: John Pittman Hey at January 8, 2006 06:10 PMDo you really think that God draws a distinction between making a sin into a "policy" and ignoring sin and thereby embracing it? After all, Paul says that you become a "partaker" in the evil deeds of the leadership of the church when you fail to judge it.
There's the fallacy in your assertion, John. We're not ignoring it, we are definitely not embracing it, and it has yet to be seen whether we will be successful in judging it, depending on what John Hey's interpretation of "to judge" is, of course.
# Posted by: Greg at January 8, 2006 06:37 PMGreg, quit dodging what the Scripture clearly demands: that no Christian fellowship with open and notorious evil in the church.
Perhaps the Zimbabwe Bishop will be expelled or will repent. That is the only option that the Lord permits. What I want is beside the point.
But then, Anglicans haven't managed to purge apostates such as Bishop Spong after DECADES of notorious wickedness. What does it say about the likelihood that "His Disgrace" will be handled in a Scriptural manner when Bishop Spong never was?
Since the "Global South" people have been in communion and fellowship with Spong for years and years and took no action, what makes you think they will handle His Disgrace?
# Posted by: John Pittman Hey at January 9, 2006 12:11 AMBoy, there is nothing like John Pittman Hey for bringing all conversation to a screeching halt.
the snarkster
# Posted by: Michael Ware at January 10, 2006 10:07 AMGreetings. I will be in Hattiesburg, MS this Sunday Morning (January 15, 2006) on my way home from moving my daughter into Tulane, and would like to attend church at an Anglican or orthodox Episcopal church in Hattiesburg. Any advice? Thanks.
# Posted by: Tulane Dad at January 10, 2006 03:28 PMHead over to Church of the Ascension, and say hello to Stand Firm board member The Rev. Susan Bear.
# Posted by: Greg at January 10, 2006 03:44 PMWill do. Thanks for the directions!
# Posted by: Tulane Dad at January 10, 2006 04:49 PMTo return to snarkster and JPH:"More and more, it becomes apparent that it is impossible to maintain the Anglican communion while obeying Scripture at the same time." Is there any communion JPH would find pure? He fails the Romans. He fails (near as I can tell) everyone. Can Scripture be sliced and diced so that no church at all is possible--we all are on our own because who knows what folks "over there" may have done, may contemplate doing, may have in their hearts and haven't yet revealed? What sort of slavery to self does JPH imagine is envisioned in the Body of Christ?
# Posted by: Terebinth at January 10, 2006 09:37 PM"Terebinth", why is it when someone calls for obedience to the clear commands of Scripture regarding church discipline, people like you dismiss that call as a demand for unattainable purity?
Are the Scriptural demands for church order really unattainable? Is that your position? Do you feel it appropriate to scoff at the promotion of the clear teachings of Scripture by falsely labeling such advocates as just plain "goody-too-shoes?"
Do you really believe that Christians should ignore the Apostle Paul's command that Believers not "eat with" people in the church who commit one or more of a prescribed set of open sin?
Why would Paul have required such discipline if it is truly impossible, and if it is to be laughed off by people like you?
It's not a question of supposing what "those people over there" have done. It's just a question of scanning the wire services for complete write-ups of the crimes they have committed.
There are plenty of churches, indeed, tens of thousands of them, where the people love the Lord and refrain from public acts of apostacy, sexual perversion, and conspiracy to commit murder.
The Anglican "church" ain't one of them.
# Posted by: John Pittman Hey at January 10, 2006 10:01 PMJPH: yes, I know about such a church, where people love the Lord and refrain from apostacy and perverson, etc. Go there now and have for years. "Goody-two-shoes" is your idea, not something I would try to apply. But I was just wondering about your "church," sir. It worries me. I don't dismiss it, I just wonder what "Great Inheritance" can mean if you live in so rarefied a place already. It must be as they say "heaven on earth."
# Posted by: Terebinth at January 10, 2006 10:39 PMIf you have found a church that does not have communion with Spong and Robinson and "His Disgrace" from Zimbabwe, then you must not attend a church that is a member of the world-wide Anglican communion.
Perhaps you are a Reformed Anglican or some other denomination that is not in fellowship and communion with those members of the Anglican Communion who are barred by Scripture from the church.
As for my church, no, it is not perfect, nor is it "heaven on earth". But my church is not in fellowship with anybody that is a public Apostate, or preaches a false gospel, or engages in the notorious sins described in I Corinthians 5.
We give thanks for the progress that has been made, and we are striving to conform our church even moreso to the requirements of Scripture
As for the great Inheritance, the Scriptures make it clear that "eye hath not seen, neither ear heard, neither hath entered into the heart of man the things that God hath prepared for them that love Him." The distance Believers have to travel to reach the perfection of Glory is very great.
If you think that the "Great Inheritance" is not far removed from attending a church that doesn't give shelter to open apostates and embrace notorious criminals, then I pity your expectations for the Glory Land. What you think is close to the "Great Inheritance" is freely available, in this life and in this world, in almost every place on the planet.
What I know about the Great Inheritance that my Lord has promised is far far better.
Perhaps you need to raise your sights a bit about what the Lord Jesus has "gone to prepare" for His Bride! It is far far better than the best church in this world could ever be.
# Posted by: John Pittman Hey at January 10, 2006 11:09 PMJPH: I absolutely agree. For a minute there though I was concerned that your church was a fortress, a stumbling block of purity, where the righteous self selected (after a stringent application process) and then felt good together. That would not be what Jesus and St. Paul taught. Being baptised into a church means dying to sin and being resurrected to life through Jesus. Living into that new life gives us the eyes to see and ears to hear the truth of righteous living, and eternal peace with God.
# Posted by: Terebinth at January 11, 2006 09:43 AMReading this thread has been interesting to me because it is the first time that I have seen someone argue against members of Stand Firm as perhaps not being 'conservative' enough. Those of you who know me from my postings here before know that I have tried to argue my support of ECUSA and pretty much put my tail behind my legs and went home, knowing that I did not stand a chance. It will be the same for those who try to argue with John Pittman Hay. He will always be right, and your opinion will always be more base, less inspired, divinely flawed so to speak.
I have wondered however, sine he has criticised the Roman Catholics, the Anglicans, Ecusa, etc; just what church he does belong to and have thought perhaps it is the Church of John Pittman Hay and if the writings of the church were perhaps located in a spot somewhere in Alabama, maybe close to a mound? I just couldn't help but wonder...
Heidi
# Posted by: Heidi Alvey at January 11, 2006 12:42 PMHeidi, I have waited for some reaction to your last, but it may be everyone is at the intergalactic annual AMiA convention. Anyway, it is true that there is a strong dose of exclusionism and intlorance among folks. This is not 100% a bad thing. We need to hold fast to core beliefs. That is where repentance and faith work: on the core not the surface. But we also need to grow, and growth can bring change and even change to core beliefs...rarely. I think we are at that kind of juncture here, a rare shift going all the way to the core. This transcends conservative/liberal, mono/poly church governance, styles, who is the leaver and who is the stayer, etc. Both "sides" have ample and solid Biblical foundations under them. I think frankly that a split is a healthy thing, as long as we don't cross over into violence. Jesus was not a conservative in any sense--right up to predicting the end of Temple religion--as long as the new life was of the Spirit, not the flesh. ECUSA (I'll call it the old church just for convenience) is going to have to find ways to ground itself more firmly in what it really stands for. The New Anglicans (again it's just a name) have some real work to do if they would aspire to preach to a modern world, a global mind. These are (some of) the big challenges implied in the current division, and we haven't made much progress because we've been preoccupied with the shock of a division. But history teaches that's how things work: thesis/antithesis/synthesis.
# Posted by: Terebinth at January 12, 2006 09:23 AMTerebinth - yes, ECUSA does need to ground itself more in what it believes in...I'm afraid it is a fear of being hit over the head with scripture to which it is difficult to respond to - Mother Angelica's greatest fear - using scripture as a weapon. How can you argue with scripture!!!!
I just hate to think of our religious life as a static life. And I think that this does not have to be an option. Just as our constitution has served us for so many decades, so can the Bible, we only need look at the writings of St. Augustine, Thomas Merton, many others who dedicated their lives to the understanding of the Lord.
The Lord was not black and white - does He expect us to be so?
# Posted by: Heidi Alvey at January 13, 2006 11:47 PMTerebinth - yes, ECUSA does need to ground itself more in what it believes in...I'm afraid it is a fear of being hit over the head with scripture to which it is difficult to respond to - Mother Angelica's greatest fear - using scripture as a weapon. How can you argue with scripture!!!!
I just hate to think of our religious life as a static life. And I think that this does not have to be an option. Just as our constitution has served us for so many decades, so can the Bible, we only need look at the writings of St. Augustine, Thomas Merton, many others who dedicated their lives to the understanding of the Lord.
The Lord was not black and white - does He expect us to be so?
# Posted by: Heidi Alvey at January 13, 2006 11:49 PMI have a suggestion, bordering on a commercial, but I think it's worth it. A very good and balanced history of Christian thought and events is available in Paul Zahl's new book: The Christianity Primer. Don't let the bindery put you off, and it's expensive, but it is a good summary of what-all has happened over the years, and from a solid scholarship viewpoint. There is no bibliography but lots of references in the text so if someone wants to go further on some subject, it's possible. One of the big problems in the current "debate" is that only a precious few exalted worthies are really informed of the issues, and their context. As a result parties have formed around clouds rather than hard issues, resulting in lots of heat and little light. A trip through Zahl's book could bring a needed dose of perspective, and some balance. Generally speaking I am not a PZ fan, although I thought the Black Flag had a certain levity which was appropriate.
# Posted by: Terebinth at January 14, 2006 10:02 AM