The juxtaposition of the “Workmans”, Fr. Jim and just Jim (18 and 19)in the comments on the Stand Firm thread is remarkable. Fr. Jim gave the children’s sermon last Sunday and held up a mirror for the children. “What did Jesus look like? He looked like you. Because Christ was God, and because we are all made in God’s image”. I think the adult sermon may even have emphasized that God is with us and around us and in us all, but I won’t quote that one. That is pretty much what the candidate for Bishop said. For the record, although Fr Jim Workman signs with the name of his church, it should be made clear that he does not represent the body of his congregation in his remarks, he’s out there on his own limb. And as one of his congregants, I support the “Buddhist Bishop”, and the priest who practices yoga, and even the evangelical Presbyterian Episcopalian in their efforts to “make us like Christ”. And if I have to choose between focussed meditation and mindless condemnation, the Budhist wins every time.
Doug Martin
This is too good to pass up.
Straw man arguments are not likely to hold up on this blog.
The choice between focused meditation and mindless condemnation?
I regret that Doug did not participate in my church’s Ash Wednesday service, which included a lot of focused meditation.
And, by the way, the condemnation was a generic condemnation of sin, in accordance with Scripture, the Early Creeds, and the BCP.
As I understand it, Buddhists follow the teaching of the Buddha, who delineated the path to gaining freedom from the wheel of reincarnation, by means of enlightenment. What am I missing?
Is it reincarnation forever, or to die once, and after that the judgment?
These are opposites, and are in direct contradiction.
“Reincarnation” implies an absolutely non-changing object that moves from physical body to physical body, an idea Buddhists reject since in Buddhism no ‘object’ can ever be absolutely non-changing. Thus, Buddhists speak of “rebirth”, which is not forever — unless that is one’s choice, of course. And there is judgment after one’s death, a judgment that might involve an external spiritual being, but that most essentially is a result of the laws of ethics and morality inherent in the cosmos. After judgment, one may enter into a heaven, a hell, or some other spiritual or physical realm. The heavens, the hells, and the other spiritual realms are not permanent — only nirvana is permanent — but they are present in Buddhism.
You know, I don’t know what’s more troubling: that this person was even considered for Bishop or that so many here and on SF don’t think it is a problem!
I do think it shows just how far from true historic Scriptural Christianity we have sunk in the West.
Jim, #6, I don’t think that so many, either here or at SF don’t think this new bishop is “a problem.” I think everyone on the orthodox side thinks it most certainly IS a real problem. So, the issue isn’t whether it’s a problem, but how best to deal with it. Sarah and many others feel the “inside strategy” is still viable in TEC. Others, like me, feel it is not. The difference is one of strategy, not a disagreement about whether or not this latest “election” is “a problem.”
Those who place their hope on the inside strategy believe that the institutional mechanisms of the Communion can still be made to work, that the tide can be turned, especially within TEC. These good folks put particular hope in a proposed fifth instrument of communion, the covenant. Those who do not put such hope in the historic instruments of Communion, or in the proposed covenant (which is still a long way off and unclear in form), feel that the problem in the Anglican Communion is so profound that existing institutional mechanisms cannot, at this late date, be made to work. We have not given up on Anglicanism, but we have very low expectations of what can be accomplished through the historic 4 instruments of the Communion, or even through a fifth – the proposed covenant.
Anglicanism existed LONG before there was an Anglican Communion, so we don’t see the fate of Anglicanism as tied up with the fate of the Anglican Communion as it is currently configured (which, by the way has changed considerably over the past century and a half of its existence). For those of us who do not embrace the “inside strategy,” we have certainly not given up on the Anglican Communion either, but we believe that it is currently undergoing a fundamental transformation. This transformation is necessary and essential to the continued existence of the historic Communion, but it cannot be effected alone through the existing instruments of Communion, because those instruments have already proven themselves ineffective in confronting the core issues of the present crisis.
As in many fundamental and historic transformations of this sort, the transformation is primarily being driven by actions taking place outside of the established institutional channels of the Communion. Those actions were initiated by revisionists in North America, and the failure of the historic instruments of Communion to respond effectively to the challenge presented, prompted a dialectical response from the overwhelmingly orthodox majority of the historic Communion.
I agree that if you’re committed to the inside strategy things must look pretty bleak indeed at this point (a Buddhist bishop being only the latest example!), but I can assure you that if you’re willing to think outside of the TEC box, things look much brighter indeed! Orthodox Anglicanism, on a global scale, is reorganizing and realigning. It’s finding new ways to connect and move forward. Realities on the ground are changing, with increasing rapidity, and the historic instruments of Communion can lead, follow, or get out of the way!
I personally think the historic Communion will survive, but it will need to transform itself in such a way that it can cope with the crisis that confronts it. I think that transformation will ultimately come, but the pressure to transform will continue to come primarily from outside of the four historic instruments of Communion. The really bad news, if you’re committed to the inside strategy as it relates to TEC, is that it’s HIGHLY unlikely that TEC will have any meaningful relationship to the global Anglican Communion of the future.
If I’m right about all this, what you see as “troubling” is merely a growing recognition on the part of orthodox Anglicans in North America that whatever happens, or doesn’t happen, in TEC and AC of Canada, is ultimately not that important. For us, what’s MUCH more important is what happens in ACNA. For us what is exciting is not the departure of TEC and AC of C from historic Christianity (that’s old news), but rather the return of so many Anglicans in North America to historic Christianity! Take heart! Be of good cheer! The glass is half full, not half empty.
I do think that every believer still in TEC has a responsibility to write to bishops and standing committees asking that this bishop-elect not receive consents. Without regard to whether we think they “ought to be” or “ought not to be” still in TEC, if they are, they have this duty, and I hope they will all do it.
RE: “Those who place their hope on the inside strategy believe that the institutional mechanisms of the Communion can still be made to work, that the tide can be turned, especially within TEC.”
We do? When? Where? Who? Who think that the “tide an be turned” and “especially within TEC”?
RE: “If I’m right about all this, what you see as “troubling†is merely a growing recognition on the part of orthodox Anglicans in North America that whatever happens, or doesn’t happen, in TEC and AC of Canada, is ultimately not that important. For us, what’s MUCH more important is what happens in ACNA.”
Really? For “orthodox Anglicans”? Like me? We find much more important what happens in the ACNA?
RE: “I agree that if you’re committed to the inside strategy things must look pretty bleak indeed at this point . . . ”
They do? You mean . . . those of us committed to the inside strategy are Really Really Surprised? Shocked? Stunned and hornswoggled that TEC has elected a Buddhist Bishop?
Where? When? Who?
RE: “but I can assure you that if you’re willing to think outside of the TEC box, things look much brighter indeed!”
They do? Like, you mean, when I look outside of the box at the ACNA I’m supposed to think “wow — that’s what I want”? What if I have looked at the ACNA and I thought, instead, “uh oh — better not head that direction.” Does that mean I didn’t really really really “look outside the box” at the ACNA?
RE: “The really bad news, if you’re committed to the inside strategy as it relates to TEC, is that it’s HIGHLY unlikely that TEC will have any meaningful relationship to the global Anglican Communion of the future.”
Really? That’s bad news? For those of us committed to the inside strategy? How? Where? When?
RE: “Take heart! Be of good cheer! The glass is half full, not half empty.”
Thank heavens we have a covenant coming soon that will resolve these problems in a proper and orderly institutional fashion! 😉
The juxtaposition of the “Workmans”, Fr. Jim and just Jim (18 and 19)in the comments on the Stand Firm thread is remarkable. Fr. Jim gave the children’s sermon last Sunday and held up a mirror for the children. “What did Jesus look like? He looked like you. Because Christ was God, and because we are all made in God’s image”. I think the adult sermon may even have emphasized that God is with us and around us and in us all, but I won’t quote that one. That is pretty much what the candidate for Bishop said. For the record, although Fr Jim Workman signs with the name of his church, it should be made clear that he does not represent the body of his congregation in his remarks, he’s out there on his own limb. And as one of his congregants, I support the “Buddhist Bishop”, and the priest who practices yoga, and even the evangelical Presbyterian Episcopalian in their efforts to “make us like Christ”. And if I have to choose between focussed meditation and mindless condemnation, the Budhist wins every time.
Doug Martin
This is too good to pass up.
Straw man arguments are not likely to hold up on this blog.
The choice between focused meditation and mindless condemnation?
I regret that Doug did not participate in my church’s Ash Wednesday service, which included a lot of focused meditation.
And, by the way, the condemnation was a generic condemnation of sin, in accordance with Scripture, the Early Creeds, and the BCP.
As I understand it, Buddhists follow the teaching of the Buddha, who delineated the path to gaining freedom from the wheel of reincarnation, by means of enlightenment. What am I missing?
Is it reincarnation forever, or to die once, and after that the judgment?
These are opposites, and are in direct contradiction.
#3 mathman,
“Reincarnation” implies an absolutely non-changing object that moves from physical body to physical body, an idea Buddhists reject since in Buddhism no ‘object’ can ever be absolutely non-changing. Thus, Buddhists speak of “rebirth”, which is not forever — unless that is one’s choice, of course. And there is judgment after one’s death, a judgment that might involve an external spiritual being, but that most essentially is a result of the laws of ethics and morality inherent in the cosmos. After judgment, one may enter into a heaven, a hell, or some other spiritual or physical realm. The heavens, the hells, and the other spiritual realms are not permanent — only nirvana is permanent — but they are present in Buddhism.
For starters, join a Church that’s 2000 years old. That means leaving ECUSA first.
You know, I don’t know what’s more troubling: that this person was even considered for Bishop or that so many here and on SF don’t think it is a problem!
I do think it shows just how far from true historic Scriptural Christianity we have sunk in the West.
Jim, #6, I don’t think that so many, either here or at SF don’t think this new bishop is “a problem.” I think everyone on the orthodox side thinks it most certainly IS a real problem. So, the issue isn’t whether it’s a problem, but how best to deal with it. Sarah and many others feel the “inside strategy” is still viable in TEC. Others, like me, feel it is not. The difference is one of strategy, not a disagreement about whether or not this latest “election” is “a problem.”
Those who place their hope on the inside strategy believe that the institutional mechanisms of the Communion can still be made to work, that the tide can be turned, especially within TEC. These good folks put particular hope in a proposed fifth instrument of communion, the covenant. Those who do not put such hope in the historic instruments of Communion, or in the proposed covenant (which is still a long way off and unclear in form), feel that the problem in the Anglican Communion is so profound that existing institutional mechanisms cannot, at this late date, be made to work. We have not given up on Anglicanism, but we have very low expectations of what can be accomplished through the historic 4 instruments of the Communion, or even through a fifth – the proposed covenant.
Anglicanism existed LONG before there was an Anglican Communion, so we don’t see the fate of Anglicanism as tied up with the fate of the Anglican Communion as it is currently configured (which, by the way has changed considerably over the past century and a half of its existence). For those of us who do not embrace the “inside strategy,” we have certainly not given up on the Anglican Communion either, but we believe that it is currently undergoing a fundamental transformation. This transformation is necessary and essential to the continued existence of the historic Communion, but it cannot be effected alone through the existing instruments of Communion, because those instruments have already proven themselves ineffective in confronting the core issues of the present crisis.
As in many fundamental and historic transformations of this sort, the transformation is primarily being driven by actions taking place outside of the established institutional channels of the Communion. Those actions were initiated by revisionists in North America, and the failure of the historic instruments of Communion to respond effectively to the challenge presented, prompted a dialectical response from the overwhelmingly orthodox majority of the historic Communion.
I agree that if you’re committed to the inside strategy things must look pretty bleak indeed at this point (a Buddhist bishop being only the latest example!), but I can assure you that if you’re willing to think outside of the TEC box, things look much brighter indeed! Orthodox Anglicanism, on a global scale, is reorganizing and realigning. It’s finding new ways to connect and move forward. Realities on the ground are changing, with increasing rapidity, and the historic instruments of Communion can lead, follow, or get out of the way!
I personally think the historic Communion will survive, but it will need to transform itself in such a way that it can cope with the crisis that confronts it. I think that transformation will ultimately come, but the pressure to transform will continue to come primarily from outside of the four historic instruments of Communion. The really bad news, if you’re committed to the inside strategy as it relates to TEC, is that it’s HIGHLY unlikely that TEC will have any meaningful relationship to the global Anglican Communion of the future.
If I’m right about all this, what you see as “troubling” is merely a growing recognition on the part of orthodox Anglicans in North America that whatever happens, or doesn’t happen, in TEC and AC of Canada, is ultimately not that important. For us, what’s MUCH more important is what happens in ACNA. For us what is exciting is not the departure of TEC and AC of C from historic Christianity (that’s old news), but rather the return of so many Anglicans in North America to historic Christianity! Take heart! Be of good cheer! The glass is half full, not half empty.
I do think that every believer still in TEC has a responsibility to write to bishops and standing committees asking that this bishop-elect not receive consents. Without regard to whether we think they “ought to be” or “ought not to be” still in TEC, if they are, they have this duty, and I hope they will all do it.
Katherine, Agreed.
RE: “Those who place their hope on the inside strategy believe that the institutional mechanisms of the Communion can still be made to work, that the tide can be turned, especially within TEC.”
We do? When? Where? Who? Who think that the “tide an be turned” and “especially within TEC”?
RE: “If I’m right about all this, what you see as “troubling†is merely a growing recognition on the part of orthodox Anglicans in North America that whatever happens, or doesn’t happen, in TEC and AC of Canada, is ultimately not that important. For us, what’s MUCH more important is what happens in ACNA.”
Really? For “orthodox Anglicans”? Like me? We find much more important what happens in the ACNA?
RE: “I agree that if you’re committed to the inside strategy things must look pretty bleak indeed at this point . . . ”
They do? You mean . . . those of us committed to the inside strategy are Really Really Surprised? Shocked? Stunned and hornswoggled that TEC has elected a Buddhist Bishop?
Where? When? Who?
RE: “but I can assure you that if you’re willing to think outside of the TEC box, things look much brighter indeed!”
They do? Like, you mean, when I look outside of the box at the ACNA I’m supposed to think “wow — that’s what I want”? What if I have looked at the ACNA and I thought, instead, “uh oh — better not head that direction.” Does that mean I didn’t really really really “look outside the box” at the ACNA?
RE: “The really bad news, if you’re committed to the inside strategy as it relates to TEC, is that it’s HIGHLY unlikely that TEC will have any meaningful relationship to the global Anglican Communion of the future.”
Really? That’s bad news? For those of us committed to the inside strategy? How? Where? When?
RE: “Take heart! Be of good cheer! The glass is half full, not half empty.”
NRA is that you?