Will the Archbishop of Canterbury finally say "enough is enough"?

[higgs2]

I also considered using truculent, heretical, and heterodox. But I think apostacy is the most appropriate for what I am thinking of, which is individuals who have become heterodox and are trying to use their position in the church to further their views. If they became heterodox and joined the UU I wouldn't be bothered.

But really, what mechanism is there within Anglicanism to deal with such a Bishop? Several bishops back, we had a bishop who didn't believe that Christ was really resurrected from the dead. Among the Catholics there are ways to deal with such a bishop in both the Latin and Eastern churches, and the Orthodox can also do this - either at the instigation of the other Bishops, clergy, or even the laity. My heterodox bishop has since gone on to bigger and better things, which makes me shudder.

YOu're p. young, aren't you my friend.

 

[RestoreTheRiver]

YOu're p. young, aren't you my friend.

What does the lady's age have to do with expressing opinions that are faithful to both the historic church, and the vast majority of the Anglican Communion today?

This "baby boomer vicar" is pleased to agree with her!

Michael

 

[kiwimac]

And this one is not.

 

[JasonV]

And this one is not.

God bless you Father!

 

[MKJ]

YOu're p. young, aren't you my friend.

Young, or young for an Anglican - under 60 or so?

I guess I am in the middle, I'm neither young nor old. But I wouldn't say that theological loosey-gooseyness is really absent in the old, in my experience it seems to be mainly a baby-boomer phenomena.

 

[Polycarp1]

I had a really major issue some years back with someone I was supposed to be working alongside of as a brother saying they agreed with Ann Coulter's book Treason -- i.e., that I and other liberals were guilty of treason against America by virtue of disagreeing with her brand of politics. That's offensive and over the top.

And so is apostasy. That means the total rejection of the Christian message -- not couching it in a style you don't particularly like, not objecting to a literal interpretation of some doctrines they see as figurative or metaphorical, but total rejection of Christianity. Even Jack Spong comes nowhere near apostacy, especially if you read him as a Tillichian (which is what he trained as). I was one of the first to call a schism a schism here, and was duly admonished for it by pmcleanj at the time. And if you want to say someone's views are heretical, I may argue the point but I won't be offended.

But apostacy is going too far. Unless you're Rowan Williams in disguise, drawing lines where the real ABC has chosen not to, you're being intentionally offensive and over the top.

 

[MKJ]

I had a really major issue some years back with someone I was supposed to be working alongside of as a brother saying they agreed with Ann Coulter's book Treason -- i.e., that I and other liberals were guilty of treason against America by virtue of disagreeing with her brand of politics. That's offensive and over the top.

And so is apostasy. That means the total rejection of the Christian message -- not couching it in a style you don't particularly like, not objecting to a literal interpretation of some doctrines they see as figurative or metaphorical, but total rejection of Christianity. Even Jack Spong comes nowhere near apostacy, especially if you read him as a Tillichian (which is what he trained as). I was one of the first to call a schism a schism here, and was duly admonished for it by pmcleanj at the time. And if you want to say someone's views are heretical, I may argue the point but I won't be offended.

But apostacy is going too far. Unless you're Rowan Williams in disguise, drawing lines where the real ABC has chosen not to, you're being intentionally offensive and over the top.

I'm sorry if I offended you - it certainly wasn't my intent.

I did choose the word apostasy carefully however, and without drawing any lines at all. Whether some of the Bishops are actually apostate or not, there are many people who think they are, and unlike the other apostolic churches, Anglicanism has no way to deal with this. A Bishop can totally reject every foundational belief of Christianity and there is nothing anyone can really do about it.

Whenever people get really heated about the incursions of foreign Bishops - which are very problematic - I find myself thinking that the Bishops whose territories are being invaded should perhaps be glad that the discontent Anglicans are not taking the same approach that people in the past did when they were dissatisfied with their leadership.

I did give an example, mostly because I thought it was pretty safe to say that within an Anglican context, disbelief that Christ was God, or in the Ressurection, is outside of the teachings of Anglicanism (I realize many people think this way of course, but that is a different thing.) Perhaps it would have been better if I hadn't.

 

[wayseer]

I'm sorry if I offended you - it certainly wasn't my intent.

I did choose the word apostasy carefully however, and without drawing any lines at all. Whether some of the Bishops are actually apostate or not, there are many people who think they are, and unlike the other apostolic churches, Anglicanism has no way to deal with this. A Bishop can totally reject every foundational belief of Christianity and there is nothing anyone can really do about it.

Whenever people get really heated about the incursions of foreign Bishops - which are very problematic - I find myself thinking that the Bishops whose territories are being invaded should perhaps be glad that the discontent Anglicans are not taking the same approach that people in the past did when they were dissatisfied with their leadership.

I did give an example, mostly because I thought it was pretty safe to say that within an Anglican context, disbelief that Christ was God, or in the Ressurection, is outside of the teachings of Anglicanism (I realize many people think this way of course, but that is a different thing.) Perhaps it would have been better if I hadn't.

Neither you nor I know exactly what is going on in someone's thinking process. On that score alone it is perhaps unwise to make judgments.

Like any other issue the matter needs to be places in context. In your example you provide no context. I can make any number of claims by any number of people if I just cut such claims out of the context.

Any bishop who can 'totally reject EVERY foundational belief of Christianity' is indeed questionable. But does such a person actually exist?

But of greater disturbance is the underlying message contained in your thoughts - that things must conform to your particular brand of Christianity.

In other words, the lowest common denomination gets all the oil. I find this demand at 'dumbing down' the process alarming. At a time when education is more readily available than ever Christians are expected to move through life with a Sunday School education.

 

[MKJ]

Neither you nor I know exactly what is going on in someone's thinking process. On that score alone it is perhaps unwise to make judgments.

Like any other issue the matter needs to be places in context. In your example you provide no context. I can make any number of claims by any number of people if I just cut such claims out of the context.

Any bishop who can 'totally reject EVERY foundational belief of Christianity' is indeed questionable. But does such a person actually exist?

But of greater disturbance is the underlying message contained in your thoughts - that things must conform to your particular brand of Christianity.

In other words, the lowest common denomination gets all the oil. I find this demand at 'dumbing down' the process alarming. At a time when education is more readily available than ever Christians are expected to move through life with a Sunday School education.

So, you would say that a bishop can have any view of Christianity, and Anglicanism, and still reasonably remain a Bishop? What is the meaning of the structures and Creeds we subscribe to if we are going to operate that way? THis seems to me the epitome of creating Christ in our own image. And we can't even take what such a person says about his or her beliefs as actually reflecting his or her beliefs?

I'm not sure what you are implying about my understanding of Anglicanism being at a "Sunday school" level. I'm by no means a fundamentalist if that's what you think.

 

[ebia]

Father, Son, Spirit, make us one even as you are one.

Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, set up your Kingdom in our midst,
Lord Jesus Christ, son of the living God, have mercy on us all,
Holy Spirit, breath of God, renew us and all the world.

 

[JasonV]

What is the meaning of the structures and Creeds we subscribe to if we are going to operate that way? THis seems to me the epitome of creating Christ in our own image.

What else are the structures and creeds, if not creating Christ in our own image?

 

[MKJ]

What else are the structures and creeds, if not creating Christ in our own image?

The deposit of Tradition is what is understood to have been taught by the apostles from the beginning, which they received from Christ. It is widely misunderstood that the Creeds for the first time decided what was believed about certain subjects. THat is not in fact the case - the Creeds were a concrete, precise definition of what was already believed. Such definitions were always in response to heresies that had arisen, but they were recognized as heresies because they contradicted Tradition.

 

[Polycarp1]

The deposit of Tradition is what is understood to have been taught by the apostles from the beginning, which they received from Christ. It is widely misunderstood that the Creeds for the first time decided what was believed about certain subjects. THat is not in fact the case - the Creeds were a concrete, precise definition of what was already believed. Such definitions were always in response to heresies that had arisen, but they were recognized as heresies because they contradicted Tradition.

It's worth adding to this the Roman concept, which I think we and the Orthodox share though we don't take it to their lengths, of developed doctrine. "Developed" is here a term of art, carefully chosen to distinguish from both "invented de novo" and "explicit from the beginning." A developed doctrine is held to be implicit from earliest days but spelled out explicitly only in responce to a heresy denying it. Christ's divinity might be an excellent example -- one can point out to a half dozen Scriptures pointing broadly to it, with all the subtlety of a backfiring Mack truck being chased by baying bloodhounds, but it is not explicitly defined until somebody (Marcion? the Ebionites? I forget) denies it, and it becomes necessary to say what it was that everybody knew in consequence.

 

[JasonV]

The deposit of Tradition is what is understood to have been taught by the apostles from the beginning, which they received from Christ. It is widely misunderstood that the Creeds for the first time decided what was believed about certain subjects. THat is not in fact the case - the Creeds were a concrete, precise definition of what was already believed. Such definitions were always in response to heresies that had arisen, but they were recognized as heresies because they contradicted Tradition.

If this was the 15th century, I might believe that.

However, we now know that history was re-written in an attempt to prove that there was always only one belief, and that the heretics intentionally deviated from that for some godless and unholy reason. However modern historians and theologians like Nigg and Bradshaw have throughly proven such a theory is nonsense.

I personally cannot comprehend how otherwise intelligent people can believe what so-called history says is true, in light of the events of those days where Nazi-esque book burning, and the threat of capitol punishment from the state was the leading champion of "orthodoxy".

 

[higgs2]

I had a really major issue some years back with someone I was supposed to be working alongside of as a brother saying they agreed with Ann Coulter's book Treason -- i.e., that I and other liberals were guilty of treason against America by virtue of disagreeing with her brand of politics. That's offensive and over the top.

And so is apostasy. That means the total rejection of the Christian message -- not couching it in a style you don't particularly like, not objecting to a literal interpretation of some doctrines they see as figurative or metaphorical, but total rejection of Christianity. Even Jack Spong comes nowhere near apostacy, especially if you read him as a Tillichian (which is what he trained as). I was one of the first to call a schism a schism here, and was duly admonished for it by pmcleanj at the time. And if you want to say someone's views are heretical, I may argue the point but I won't be offended.

But apostacy is going too far. Unless you're Rowan Williams in disguise, drawing lines where the real ABC has chosen not to, you're being intentionally offensive and over the top.

Amen!

 

[higgs2]

Young, or young for an Anglican - under 60 or so?

I guess I am in the middle, I'm neither young nor old. But I wouldn't say that theological loosey-gooseyness is really absent in the old, in my experience it seems to be mainly a baby-boomer phenomena.

YOung to the AC I guess.

My church literally crawling with young people from infancy on up, so the 60 thing does not apply to us.

I deeply appreciate mental agility, flexiblity, and a thirst for truth which seems to have no age boundaY.