Posted on 07/10/2009 5:04:53 AM PDT by Frumanchu
ANAHEIM, Calif. (ABP) -- The presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church called the evangelical notion that individuals can be right with God a "great Western heresy" that is behind many problems facing the church and the wider society.
Describing a United States church in crisis, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori told delegates to the group's triennial meeting July 8 in Anaheim, Calif., that the overarching connection to problems facing Episcopalians has to do with "the great Western heresy -- that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God."
"It's caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus," Jefferts Schori, the first woman to be elected as a primate in the worldwide Anglican Communion three years ago, said. "That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of being."
Jefferts Schori said countering individualistic faith was one reason the theme chosen for the meeting was "Ubuntu," an African word that describes humaneness, caring, sharing and being in harmony with all of creation.
"Ubuntu doesn't have any 'I's in it," she said. "The 'I' only emerges as we connect -- and that is really what the word means: I am because we are, and I can only become a whole person in relationship with others. There is no 'I' without 'you,' and in our context, you and I are known only as we reflect the image of the One who created us."
Jefferts Schori said "heretical and individualistic understanding" contributes to problems like neglect for the environment and the current worldwide economic recession.
"The sins of a few have wreaked havoc with the lives of many, as greed and dishonesty have destroyed livelihoods, educational possibilities, care for the aged, and multiple forms of creativity," she said. "And that's just the aftermath of Ponzi schemes for which a handful will go to jail."
She said in order to be faithful, "we need to be continually rediscovering that my needs are not the only significant ones."
"Ubuntu implies that selfishness and self-centeredness cannot long survive," she said. "We are our siblings' knowers and their keepers, and we cannot be known without them."
"We have no meaning, no true existence in isolation," she said. "We shall indeed die as we forget or ignore that reality."
About 200 Episcopal bishops and 850 clergy and lay deputies were expected to convene for the 10-day meeting. Business items are set to include debates over human sexuality, politics and poverty.
One resolution being considered calls for "generous discretion" to be extended to clergy in exercising pastoral ministry in six states -- Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont -- where the civil marriage of same-gender couples has been legalized as well as other states that may follow suit in the next three years.
The 2.1-million-member denomination has argued vociferously about homosexuality since 2003, when the group approved the election of its first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. Many more conservative Episcopalians and a handful of congregations have begun breaking away from the church in the years since.
Southern Baptist mega-church pastor Rick Warren, author of The Purpose Driven Life, took sides in his sister denomination's debate recently by showing up in Texas to encourage about 800 Episcopalians attending the first annual meeting of a conservative breakaway group calling itself the Anglican Church in North America.
Warren, who spoke out last fall against legal gay marriage in California, said in January that any nearby Anglican congregation that loses its property after breaking with the U.S. Episcopal Church was welcome to meet on the campus of his Saddleback Church.
-30-
Bob Allen is senior writer for Associated Baptist Press.
Why is it "doomed from the start?" Is the future nothing but the recapitulation of the past? Is the earthly system closed to the heavenly?
Sounds suspiciously "Newtonian" to me.... And who cares whether the world loves Christians or not anyway? Does "the world" love Truth? Does "the world" even know what Truth is? [e.g., Pilate's question].
Whether we are loved or hated, our vocation as Christians is wholly in Christ, Who Is Logos, Who is Truth. And we Christians have a positive duty to proclaim Him from the rooftops.
What has become of your Christian HOPE?
God works in all things according to His Will.
My husband and I were in Kamloops, BC Saturday and were walking in the direction of a catholic church I wanted to go to and we came upon an Anglican church and he said is this it, and I pointed to the pastor’s name (female) and said no. He didn’t get it at first. That’s one thing you can count on at a catholic church.
Do men love Truth? In fact the bible has an answer for that. Men love the darkness.
Why my Hope is Christ, it does not lie in men, in philosophers, or in "humanity", I'm surprised you asked, lol. Jesus did not pray "for the world", and there was a reason for that.
Yes, but God does not contradict Himself. If He says to not put your trust in vain philosophy, He doesn’t feed it to you later.
Maranatha, Jesus!!!
Looks like a universal train wreck shaping up for sure, dearest sister in Christ. Yet like you, I'm not concerned, and will join you in declaring:
Maranatha, Jesus!!!
Not sure what to add about lenses.
Certainly I have . . . in some respects . . . as all of us do . . .
ONLY our OWN lens with which to view things.
Our OWN lens will no doubt have components . . . as say in a multi-component large telescope . . . of many other lens 'manufacturers.'
Yet, each composite whole will be unique to each individual. Even our understanding of God's 'components' or, try as we might, of God's very unique whole lens . . . is idiosyncratic to each ourselves.
As finite beings, with unique histories, bounded in this time and space, it can be little more than that.
And that little more can only be by outside intervention--by God's breaking through into our time and space . . . and our minds, hearts, souls . . . with HIS TRUTH via Holy Spirit's injected snippets of said Truth.
I suppose the same could be said of satan's injection of lies as truth though to a far lesser degree.
Nevertheless, you make a good point.
I realize that most . . . RC's hereon certainly . . . will likely be more than a little incredulous to read that I earnestly indeavored (and still do) to find a logical, Biblical, true-to-current realities 'out' for the Pope and this encyclical. It's microscopically conceivable to me that I might find such an out on reading the whole thing. I very much doubt it.
And, interestingly, none of those on the other side have dealt a shred with my points--much less logically and much, much less true to the context our era provides. But, imho, the replies against my perspective are not all THAT true to what I read in the encyclical--particularly when considered alongside the realities in our era.
If my lens . . . if my logic . . . if my perspective is that far out of whack vis a vis current realities, it should be somewhat doable, if not easy, to show it logically. I've not observed that happening.
One might say . . . welllll, Quix, your lens, your a priori assumptions etc. soooooooooooooo stack the deck . . . yada yada yada.
I disagree.
1. I read word choices, phrases which are parallel to, in concert with, if not identical to globalist word choices, phrases, goals that I've studied for 44 years.
2. What real cause is there to label one set of such phrases etc. BLACK and a very similar set WHITE? Please show me. I've seen no logical justification for such divergeant labels of such identical word choices and phrases.
3. I've stated that whatever the Pope is saying, trying to say, hinting at, postulating, challenging the world to rise to--however one wishes to put it--whatever he is saying--he IS SAYING IT IN A CONTEXT WHERE GLOBALISM HAS BEEN IN CONTROL FOR AT LEAST 100 YEARS. That's just a fact.
4. No one, on the RC side, that I can recall, has even given passing lip service to noting and understanding that fact.
5. Certainly there are FREEPERS who do not believe such facts about globalism. It boggles my mind that such could be the case on such a conservative website--yet, it is. Blindness, being poorly informed, willful blindness etc. seem to abound in our era--even on FR, sadly. Thankfully, such ranks are diminishing by the day as yet another headline trumpets the wonderous glories of 'culling the populace by abortion' a la Ginsburg etc.
6. No one, on the RC, side, has said a thing, that I can recall, about how serious and comprehensive a factor it is that said satanic globalism IS AND HAS BEEN the reigning power over the globe for so many decades with increasing levels of overt control; increasing tyranny; increasing brazenness. No one.
7. Welllll, it's a fact, or it's not a fact. One could say, PERHAPS--BY SOME WILD STRETCH--that globalism is only 51% in control of the globe . . . or whatever percentage. But to say that satanic globalism is not at the door is maximally idiotic, imho. And, personally, how anyone could say anything lower than 85% or so with OThuga in power and brazen headlines assaulting us every few days about yet another globalist goal or accomplishment or tyrannical method . . . well . . . boggles the mind would be a weak phrase.
8. Does ANY Bible believing, remotely prophetically astute Christia believe that the satanic global government will NOT be in wholesale power and tyrannical control in this era? If so, then, my understanding of Scripture would assert that they don't really believe The Bible--plain and simple.
9. IF they do believe The Bible plainly as written, then it is inescapable to me that the ruthless satanic global government WILL be increasingly in thorough going and comprehensive control over the planet in this era in which Israel became an overt Nation again in the Holy Land.
10. And, certainly the news headlines have INCREASINGLY AFFIRMED THAT VERY THING over the whole of my life--well at least, since 1948--I was born in 1947.
11. So, to me, at some point the above issue is a matter of basic Biblical and basic geopolitical reality testing. Folks either are aware of those realities and accept that they are real, or they aren't &/or they don't.
12. If folks do not realize that basic geopolitical reality vis a vis tyrannical satanic globalism, then there's no dialogue to be had regardless of what lens one actually uses or professes to use.
13. IF one realizes that reality, then one MUST consider the encyclical in light of that reality. There's no alternative. We deal with life as it IS vs as we fantasize that it is. The folks in the assylum deal with "life" as they fantasize that it is.
14. When we consider the encyclical against the realities of this era vis a vis globalism . . . then we have a problem.
15. Please, someone, anyone . . . what OTHER options are there than these?
B) The Pope IS aware of those realities but is in denial about them. That's not overly likely but is somewhat plausible. All kinds of reality is distorted in the name of organizations; the status quo and certainly of !!!!RELIGION!!!. C) The Pope IS aware of those realities but is deceptively playing an intellectual game for whatever purpose(s). One would hope that's not very likely. Yet, a number of Popes have done worse for various reasons. b) a way of helping parisioners cope. c) a way of buying time for intellectual, religious maneuvering with the globalists to try and cobble together whatever concessions or delays one can vainly engineer. d) a way of buying time to vainly await some miraculous intervention to preserve the organization, the power, the perspective of the Vatican. 3) A kind of schizoid sort of fractured response to reality. Yeah, "A" is true and should have response "B" but that is sooooo distressing, we'll just respond with "Z" and pretend that's sane and normal. And when folks are incredulous, we'll just insist that they don't understand our dictionary or that they have the context terminally wrong. I sure hope THAT'S not true. 4) I don't know what OTHER REALISTIC possibilities there logically are. And I have other things to do than try and arrive at a truly exhaustive list. But the options are NOT endless. They are VERY FINITE. And I have not read any convincing ones from ANY RC proponent.
Alamo-Girl, Christian harmony and lack of discord, contention etc. are great Biblical priorities. However, they are not the Supreme Biblical priority. I don't know that they are even in the top 5 or the top 3.
The TRUTH IN LOVE is, to my mind, a rather high priority. And many times, the truth is not FELT to be love, when it actually is. My guess is that you still believe that regardless of whether you believe in a particular application or example of that, or not.
To me, satanic globalism is such a hugely important Biblical End Times issue of serious Eternal Life/Eternal Death import to millions of souls . . . it MUST NOT be dealt with in a slippery, diplo-speak slicing and dicing fashion.
The facts are brutally, starkly true. We have a Supreme Court Justice speaking of culling the undesirables out of society by infanticide. Worse, THERE'S NO UPROAR remotely equal to the outrageous position she's taken. And that's just ONE amongst several HUNDRED starkly brutal facts about this moment in global history.
Folks may wish to read the encyclical as though such facts do not exist or are not true--but it won't fly for any seriously thinking and any seriously aware Christian Conservative.
Given that such global and globalist facts ARE TRUE, then the encyclical MUST be read in that light.
Those facts do NOT provide even the Pope a lot of wiggle room.
He can pontifically CLAIM all the wiggle room the magicsterical encourages him to claim. He can clutch tightly all the Pontifical power still at his disposal. He can use all the propaganda resources of the Vatican to spread the view through the Vatican lens far and wide over the globe.
In the end, it won't matter. Scripture is clear. ALL PEOPLE GROUPS, NATIONS ETC. WILL COME UNDER THE IRON THUMB, THE IRON BOOT, THE GUILLOTINE of the global government.
So, anyone--Mark OMalley?--anyone--PLEASE tell me . . . what hope has this encyclical--EVEN GIVEN THE BEST LIGHT INTERPRETATION--WHAT HOPE does this encyclical have of effecting redemptive results of the slightest sort lasting another minute once the global government decides to lower the boom on all matters on which the encyclical touches?
On the other hand, theology itself is a branch of philosophy — held to be the "queen of metaphysics." Religious doctrines themselves are formulations of the philosophical kind.
But I do take your point that no philosophy, theology, or doctrine takes precedence over the Word of God.
Christ has been authoritatively on His Throne for a very long time now.
He has been so from before the beginning of the fulfillment of END TIMES PROPHECIES
and will be so through the end of Armageddon and beyond.
There is comfort, peace, security, provision in that for all those who Love Him.
That includes philosophy; for example, the history - philosophic roots - of the word concept Logos, a Name of God, Jesus Christ the Word [Logos] of God.
And it includes nations and history; for example, Alexander's conquering the civilized world caused the common Greek to be normalized, i.e. the Name of God would be understood when it came time to proclaim it.
Alexander was a student of Aristotle who was a student of Plato.
PRAISE GOD FOR THAT . . .
At least for those with lamps full of Holy Spirit.
James 4:4
Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
1 John 2:15
Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
Yes. Indeed. Pope Benedict acknowledges all that in spades: He says globalism is already a fait accompli, one which threatens to continue to run downhill unto total societal chaos worldwide unless it can be re-humanized according to Christian principles and moral criteria.
THIS is what the Encyclical is ALL ABOUT.
Thanks for your kind reply.
I have other tasks I must get to.
Later,
_____% A) CAN be so humanized according to Christian priniciples and moral criteria
and/or
_____% B) WILL be so humanized according to Christian priniciples and moral criteria
ping
There are truths in philosophy, and there are untruths in theology. Religious doctrines can be “the traditions of men” and therefore suspect.
I don’t know, globalism is a beast, I don’t see how it can be “re-humanized”, as it already is, to the teeth; perhaps BB meant “Christianized”
Yet it seems to be our duty to try to do what we can to make it a more Godly world while we're here, to express our constant praise and sheer gratitude for the blessings that Our Lord has entrusted unto our stewardship and care.
But then, what is the meaning you ascribe to "the world?" Is this "nature," or something else?
Well, if Nature, we must recall that our Lord created it. That is, the Christian vision of Nature is that it is the fruit of God's creative desire. As such Nature expresses a design of love and truth. Moreoever, God bids us to creatively tend to it as His good stewards. There is great beauty in this world because that's the way God made it. To notice this, and work for it, to me is simply one way to express profound thanks to God for the blessings he has showered on us in this life.
This is not exactly what you'd call a dark and gloomy vision of the world. Catholics honor and celebrate the creaturely aspects of life for (among other reasons) the Incarnation of Christ sanctifies the Body as the expression of God's creative and redemptive Will.
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.