I would question whether this picture of Jesus is accurate or balanced on a number of fronts, but the most important aspect to consider is Jesus’ primary role as a moral example. If Jesus came to be an example to humanity, it would appear from Kevin’s own assessment mentioned above that Jesus failed in His mission.
But what if His mission was different?
Maybe what we need is not just an example. If Jesus was only an example, then it all depends on what we do. It is all up to us to “live up to” that incredible example, and that can lead us to frustration, disappointment, even despair.
But what if Jesus was not only an example, but also a sacrifice? And this sacrifice can restore us to God, heal our woundedness, and actually give us a new heart – a heart that can learn to love? If Jesus came to be a sacrifice, then it’s not about what we do, but about what God has already done – what God has done on the cross on Good Friday.
Moreover, it is the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the grave that we celebrate on Easter that confirms God’s authority and power to transform an unloving and broken heart.
Good response.
Am I the only one who is tired of seeing Jesus remythologized into a mid-1960’2 hippie?
LMK
This is the Jesus the Church has proclaimed since Resurrection Day and Ascension Day. The other namby-pamby Jesus is a remythologization based on 20th century folk idioms now discredited by their failure to issue in real change. “I AM” is predicated of God, not humans remaking God in their own image. Good work Father Marc!
[i]In 2003, at the General Convention of The Episcopal Church, the House of Bishops failed to pass resolution B002, which affirmed the Holy Scriptures as “containing all things necessary to salvation,” the historic Creeds, and the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper (by a vote of 84 “no” to 65 “yes,” and eight abstentions).
In 2006, additional efforts to affirm Christ’s sacrifice (resolution D058) were refused consideration, and a resolution affirming the Bible as the Church’s “supreme authority” (resolution D069) also failed as presented. [/i]
I don’t know which is worse — that they failed to pass/be considered or that it was necessary to propose them in the first place!
#4 libraryjim:
While I don’t know what went on around those specific resolutions, I have observed that it seems to be a common reasserter tactic to propose some sort of “litmus test” resolution affirming something the proposer considers a fundamental Christian belief; and then when it fails to pass — and they pretty much always fail to pass — to use that as evidence that everyone who voted against it is apostate.
I don’t buy it. I’m not a bishop, but if I were I’d vote against such resolutions on principle, whether or not I agreed with whatever doctrine they were affirming. First of all, there’s no point to passing such a resolution. (There’s no point to passing a lot of the resolutions that come up at conventions, but that’s a whole ‘nother rant.) Secondly, the resolution is being submitted solely for purposes of political grandstanding, and I would decline to play. Thirdly, while there are appropriate venues for grilling bishops on their personal beliefs, legislative sessions are not among them.
So I’m completely unimpressed by the periodic trotting out of various failed resolutions affirming this or that point of doctrine. All it tells us is that the bishops and deputies get cranky about being made the subjects of public blackmail, and who can blame them?
Kevin Clark has fallen for the Historical Jesus trap. He may have gotten his info from a diocesan event. Anyhow, the Jesus as you see him turns out to be a self portrait and in this case a street liberal and a rebel with a cause.
Ross,
If what the convention is being asked to vote on is is core belief, and uncontroversial, then what is the problem? All in favor aye, all opposed, hearing none, motion carried, next business. Two minutes.
Yes it may be reasserter strategy, but if one agrees with the doctrine then so what? The problem is that many bishops in TEC do not believe in core doctrine, or any doctrine other than MDG’s etc.
Guys,
Having sat in on a few conventions in my day, I find these resolutions of the “litmus test” type to be more of a “mind of the house” type test, during which certain members think they have a handle on that mind, and then come to the shocking realization that they don’t, and want to know just how far off they are.
In 2003, orthodox members realized that they were fast becoming a minority and being outmaneuvered. IN reaction, they attempted to see how many Christians were actually in the room, and found out, much to their suprise, that most of the people in the room were not.
In 2006, they attempted to affirm this same phenomenon and found out things had gotten actually worse. Fewer Christians, larger social club.
Since we have no “rules” any more, an attempt to get everyone to agree on a set of rules corporately seems like a reasonable idea. I think, whatever their motivations, they picked out the right set of rules, ones that every Christian should be able to agree on, just the basics, after all.
If we are going to go ahead and redefine the word “Christian”, I’d sure like us to line it out, vote on it, and get on with things, so I can see what I’m supposed to do. As it stands, I can pretty much do anything I want as long as I don’t judge anybody’s actions on earth ever as wrong or misguided. I’m thinking Christ might have expected just a tad more from us. Of course, if we can toss out that moldy old Bible that sure simplifies that problem.
Geez, Rotarians have more structure than we do, so do the Woodmen of the World, Moose Lodge, and just about any other social club you want to pick on.
KTF…..mrb
These resolutions often seem to come up as a form of blackmail… “I think you’re a HERETIC! Vote for this or I’ll tell everyone you’re a HERETIC! Only a HERETIC would vote against this!”
If I were a bishop, my response would be to try to find an appropriately episcopal way of saying, “Bite me.” Voting “No” would seem to be the most succinct way of phrasing that sentiment.
My basic point is, you’re assuming that everyone who voted no or abstained must have disagreed with the doctrine expressed in the resolution. I’m suggesting that there are other reasons why people might not vote yes, so using these litmus test resolutions to determine who is “Christian” or not is not actually useful.
Good thing the exclusionary argument was not used at Nicea. Poor Arians. How unloving.
IMHO, I cannot visualize or even fantasize a reason to vote against the truth. If someone asks you “Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Risen Lord, who died for your sins” and you do, the only reason you would answer in the negative would be for personal cover or some sort of self defense. That is Peter’s denial all over again.
Or to put it another way, if some political group is forcing you to vote on something and you believe it to be true, even if they are going to use that truth against you, is that a valid reason to lie?
I’m going with no …
KTF…mrb
If I voted “No” against a resolution affirming, say, the divinity of Christ, it wouldn’t be because I don’t believe in the divinity of Christ. It would be because I object to the entire class of doctrinal litmust-test resolutions. There’s no “lie” involved; my “No” vote would mean that I objected to the resolution, not the doctrine.
If you were on a vestry, and at every single vestry meeting you moved that the vestry vote to affirm the doctrine of the Trinity, then I guarantee you that eventually somebody would ask that you stop wasting their collective time. Would you take this to mean that the vestry is made up of anti-Trinitarian heretics? Or just that they’re tired of jumping through your hoops for no purpose?
Having served on several vestries, we have never had to appraise our collective minds on the Trinity, for example, because we are well acquainted with each other and we know and support and respect each other. Therefore the need for such a resolution does not exist.
In this case, I believe we are talking about a group of folks that only really see each other (in toto) about once every three years, and to my knowledge, such resolutions have not been introduced very often in the past, because as I said before, most were comfortable they had a handle on the mind of that body (House of Bishops, in this case). Therefore I continue to say that no matter what the motivations for the resolutions (in these cases, more of a “where the heck are we” question than a “how dare you oppose me” question) if someone wants to know my position on these core issues of the Christian Faith, and whether or not I am willing to affirm them publicly, and I hold them to be core issues, and will not vote to affirm them publicly, then I am tacitly denying my faith.
Certainly I acknowledge that some who would not vote for these resolutions were doing so because they were suspicious of the motives of the person proposing them. I do not personally think this sufficient justification.
Think about poor Polycarp….”Swear on the Genius of Ceasar!”
“Eighty and Four years have I served my Lord, and never has He harmed me. I cannot turn on him now.”
KTF!….mrb
Vince Lombardi reportedly started each season by drawing an oval on the blackboard and saying, “This is a football.” Sometimes it helps to reaffirm basic principles to ensure that we are all on the same page.
Clearly, we are not on the same page. If the Bishops cannot affirm core doctrine, then they should not be Bishops. Reaffirming core doctrine every three years to ensure that we are all starting from the same place is not too often.
The inability of TEC to reaffirm core doctrine tells me that there really is no core doctrine in TEC. It is a social club, that believes in doing really good things, like MDGs, and worrying about global warming, and promoting the gay agenda.
Reaffirming a core doctrine might keep one from doing what one really wants to do, and the Bishops in TEC cannot abide that.
What if someone offered for deliberation the same kind of doctrinal litmus tests at the next meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops? Surely it would be voted down as insulting. Ross is right.
Mike’s argument is still the stronger. Mind you, I have no idea what would happen if core doctrine were up for vote at a meeting of Roman bishops. I don’t think you know either. But his argument is simply that if one votes againt a motion which in your judgment embodies an essential truth, you are putting yourself in an irretrievably false position.
Second guessing the cause of the motion is common but unproductive if it leaves you in a false position. Moreover, guessing motive in such a context is to place a candle between opposing mirrors. Better, he says, take the cash and let the credit go. Larry
[i]Geez, Rotarians have more structure than we do, so do the Woodmen of the World, Moose Lodge, and just about any other social club you want to pick on. [/i]
and they have more say over who can be members, and if olcal leadership tries takes them away from the core mission statement or statement of rules, they can take action against them. Quite different from TEC, I think.
olcal = local
I dood it again!
#15 Rob K, fascinating question, what if some sort of Litmus Test was put before the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops…..I can tell you this…
They have much less than us to debate, because if you undertake a reading of the Canon Law (binding and required of all Roman Catholics), Catechism (interpretations of the faith, again binding as ordered teaching material), and combine that with the various Bulls and Encyclicals the Church issues (again binding, i.e. spoken with Magisterial Force), you will find they have a LOT less to disagree about. But mind you, this is a mighty stack of documents to go through (I have been through the first two and much of the third). In Roman terms, disagreements about doctrine or theology that come into conflict with the Catechism or Canon Law will result in a visit from the Vatican, or perhaps a summons TO the Vatican.
Bishops and Priests are often asked to recant “disordered” publications or teaching. If they refuse they are de-frocked. Done deal.
In that environment, their entire life is a litmus test. Not much need for resolutions in that environment.
Excellent question, though. If we had that much structure (or 50% of it, even) in TEC, the current disagreement and the need for reappraisers and reasserters would never have happened. If we had not cast aside the 39 articles of the Faith, this would have never happened. If we had not cast aside the 1928 prayerbook, specifically the ordination ceremonies, this would not have happened. If we embraced a philsophy of Sola Scriptura and had not cast out much of Scripture as binding, this would not have happened.
So you see, since we have reverted all our “binding” documents to “non-binding” documents, these litmus-test resolutions may be the ONLY time Bishops every find out what their Brothers are thinking, or where they are theologically, since the TEC common ground docs have been cast out.
And there it is. The enabling actions for this whole mess.
KTF!!!…mrb