Of course, …[Pope Benedict XVI] was referring to the sex abuse scandals within the Catholic Church. But his remarks also carry a universal theme. They raise a question for people from all traditions, which takes us to this week’s question:
What is “the sin” within your own faith and what changes would be required to eradicate it?
Various answers are given from different faith traditions. Read them all–KSH.
There is something disturbingly smug about most of these responses. They seem the kind of responses that confirm the world view of those who make them. They avoid the real question. But perhaps the real question is almost an oxymoron: ‘What sin within your own religious tradition is the sin to which your tradition is most blind?’ The question asks for some honesty and humility.
Oh, my. That is truly embarrassing for us. The Episcopal representative made her discourse back-handedly self-congratulatory (from the progressive perspective, of course). As in, the Episcopal “sin,” is not tooting its own horn loud enough about being such a wonderfully inclusive church. Yuck.
The other faith representatives took this exercise seriously and were willing to admit faults. (I was quite impressed by the Baptists’ responses!) I wonder if this was a DMM set-up, selecting that person as the Episcopal representative? I highly doubt she reflects the views of the majority of Anglicans/Episcopalians in the Metroplex! (Certainly not in Ft. Worth!!!)
I will take a stab at this as one from a faith group not represented in the essay. I would say that the great “sin” which has been a persistent plague for centuries within the Orthodox Church is that Phyletism or extreme religiously justified ethnocentrism. Closely connected with this has been a relationship between church and state that has been all too often unhealthy. For the last two centuries of Russian history before the curse of the Revolution the Church had been reduced to being a virtual department of the government. This kind of symbiotic relationship has been seen in many other culturally Orthodox countries.
And of course we see the ethno-phyletism in today’s scandalous and uncannonical jurisdictionalism here in N. America and many other parts of the world outside the traditional Orthodox lands.
It was strongly condemned by a Pan-Orthodox Synod in 1872. But the problem sadly persist.
Frankly, I dont think that the sex abuse scandal can be called “the sin” of the Catholic Church. Perhaps the media wants the world to think that there is some kind of fundamental connection between sex with children and the Catholic Church. There simply isn’t.
So what is the sin of the CC? I’d say it is pride and vanity which is probably the same sin as most any other religious tradition. Catholics have our own particular brand of triuphalism, which itself might be triumphalistic to say. But, when you are THE CHURCH, I suppose that is to be expected. 😉
BTW, notice that the anti-defamation league representative was completely unwilling to take the question seriously and all too willing to reiterate allusions to the sins of others.
This would have been more interesting if the question had been, “Which of the Seven Deadly Sins most afflicts your branch of the Church?”
Everyone would get a free pass on Gluttony or an exemption for fish fries, strawberry festivals, and barbecues.
And indulgences would be granted to churches holding baked bean suppers.
Boy, those Methodists weren’t very far behind TEC. Sometimes I think it should be renamed from the United Methodist Church to the United Methodist Party and be forced to register as a lobbyist.
What a *perfect* response from Sherrod — just encapsulating what’s wrong with TEC. Couldn’t have paid her to produce something so exquisitely self-serving, pretentious, smug, defensive, and clueless.
And then she adds some rich irony in these two assertions:
[blockquote]This hard work has had the result of drawing the circle of who is “in” wider and including more and more people rather than pulling it ever tighter and smaller while excluding more and more. . . .
. . . This is work for which a hungry hurting world is desperate and it is our job to reach out to that world with the Good News of God’s inclusive love.[/blockquote]
Um . . . if it draws “the circle” wider and “includes” more and more people then . . . [i]where are all the people[/i]? Membership and ASA are augering into the ground in a style reminiscent of a hawk plunging towards the earth [only the hawk will most likely be in pursuit of a success, rather than nosediving onto the ground].
And if the “hungry hurting world” is “desperate” for This Noble “work” of TEC . . . [i]where are all the people[/i]?
Being able to write stuff like that with no recognition of how laughably silly it is, and how much it exposes our church to understandable mockery and eye rolling just tells me one thing . . . “vacancy, nobody home.”
#7 There is an order of magnitude of difference between the United Methodists and the progressive Episcopalians. While there are backwater pockets of apostasy, the Methodist bishops officially have held firm against the ordination of actively homosexual persons to the ministry at any level.
However, I agree with you that the UMC is headed down a slippery slope. I hope they do not succumb to the Episcopal disease. The mission of the church in the world is to bring people to Christ. This may entail caring for them by trying to meet some of their basic needs or defending widows and orphans. “Love your neighbor as yourself.†Jesus did the same several times without first asking if his beneficiaries believed in him. “Love one another as I have loved you.†Nonetheless, the Methodist writer appears to confuse some of the mechanisms of showings Christ’s love with the prime directive of bringing people to Christ. TEC does this in spades. But, then again, if you believe that “all roads lead to Rome†what else do you have but good works?
YIC,
NW Bob
[blockquote] What about the sacraments? Are all the sacraments really for all baptized? Are all the baptized — assuming they meet the canonical requirements — to be considered as possible candidates for confirmation? What about ordination to the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate? How about marriage? [/blockquote]
Here is the flaw in the TEC argument. Certainly all baptized persons are possible candidate for confirmation. But the stipulation is that they confirm all the promises made on their behalf if they were baptized as infants. These promises are pretty specific as to renouncing sinful desires and promising to follow Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Confirmation also includes reciting the confirmand’s belief in the Nicene creed without crossed fingers.
If all of the above is faithfully and honestly performed during confirmation and the confirmand continues to grow and mature in his or her Christian faith, they he or she is certainly eligible to be considered for ordination and Christian marriage. Unfortunately (from the TEC perspective), this has always meant subscribing to the faith once delivered in its entirety as described in the Scriptures. And we all know what Lambeth 1.10 had to say about homosexual activity and the Scriptures. We also know how Jesus described Christian marriage and the two genders involved.
We must not lose sight of the fact that infant baptism not followed by an adult confirmation of that baptism is incomplete. Otherwise we reduce baptism to a mechanical procedure like running our car through a car wash. We find some baptized persons in Act 8 beginning in verse 14 still requiring the prayers and laying on of hands of the apostles (bishops) before their conversion was complete. It was during their “confirmation†that they received the power of the Holy Spirit. So yes, a properly baptised and confirmed Christian is eligible for ordination and marriage.
IHSV,
NW Bob
Sarah, Sarah, Sarah.
Let’s review. We must not call attention to the huge hole in TEc’s numbers. We must not call attention to the fact that the landscape of the Episcopal organization in the Americas looks a lot like, well, wide, open spaces filled more and more every day with old, decaying, expensive and empty buildings. Possibly we should start referring to it as the Painted Desert because we all know how much the leadership likes those colorful vestments.
Now behave and don’t be such a troublemaker. Put on your rose colored glasses. No. Really. It helps a lot when looking at the colorful vestments.