Yes, but once the party is over, some arouse from their stupor, look at themselves in the mirror, and realize that life is finite. Judgement Day may not be that for off.
Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list
Posted on 02/05/2004 7:12:24 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
Peter James Lee was one of the sixty Episcopal bishops who voted to approve the appointment of Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, as bishop of New Hampshire. Since the vote, Lee has faced stiff opposition from conservative evangelical churches in his diocese.
In his speech to the annual meeting of his diocese, Bishop Lee said this, "If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose heresy."
I can think of nothing more dangerous. What Lee is basically saying is that we can tolerate anything within the Church just to keep the Church together.
What would cause someone to think this way? In part there is much at stake economically in keeping things the way they are. Schism is the enemy because pastors' retirements and church properties get threatened if you break away from a denomination -- as do bishops' reputations. But putting personal interest ahead of truth, sacrificing truth on the altar of what we call unity? No. And it's not real unity; it's expediency.
The second reason for putting unity over truth is that American Christians of all stripes -- evangelical, as well as liberal -- no longer take truth seriously. David Brooks in a recent NEW YORK TIMES column made the point that Americans believe that, "In the final days, the distinctions will fade away, and we will all be united in God's embrace. This happy assumption has meant that millions feel free to try on different denominations at different points in their lives, and many Americans have had trouble taking religious doctrines altogether seriously."
As a result, says Brooks, we tend to think that all people of good will are "basically on the same side," we practice religion that is easygoing and experiential rather than rigorous and intellectual, and we "have trouble sustaining culture wars."
The result is that, like Bishop Lee, we've fallen into this mushy ecumenism, believing that doctrines and distinctions make little or no difference. But our forebears, particularly in the Reformation tradition, didn't shed their blood for retirement plans, for buildings, or for a cozy sense that everybody is okay. They shed their blood for truth.
All other considerations, whether we're seeker-sensitive or liturgical, whether we're taking care of our retirement plans or building new additions, everything is secondary to the preservation and defense of truth.
This applies to every church, not just the Episcopal church. In my experience, Bible-believing churches can sometimes be as unwilling to apply church discipline over matters of truth and morality as Bishop Lee. One politician I know boasts about his faith while voting for gay rights and against the partial-birth abortion ban. Not only is he not disciplined by his church in the name of truth, but he gets time and again to speak in the pulpit. Anything else, of course, might cause disunity.
As Pogo said, "We have just met the enemy, and he is us." It's all well and good for evangelicals to sit around and say "those crazy Episcopalians." But they're just reflecting what all of us do in lesser degrees. And Lee's words ought to be a sobering wake-up call to us all.
Ahem!
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'
"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."
--Matthew 10:34-39
So, Jesus comes around and says, "I am Truth, and it's time to fight a war," and Lee says, "Well then, let's lie and have peace!" Also, if this guy hates schism so much, why isn't he a Catholic? Oh wait, that's right, he wouldn't be a Bishop anymore if he did that.
One politician I know boasts about his faith while voting for gay rights and against the partial-birth abortion ban. Not only is he not disciplined by his church in the name of truth, but he gets time and again to speak in the pulpit. Anything else, of course, might cause disunity.
This doesn't just happen within the Church, but in the relations between the Church and other religions. Muslims getting to speak in the pulpits of American churches, telling us all how we should just be getting along, blah, blah, blah. Willow Creek Church let an imam address their congregation in the months after September 11th, and he told them observant Muslims believe in Jesus more than Christians do. How he backed that up, I don't know. Word is that the Air Force has a Muslim chaplain at Eaker who has been doing this routine in churches all along the Gulf Coast.
If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Jesus founded one Church, and now there are 25,000+ Protestant sects having details that differ.
I prefer the one Truth Jesus taught, guided by the supreme teaching authority He bestowed upon Peter and Peter's successors.
Does it not follow that one leads to the other?
Yes, but once the party is over, some arouse from their stupor, look at themselves in the mirror, and realize that life is finite. Judgement Day may not be that for off.
Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list
Then why did He say he did?
One would hope it would (that is that heresy would lead to schism). If it didn't, that would be a sign that there were no true believers left, wouldn't it? Of course, if there were not true believers left then it would be a little late in the game to be talking about heresy wouldn't it?
What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb. But what if some novel contagion try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty. What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men. But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation.
St. Vincent of Lerins AD 434
Not my choice.
One hundred percent bilgewater.
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."--Matthew 16:16-19 NIV"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."--Matthew 18:15-18
Peter said to her, "How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also." At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events. --Acts 5:9-11
Also, see Matthew 28 and Acts 1 & 2 for the timeline; Jesus commisions His church, then ascends, the Apostles immediately appoint a replacement for Judas, and a short time later Jesus sends the Holy Spirit to complete the establishment of the Church. There is no "came later," there is a continuum of events between Jesus establishing the Church (or signalling its establishment, it's a fine theological point) before His death, the Commission and the disciples acting as the church, carrying out the Commission. God's Word declares it, and it is so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.