I’m Chalcedon compliant! Boy, is that ever a relief!
You scored as Chalcedon compliant. You are Chalcedon compliant. Congratulations, you’re not a heretic. You believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man and like us in every respect, apart from sin. Officially approved in 451.
Are you a heretic? |
From the New York Times:
Mark Hallett, a researcher with the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, said, “Free will does exist, but it’s a perception, not a power or a driving force. People experience free will. They have the sense they are free.
“The more you scrutinize it, the more you realize you don’t have it,†he said.
That is hardly a new thought. The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said, as Einstein paraphrased it, that “a human can very well do what he wants, but cannot will what he wants.â€
Einstein, among others, found that a comforting idea. “This knowledge of the non-freedom of the will protects me from losing my good humor and taking much too seriously myself and my fellow humans as acting and judging individuals,†he said.
Via: Titusonenine
I’m thinking that a primary aspect of a peaceable life has been lost to us through however many years passing up to this year of 2007. We have lost our ability to be patient and to bear with one another through times of trouble and disagreement.
This post is very wordy, I know. Just don’t have the time to tighten it up.
We have also lost our perspective concerning time. All things must be resolved, NOW. We must defeat our enemies, NOW. We must force through our pet legislation, NOW. We must purge from our churches those people and their beliefs that we perceive as apostate and heretical, NOW. We must make everyone Westernized and love democracy NOW. No compromise.
I made a comment on TItusonenine yesterday about realizing that God’s truth will be realized in time, particularly concerning the whole gay issue within Anglicanism that we’ve been fighting over for the past three years and whether this “innovation” is of God or just apostasy. This can be applied to all the theological “innovations” that are sweeping through The Episcopal Church right now. I read in Acts yesterday morning about Gamilial and his recommendation to the Sanhedrin that they should just wait and see what happens to these followers of Jesus and the “troubles” they were causing. Gamilial gave two examples of earlier men and their movements and how once the leader was killed, the movement died. He said that the leaders of Israel should just wait – if this man Jesus is like the others, then his movement will die now that he is dead. If this is truly a move of God, then the members of the Sanhedrin will find themselves fighting against God and will surely lose. Being this way, taking this attitude, is risking and impatient and fearful people cannot do it. The leaders of Israel did not head Gamilial’s advice.
A women responded and said that if these theological and practical “innovations” were the work of the Holy Spirit then all the controversy should have died down by now. Since it hasn’t, then it can’t be a move of the Holy Spirit. Three years? Her perspective and her allowance of time for consideration and resolution have been shrunk to three years. What can be said?
We no longer want to use persuasion to convince others of the supposed superiority of our position or argument, because that takes to much time. We revert to coercion to get our way.
When the time frame for change shrinks from centuries or decades or years to NOW, we loose perspective and we begin to see other human beings only as obstacles to achieving our wants or goals. We lose the ability to be patient, kind, and generous. We are no longer willing to bear with one another as we work through problems together, so we lose the whole concept of iron-sharpens-iron and instead seek to simply impose our will on all others because that way is more expedient. This dynamic is born out in all our perspectives – liberal or conservative – it is a problem of our time, period.
What this also means is that the challenges to our arguments are ignored or put down and the veracity of our arguments is impoverished. There is no longer any need to think through our ideas, to consider possible problems with our thought processes or our plans. Our perspective shrinks to the now, to achieving our end goal now and the means are of little consideration.
That which is truly significant is worthy of taking the time to persuade, to bear with those who disagree, to listen and consider problems in our own thoughts and goals, and to see that the end of our efforts may well be realized far beyond our lifetimes. As much as we want resolution and satisfaction NOW, possibly because we are so overwhelmed with daily life and cannot take the effort needed to persuade and bear with one another, true and honest solutions to our problems will only come with time, patience, and forbearance. A peaceable life only comes after honest peace is achieved.
We do not take the time to understand the Arab cultures and Islamic religious followers. We do not take the time for careful diplomacy and persuasion. We do not take the time for careful planning nor listening to those with differing opinions concerning things like, well, what happens after we topple a dictator. We would rather coerce nations and states to do as we see fit, because of course we know best.
We don’t take the time to persuade those who disagree with our biblical interpretation or understanding of tradition or our reasoning behind our position. We do not take the time to bear with the weaker brother, or to pray and allow God to work out His will, or to allow for the fact that our perspectives could be wrong. It takes too much time to understand the position of our “enemy” to where we could argue their point as well as our own, to walk in their shoes, if you will. It all takes too much time and effort. Just do as I say, NOW! I’m right and don’t challenge me!
All this does is bread contempt, hubris, and oppression. We need to bear with one another in love. Our time perspective needs to be elongated. We need to heed to the process of time and make every effort to persuade, not coercive. If the veracity of our argument is true and deep and sure, it will prevail. It will prevail over time, even if not NOW.
As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.” (Ephesians 4:1-3)
Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. Colossians 3:12-14
In reading this essay by Rev’d Dr. Leander Harding, particularly the beginning paragraphs, I remember so many of the reasons why I, as a former Pentecostal/American-Evangelical, came into this Anglican expression of the Christian faith, and why I remain and relish it so much. I remain an Evangelical, I retain Pentecostal sympathies, and I am becoming more and more a Catholic.
I am reading a book right now of a dialogue between Process theologians (“liberalâ€) and Free-Will Theist theologians (“Arminian-Evangelicalâ€). All I can say is that I am not one who is attracted to Process or Naturalist theology. My fear in all of our troubles is that there are those who would not acquiesce to such a dialogue even taking place and who would forestall such a debate because it isn’t what we already believe to be the True faith. What I see in play all too often is the worst of the tradition I left as I entered into Anglicanism.
All of us at one time or another have spouted off some heresy or another. I read this morning in the book of Acts about Gamaliel suggesting to the Sanhedrin that they simply wait to see what happens. If these guys who speak in this name are not of God, the will die away. If they are, then the Jewish elders and teachers will find themselves fighting against God. As we know, they didn’t listen. Can we head Gamaliel’s suggestion, today concern such things as women’s ordination or gay inclusion or other stuff? Anglicanism seems to have over the centuries past.
All of the “innovative†theologies that pass here and there will come and go, and in time those that are of God will remain and those that are not, will not. Over time, and time that is not measured in just a few years, people will go to where they are brought into relationship with the living God. The full and absolutely Truth of God is not to be found in any one particular Christian theology or form of worship, no matter how comforting it is to think otherwise. That isn’t a relativistic statement, but the realization that we generally get things wrong (councils err) and that in time God brings all things into His will as He reconciles all things unto Himself. God’s economy of time is not ours’ – a thousand years is as a day and all that.
I am so thrilled I found Anglicanism. I will recommend it to anyone! I am also thrilled that God has called me to be a priest in this Church, even though like Harding I was dismayed by much of what was espoused at the last General Convention ’07 – both from the liberal and conservative sides, I might add. God will have the day! Why do I need to work myself into a lather? I remain a follower of Jesus Christ, despite what some might say about me. I rest in His ability to bring all things to fruition and make all things right.
Via: Titusonenine
HAPPY NEW YEAR! It is hard to believe that yet another year has passed by.
General ramblings and thoughts as I get out of bed on January 1, 2007:
Well, the death of former President Ford has given the Episcopal Church some press that doesn’t revolve around gays in the Church and foreign Primates invading this province at the invitation of certain parishes and diocese. Despite what side of the troubles one might be on, there is recognition that with these kinds of things we do well.
I had New Years Eve dinner with Ashton and Peaches last night in Manhattan. After a lot of discussion of movies and Broadway (more Ashton and Peaches), we ended up talking about society and religious experiences (more Peaches and me, Peaches grew up in a Manhattan Episcopal Church). She made a comment that I thought was quite good concerning belief in such things as the birth of Jesus by a virgin – Mary. Considering the admittance that there are vast amounts of things we are yet to learn or understand in the universe and given that within that vast space there might be something like “God” or “miraculous happenings,” she said that those who cannot believe in such a thing as a virgin birth should consider the fact that we humans can now accomplish such a thing. A virgin can in fact become pregnant and give birth, and if that is possible by the efforts of very limited humans how is it then such a stretch to think that God could have accomplished the same thing? I had never through about artificial insemination as a possibility for a “virgin birth.”
Considering adherence to such things as the birth of Jesus by a virgin, I am reading a new book entitled: Searching for an Adequate God: A Dialogue between Process and Free Will Theists. Since I grew up within a denomination that is predominately Arminian, Free-Will Theism – otherwise known as Open(ness) Theism – makes sense to me. I do not and probably will never agree with a good number of positions held within Process Theology.
Anyway, in the first essay by Process theologian David Ray Griffin, he presents the idea of dogma divided into three groups: Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary doctrines. Primary doctrines of the Christian Faith, according to Griffin, are: 1. God, the creator of the universe, is loving; 2. the world is therefore essentially good, although it is now filled with evil; 3. it is God’s purpose to overcome this evil; 4. this overcoming will include a salvation for us in a life beyond bodily death; and 5. God has revealed these truths and acted decisively to realize the divine purposes in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. (p.8)
Over time there developed Secondary doctrines to support the validity of the Primary doctrines, and Tertiary doctrines where devised as a third layer to support the Secondary doctrines. For example, the virgin birth of Jesus and the immaculate conception of Mary are considered secondary doctrines by Griffin that speak to the sinlessness of Jesus in relation to the development of doctrines of “original sin.” Griffin goes on to give additional examples of Secondary and Tertiary doctrines, such as the Trinity hammered out at Nicea and Constantinople, transubstantiation, divine impassibility, omnipotence, and predestination – all of which were developed over time in order to support the Primary doctrines.
I like the idea of the primary doctrines, which Griffin claims most all Christians of whatever stripe can agree to. Griffin says that problems occur when different groups elevate the importance and necessity of Secondary and Tertiary doctrines for defining who is and who is not really a Christian. He says that the differences between the Primary and the Secondary/Tertiary are vital as we attempt to explain the Good News to new and different societies or periods of time (he wrote “redefine”). Think about the looming battles between “Modernist Christians” and “Post-Modernist Christians”! What must we absolutely declare as necessary and essential as a starting point or foundation for Christian belief?
I suppose we can all agree on the “essentials” – those Primary doctrines presented above. But, what happens after those? I agree that too many of us want to demand that our pet doctrines are essential for defining the faith. We fight wars over such things – physical, verbal, and mental. Imagine that.
Is it essential to believe in double predestination to be a Christian? Some have told me that it is, and anything else is heresy and excludes their adherents from the faith. Okay. I’ve been unchurched over other issues, too. Anyway, Griffin’s comments are a good instigator of thought to ponder whether one claims Process theology or not. What is truly essential and necessary and how might we bring ancillary or extemporaneous things/issues into the equation erroneously?
I think we in this country have lost our understanding of, desire for, and adherence to vows!
One’s word, a handshake, a commitment used to be all that was required to conduct personal and business affairs. Now, even “iron clad” contracts are litigated unto death because people and corporations refuse to honor their commitments – their contractual obligations.
Contractual obligations are a form of vow, but vows are more somethin’, somethin’. What?
And what about marriages? Well, we know we suck at keeping our vows to our beloved! There is indeed a crisis in the institution of marriage, but it isn’t because of the gays. A very big reason is our cultural proclivity to understand and make vows that might require a denial of self. Ah, we cannot deny self in whatever whim we decide to pursue and regardless of how it effects someone else. Oh, we may enter into a vow or even a contractual pre-nup, but we have every intention of breaking them if we don’t like the outcome.
I was looking through various websites for other than Episcopalian American “Anglicans” and just wonder – wonder in amazement. The Charismatic Episcopal Church lost 30% of its priests and parishes not too long ago. I really don’t know why, but some sort of internal fight. And people say The Episcopal Church is in self-destruct mode because parishioners of 200 or so parishes out of 7,000+ have left or are contemplating leaving this Church. The Charismatic Episcopal Church claims to be one on of the fastest growing denominations in the world, but even with this group of “God fearing, Bible believing, apostolic succession totin’, Spirit-filled Christians,” can’t keep from splintering again and again. What about the vows the clergy take to obey their bishops?
What about these vows? I took a vow to obey my bishop, period. There were no qualifiers in the vow – “I vow to obey my Bishop only if s/he agrees with my already determined theological or liturgical perspectives…†Bishops vow to guard the faith. Priests are abandoning their vows; bishops are abdicating their responsibilities and refusing to carry on their vows.
If it comes to a point where I cannot function under my bishop, then I will resign. Even then, I have to admit that I am the one breaking the vow! We have a problem, and I don’t see any relief in the coming years.
Oh, and I think the Church of Rome moved wholesale from the vow of guarding the apostolic faith by instituting the innovation of Papal Infallibility. That is one reason why I became an Anglican and not a Roman Catholic. But, that’s just me.
Anyway… vows, vows, vows. Soon, we will not be able to trust anyone. What a wonderful world that will be – – – for lawyers.
James 5:12 (New International Version)
“Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your “Yes” be yes, and your “No,” no, or you will be condemned.”
It is nice to be home for Christmas. I went to my parent’s church for their Christmas Eve service. It might be similar to the traditional Anglican service of Lessons and Carols, except that they are probably clueless about what that service is.
I’ve been going most Christmas Eve’s for the last, I don’t know, 15 years. Since becoming an Anglican, this service has become less and less meaningful, primarily because it is really just Christmas entertainment. That probably isn’t far, in fact I know it isn’t because it is quite meaningful to many, but it isn’t for me. My parents attend a Christian & Missionary Alliance church – a squarely American-Evangelical Church born out of the Wesleyan Holiness Movement through A. B. Simpson. My former tradition, Pentecostalism (of the Southern California sort), also began within the Holiness Movement. Now, I suppose, some would say I’m just a “snooty Episcopalian.” (Of course, that would mean I have money – HA!)
Anyway, I’ve changed. I met over lunch with a very long and close friend of mine near Cleveland before making my way to my parents. She and I both met during my graduate studies at Kent State and have been close ever since. We both commented on how much we have changed over the last 16 or so years, particularly concerning the way we engage with our faith, as if we can separate our “faith” from our “selves.” I have been changed by this tradition that I have given myself to – that I believe God has called me into.
The problems the Episcopal Church is having these days are of its own making, to a great degree. I can’t say that I am opposed to some of the changes, but I do see the direction the Church has been heading and it troubles me. I have become more aware of the notion of “catholicity,” particular due to my education at The General Theological Seminary in New York City, and at my field placement and current parish of St. Paul’s Carroll St., an Anglo-Catholic parish (probably somewhere between a Nashotah House and an Affirming Catholicism form of Anglo-Catholicism). I have changed, and it makes life difficult.
I think about this day when God became man, the Incarnation, and think about how all of humanity changed. The Creation changed. All things changed. This change in all things was and is a glorious thing, but the reasons for its happening are tragic. As a result, this change has been fraught with difficulty and anguish. Humanity has honored this fundamental change in the way we understand ourselves and God in not so good ways. As a matter of fact, the Church universal has been pretty bad in its attempts to uphold the high standards and calling resulting from this most significant event. The Mystical Body of Christ continues, but the Church, which is supposed to be the physical manifestation of the Mystical Body, has screwed-things-up more than it has not. Yet, it is this Church universal that God chooses to work through in all its fallible and imperfect ways. All things changed. All things continue to change. Are we able to see the changes encouraged by God and those encouraged by some other thing? Are we able to correctly or properly discern change?
My hope and prayer as I think about his most significant change and day is that in all my changing I will live into the real life understanding of what life in Christ Jesus is supposed to be. My hope and prayer is that my life will be a reflection of that most significant change, and that somehow, in some way, I can be an example in some simple way – an encouragement to others and a vehicle through which God can work to continue the work began so long ago – to reconcile us all to God, to one another, and to all of Creation.
So, whether I get anything out of a Christmas Eve service at my parent’s church is really moot. The meaningful thing is whether this event, the significance of this day, has changed me for the better, for the good, for the reasons God has ordained for my life.
It is nice to be home for Christmas. I wish the local Episcopal Church had not been closed. A Christmas mass would be nice, but that is another story.
Merry Christmas!
There is a new study released yesterday that suggests that most all people have sex before they are married. Is this really new news? No, but it does suggest that abstinence programs have not had their desired effect.
So, I’ve commented a couple times on Titusonenine over this report. A lot of people want to suggest that the report is meaningless because it matters not what the “world” does, but what Christians are called to do and what we are to call society to do. Yes, but the study report does suggest that our methods have failed. Several people want to once again bring in the evil of homosexuality, which must always be brought into any discussion of sex and The Episcopal Church, it seems. After all, the satanically inspired homosexuals are the reason for the present problems within the Church (and really society all together – particular in their attempts to destroy heterosexual marriage!). Right!?
I don’t think it is so much a forcing to focus on the homosexual issue, but it is easier to focus on “them†than to deal with “our†own failings. These kinds of statistics simply point out our hypocrisy and selective adherence to Scriptural norms. We all fail, and I think that should generate within us a sense of humility. It doesn’t seem to have that effect, however. Who wants to be humble when it feels so much better when we can extol our own vision of who we imagine ourselves to be and condemn everyone else who we like to think does not live up to our own self-selected, but failed, standards.
We should have very high standards, but realize and acknowledge our own failings first. This will save us the embarrassment of trying to explain our hypocrisy to a jaundiced and unbelieving world.
We could pass laws in the U.S. that mirror those up for consideration in Nigeria, which the good Archbishop publicly advocates for, but even if we pass such laws the ability to negate heterosexual sexual adventures and the bringing about of the salvation of marriage will not be advanced.
The Pharisees had lots and lots of laws they tried to obey and tried to force all of the Hebrews to obey to prove their devotion to God, and it didn’t work for them or for the people. It will not work for us, either.
Jesus made clear a change must first happen within the heart of the individual – only in that change will an honest change occur in the behavior of our citizens – homosexual and heterosexual. We focus far too much time on legalisms and less time on aiding the change of human hearts.
These statistics make clear that laws and even social pressure have not worked in this instance. Regardless of what we hope(d) will (would) happen, we are shown that our approaches to encouraging and realizing marital fidelity and sexual abstinence have simply not worked. So now what? Our attempts at scapegoating will not help.
From The Cartoon Blog. These cartoons are great, and oh so pertinent!
Cartoon by Dave Walker. Find more cartoons you can freely re-use on your blog at We Blog Cartoons.
Cartoon by Dave Walker. Find more cartoons you can freely re-use on your blog at We Blog Cartoons.
Anthropologist Foresees a Christian Renaissance
“Ideologies Are Virtually Deceased,” Says René Girard
In the book, the French professor states that “religion conquers philosophy and surpasses it. Philosophies in fact are almost dead. Ideologies are virtually deceased; political theories are almost altogether spent. Confidence in the fact that science can replace religion has already been surmounted. There is in the world a new need for religion.”
In regard to moral relativism, defended by Vattimo, René Girard writes: “I cannot be a relativist” because “I think the relativism of our time is the product of the failure of modern anthropology, of the attempt to resolve problems linked to the diversity of human cultures.
“Anthropology has failed because it has not succeeded in explaining the different human cultures as a unitary phenomenon, and that is why we are bogged down in relativism.
“In my opinion, Christianity proposes a solution to these problems precisely because it demonstrates that the obstacles, the limits that individuals put on one another serve to avoid a certain type of conflicts.”
The French academic continues: “If it was really understood that Jesus is the universal victim who came precisely to surmount these conflicts, the problem would be solved.”
According to the anthropologist, “Christianity is a revelation of love” but also “a revelation of truth” because “in Christianity, truth and love coincide and are one and the same.”
The “concept of love,” which in Christianity is “the rehabilitation of the unjustly accused victim, is truth itself; it is the anthropological truth and the Christian truth,” explains Girard.
I think this is an interesting example of how consideration of the great and divisive issues of our day and their resolution will occur over time. Regrettably, we are at the point where we expect solutions and results and action NOW, not even tomorrow, but NOW. We can see this dynamic at play in the Anglican Communion right now, if we want to consider Christianity as the example, as Girard in fact does.
Solutions to truly significant human problems will not be realized in the immediate, in the urgent. In time flaws and weaknesses will be made plain and strengths will be clear.
As a Christian, I see our human endeavor outside of the immediate. My American 21st Century self wants to be subsumed by the tyranny of the urgent, but I need to see the human endeavor as something that has been, is, and will come – an eternal perspective of life ever after. The resolutions of the significant issues of our time will be resolved beyond my lifetime, but working for solutions and Truth is an everyday affair.
If I honestly want to know Truth, I have to be willing to admit in humility that everything I’ve believed up to this point could be wrong. If I don’t, then what I am really after is something that supports my already determined opinions, or at least in the general direction my thinking is going. Over arching Truth comes over time. Our Lord said that there is more truth to be made plain.
If we all can step back for a moment and consider that we could very well be wrong, all of us would be so much further ahead as we try to live with one another, respect one another in our differences, and we might truly have an idea of diversity without relinquishing the quest for Truth and the worth of our own systems and positions – if, in fact, time proves that these systems and positions bear up. The Anglican expression of Christianity has such a tradition, but this tradition is under a great strain right now. I don’t know whether we will survive intact, frankly due to people who want solutions and resolutions NOW. The demand for NOW comes from both the left and the right.
The homosexual issue that seems to be the flash-point of so much angst and consternation among American society and Christians worldwide today will be resolved not right NOW, but over time. Change is hard and too many resist it (of course, not all change is good and change for change sake is rarely all that great!).
I don’t know, Modernism is passing by and Post-Modernism seems to have the day. The “next big thing” is in play somewhere. As for me and my house (if I had one), I will look to the beginning of Wisdom and Truth as my source. I believe that to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and of Sarah, Ruth, and Mary. (That does mean that I think others do not understand many aspects of the Truth, or in fact that others very often example that Truth more clearly and faithfully than those who claim the name).
“All truth passes through 3 stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; Third, it is accepted as self-evident.”
– Arthur Schopenhauer