Separation of faith: Vestal church’s parting from Episcopal Church not a one-issue decision
By Warren Musselman
As a member of St. Andrew’s Anglican Church, I was disappointed that the June 22 article “Vestal church to sever ties to Episcopal organization” on our separation from the Episcopal Church (TEC) emphasized homosexuality as the issue. The acceptance and blessing of homosexual behavior by TEC is only a symptom of the theological problems that we, and most Anglicans in the world, have with it.
Radical changes over the last 40 years or so have made it acceptable in TEC to deny the Trinity, the Resurrection, the divinity of Jesus, and many other basics of Christianity. Even some priests and bishops deny these basic tenets of the faith, and are not corrected or disciplined in any way. We know that no church on Earth can be perfect, but we cannot belong to a church that openly and blatantly contradicts the faith that we believe. Homosexuals are welcome at St. Andrew’s. We do not reject them. We will accept and embrace them as we would anyone else. Their sins, whatever they are, are no worse than ours. Just don’t ask us to bless any sins, either ours or theirs.
:smirk: As`usual,the layman says it well and best!
I sincerely hope that a majority of the reasserter are able to read these comments, because I believe it is where about 98% of the conservatives fall. It is not primarily about homosexuality, but it is about a lot of other things, including blessing of sin. We do not and have not blessed others sins, why should we start with this one?
The writer accurately conveys an inaccuracy which accompanies virtually every news article, video or written, which states in some way that the issue is homosexuality. Indeed, I have bemoaned this point to friends and in Internet posts.
As with many other issues in our society, I do expect the press to either get it right or accurately report the fact that this is NOT about homosexuality. The acceptance homosexuality and the blessing of homosexual relationships is simply a manifestation of a rot that is deep within TEc and other mainline churches.
It is about gross deviation from holy faith and scripture and the corruption of basic moral values which many have chosen to accept and espouse.
[blockquote] The writer accurately conveys an inaccuracy which accompanies virtually every news article, video or written, which states in some way that the issue is homosexuality.[/blockquote]
Indeed. I heard Fr. Don Hellmendollar of Trinity, Bristol, CT last Sunday morning talk about his several hour interview with a New York Times reporter last week. He made it clear to her that the crucial issue was not about homosexuality, but about the authority of Scripture. She told him that if she reported the story that way, her editor would not print it. Sure enough, when the story appeared, it said that the chief issue of disagreement was homosexuality.
“I sincerely hope that a majority of the reasserter are able to read these comments,”
And 100% of the reappraisers. This letter does a wonderful job of laying out the truth that no reappraiser seems able to accept, or refute.
Thank you, Warren Musselman for your cogent defense of orthodoxy! I can’t tell you how many people have said something to me like “Oh, is it really about homosexuality?” or worse yet, “Oh, you belong to that church that hates homosexuals!” You must be able to continue the conversation with, “Well, the ordination of a practicing [not “openly”] homosexual bishop was the last straw for us because that’s when The Episcopal Church as a body officially set itself squarely against Scripture.â€
Most readers of newspapers and I dare say, your average Episcopalian, knows nothing about the theological changes in this small corner of world-wide Anglicanism. When you read statements by bishops that deny the basic beliefs of Christianity held since the Apostles and that martyrs have died for, you realize how far TEC has departed from it. I am perplexed that the leadership can continue to think they’re in control!
A good essay. I caught it while reading my hometown paper on the web (I am a native of the Binghamton area). All in all its a concise and well written apologia for secession from TEC. I linked it over at A/O.
#6 Sue–I’m not sure where you live, but down here in Province IV we are more likely to hear, in a very bad way, that we belong to that church that marries gay people and ordains gay and lesbian ministers. It is a sad commentary that so many of us are embarrassed to tell people we attend the Episcopal Church. As someone who has considered himself an evangelist, I find myself not even wanting to invite people to my church anymore. That puts me (us) in a real bind about the future, but that is off this topic.
This is so well put together! It is now [blockquote]acceptable in TEC to deny the Trinity, the Resurrection, the divinity of Jesus, and many other basics of Christianity. Even some priests and bishops deny these basic tenets of the faith, and are not corrected or disciplined in any way.[/blockquote]
Does anyone have a link to the supporting detail for this sentence I’ve pasted below? I am wondering what the number of parishioners would be:
[blockquote]Approximately 200 parishes in the United States have separated from TEC in the last three years and united with other parts of the Anglican Communion. [/blockquote]
Blessings of gay unions is an end run on the church’s teaching that homosexuality is a sin. A church cannot teach that according to scripture/morality/traditon on one hand that something is wrong and bless it on the other. That is currently an arguement against same sex blessings. If same sex blessings become common then the arguement will be that we are blessing these unions how can they be wrong.
David Keller, I’m a member of an ex-Episcopal parish on the West Coast. We’ve been in the news lately, so it’s a hot topic around here. I used to be embarrassed about being an Episcopalian, but no more! It’s such a relief to not to have to apologize for all of the weird stuff. We have a wonderful, godly, pastoral bishop who has visited more times since we left in 2004 than our previous bishop ever did and a future one whose first communication with us was the question, “How can I help you?” Those are true shepherds.
But, don’t you see, the issue IS homosexuality, and the question is, “What SHALL we do with the homosexuals and the lesbians?” To be sure, this is a symptom of a systemic disease, but sometimes (you must admit) that a symptom is a bad as or worse than the disease. And that is the case here. The homosexual issue is not simply about sodomy, although this repellent practice is a part, but about an entire subculture – the narcissism and the exhibitionism, the preciosity, the flaunting of deviancy,the constant demand to create a normality for what is entirely abnormal,the endless demands themselves, the overweening self-indulgence, – which has sold itself to American culture at large. The black plague was a tad unpleasant they way it kept killing people, but the buboes were the horror.
Thepeople who protest that it really ISN’T about homosexuality, protest too much, it seems to me, even if their protest is justified. Larry
Actually, #9, I’d like a link to a site where it’s documented that it’s
[blockquote] acceptable in TEC to deny the Trinity, the Resurrection, the divinity of Jesus, and many other basics of Christianity. Even some priests and bishops deny these basic tenets of the faith, and are not corrected or disciplined in any way.[/blockquote]
It may be the case that there are some left-fringe cases that, individually, might spout one or possibly more of these things. (John Spong might be the best example.) Are they “acceptable” to the TEC? How can one tell?
#11 Sue, Good for you. I don’t know how long I can continue to hold out. I have decided to do nothing until 9/30, but John Guernsey’s appointment as bishop has had a big effect on me. I don’t think I can stay in TEC much longer. Best wishes.
Unfortunately, there is some truth in the joke that Terry Mattingly tells in the fine interview that was posted earlier: “The year is 2017. Two Anglo-Catholic Episcopal priests are standing in the foyer of the National Cathedral as the Presiding Bishop and her lesbian lover begin to process down the center aisle of the cathedral in a cloud of incense, carrying a statue of the Buddha. And one Anglo-Catholic priest turns to the other and says, “You know, one more thing and I’m outta here.â€
Fortunately, Warren has been a steadfast and articulate voice in our parish for catholic and orthodox faith.
#13, the difficulty is that the evidence is so far-flung that it can’t be concisely encapsulated. However, there are many such individual cases, so many that it is arguable whether they represent a “left-fringe” or a mainstream. The proof that they are acceptable to TEC is that they are rarely disciplined, called to account, or even disapproved of. They are, however, excused and defended.
Yes, Spong is the poster boy. But he is not unique. Also, there was the noted presentment against Bp Righter, the outcome of which was roughly “We can’t find him guilty of violating core doctrine, because we do not have any core doctrine.” And our recent and current PB’s have taught us that we should only be asking questions – not suggesting that we may already know the answers. In such an environment, a simple failure to affirm the basic tenets of the faith is equivalent to denying them; the Church teaches not just that we don’t know the Truth, but that we can’t know the Truth (or at least, we can’t know that we know the Truth.)
[blockquote]the difficulty is that the evidence is so far-flung that it can’t be concisely encapsulated.[/blockquote]
This is a significant indication that the original assertion is dubious–it cannot be collected into a coherent body of evidence.
As for Bp Righter, the actual phrase was not “core doctrine,” but [b]clear[/b] doctrine, with reference to the canons on ordination, not to creed, etc.
Ann Holmes Redding? Inhibited.
James Pike? Censured.
I’m not pursuing this as a troll, btw; I really just want a case of juicy, nutty, TEC-tolerated heresy to consider.
Spong really is the poster boy, and one could probably gather a list of bishops who have welcomed him into their dioceses, starting with the current PB when she bishop of Nevada. Some years ago, I was reading the website of the diocese of Arkansas (no idea why) and read a statement that basically described the resurrection as a function of the gathered community rather than an event that occurred. Without a doubt many such diocesan and parish websites exist from which evidence could be obtained.
And as I remember, Pike was not censured, unless it was perhaps the most mild tsk,tsk imaginable.
#17 Yes, this needs better documentation.
However, do note that Redding was only inhibited when the reasserter blogs made her infamous.
Why didn’t the bishops deal with this before we made it an issue? And why is the inhibition being called unfair and due to reasserter pressure on so many blog sites?
hrsn, thanks for clarifying that you’re not a troll. It would be very interesting to try to put together a clearly documented list of some of the doctrinal issues in ECUSA. Just off the top of my head here are a few links that come to mind that may be helpful:
1) United Religions Initiative (founded by Episcopal Bp. William Swing)
http://www.uri.org/About_URI.html
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=2000
(I’m sure a Google search would bring up much more. David Virtue several years ago did some in depth reporting)
2) Church of the Redeemer, Morristown, NJ
[blockquote]How Does Redeemer Live Out Its Commitment to Inclusivity and Diversity?
“Every Sunday one of the three lessons comes from a “secular†source, or from the sacred writings of a tradition other than Christianity….
We intentionally use the traditional form of The Lord’s Prayer, beginning, “Our Mother, our Father, who are in heaven….
All people are invited to receive Communion, regardless of their tradition or non-tradition.â€[/blockquote]
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=2792
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/irreconcilable_differences_and_the_coming_divorce/
http://bovinabloviator.blogspot.com/2007/03/irreconcilable-differences-and-coming.html
http://www.redeemermorristown.org/inclusive.html
3) Report of several Global South leaders’ visit to ECUSA Dec99
http://www.episcopalian.org/cclec/report-griswold-dec99.htm
[blockquote]We were disturbed to encounter expressions of convictions that appeared to mute or even dispute the Church’s message concerning the absolute need for all people everywhere to respond to the gospel of God in repentance and faith. Of like concern, was our impression that some were not persuaded of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the one and only Name given by God to lost human beings for their salvation.[/blockquote]
4)ECUSA Crisis timeline
http://hopeanglican.us/walkingapart/tiki-index.php
I hope others will chime in with more links. I’ve got a couple other things in mind, but it will take some time for me to find them.
A few other links documenting various unorthodox beliefs and teaching. No attempt to categorize or comment now. Just pulling some links based on things I remember Kendall posted on T19:
Chloe Breyer denying Virgin Birth
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=10535
+Chane 2003 Christmas Sermon
http://www.edow.org/news/media/releases/2003/jbc_xmassermon.html
[blockquote] Some would say that God does not exist, Jesus was a dreamer and that Christmas and Christ’s birth and living presence among us has no real hold on the world to change it for the better … but I say it’s already happening. And it is a miracle!
And what was God thinking . . . when the Angel Gabriel was sent by God to reveal the Law to Moses?
And what was God thinking . . . when the Angel Gabriel was sent by God to reveal the sacred Quran to the prophet Muhammad?
And what was God thinking . . . when the Angel Gabriel was sent by God to reveal the birth of Jesus Christ, the Son of God?
Were these just random acts of association and coincidence or was the Angel Gabriel who appears as the named messenger of God in the Jewish Old Testament, the Christian New Testament Gospels, and the Quran of Islam, really the same miraculous messenger of God who proclaimed to a then emerging religious, global community and to us this morning that we are ALL children of the living God? And as such we are called to acknowledge that as Christians, Jews and Muslims we share a common God and the same divine messenger. And that as children of the same God, we are now called to cooperatively work together to make the world a haven for harmony, peace, equality and justice for the greatest and least among us.[/blockquote]
hrsn, you asked for TEC-tolerated heresy. Here’s what I said above in #11—
“The ordination of a practicing [not “openly”] homosexual bishop was the last straw for us because that’s when The Episcopal Church as a body officially set itself squarely against Scripture.†These were not my own words, but those of my rector. We were discussing this very topic only a few days ago and I asked him how to answer people who accused us of hating gays. As Larry Morse said, it is about that, but it’s true that it’s just a symptom of where the denomination is headed. If you remember, it was after General Convention 2003 voted to accept VGR as bishop that the Primates, the Orthodox churches, and the Roman Catholic Church all declared their opposition. It wasn’t that they hadn’t noticed the occasional nuts preaching heresy; they had. This was when TEC stepped over the line and adopted it as official teaching. Up to then, the other major Christian bodies remained relatively silent as TEC adopted practices (such as women’s ordination) that contradicted basic Christian teaching–teaching that had been held in common for 2000 years. Not only does it separate the American church from basic Christian teaching, it separates it from a major part of Christendom. (Don’t forget that bishops are chosen as successors to the Apostles for the entire Christian church, or at least those who value apostolic succession.) This consecration is unacceptable to the Orthodox and the RC, as well as 75% of the Anglican Church. There was once hope of bringing Jesus’ separated followers into unity “that they all may be one,†but this (and the blessing of same-sex unions and women’s ordination) makes it just about impossible.
The next battle will be over communion of the unbaptized, which is already happening in about half of Episcopal dioceses.
Stand Firm recently compiled a list of some of the more notable bizarre and heretical actions / statements (all with links)
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/3831/
(I think other commenters added other ideas)
[blockquote]Here’s a quick recap of just some of the more notable incidents:
* May 2004 – The Diocese of Michigan co-sponsors “Together in Faith,” a seminar featuring workshops by a witch and a trans-gendered pagan.
* October 2004 – In the Diocese of Pennsylvania, ordained Episcopal husband-and-wife priests Bill and Glyn Melnyk (who for years had moonlighted as Druid priests) ran into trouble when 815’s Office for Women’s Ministry published one of the couple’s pagan liturgies. Bill Melnyk, known in Druid circles as “Oakwyse” (and occasionally, though inexplicably, “Bran”), left the Episcopal priesthood soon afterward, to become a full-time Druid priest.
* April 2006 – Maury Johnston, an Episcopal lay leader whose articles had been published by a number of prominent blogs on the Episcopal left, turned out to be a very active pagan whose nom de coven was “Shadwynn.”
* May 2006 – The Episcopal Church Center Bookstore in New York was found to be offering a book titled “Love Spells,” which contained “…a host of tried and tested spells, potions, and rituals that will help you find out just how to bring love into your life.”[/blockquote]
Thank you, elves for the links concerning pecusa’s many heresies. I am so glad that our parish is out of pecusa and under the godly leadership of CANA.
Lee Penn documents the United Religions Initiative / New Age Movement in the Episcopal Church
http://www.episcopalian.org/CCLEC/leepenn-newage.htm
Also from the CCLEC (concerned clergy & laity of the Episcopal Church) archives, this “Catalog of Concerns” about ECUSA prepared in 1996, documenting 10 years of issues
http://www.episcopalian.org/CCLEC/catalog-concerns.htm
And two more items which come to mind:
Coming Liturgical Revision at All Saints Pasadena
(questions the doctrine of the Atonement)
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=19238
And Rev. Tony Seel’s Dec. 2005 letter to his parish (the very parish in question in this article!) on these matters
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=10232
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3339
#18
Heresy charges were brought against Bishop James Pike four times. On the fourth, the House of Bishops in 1966 decided not to put him on trial, but merely to censure him (for saying things like Jesus was not born of a virgin, and such). In a minority report, a number of bishops defended him. Pike resigned. I was at GC 1967 in Seattle when Deputies and Bishops approved a canon making it much more difficult to bring charges against a bishop and requiring a two-thirds vote to convict. If I recall correctly, Pike had passed through town during GC after having been in communication via spiritualists with his dead son (according to his account) and announced the GC action was a vindication of him. Not long afterward he and his third wife went to Israel in quest of another encounter with his son, their car broke down in the southeastern wilderness, and he perished near the Dead Sea.
Pike, Spong, Dixon, Bennison, Chane, and a host of others — it makes one wonder about the validity of “apostolic succession” as practiced by TEC.
w.w.
The type of thing it might be very helpful to produce, if such could be done, would be (to this elf’s thinking) similar to the AAC Primates’ Communique Compliance reports that have recently been produced.
They are excellent. Too bad we don’t have such level of documentation for earlier periods. (CCLEC / First Promise did much the same for 1986 – 1996, it’s true. We just perhaps haven’t been as organized for the critical 2000 -2006 period. There’s a ton of info on the blogs. It’s just not organized coherently.)
Anyway, here are the AAC Compliance reports
[url=http://www.americananglican.org/atf/cf/%7B0124EFED-8D9A-4067-9C7C-969A768F1648%7D/CCO-ReportNo1_FINAL.pdf]Report 1 (Feb-Mar 2007)[/url]
[url=http://www.americananglican.org/atf/cf/%7B0124EFED-8D9A-4067-9C7C-969A768F1648%7D/CCO-Report_to_Primates_No2.pdf]Report 2 (Apr 2007)[/url]
[url=http://www.americananglican.org/atf/cf/%7B0124EFED-8D9A-4067-9C7C-969A768F1648%7D/CCO-Report_to_Primates_No3.pdf]Report 3 (May 2007)[/url]
OK! Very helpful and useful. Thanks, elves.h
I’d say that the “Church of the Redeemer” Morristown NJ stuff may be the most consistently beyond the pale. (Diocese of Newark, natch.) This is reappraising at its worst.
Bishop Swing’s “United Religion” bit I think may have started as an honest response to the problem of crafting an “Interfaith” service.
The Wiccan/pagan “priests” have presumably (hopefully!) been disciplined.
I suspect that, ultimately, it’s not so much that the “TEC” tolerates or accepts false teachings, but that individual bishops have different threshholds. Indeed, Newark on one side and Pittsburgh on the other. Rhode Island somewhere in between, along with the majority of other bishops…
If we could put together a 5 – 10 page document with quotes, links, etc., what topics would be good to cover?
This elf has already done some work on CWOB recently (Communion without Baptism) and could easily pull together a 1-2 page summary.
We’re also working on a similar round up of recent statements and attacks on the Atonement. (Some of that will appear tomorrow… stay tuned!)
Other ideas for similar 1-2 page resource pages might include:
— New Age / Pagan worship (could include URI?)
— Universalism (statements denying the uniqueness of Christ)
What else?
And who will volunteer to help??
Two last links from this elf, and then I’m calling it a night:l
[url=http://www.americananglican.org/atf/cf/%7B0124EFED-8D9A-4067-9C7C-969A768F1648%7D/ETS_2nded_Final.pdf] AAC’s Equipping the Saints Booklet[/url] (20 pages)
In this context, pp. 6-7, 10-11 are most relevant.
[url=http://www.americananglican.org/atf/cf/%7B0124EFED-8D9A-4067-9C7C-969A768F1648%7D/GC06-Summary.pdf]AAC’s “A Clear Decision to Walk Apart”[/url] (4 pages)
Summary of ECUSA GC06 Actions
Dear The Elves:
I love what you are doing. Let me put a framework for it out here based on the original sentence in the article:
[b]Acceptable in TEC to deny: [/b]
[b]the Trinity[/b] — we see this in two ways: acceptance of Islam as compatible w/ Christianity and in use of replacement terms for the members of the trinity (e.g. female or forces of nature or other gnostic)
[b]the Resurrection[/b] — we see this faintly disguised in refusal to refer to resurrection as other than metaphor
[b] the divinity of Jesus[/b] we see this in two ways: acceptance of Islam as compatible w/ Christianity and in … (please fill in language about Jesus received a divinity that we all will eventually obtain…)
[b]many other basics of Christianity[/b] Although these were not specified in the article posted, you The Elves have provided examples in these areas:
[b]Forgiveness of Sin[/b] is challenged by denial of specific sexual sins and in perversion of and then denial of [b]Atonement[/b] theology.
[b]Life of the World to Come[/b] is challenged by a “cheap” Universalism that says that since God loves each of us, he must approve of each of us and welcome us all to Heaven.
(I myself absolutely reject a “cheap” Universalism, but would like to see latitude for people who hold an Eastern Orthodox/ Macrina the Younger/St Gregory of Nyssa approach.)
[b]Virgin Birth[/b] is very important to many.( I personally would like to have latitude to explore the theology of the [b]Virgin Birth[/b] but accept that this crisis time in the church precludes that. It is too risky with people so ready to grab the reflection and research to subvert Christianity.)
Ooops, I was working on my comment that became #32 and missed all the recent posts. So my #32 is a little out of date already!
[i]great list of ideas Deja Vu. Thanks for the help and encouragement. If anyone else has info or ideas or wants to help with research, give us a shout: T19elves@yahoo.com[/i]
w.w.: I have some additional information on the elder +Louttit’s attempt to have Pike tried for heresy, the failure of this attempt, and an ad from Pike’s 1968 “If This Be Heresy” tour at
http://www.vulcanhammer.org/palmbeach/around.php
Terry Mattingly’s well-known Three Questions would be an interesting way to organize heresy in the Episcopal Church:
(1) Are biblical accounts of the resurrection of Jesus accurate? Did this event really happen?
(2) Is salvation found through Jesus Christ, alone? Was Jesus being literal when he said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me†(John 14:6)?
(3) Is sex outside of marriage a sin?
At #18 WordsMatter wrote [i]Some years ago, I was reading the website of the diocese of Arkansas (no idea why) and read a statement that basically described the resurrection as a function of the gathered community rather than an event that occurred. Without a doubt many such diocesan and parish websites exist from which evidence could be obtained. [/i]
I doubt you can back that statement so if you can find the quote from Diocese of AR please do so w/ link and in context.
What about the Via Media Evangelism tool series? I have a promo copy (just short snippets of the series). Is anyone is a church that has used this as a training tool? It is expensive, I heard about $400.00. Grace cathedral in San Francisco use to have on the web site that it was for the under 30 crowd…I guess they figured us oldies would know the propaganda they were using. I was shocked by some of the snippets such as: Jesus isn’t the only way to God; he is a Palestinian of undetermined or questionable (I can’t remember which) parentage; we don’t read scriptures as we did 20, 200, etc years ago; Jesus never said, “we are to worship him†only that we are to follow him, etc.
It has an introduction by Bp Charleston and leaders of discussion such as Susan Russell, Winny (sp) Vargese, I think Ed Bacon, can’t remember the rest. Guess I will have to get it out and watch it again.
Here you go, Revamundo, from the Arkansas FAQ, a twofer – an inadequate (charitably put) statement of the Incarnation, coupled with their take on the Resurrection:
http://arkansas.anglican.org/who/faq.html
[i]Episcopalians are followers of Jesus Christ. We say that God was uniquely present in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. One word we use to describe this belief is that God was “incarnate” in Jesus, that is, God’s own self was present in Jesus’ very body. Following his death, his disciples found that Christ still lived in their midst. Thus, they found themselves connected to God as they discovered themselves to be part of Christ’s resurrected body.[/i]
#39, this is taken from a FAQ for visitors and the possibly unchurched, so “elementary” rather than “inadequate” seems a better term. “Uniquely present” is orthodox; “Christ still lived in their midst” is also orthodox. Yes, there is a bit of gooey mystification (“discovered themselves…”), but what exactly is there to disagree with and point to heresy?
WordMatter…your post in #18 saying [i]basically described the resurrection as a function of the gathered community rather than an event that occurred. [/i] doesn’t remotely resemble [b]Following his death, his disciples found that Christ still lived in their midst. Thus, they found themselves connected to God as they discovered themselves to be part of Christ’s resurrected body. [/b]
Part of Christ’s resurrected body, i.e. the church, is what we are at present. It doesn’t say there was no resurrection. The statement on incarnation…meh, could use improvement I agree.
Let’s not forget the PB’s own statements that Hinduism was a perfectly valid “pathway to the divine”.
It might make sense to organize the material based on the phrases in the Creeds.
RE: “Following his death, his disciples found that Christ still lived in their midst. Thus, they found themselves connected to God as they discovered themselves to be part of Christ’s resurrected body.”
A perfectly laughable — and heretical — statement to defend.
This is a bit like saying “Following his death, his disciples found that [some sort of spirit lived within them that was causing them to become more like the Christ that they so fondly remembered]. Thus, they found themselves connected to God as they discovered themselves to be part of Christ’s resurrected body.”
No. That statement leaves out entirely the dramatic and startling truth of Jesus’s physical resurrection. And of course, it does so quite deliberately.
The truth is that “Following his death, his disciples suddenly saw Jesus Christ alive and in the flesh! After they found that Jesus was alive, they realized that everything that Jesus had said about Himself — His life, His identity as God, His ability to forgive sins — was true. Jesus spent several more weeks with them in the flesh and in person, then told them that when He left to see His Father again, that He would send His spirit to them, to live with them. Thus, when Jesus departed to heaven, they found themselves connected to God through Jesus’s Spirit. Because of the Spirit of Jesus Christ which lives in each believer, the church is known to this day as “Christ’s spiritual body on earth”, just as Christ’s physical body is in heaven with His Father.”
The reason why something like this is not in fact on the Diocese of Arkansas’s web site, explaining the resurrection and incarnation of Jesus Christ, is because the writer of this statement, as well as the person who approved it for publication does not, apparently, believe in those things.
Revamundo –
What Sarah said…
Although, actually, I thought the statement on the Incarnation was closer to the Incarnation than the bit about being part of Christ’s resurrected body was to the Resurrection. Granted, the former does rather sound like God poured God-stuff into a bucket called Jesus, rather than God having taken on human flesh, having become man. Ok, it’s not that close to the Incarnation, but the resurrection thing confuses Christ’s Body, the Church, with his Resurrected Body, which ascended to the Father.
“This is a bit like saying…”
The authors left the statement vague, for the sake (I suspect) of offering milk to babes and not solid food. It doesn’t deny the resurrection but rather leaves the question open so it can be answered in the proper season. #44 offers a doctrinal statement for mature believers; the FAQ offers a hint for the curious.
[b]1 Corinthians 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. [/b]
I guess that is laughable and heretical? Since the author of the statement didn’t chose your words you think you can say Dio of AR author & publisher [i]does not, apparently, believe in those things[/i] You’re way, way off base Sarah (and therefore Words Matter). I know these people and you couldn’t be more wrong.
I Cor 12.27 is neither laughable nor heretical. Neither is it relevant to the topic at hand.
I don’t know the people in Arkansas and speak based only on what I read. And what I read is not an meaningful statement of the Resurrection. If these people believe Jesus rose bodily from the dead, let them say it.
And that “milk/meat” business won’t fly either. People aren’t idiots and aren’t generally interested in religious pablum. Anyway, is it really honest to hide your true beliefs to lure people in? For God’s sake, tell people the truth as you believe it and challenge them to consider that truth. Even if the Arkansas diocese is trying for the soft approach, it isn’t working. According to the chart program, they have gained some membership in the last decade, but average Sunday attendance has declined.
[blockquote]“Uniquely present†is orthodox; “Christ still lived in their midst†is also orthodox.[/blockquote]
As it stands, “uniquely present” is Nestorian. Cyril of Alexandria asked the correct question: Is Jesus Christ God become a human being, or a human being in whom God is especially present?
“Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it” is entirely unconnected to the denial of the physical resurrection of Jesus found in these words: “Following his death, his disciples found that Christ still lived in their midst. Thus, they found themselves connected to God as they discovered themselves to be part of Christ’s resurrected body.”
In fact, their discovery that “Christ still lived in their midst” — in the flesh as Jesus Christ — was not at all the same thing as their discovery that they “themselves” were “part of Christ’s resurrected body.”
The irony is . . . that Revamundo knows good and well that this is true. Why . . . it’s the classic thing that a rector who does NOT believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus states to the poor old traditionally minded search committee that is trying to find an orthodox rector. ; > )
Can’t you just hear it now?
The chair of the search committee says: “We are looking for someone who believes the creeds. Do you believe that Jesus was resurrected?”
And the aspiring rector says, in his stained-glass voice: “Yes, my son — in fact, the Christ figure is so alive still as to be found in our midst, so that we find ourselves connected to God, discovering that we ourselves are part of Christ’s resurrected body.”
Thankfully, nowadays, people are getting tutorials on how to tell when clergy lie about their belief in the creeds. This would be an excellent tutorial, and I’ll be distributing it to others.
[b]”Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it†[/b] is entirely relevant to the topic. Bottom line Words Matter and Sarah is that what you’re saying and assuming is, in the words of another poster, bovine manure. You’re judging people you admittedly don’t know, twisting words to suit your purpose, tacitly accusing clergy of lying. And then to top it off the claim that this is a “tutorial” for a search committee. Unbelievable. If we are indeed at least brothers and sisters in Christ, this is an odd way to show it.