You may be a tad pre-mature BB, first off the deadline is six month and ten days away. Second point is a majority of the Communique is '98 Lambeth 110, there is only on line in this document:
This is a rejection of the PV section. What we've seen from FL and the unwillingness to drop law suites also the embedding of "not to alienate" language in the Communique, maybe the Institutionalist hold a lot more power than we give them credit.
I do ponder what the attitude of other 30 primate are over boarder crossing. Meaning this may be very strategic. If they "pause" then declared in compliance (focus has been on sexuality), would TEC be able to leverage against ++Akinola, ++Orombi & ++Kolini and pressure the Southern Cone for boarder crossing as against Windsor.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to take the minority position and not think this is settled. Rather a move in a long range chess game. GLBT is probably the noisy lobby, but I think there is a silent one which holds the money and applying a worldly version of the 'golden rule.'
Remember unless modified (unlikely) the official ruling will not be until Sept. 30. So now is the time to start sending bomb shell to see what damage was done to mitigate by the deadline [growing up in DC also teaches you to be a skeptic and look for the maneuvering, many elections & bill seemed sure until the actual day came].
If there is a howl from the Primates and there is a back peddle, I do hope there is a face saving in changing the title from "Primatial Vicar." The short hand PV doesn't do it for me, I keep reading 'photovoltaic'
The Pastoral Council is defined to have "up to five" members - TEC is choosing not to participate and so the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates can proceed without them. It is clear that that these resolutions do not reflect the Network/Windsor Bishops views. Houston, we have a schism.
Notice how the TEC House of Bishops say an emphatic "No" and then request - at TEC's own expense - to bring the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates Standing Committee to have a little chat (and again, it's no accident that the little New York Times article yesterday about how TEC is the Money Bags for the Anglican Communion came out and that this money is being used as a lever/threat - the timing is no accident). No mention of taking next steps towards September 30 - that's emphatically shut down (though the Primates will probably wait until Oct. 1) except to mention a possible General Convention (and who is going to pay for that? And GC is even more radical than the TEC House of Bishops).
It does appear that there's been a split inside the House of Bishops itself - these resolutions have Louie jumping up and down with glee. Stay tuned - more is coming.
You live in the same town as I and have seen many of the odd things too. I'm not ever willing to declare something done until a deadline passes. I remember quite well February 15 & 16 news - people seemed to be in the dumps then then celebrating on Feb 19.
I see this as a battle. I'm not as so sure and I think it's been the "orthodox" constant weakness to declare victory too soon and think it's done only to watch an advancement of the "progressives."
Here we're declaring victory six months before the deadline. If the Primates cement it that's one thing, but if not that's six months of maneuvers. I wish "yes" meant "yes" and "no" meant "no" inside the Church at least, but I've seen a lot of oddities at all levels of governance.
Still waiting till the official results are filed (the former poll worker),
Kevin
BTW - I love the version of "Nothing Else Matters." It may show my own prejudges, but I bet it's the first time many visitors to the Cafe have heard some of James Hetfield's work. Actually show the gifting the Lord given in his song writing ability, because even though the presentation and tempo are completely different, this is pretty pure to the original construction of the song with a some interpretation in bridge. It converted styles really well. I wonder if Hetfield heard it.
Kevin may be right, but I don't think so. September 30 isn't the only deadline at work here - +++Rowan had given one to the HoB to start putting together the Primatial Council (the 20th, as I recall). The HoB have spit in his beer, publicly, with this rejection of the DeS Communique' provision. If +++Rowan moves forward, selecting the members unilaterally it will be seen, rightly, IMO, as the beginnings of a new presence for the Anglican Communion in America.
And, let's face it, this was the EASY part of the Communique's compliance. Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth from Queen Lutibelle's corner if the HoB starts to ponder whether to back off of SSB's or partnered gay clergy???
So close no matter how far Couldnt be much more from the heart Forever trusting who we are And nothing else matters
Never opened myself this way Life is ours, we live it our way All these words I dont just say And nothing else matters
Trust I seek and I find in you Every day for us something new Open mind for a different view And nothing else matters
Never cared for what they do Never cared for what they know But I know
So close no matter how far Couldnt be much more from the heart Forever trusting who we are And nothing else matters
Never cared for what they do Never cared for what they know But I know
Never opened myself this way Life is ours, we live it our way All these words I dont just say And nothing else matters
Trust I seek and I find in you Every day for us something new Open mind for a different view And nothing else matters
Never cared for what they say Never cared for games they play Never cared for what they do Never cared for what they know And I know
So close no matter how far Couldnt be much more from the heart Forever trusting who we are No nothing else matters
Yep, it's a Metallica song. Last night I was in the mood for shattering rock then hit across this "Gregorian" version and it shattered me. I was hearing from the Episcopal Church leaders, the reason why we are/were called "Episcopal" - a church with bishops (which the Primates understand why we have them at all). Well, they've spoken, they who have put trust in themselves, and nothing else matters ...
Jefferson - easier for whom? It's odd they want to be "remain a part of the councils of the Anglican Communion" and reject the PV plan, yet very little on SSB or GLBT. This was the issue of direct contradiction in the communique of #32 & #33 which #35 & #36 I guess would try to resolve. I'm begining to ponder who is who anymore (thus my first post).
----
It's very odd and I'm reading a lot of celebration, a few posting with remorse over a divorce. I'm not so sure the Lord's heart is glad.
In fact both side are become increasing more convinced of the justness of their cause. When I look at history, that's usually when the Lord allows some great conflict to ensure, both convince they'll prevail for the Lord "must be on our side."
I must confess that I'm more concerned by the reaction I'm seeing from both sides than I am about this particular news.
So? What is your point? This is a Roman Catholic document, you're demonstrating the same poor hermeneutic style with this document as revisionist do with Scripture and taking it out of context. Of course the RCC would say that, haven't you read Trent? That's the whole issue of the magisterium.
This is a very good Catholic document. Maybe you should join them, oh yeah John Paul II did answer the question about SSU two weeks before GC03 and the American Catholic bishops written about exactly how to minister to people trapped in sexual sin. Remember you can't cut-n-paste. The Magisterium comes as a lump sum!
Yes, this is a very good Roman Catholic Document. I see nothing in it which violates Catholic teaching.
Geesh kevin, take a breath... I said it was a good read. The point is that Catholics understand that there's more to reading the Bible than reading the Bible and taking notes.
I was suggesting that perhaps there are other ways of hearing the texts. I was suggesting that if that wild eyed bunch of radicals over there (and yes, I was pointedly saying that they aren't really radicals) have heard a different voice and think that it's possible for new things to appear from our reading today, that the scripture is not static and completely understood, then perhaps it's time to sit down and talk about the authority of scripture... oh, but you want to talk about SSU's... I understood that this wasn't about that...
Perhaps it's time to turn the volume knob back from 11 down to 2 or 3, and sit around and talk about scripture and how to read it.
I'm happy in today's Episcopal church, or at least my little corner of the kennel.
My apologies, but your blog and "radical" to me showed an ignorance of RCC. I'm a cradle Episcopalian but Catholic school trained. It's a rich tradition and I hold utmost respect, but know the differences. They are more conservative than ++Akinola, so use of page 20 actually showed your ignorance of their believes. I think reading these articles may help explain the logic behind the words. The authors clearly meant something and have an understanding of the world that I do not think you share in understanding. Not meant in load tones, but to one who has some knowledge of RCC, wow your post here and 'at home' seem off base. I apologies if I came off too harsh.
----
I was with high school friends, but at the time didn't track who was who in the world. One of my 'really out there' friends called the New York Times a conservative paper, a more main stream Democrat (lacking a better label) friends responded "WHAT?!?! ARE YOU KIDDING? THE TIMES IS ONE OF MOST LIBERAL PAPERS IN THE COUNTRY!!!"
At the moment I was startled, because I didn't know anything about papers nor cared very much. The one guy had shared that his views were just more left than the NYT so it looked right-wing from his prospective. Knowing more now, I can see the my other friend reaction, it was pretty absurd knowing a little bit about print media.
Well, you are right that I lack a Catholic school education (the closest tie I can claim is studying with Fr. Murphy at college, and doing some anti-war stuff with him), but as a similar cradle Episcopalian, the tone of the paper (and yes, I did go read the pointer you gave - don't you wish you could edit these comments? For instance, this was all meant to go in the original BB post above - sigh), is that the Bible requires work, study, and prayer to understand it's message for our lives today.
There, that's a start on scriptural authority with a quieter tone. I'll go one step further. What I hear you say is that there are certain immutable truths in the Bible. Homosexuality is one. In no way, shape, or form is it possible to read the texts any other way than the complete truth of the text. There are others. We say them in the creeds without crossing our fingers. By reading the Bible and saying the creeds in this way, we are strengthened in our struggle with the things that break our relationship with God.
How'd I do? Now it's your turn - you tell me how I am reading the Bible without saying that it's wrong, or that I am proposing some horrible new thing.
Maybe it's time for all parties to honestly talk about the authority of scripture. Wasn't there someone a while back who used the tag line "Stop the Insanity!"? Well, it's time to stop.
clumber - (and remember, you're talking to an old dog!)
RE:(and yes, I did go read the pointer you gave - don't you wish you could edit these comments? For instance, this was all meant to go in the original BB post above - sigh)
Is it now that I confess that I'm getting an IT degree ... OOOPS
1 - the plain meaning - I don't look for hidden codes when in proverbs it say something about adulteress women being a snare. I take stuff that's obvious for what it says.
2 - To read in context of time, what did the authors and what did reader understand reading this passage. Knowing Paul writing to a port city REALLY helps Corinthians make sense or what issue were added in Amos and why. (Side note is that most of Scripture is good Jewish literature, us Westerners need to lean a little about the culture {why we don't have King David's thoughts like a modern day novel}.
3 - Is context of other Scripture. This is a cannon that works together. Often we see boundaries and we think we see a contradiction. Well, a yellow line on the road does not contradict the white one, but give the path I need to travel. "If a man is not willing to work he should not eat;" "Use unrighteous mama for the Kingdom of God." In context of one and another a soup Kitchen is a good thing if it leads people to God, but we must not forget that second part.
4 - We are to be ever seeking but know we are told that all has not been revealed or more frustrating are those Holy mysteries, who were the men or renown who married the daughters of men. This bit is revealed but we don't know. (This get you out of 7 literal day, day-age, metaphor debates).
Warning is it is written that knowledge puffs up, sometimes it's better to be like Paul (brilliant man, answered the pre-Socratic on Mars Hill) and determine to know nothing be Christ crusfied. In context, 'you all like to argue too much proving you intellectualism.' Greek is fun, I've learned a bit on my own, sometimes people complement me on what I have to say. Knowing charity is better.
----
That said often the debate is polarized between two schools of thought about Scripture. Usually there are two names associated but I going to go wide view angle here.
In a theological discussion with a more 'liberal' friends, she tries to nail her argument shut with, "Is the Bible a restrictive document or a redemptive document." I concluded it was both. It certainly does contain restrictions on behavior but also reveals the path to life in Christ. Paul does give people something to do in Romans, but it's Chapter 12 when he says "Therefore." So Scripture reveals the path back to our Creator and reveals His Holiness and how we are made (sin kills, conforming gives life [that's from a pretty non-conformist too])
RE:"How'd I do? Now it's your turn - you tell me how I am reading the Bible without saying that it's wrong, or that I am proposing some horrible new thing."
Hopefully I answered w/o teeth or horns your request.
It's not an IT thing, it's a spelling thing, or maybe a keyboard glitch.
Kevin, good answers... but you missed my point (guess I am not a very skilled communicator!)... we need to be able to say "Here's what I hear you saying"... and for you to be able to say "Here's what I hear you saying" before we can say we understand each other.
I agree with your "restrictive/redemptive" argument. Does that make me liberal or conservative? The liberals out there might be surprised that I am anti-abortion on moral grounds. Does that make me liberal or conservative? I am strongly in favor of reaching out to the lost and lonely. Liberal/conservative?
You see, the labels make it too easy. We should stop trying to "nail" each other.
Knowing the culture helps. Can you imagine living in Corinth? What's the modern equivalent? Bangkok? Can people appreciate temple prostitutes? But I generally find Episcopalians a bit lazy in scripture anyway. Heck, I was for years and years. That's bad teaching from our priests and a misunderstanding of who is responsible for what... I'm a tad older than you, I dare say, so maybe the more recent understanding in the church has done away with that.
In any case, the basic set of questions for any reading is (for me) why is this story being told, why is it being told this way, what did it mean to the people who originally heard it, and what does it mean for us today. I am (as you probably guessed) in favor of the Episcopal Church in most of the recent disputes, but at the same time, have spent time thinking and praying about my faith and ideas of what God is calling us to do in the world. I have considered the ideas and felt strongly that "this new thing" is the right thing, and what Christ would have us do. Maybe not Paul, but Christ. And I'm trying hard to follow that path.
Oscar's a girl, huh? Well, good girl then!
Your thoughts on a site where people can have civilized discussion as we are having? Maybe you can do something with your IT knowledge? I'd love to have the capability to do some sort of on-line Bible study as a group. A group always seems to have bigger experiences and brings a wider understanding of scripture.
Peace, indeed! clumber
P.S. "clumber" is for my dog, who died a number of years ago and who I still miss.
RE:"but you missed my point (guess I am not a very skilled communicator!)."
Warning there are two of us that have dyslexia, but have this habit of posting. I'm one, so very easily, I misread the post.
RE: "I have considered the ideas and felt strongly that "this new thing" is the right thing, and what Christ would have us do. Maybe not Paul, but Christ."
A problem with that logic is that Jesus is never shown lowering the standard of the Old Testament, in fact he raises it. 'You have heard it said ...' 'but I tell you ...' Jesus is not shown talking a lot about sex, mostly that is Paul to the Corinthians, but Jesus up hold sex and marriage to a very high standard. One that this 'new thing' would not even be on the table if we held to Matthew 19. The only reason were discussing same gender sexuality is because the Church accepted the cultural norms for heterosexual sins.
Then to move forward even after all instruments of unity asked not and warned it would tear is at least very rude. The form also is caustic.
So I can not agree. There other resources if you truly seek. That's a quick answer to why I disagree that this 'new thing' is of the Lord.
RE:"Does that make me liberal or conservative?
In America we celebrates a rugged individualism, the self-made man -- responsible autonomy. Do what you want, be all you can be, do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone.
Some major autonomy and minor on responsibility. Free rides program, you can go out drink all the green beer last weekend you want, but a free ride home. 'It's my body, I can do what I want, just as long as I wear a condom and have save sex.'
Other major on responsibility and minor on autonomy. Pay your taxes, give God his tithe but I get buy the biggest house, my kids need the best schools, if it takes money from across town, so be it, I played by the rules and I'm playing to win. They could play by the rule, they did, so be it.
We know these group in Washington. The first group we call 'Liberal' the second 'Conservative.' While they look vastly different to us, to God they're very similar. Two groups that have little room for God or their neighbor in their heart. They have accolade they'll point towards but they often self-sufficient and don't need God or any one else to tell them what to do.
Rodney Stark and other sociologists tell us there were 10 values of early Christians.
• 1- They refused to attend blood thirsty entertainment. They wouldn’t go to gladiatorial events because they believed it defiled humans who were created in the image of God. This made them appear to be anti-social.
• 2- They did not serve in the military to support Caesar’s wars of conquest, which made them appear weak.
• 3- They were against abortion and infanticide. In the culture, both were considered acceptable.
• 4- They empowered women by showing their value and dignity in places of learning and service which had previously been exclusively for men. Christians held women in high regard and treasured them rather than viewing them as just a step above expendable children and servants.
• 5- They were against sex outside of marriage. Sex was viewed as nothing more than a desire like eating or sleeping. Christians held a high view of the bed and kept it pure and would not engage in sex outside of marriage.
• 6- They were against homosexual relationships. This was odd in a time when same sex practice was not frowned upon.
• 7- They were exceptionally generous with their resources. They shared what they had with one another and welcomed others in with a hospitality that was unparalleled.
• 8- They were radically for the poor. In a time when the poor and downtrodden were viewed as getting what they deserved, they were aggressively committed to loving and serving people in the margins of society.
• 9- They mixed races and social classes in ways that were unseen in their gatherings, and for it they were considered scandalous.
• 10- They believed only Christ was the way to salvation. This was in a pluralistic culture . Christians dared claim that Jesus was the only way and refused to bend to other gods.
Okay, so if you took 1,2,4,8 & 9 you might be confused as a 'liberal,' but if you took 3,5,6 & 10 someone might think you were a 'conservative.'
The question is to be Biblical and strive to model the early Church, then what would we be?
{Note: Thank you to the Lord via Rev. Claire for just-in-time sermons {this second time this month).
P.S. "clumber" is for my dog, who died a number of years ago and who I still miss.
Is that a picture of "Clumber" on your blog, looks beautiful. Truly man's best friend!! :-)
My clumber pre-dated digital cameras, and I have no scanning technology in house, so I just grab whatever pictures I can find on the net. All clumbers look pretty similar (to the untrained eye, anyway), so their pictures all remind me of my dog.
I am (as you might have guessed) not convinced with your argument concerning raising/lowering standards. It is a point in which we disagree. So be it. I just finished reading a book about living with the ambiguity which is inherent in Christianity, (written by a person I respect a great deal, an Episcopal priest and theologian), and I must say that he makes a persuasive case, to me, to the contrary, apart from the "acceptance of cultural norms" you propose. But I suspect his argument would not be persuasive to you.
woof woof out to Oscar, and my best to you, Kevin,
You are correct. I'm convinced the Bible has set out guidelines and they are there for our protection. Also I did suspected that you were not convinced of raising/lowering standards.
Worse than that, I once was much more liberal in my theology. It gets worse, I violated the commands about getting involved with unbeliever (even if we Looooovvvveed each other), so today I tend to look right through many of the proposed theological debate. It as bad as an ex-smoker. I'm one of those as well ...
Thanks for the well wishes, I scratched her behind the ear per your request.
Wow - Kevin and clumber - you all are embody the vision of the cafe! Love your conversation and how you handling it, spirited, with a few "oops" and forgiveness and clarity and wow, I just want to pull up a chair and listen. Thank you!
Instead, we've made pancakes and cookies in your honor. We're not pulling out the Cafe's supply of Ogden's Old Firewhisky because "puzzled" in the thread above seems to have found a stash and is quite full of it. But we will pull out the Butterbeer and call for rounds on the House!
Thank you for those kind words, BB. It is a credit to the Lord when we can disagree in grace -- He also gave me several years of training sitting at the counter in Denny's.
----
Two minor points of self-correction. I'm still very slowly making my way through academia, one of the greatest sins is plagiarism.
I gave credit as best as I heard, but incomplete. The resource servers keep going down (getting 404 a lot), honestly, I'd have preferred to just link to referenced sermon -- then I didn't seem to be doing well in that dept. yesterday. However the text was emailed last night (if your interested full text can be found here.
Full credit for 10 values were developed by sociologist Rodney Stark, and summarized by the Rev. David Fairchild.
----
Second may seem silly, but music connects with me as poetry does others. The Gregorian version is actually at the same tempo as the recorded version. I heard the radio version last night, I was comparing to a Youtube 'live' version which Metallica had quicken the tempo a tad.
21 comments:
You may be a tad pre-mature BB, first off the deadline is six month and ten days away. Second point is a majority of the Communique is '98 Lambeth 110, there is only on line in this document:
"We received a favorable response from the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the primates, which found that our effort had substantially met the concerns of the Windsor Report with the need to clarify our position on the blessing of same sex relationships. Still, our efforts were not accepted by the primates in the Dar es Salaam Communiqué."
This is a rejection of the PV section. What we've seen from FL and the unwillingness to drop law suites also the embedding of "not to alienate" language in the Communique, maybe the Institutionalist hold a lot more power than we give them credit.
I do ponder what the attitude of other 30 primate are over boarder crossing. Meaning this may be very strategic. If they "pause" then declared in compliance (focus has been on sexuality), would TEC be able to leverage against ++Akinola, ++Orombi & ++Kolini and pressure the Southern Cone for boarder crossing as against Windsor.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to take the minority position and not think this is settled. Rather a move in a long range chess game. GLBT is probably the noisy lobby, but I think there is a silent one which holds the money and applying a worldly version of the 'golden rule.'
Remember unless modified (unlikely) the official ruling will not be until Sept. 30. So now is the time to start sending bomb shell to see what damage was done to mitigate by the deadline [growing up in DC also teaches you to be a skeptic and look for the maneuvering, many elections & bill seemed sure until the actual day came].
If there is a howl from the Primates and there is a back peddle, I do hope there is a face saving in changing the title from "Primatial Vicar." The short hand PV doesn't do it for me, I keep reading 'photovoltaic'
The Pastoral Council is defined to have "up to five" members - TEC is choosing not to participate and so the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates can proceed without them. It is clear that that these resolutions do not reflect the Network/Windsor Bishops views. Houston, we have a schism.
Notice how the TEC House of Bishops say an emphatic "No" and then request - at TEC's own expense - to bring the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates Standing Committee to have a little chat (and again, it's no accident that the little New York Times article yesterday about how TEC is the Money Bags for the Anglican Communion came out and that this money is being used as a lever/threat - the timing is no accident). No mention of taking next steps towards September 30 - that's emphatically shut down (though the Primates will probably wait until Oct. 1) except to mention a possible General Convention (and who is going to pay for that? And GC is even more radical than the TEC House of Bishops).
It does appear that there's been a split inside the House of Bishops itself - these resolutions have Louie jumping up and down with glee. Stay tuned - more is coming.
bb
You live in the same town as I and have seen many of the odd things too. I'm not ever willing to declare something done until a deadline passes. I remember quite well February 15 & 16 news - people seemed to be in the dumps then then celebrating on Feb 19.
I see this as a battle. I'm not as so sure and I think it's been the "orthodox" constant weakness to declare victory too soon and think it's done only to watch an advancement of the "progressives."
Here we're declaring victory six months before the deadline. If the Primates cement it that's one thing, but if not that's six months of maneuvers. I wish "yes" meant "yes" and "no" meant "no" inside the Church at least, but I've seen a lot of oddities at all levels of governance.
Still waiting till the official results are filed (the former poll worker),
Kevin
BTW - I love the version of "Nothing Else Matters." It may show my own prejudges, but I bet it's the first time many visitors to the Cafe have heard some of James Hetfield's work. Actually show the gifting the Lord given in his song writing ability, because even though the presentation and tempo are completely different, this is pretty pure to the original construction of the song with a some interpretation in bridge. It converted styles really well. I wonder if Hetfield heard it.
Kevin may be right, but I don't think so. September 30 isn't the only deadline at work here - +++Rowan had given one to the HoB to start putting together the Primatial Council (the 20th, as I recall). The HoB have spit in his beer, publicly, with this rejection of the DeS Communique' provision. If +++Rowan moves forward, selecting the members unilaterally it will be seen, rightly, IMO, as the beginnings of a new presence for the Anglican Communion in America.
And, let's face it, this was the EASY part of the Communique's compliance. Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth from Queen Lutibelle's corner if the HoB starts to ponder whether to back off of SSB's or partnered gay clergy???
Jeffersonian
Nothing else matters
So close no matter how far
Couldnt be much more from the heart
Forever trusting who we are
And nothing else matters
Never opened myself this way
Life is ours, we live it our way
All these words I dont just say
And nothing else matters
Trust I seek and I find in you
Every day for us something new
Open mind for a different view
And nothing else matters
Never cared for what they do
Never cared for what they know
But I know
So close no matter how far
Couldnt be much more from the heart
Forever trusting who we are
And nothing else matters
Never cared for what they do
Never cared for what they know
But I know
Never opened myself this way
Life is ours, we live it our way
All these words I dont just say
And nothing else matters
Trust I seek and I find in you
Every day for us something new
Open mind for a different view
And nothing else matters
Never cared for what they say
Never cared for games they play
Never cared for what they do
Never cared for what they know
And I know
So close no matter how far
Couldnt be much more from the heart
Forever trusting who we are
No nothing else matters
Yep, it's a Metallica song. Last night I was in the mood for shattering rock then hit across this "Gregorian" version and it shattered me. I was hearing from the Episcopal Church leaders, the reason why we are/were called "Episcopal" - a church with bishops (which the Primates understand why we have them at all). Well, they've spoken, they who have put trust in themselves, and nothing else matters ...
You know it's ironic (the song is a love ballad).
Jefferson - easier for whom? It's odd they want to be "remain a part of the councils of the Anglican Communion" and reject the PV plan, yet very little on SSB or GLBT. This was the issue of direct contradiction in the communique of #32 & #33 which #35 & #36 I guess would try to resolve. I'm begining to ponder who is who anymore (thus my first post).
----
It's very odd and I'm reading a lot of celebration, a few posting with remorse over a divorce. I'm not so sure the Lord's heart is glad.
In fact both side are become increasing more convinced of the justness of their cause. When I look at history, that's usually when the Lord allows some great conflict to ensure, both convince they'll prevail for the Lord "must be on our side."
I must confess that I'm more concerned by the reaction I'm seeing from both sides than I am about this particular news.
Offered for your consideration, along with your chai this fine and beautiful morning:
The Gift of Scripture.
Understand that it's by some wild radicals from England and Wales...
Page 20 is especially interesting.
clumber
Clumber:
So? What is your point? This is a Roman Catholic document, you're demonstrating the same poor hermeneutic style with this document as revisionist do with Scripture and taking it out of context. Of course the RCC would say that, haven't you read Trent? That's the whole issue of the magisterium.
This is a very good Catholic document. Maybe you should join them, oh yeah John Paul II did answer the question about SSU two weeks before GC03 and the American Catholic bishops written about exactly how to minister to people trapped in sexual sin. Remember you can't cut-n-paste. The Magisterium comes as a lump sum!
Yes, this is a very good Roman Catholic Document. I see nothing in it which violates Catholic teaching.
Geesh kevin, take a breath... I said it was a good read. The point is that Catholics understand that there's more to reading the Bible than reading the Bible and taking notes.
I was suggesting that perhaps there are other ways of hearing the texts. I was suggesting that if that wild eyed bunch of radicals over there (and yes, I was pointedly saying that they aren't really radicals) have heard a different voice and think that it's possible for new things to appear from our reading today, that the scripture is not static and completely understood, then perhaps it's time to sit down and talk about the authority of scripture... oh, but you want to talk about SSU's... I understood that this wasn't about that...
Perhaps it's time to turn the volume knob back from 11 down to 2 or 3, and sit around and talk about scripture and how to read it.
I'm happy in today's Episcopal church, or at least my little corner of the kennel.
My apologies, but your blog and "radical" to me showed an ignorance of RCC. I'm a cradle Episcopalian but Catholic school trained. It's a rich tradition and I hold utmost respect, but know the differences. They are more conservative than ++Akinola, so use of page 20 actually showed your ignorance of their believes. I think reading these articles may help explain the logic behind the words. The authors clearly meant something and have an understanding of the world that I do not think you share in understanding. Not meant in load tones, but to one who has some knowledge of RCC, wow your post here and 'at home' seem off base. I apologies if I came off too harsh.
----
I was with high school friends, but at the time didn't track who was who in the world. One of my 'really out there' friends called the New York Times a conservative paper, a more main stream Democrat (lacking a better label) friends responded "WHAT?!?! ARE YOU KIDDING? THE TIMES IS ONE OF MOST LIBERAL PAPERS IN THE COUNTRY!!!"
At the moment I was startled, because I didn't know anything about papers nor cared very much. The one guy had shared that his views were just more left than the NYT so it looked right-wing from his prospective. Knowing more now, I can see the my other friend reaction, it was pretty absurd knowing a little bit about print media.
Kevin,
Well, you are right that I lack a Catholic school education (the closest tie I can claim is studying with Fr. Murphy at college, and doing some anti-war stuff with him), but as a similar cradle Episcopalian, the tone of the paper (and yes, I did go read the pointer you gave - don't you wish you could edit these comments? For instance, this was all meant to go in the original BB post above - sigh), is that the Bible requires work, study, and prayer to understand it's message for our lives today.
There, that's a start on scriptural authority with a quieter tone. I'll go one step further. What I hear you say is that there are certain immutable truths in the Bible. Homosexuality is one. In no way, shape, or form is it possible to read the texts any other way than the complete truth of the text. There are others. We say them in the creeds without crossing our fingers. By reading the Bible and saying the creeds in this way, we are strengthened in our struggle with the things that break our relationship with God.
How'd I do? Now it's your turn - you tell me how I am reading the Bible without saying that it's wrong, or that I am proposing some horrible new thing.
Maybe it's time for all parties to honestly talk about the authority of scripture. Wasn't there someone a while back who used the tag line "Stop the Insanity!"? Well, it's time to stop.
clumber - (and remember, you're talking to an old dog!)
oh, one other thing, kevin...
Nice dog! give her/him a scratch behind the ear and in your best "hamburger voice" say "good dog!" from clumber!
RE:(and yes, I did go read the pointer you gave - don't you wish you could edit these comments? For instance, this was all meant to go in the original BB post above - sigh)
Is it now that I confess that I'm getting an IT degree ... OOOPS
Catholic Answers (try two)
Per how I read Scripture:
1 - the plain meaning - I don't look for hidden codes when in proverbs it say something about adulteress women being a snare. I take stuff that's obvious for what it says.
2 - To read in context of time, what did the authors and what did reader understand reading this passage. Knowing Paul writing to a port city REALLY helps Corinthians make sense or what issue were added in Amos and why. (Side note is that most of Scripture is good Jewish literature, us Westerners need to lean a little about the culture {why we don't have King David's thoughts like a modern day novel}.
3 - Is context of other Scripture. This is a cannon that works together. Often we see boundaries and we think we see a contradiction. Well, a yellow line on the road does not contradict the white one, but give the path I need to travel. "If a man is not willing to work he should not eat;" "Use unrighteous mama for the Kingdom of God." In context of one and another a soup Kitchen is a good thing if it leads people to God, but we must not forget that second part.
4 - We are to be ever seeking but know we are told that all has not been revealed or more frustrating are those Holy mysteries, who were the men or renown who married the daughters of men. This bit is revealed but we don't know. (This get you out of 7 literal day, day-age, metaphor debates).
Warning is it is written that knowledge puffs up, sometimes it's better to be like Paul (brilliant man, answered the pre-Socratic on Mars Hill) and determine to know nothing be Christ crusfied. In context, 'you all like to argue too much proving you intellectualism.' Greek is fun, I've learned a bit on my own, sometimes people complement me on what I have to say. Knowing charity is better.
----
That said often the debate is polarized between two schools of thought about Scripture. Usually there are two names associated but I going to go wide view angle here.
In a theological discussion with a more 'liberal' friends, she tries to nail her argument shut with, "Is the Bible a restrictive document or a redemptive document." I concluded it was both. It certainly does contain restrictions on behavior but also reveals the path to life in Christ. Paul does give people something to do in Romans, but it's Chapter 12 when he says "Therefore." So Scripture reveals the path back to our Creator and reveals His Holiness and how we are made (sin kills, conforming gives life [that's from a pretty non-conformist too])
RE:"How'd I do? Now it's your turn - you tell me how I am reading the Bible without saying that it's wrong, or that I am proposing some horrible new thing."
Hopefully I answered w/o teeth or horns your request.
Peace,
Kevin
PS Thanks, I'll scratch Oscar behind the ears, I'm sure she'll enjoy it (told you I'm a bit of a non-conformist).
It's not an IT thing, it's a spelling thing, or maybe a keyboard glitch.
Kevin, good answers... but you missed my point (guess I am not a very skilled communicator!)... we need to be able to say "Here's what I hear you saying"... and for you to be able to say "Here's what I hear you saying" before we can say we understand each other.
I agree with your "restrictive/redemptive" argument. Does that make me liberal or conservative? The liberals out there might be surprised that I am anti-abortion on moral grounds. Does that make me liberal or conservative? I am strongly in favor of reaching out to the lost and lonely. Liberal/conservative?
You see, the labels make it too easy. We should stop trying to "nail" each other.
Knowing the culture helps. Can you imagine living in Corinth? What's the modern equivalent? Bangkok? Can people appreciate temple prostitutes? But I generally find Episcopalians a bit lazy in scripture anyway. Heck, I was for years and years. That's bad teaching from our priests and a misunderstanding of who is responsible for what... I'm a tad older than you, I dare say, so maybe the more recent understanding in the church has done away with that.
In any case, the basic set of questions for any reading is (for me) why is this story being told, why is it being told this way, what did it mean to the people who originally heard it, and what does it mean for us today. I am (as you probably guessed) in favor of the Episcopal Church in most of the recent disputes, but at the same time, have spent time thinking and praying about my faith and ideas of what God is calling us to do in the world. I have considered the ideas and felt strongly that "this new thing" is the right thing, and what Christ would have us do. Maybe not Paul, but Christ. And I'm trying hard to follow that path.
Oscar's a girl, huh? Well, good girl then!
Your thoughts on a site where people can have civilized discussion as we are having? Maybe you can do something with your IT knowledge? I'd love to have the capability to do some sort of on-line Bible study as a group. A group always seems to have bigger experiences and brings a wider understanding of scripture.
Peace, indeed!
clumber
P.S. "clumber" is for my dog, who died a number of years ago and who I still miss.
RE:"but you missed my point (guess I am not a very skilled communicator!)."
Warning there are two of us that have dyslexia, but have this habit of posting. I'm one, so very easily, I misread the post.
RE: "I have considered the ideas and felt strongly that "this new thing" is the right thing, and what Christ would have us do. Maybe not Paul, but Christ."
A problem with that logic is that Jesus is never shown lowering the standard of the Old Testament, in fact he raises it. 'You have heard it said ...' 'but I tell you ...' Jesus is not shown talking a lot about sex, mostly that is Paul to the Corinthians, but Jesus up hold sex and marriage to a very high standard. One that this 'new thing' would not even be on the table if we held to Matthew 19. The only reason were discussing same gender sexuality is because the Church accepted the cultural norms for heterosexual sins.
Then to move forward even after all instruments of unity asked not and warned it would tear is at least very rude. The form also is caustic.
So I can not agree. There other resources if you truly seek. That's a quick answer to why I disagree that this 'new thing' is of the Lord.
RE:"Does that make me liberal or conservative?
In America we celebrates a rugged individualism, the self-made man -- responsible autonomy. Do what you want, be all you can be, do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone.
Some major autonomy and minor on responsibility. Free rides program, you can go out drink all the green beer last weekend you want, but a free ride home. 'It's my body, I can do what I want, just as long as I wear a condom and have save sex.'
Other major on responsibility and minor on autonomy. Pay your taxes, give God his tithe but I get buy the biggest house, my kids need the best schools, if it takes money from across town, so be it, I played by the rules and I'm playing to win. They could play by the rule, they did, so be it.
We know these group in Washington. The first group we call 'Liberal' the second 'Conservative.' While they look vastly different to us, to God they're very similar. Two groups that have little room for God or their neighbor in their heart. They have accolade they'll point towards but they often self-sufficient and don't need God or any one else to tell them what to do.
Rodney Stark and other sociologists tell us there were 10 values of early Christians.
• 1- They refused to attend blood thirsty entertainment. They wouldn’t go to gladiatorial events because they believed it defiled humans who were created in the image of God. This made them appear to be anti-social.
• 2- They did not serve in the military to support Caesar’s wars of conquest, which made them appear weak.
• 3- They were against abortion and infanticide. In the culture, both were considered acceptable.
• 4- They empowered women by showing their value and dignity in places of learning and service which had previously been exclusively for men. Christians held women in high regard and treasured them rather than viewing them as just a step above expendable children and servants.
• 5- They were against sex outside of marriage. Sex was viewed as nothing more than a desire like eating or sleeping. Christians held a high view of the bed and kept it pure and would not engage in sex outside of marriage.
• 6- They were against homosexual relationships. This was odd in a time when same sex practice was not frowned upon.
• 7- They were exceptionally generous with their resources. They shared what they had with one another and welcomed others in with a hospitality that was unparalleled.
• 8- They were radically for the poor. In a time when the poor and downtrodden were viewed as getting what they deserved, they were aggressively committed to loving and serving people in the margins of society.
• 9- They mixed races and social classes in ways that were unseen in their gatherings, and for it they were considered scandalous.
• 10- They believed only Christ was the way to salvation. This was in a pluralistic culture . Christians dared claim that Jesus was the only way and refused to bend to other gods.
Okay, so if you took 1,2,4,8 & 9 you might be confused as a 'liberal,' but if you took 3,5,6 & 10 someone might think you were a 'conservative.'
The question is to be Biblical and strive to model the early Church, then what would we be?
{Note: Thank you to the Lord via Rev. Claire for just-in-time sermons {this second time this month).
P.S. "clumber" is for my dog, who died a number of years ago and who I still miss.
Is that a picture of "Clumber" on your blog, looks beautiful. Truly man's best friend!! :-)
Kevin,
Thanks for the lesson. Never hurts to learn more!
My clumber pre-dated digital cameras, and I have no scanning technology in house, so I just grab whatever pictures I can find on the net. All clumbers look pretty similar (to the untrained eye, anyway), so their pictures all remind me of my dog.
I am (as you might have guessed) not convinced with your argument concerning raising/lowering standards. It is a point in which we disagree. So be it. I just finished reading a book about living with the ambiguity which is inherent in Christianity, (written by a person I respect a great deal, an Episcopal priest and theologian), and I must say that he makes a persuasive case, to me, to the contrary, apart from the "acceptance of cultural norms" you propose. But I suspect his argument would not be persuasive to you.
woof woof out to Oscar, and my best to you, Kevin,
clumber
Clumber:
You are correct. I'm convinced the Bible has set out guidelines and they are there for our protection. Also I did suspected that you were not convinced of raising/lowering standards.
Worse than that, I once was much more liberal in my theology. It gets worse, I violated the commands about getting involved with unbeliever (even if we Looooovvvveed each other), so today I tend to look right through many of the proposed theological debate. It as bad as an ex-smoker. I'm one of those as well ...
Thanks for the well wishes, I scratched her behind the ear per your request.
Blessings,
Kevin
Wow - Kevin and clumber - you all are embody the vision of the cafe! Love your conversation and how you handling it, spirited, with a few "oops" and forgiveness and clarity and wow, I just want to pull up a chair and listen. Thank you!
Instead, we've made pancakes and cookies in your honor. We're not pulling out the Cafe's supply of Ogden's Old Firewhisky because "puzzled" in the thread above seems to have found a stash and is quite full of it. But we will pull out the Butterbeer and call for rounds on the House!
bb
Thank you for those kind words, BB. It is a credit to the Lord when we can disagree in grace -- He also gave me several years of training sitting at the counter in Denny's.
----
Two minor points of self-correction. I'm still very slowly making my way through academia, one of the greatest sins is plagiarism.
I gave credit as best as I heard, but incomplete. The resource servers keep going down (getting 404 a lot), honestly, I'd have preferred to just link to referenced sermon -- then I didn't seem to be doing well in that dept. yesterday. However the text was emailed last night (if your interested full text can be found here.
Full credit for 10 values were developed by sociologist Rodney Stark, and summarized by the Rev. David Fairchild.
----
Second may seem silly, but music connects with me as poetry does others. The Gregorian version is actually at the same tempo as the recorded version. I heard the radio version last night, I was comparing to a Youtube 'live' version which Metallica had quicken the tempo a tad.
Hope you have a blessed weekend.
Kevin
Post a Comment