Someone once asked me if I thought the resurrection was necessary. He meant it in the most sincere way, as a person of both faith and doubt who wondered if we needed to be bound by so unreasonable a proposition that Jesus’ tomb was, in fact, empty on that first Easter morning.
I hesitated in answering, because there seemed to be layers of argument behind the question. My answer was yes, resurrection is the foundation of Christian faith, but probably not in the way he meant it.
To say that resurrection is essential doesn’t mean that if someone were to discover a tomb with Jesus’ remains in it that the entire enterprise would come crashing down. The truth is that we don’t know what happened to Jesus after his death, anymore than we can know what will happen to us. What we do know from the stories handed down is how Jesus’ followers experienced his resurrection. What we know is how we experience resurrection ourselves.
Sounds like she’s lacking conviction about the clear assertions of her predecessors the Apostles.
Her Grace needs to crack open that Bible gathering dust on her shelf and read, say for starters, the book of John. Of course the whole enterprise would come crashing down if the resurrection did not happen. The whole of the law and the prophets points to this. So did Jesus. “Tear down this temple and I will rebuild it in three days.”
Yours shaking his head,
N W Bob
I’m scratching my head while wondering how in God’s name that woman ever got ordained in the first place!
Well, let’s see:
Nicene Creed:
[blockquote]was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate.
He suffered and was buried,
And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures,
And ascended into heaven,
And sitteth on the right hand of the Father.
And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead:
Whose kingdom shall have no end. [/blockquote]
Apostles Creed:
[blockquote]in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
Born of the Virgin Mary,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
Was crucified, dead, and buried:
He descended into hell;
The third day he rose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.[/blockquote]
Athanasian Creed:
[blockquote]For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man: so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation: descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty: from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies: and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting: and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
This is the Catholick Faith: which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.[/blockquote]
Articles of Religion of the Church of England:
[blockquote]VIII. Of the Three Creeds.
THE three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’ Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.[/blockquote]
1 Corinthians 15:
[blockquote]St Paul says: 1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time
–
12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.[/blockquote]
It is certainly hard to be a Christian and to believe our doctrine, but how much harder when the Episcopal Church teaches that it is untrue? What is the point of Ms Budde being a purported bishop? What is the point of the Episcopal Church if this is OK with it? What is the point of any of us pretending that we share common doctrine with the Episcopal Church and Bishop Budde? What is the point of pretending we share Communion or that TEC is even recognisably Christian?
As my bishop says, “The Resurrection is the fundamental datum of Christianity.” — that’s “The Resurrection” not “resurrection”. It’s interesting to note the way some of our bishops and other clergy speak of resurrection without the definite article in front of it. It’s usually a strong indication that they don’t believe “the Resurrection” really happened.
Oh my, you should just see La Budde’s next post:
[blockquote]One of my favorite things to do as a parish priest was gather with small groups of people to explore questions of faith. The spiritual life, after all, is as much about doubt as certainty, as much about the questions we ask as the answers we’re given. It’s been said that the quality of your questions determines the quality of your life. Surely the same could be said of faith.
Often we would fill pages of newsprint with questions: How can we, as Christians, be open to people of other faiths? Why do some Christians believe that there is only one right faith? How did Jesus, a carpenter of from Nazareth, become God? Is faith really necessary? Why do terrible things happen? Why is there such suffering and disparities in the world?[/blockquote]
Indeed – how ‘DID’ a carpenter from Nazareth BECOME God?
It sets me to wonder: How ‘DID’ someone so completely ignorant and clueless become an Episcopalian bishop?
Truly, it beggars [b]all imagination[/b] as to how she became an Episcopal “bishop.”
But then, the bar is set pretty low for TEC ordinations these days, isn’t it.
Sounds to me like a typical TEC Bishop. Nothing to see here, move along.
People like her are made bishops to bless a secular world agenda and give a patina of religious respectability to nonbiblical political thrusts. She is obviously outlining her means of attracting an audience by having rap sessions with religious skeptics. There is nothing wrong with that but she really has nowhere to lead them even though the answers are all around her in icons, creeds and prayer books.
Thanks for your #6, Pageantmaster. She’s an adoptionist, an ancient heresy. He didn’t “become” God; he is very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.
Pageantmaster [KJS to Coventry], you ask: [blockquote][i]How ‘DID’ someone so completely ignorant and clueless become an Episcopalian bishop?[/i] [/blockquote] There are those of us who would insist that she didn’t. We would prone to suggest that she merely participated in the simulation of a sacrament. I say this not to raise hackles, but rather to proffer a credible explanation for such [b]anti-Christian[/b] views as she is on record as having publicly expressed.
[i]Pax et bonum[/i],
Keith Töpfer
[blockquote] It sets me to wonder: How ‘DID’ someone so completely ignorant and clueless become an Episcopalian bishop? [/blockquote]
[blockquote] Truly, it beggars all imagination as to how she became an Episcopal “bishop.†[/blockquote]
The only thing that surprises me, is that some people are still surprised that an organization which has long been in fact, if perhaps not theory, little more than liturgical Unitarianism would reflect that reality in its leadership. Ms. Budde is simply the latest manifestation of this. Her position is hardly radical or heretical from the perspective of TEO. She did not after all suggest that there is such a thing as objective truth to which assent is required in order to receive communion or at least be considered a Christian.
That would indeed be heretical. After all this is the “church” of Jack Spong.
Imagine that which is, but which really isn’t…..[i]real or actual,[/i] teach and practice heresy, and let false prophets lead you, and what do you end up being? Why, The Episcopal Church, of course!
“It sets me to wonder: How ‘DID’ someone so completely ignorant and clueless become an Episcopalian bishop?”
1. A germane question for the bishop, Standing Committee, and Commission on Ministry who allowed her through the Episcopal process–looks to me like this was in Newark in ~ 1984-1988. Even that far back, the Revisionist Anschluss had already started–I was there, but as a teenager busily ignoring the false teaching and others’ strangely insecure need for self-identification as “controversial”.
2. My spouse attended the same seminary, albeit 10 years later, and learned vastly different things, but he has no desire to rewrite the Scriptures to suit his behavior or “superior intellect”. A born Lutheran, he was shaped by the 2-year Lutheran Catechism program prior to his Confirmation; he saw no reason to make any of that up, either–what was already printed on the Pages was just fine.
3. You might also ask any of those who cast votes for her as bishop–seems they like her sort of thing.
4. ++Welby does have a choice as to whether or not he invites people like this to the next Lambeth Conference. Might be a better idea to solely invite ++Duncan and co., or +Minns and co., even if they don’t(possibly) have TEC’s bank balance. It’s interesting how the latter remains “in Communion” even if it seriously colors outside the lines.
5. To quote an old, silly American saying, as far as your initial question goes: “You got me by the sneakers”…in other words, I have no bloomin’ idea… 🙂
Big prayers/God bless…
Before this, the only thing I knew about Bp Budde was that she appeared on Ash Wednesday at a Washington train station in full episcopal regalia to impose ashes on needful commuters too busy to go to their own churches to get them. It struck me then as pharisaical, unbiblical and perhaps un-Anglican. Now I’m just confused: why Ash Wednesday if there’s no Easter Sunday?
If you’re inclined to be generous and to read her Easter message with more-than-usual charity, you have to admit she’s got the teensiest point: in fact, [b]we don’t know what happened to the resurrected Jesus[/b]. What I mean is this: The Resurrection was not a resuscitation; it was the victory of the Christ, transcendent and transfiguring, passing beyond the categories of time and space, nature and history, and proceeding into the very life of God, Being beyond our knowing. This is why the witnesses to the Resurrection in the NT report their bafflement, stupefied bewilderment, wonder and fear; like them, [b]we don’t know what happened to the resurrected Jesus[/b] because what God has done in the Risen Son exceeds our imagining.
But Bp Budde’s Easter message is open to another interpretation — [b]that we cannot know about the resurrected Jesus in any way whatsoever[/b]. If she is hoping to chart a new avenue for skepticism about the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, both Scripture and Tradition — that same Tradition on offer in the Washington train station (ashes and vestments and episcopacy that she seems to prize so much) — is unanimous against her, by insisting on the bodily, tangible Resurrection of Jesus. He is risen and glorified in a way that is beyond our comprehension, but not beyond belief. How can it be otherwise? Because if, as Bp Budde says, [b]Jesus assures us of God’s infinite mercy[/b], then he cannot also be a failed Jewish messiah still lying in a Roman mass grave.