So, if Nigeria, Rwanda, Southern Cone, Sydney, Tanzania, Uganda, and lots from Singapore, Middle East, India, 20+ from England etc all decline the invite, RW will have a lot spare rooms to fill. A financial disaster to boot.

He was on the short list for ABC before Blair stuck in Rowan Williams. He would have been much better.

What to say? What to say?

ECUSA is a part of the body of the Anglican Communion.  ECUSA has a festering wound caused by its departure from “the Faith once given” that is causing bodily decay and disintegration of ECUSA.  The disease within ECUSA is so advanced that it is now starting to infect the whole Anglican Communion.

If ECUSA is not detached from the Anglican Communion, then the prognosis for the long-term functionalirty of theCommunion is not good.

+++Williams should be looking at the health of the whole Anglican Communion and be willing to lead in excising the diseased ECUSA from the Communion in order to protect the Communion’s long-term health.

He hasn’t done this.

If +Cantuar wants to preserve unity, it needs to be something rather than unity is name only.  There is no unity in liturgy (and there should not be, liturgy is a frame around which the Truth is expressed).  There is no unity in Truth because too many anglicans agree on what the Truth is.  There is no unity around Jesus Christ.  Some see Jesus as the embodiment of the Truth - the Truth (God) Incarnate and the only means of salvation.  Others see Jesus as expressing a truth that is only part of the greater way to the divine in all of us. 

If we are going to be unified, we need to be unified in the Truth.  Classical Anglicanism expressed that truth wonderfully and +Cantuar spoke to that truth in “Challenge and Hope of Being Anglican Today”.  If we are to be unified in truth, then we need (as a communion) to discern that truth and decide, corporately, what is essential and non essential.  Where one province or group acts against the essentials (as defined by the Communion) then the Church should call that province to repentence.  Where the province or group insists on its autonomy, it should be allowed to have its autonomy and no longer be part of the communion.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Phil wrote:

There is no unity in Truth because too many anglicans agree on what the Truth is.

Phil, you wanna flesh this out a bit or did you mean to write disagree instead of agree?

It’s Monday. It’s Nazir-Ali’s turn to say the sky is falling. Got to keep feeding the press. Who’s got Tuesday covered? Anderson? Duncan? Maybe the Fort Worth Standing Committee can issue an umpteenth press release.

Professor Fate (#5)
That’s what I get for editing and composing at the same time.  You are right.  too many Anglicans disagree on what the Truth is.  There are those who deny (or operationally deny) that objective truth exists or that we can know what the Truth is.  While I will never understand the Truth fully, I can still know the Truth because I know Jesus and (more imporantly) the Truth (Jesus) knows me and loves me and seeks to change me so that my life conforms to the Truth.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

John, I don’t stop thinking or expressing myself on Mondays.  I doubt that it is +Nazir-Ali’s remote intenion to ‘feed the press’.

There is clearly a coordinated effort (first we had the ACI, then CAPA, now Rochester), but it has a purpose - to have the primates meet.  The ABC is trying to avoid it at all costs, because TEC does not want it.  TEC fears, probably rightly, that it would not go well for them.  The primates of Wales, Ireland, and Scotland are reported to be weighing a boycott of a primates’ meeting, another indication of their fears of how one might playout.  Presumably, the fear is that punishment of TEC will cause TEC to leave, withdrawing its funds with it.

But choosing not to allow the primates to meet - and this appears to be Williams’ choice - is also a choice to split the communion.  For if there is no meeting, the primates of the global south will proceed to implement the DES communique without one.  And then what will the ABC do?  Throw them out?  Disinvite them to Lambeth?  And what will TEC do?  Call a primates’ meeting to discipline them?  TEC has opted for autonomy over communion, and autonomy is what they will get.

At the point, the Anglican Communion will no longer be a communion.  Indeed, that the primates cannot even meet in the same room suggests there is little communion left to save.

#6, considering that around 80% of Lambeth invitations have gone un-RSVP’ed (pardon my liberty with the language), it looks as though the sky IS falling.  For TEC and the reappraisers, at least.

Well John,
I think the pain for TEC in the media will continue until 815 decides to let the faithful go in peace.  I think Pharoh had a similiar problem.

It would be disingenuous of +++Rowan to not acknowledge that TEC is paying for the piper, as well as for the banquet. As long as this is the case, the +++ABC seems more than willing to dance to the song list provided the deep pockets of the American Church, who also want to put together the menu for the event.

With all due respect to +++Rowan, at this point he would look foolish no matter what he did. Unfortunately, this leads to the “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” behavior we have been seeing all along.

Why, he can’t even find it within himself to rein in ++KJS’s with respect to her frequent (“Jesus was just another option”) neo-Christian rhetoric.

“He claimed that American clergy were increasingly weaving other faiths such as Buddhism and Hinduism into their worship and many regarded the Bible as a man-made book that could be rewritten rather than a revelation from God.”
I wish the ‘press’ and others would see +Azir-Ali’s statement here to be far closer to the overall facts of our concern than simply the ‘sexuality’ issue which is but one glaring example of great concern.

John B., you can read David Anderson’s latest assault on the Archibishop of Canterbury over at Episcopal Cafe: The Lead: http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/. In it Anderson compares the ABC to those in France’s Vichy Government who collaborated with the Nazis. I think Anderson grows more vitriolic with each new screed. Anyone who wants him for their bishop is welcome to him.

Ali-Nazir has contributed to the polemic by his accusations about Episcopal priests and laypersons treating the Bible as “man-made” or embracing Buddhism. I keep reading these statements that insinuate that this is such a wholesale practice and belief and an abandonment of Christian Faith that it now characterizes TEC as a whole. Yet no one names names. I challenge anyone to come up with a list of names of these heretics that constitutes at least 10% of the communicants and clergy of TEC; that would be about 200,000 names. Or, let’s just make it clergy. Can someone supply me with the names of 1000 clergy who fit the description, someone besides +Spong, for heavens’ sake? And I mean, not what someone is rumored to have said, or what some critics concludes from what they have said; I mean clear proof. Then I will begin to take notice. What I find utterly despicable is the constant trashing of TEC, and add to that, the vicious assaults on the character and work of the ABC that comes from various quarters and appear on blogs and organizational web sites.

Bob,
If you can show me where, within the Apostles’ teaching, that same sex unions are blessed, then I will disavow any statement that TECUSA is, as a rule, rewriting scripture or treating scripture as “man made.”

If you cannot show me, within the Apostles’ teaching, where blessing same sex unions is authorized or practiced, then the list you request consists of all the priests and bishops who have blessed same sex unions or ordained practicing homosexuals.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Bob from Boone
To start with have a look at the following:
living the questions

“Despite its humble origins, the response to LtQ has been remarkable. With the original program alone being used by well over 2500 churches and other groups across the U.S., Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand (as well as several other countries), it’s clear that a nerve has been struck!”

Have a look at their latest series:
Saving Jesus
Some quotes from the sample material:

Who was Jesus?
“I think we can also say that he was a wisdom teacher like the Buddha in many ways. He seems to have had an enlightenment experience himself and talked in enlightenment wisdom”
“I’m struck by how creative the early Christians were. They put so many words in Jesus’ mouth—I think that’s very exciting. It shows that the early Church was totally turned on with this creativity. Where has all that creativity gone? Where has it all gone? We’ve got to bring it back alive”
The atonement
““The powerful story of Jesus on the cross to me is that he is dying and yet he is portrayed as constantly reaching out to those who are in a different kind of pain. It does not matter to me whether that is literal or not – and I suspect most of that is not literal.”

Read this blog to see what else is covered in the Saving Jesus course:
JendiReiter

Search for “Episcopal” and “saving Jesus” in any good search engine to see the number of Episcopal churches running this series

Next, look at the number of Labyrinths popping up all over the Episcopal church:
You can use the labyrith locator on this site. While you are there you can read some of their newsletters and journals to see where they are coming from:
http://www.veriditas.org/

To understand the labyrinth movement in more detail you can read this:
http://www.eternalpath.com/labyrinth.html
http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=3440
http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/harper2pap.html

Bob: 
I certainly can’t name one thousand clergy in ECUSA.  But it greatly concerns me when the primate of ECUSA publically states that Jesus is only one way of many and puts Jesus on a par with Mohammad and others, then I am concerned.  It greatly concerns me when the elected represented people, representing the entirety of ECUSA, refuse to vote in favour of the acceptance of the fundamental core of our Faith ...then I am concerned.
+Anderon’s statement was certainly a strong one, no holds barred.
++Anis, the primate of Jerusalem and the Middle East, made an equally strong statement to the HoB, yet was this listened to or commented on.  When provinces around the world respond in anguish and dismay to the autonomous statements and actions of ECUSA that result in Christianity being despised and rejected, are thee cries listened to by the autonomous province of ECUSA?
No, I cannot name 1,000 or even 500.  But I can say that the effects of the autonomous province of ECUSA have had a deleterious consequence of the Global Communion.  Does ECUSA care?
I personally would not use the example of Vichy France, but the consequences of the actions of Vichy France were dreadful in the extreme.

The great thing about +Nazir-Ali’s statement and all the rest is that they never actually commit!  It’s always “We may not go” or “We would find it difficult.”  This is how you tell the difference between those with real convictions (++Orombi) and those who are simply in it for the power (++Akinola, +Nazir-Ali, etc.).

Brian:
“those who are simply in it for the power (++Akinola, +Nazir-Ali, etc.).”
Didn’t ++Akinola and his province cut connections to Canterbury in their constitution?  Hasn’t the Nigerian church expressed
concerns about Lambeth and may very well not attend?  There’s a difference between ‘may not go’ and ‘are waiting to see what happens to ECUSA and its permission to attend or not attend.  Didn’t +Nazir-Ali JUST say that he wouldn’t be going to Lambeth, and for very clearly expressed reasons?

Bob from Boone, you at least have the wisdom, in spite of yourself, to check yourself at the end of this statement:

I challenge anyone to come up with a list of names of these heretics that constitutes at least 10% of the communicants and clergy of TEC; that would be about 200,000 names. Or, let’s just make it clergy.

Besides the practical impossiblity of accurately surveying communicants, I think you know in your heart of hearts that this is mostly a clergy-led revisionism, not a grass-roots “move of the Holy Spirit”.  But I know one way to get a rough and mostly accurate idea of clergy beliefs.  Sift through the statements and answers to questions of candidates for bishop of the dioceses that have elected bishops just since 2003, and go to church websites and sift through their rectors’ published mission statements and sermons.  Quite a daunting project in itself, but one that would, I think, be quite revealing.  Perhaps some data guru could do something like resume search applications do for employers and search for keywords in the data to do a rough sort and then have human readers go over the statements in detail to reach a consensus on where our TEC clergy and bishops really stand.  Any takers?

#14.

What a cop-out.

I don’t have a list, but:

*Acording to a 2002 survey, 1/3 of the Church of England clergy don’t believe in the resurrection.

*According to a 1998 survey, 51% of Epsicopal clergy deny the resurrection.

If you won’t define denying the resurrection as heresy, I don’t know what you will call heresy.

Bob from Boone, given that TEC’s average Sunday attendance is 800,000 or less, that 10% you want would be no more that 80,000, not 200k.  And I think it would be possible, should someone wish to invest the time, to google around church newsletters, diocesan newsletters, and news reports and find 10% of active clergy who have made unorthodox statements or supported unorthodox activities.

+Nazir-Ali has pointed out the rock and the hard place re:  Lambeth.  He and many others don’t want to go to a policy-making council if the bishops who have ignored the last one are there and participating.  On the other hand, if it’s not policy-making, but just a fellowship week, why would conservative bishops from distant diocese want to waste their time to do “fellowship” activities with those who have rejected the guidance of the bishops gathered in council?

Bob, in just three or four minutes before lunch I googled up a handful of stories similar to this one:

http://www.pluralism.org/news/article.php?id=3891

That was without diligently looking. Probably the best way to see the scope is to look at church websites to see how many are offering classes on Buddhism. Many seem to be. Most classes on meditation seem to be about Buddhist meditation - as if there were no Christian tradition. Or as if it weren’t “now” enough.

+Nazir-Ali is obeying God rather than men. How refreshing.

Didn’t ++Akinola and his province cut connections to Canterbury in their constitution?

Yes.  A meaningless gesture until you actually break with Canterbury.  Simple posturing to try to gain some sort of leverage.  The problem is that it is not working.

Hasn’t the Nigerian church expressed concerns about Lambeth and may very well not attend?

They along with other CAPA members adopted a document called The Road to Lambeth which said they would not attend if TEC bishops wbho consecrated or supported the consecration were in attendance.  They never said “well, maybe…”

There’s a difference between ‘may not go’ and ‘are waiting to see what happens to ECUSA and its permission to attend or not attend.

Yes.  And that difference is saying: “We will not attend if TEC attends.

Didn’t +Nazir-Ali JUST say that he wouldn’t be going to Lambeth, and for very clearly expressed reasons?

No.  He said “I would find it very difficult to be with them in a council of bishops.”

+Nazir-Ali friends may be 25% of CofE bishops who may not attend.  +Scott-Joynt claims that 50%+ may not attend.  You demanded clarity from TEC.  Now take a stand yourselves.  Say “I will not attend if…”

Nathan

*Acording to a 2002 survey, 1/3 of the Church of England clergy don’t believe in the resurrection.

*According to a 1998 survey, 51% of Epsicopal clergy deny the resurrection.

Where are you getting these ridiculous numbers?  The IRD? Yes, denial of the resurrection is heresy.  But those numbers are way too high.

active clergy who have made unorthodox statements or supported unorthodox activities

Unoethodox does not mean heretical.

Observing an Sherri

While most Protestants are keenly unaware of it, there is a rich tradition of Christian meditation and mysticism.

Brian -
1.  (#27) I agree that the number is way too high.  I would say that even one bishop, priest or deacon that denies the resurrection of Jesus is too many.  I don’t know what the actual number is but I have seen similar surveys that produced similar results when the resurrection was defined as “Physical.”  Many clergy say that they do not deny the resurrection - when they get to define it.  Unfortunately, too many clergy believe in a “spiritual” resurrection rather than a physical one.  That is not a resurrection, it is docetism (you know, a heresy) - where the post “resurrection” Jesus just seems to be human.

2.  (#28)  Unorthodox does equal heretical.  Can you show me a statement that is “unorthodox” while not being heretical?

3.  (#29) I believe that Sherri was asking a rhetorical question.  the “real” question would be more like:  “why aren’t we offering Christian meditation rather than Buddhist meditation?”

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Thank you, Phil, for clarifying. That’s exactly what I mean. If people are unaware of it Brian, as you allow, perhaps it’s because their churches are too busy offering courses on Buddhist meditation.

In a sense you are right about ++Akinola and the Nigerian bishops, Brian, and all the other atendance and other issues you list.  The proof is in the pudding.  However less than one year from now, we’ll know, won’t we.

IHMO my opinion is that the Cantebury AC is very likely to be much smaller.  There are two churches in the Canterbury AC right now.  How can there be other than a split and the formation of a GS centered AC.

#27

Where are you getting these ridiculous numbers?  The IRD? Yes, denial of the resurrection is heresy.  But those numbers are way too high.

I put links to the sources in my post.  Not the IRD.  Go check it out for yourself.

-nj

Nathan

I checked it out.  Your first link goes to the current front page of the Telegraph.

Your second link shows the following:

% of Episcopal Clergy who “doubt Jesus’ physical resurrection” is 35%

% of Born-Again Christians who say that “Jesus was crucified but not physically resurrected” is 35%

Nathan,  I think you mistakenly put down the United Methodist clergy that doubted the resurrection (51%) for TECUSA clergy that doubted the physical resurrection (35% as Brian pointed out above).

Brian, aren’t you the least bit concerned that over 1/3 of the clergy in the Episcopal Church deny the physical resurrection?  By your own admission, denial of the resurrection is heresy. 

The question said:  “Jesus was crucified but not physically resurrected.”  It did not mention doubt, but said “not physically.”  This is clear heresy.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Brian - I think you are right. Enough saber wrattling. The HoB has given its statement. I don’t think it can go any further. It is the bottom line for TEC. What exactly is the bottom line for the reasserters. There aren’t that many scenerios available. Certainly everyone knows them all. But there still seems to be a lot of jokeying on the part of conservatives to try and get the PR upper hand.

Phil Synder - The survey of clergy does NOT use the word DENY but DOUBT - Totally different wouldn’t you say?

“Jeffrey Hadden 1998 poll:

A survey of mostly mainline Protestant clergy by a prominent American sociologist showed that many doubt Jesus’ physical resurrection. ”

Well, if they “doubt” the Resurrection, perhaps they ought to hang up their collars while they figure it out.

There are days when I doubt the Resurrection, but I’m persuaded by St. Paul’s argument that without a physical resurrection, it’s all a bit of rather painful nonsense.  If Spong (or Marcus Borg) are right, then I probably would find something more entertaining to do on a Sunday.

Phil

What amazes me is that 35% of born-again Christians doubt it!

As for a spiritual versus physical resurrection, I don’t think that the distinction matters.  To me, it is the difference between those who believe in symbolism versus transubstantiation.  There are scholarly arguments on both sides.  To insist that the resurrection must be physicals seems, to me, to be missing the point.

#35
Brian,

My apologies.  With regards to the first link, it is, indeed, broken.  I will try again here.  If that doesn’t work, google “one third of clergy do not believe in resurrection” (the title of the article) and you will find it easily.  I’d be surprised if it wasn’t linked from T19 at one point or another…

I’m not sure I understand your second comment.  (Phillip (#36) is correct, by the way, I mistakenly wrote down the number of Methodist doubters rather than the Episcopalian number!)  But if 35% of “born-again” Christians doubt the resurrection, I would call them heretics too. 

Bob from Boone asked for a list of 1,000 priests who were heretics.  I can’t give a list.  But I have presented evidence that a significant number of American priests are heretics.  According to Louie Crew (I won’t try to link it), there are 17,000 priests.  35% of 17,000 is 6,000.

What say you?

Nathan

Thanks, the new link works.  I think the issue is the distinctions being made.  The 1/3 number includes doubters as well as those that do not believe.  Also, and most importantly, they doubt or do not believe in the physical resurrection.  This is not the same as what +Spong is saying.

#40

... nevermind my last question (What say you?)...

I cross-posted with you and so I didn’t know of your personal ambivalence on the whole physical resurrection issue.

Dude, He ate the fish.  Thomas touched His wounds. 

How you can sit there and say “there’s arguments on both sides”?  The denial of the physical resurrection is basic Christian Heresy 101.  What point, pray tell, am I missing?

As for a spiritual versus physical resurrection, I don’t think that the distinction matters.

According to the founders of Christianity it matters a great deal.

Brian,
When we talk about “resurrection” we must understand what that word means.  When Paul or the Jews (the originators of the concept) used “resurrection” it always indicated a “physical” aspect.  One where there is continuity between the dead physical body and the resurrected body such that the physical body is no longer there.  Thus, “if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.”  and “If Christ has not been raised, you faith is futile and you are still in your sins.” (I Cor 15:14 & 17).  To speak of a “spiritual resurrect” is to speak of something that Scripture does not know.  As I said earlier, a non-physical resurrection is a form of docetism where Jesus only appears to be human after the resurrection and it can be seen as a form of adoptionism where Jesus is divine only after the resurrection.  Both are heresies.  The drive for a “spiritual” v. “physical” resurrection probably comes from a desire to split matter and spirit such that it does not matter what we do with our material bodies, but only with our spirits.  This, again, is a form of the gnostic heresy where matter is evil and spirit is good and so we must either become extreme aescetics or we can do what we please with our bodies.  (while the former was more common, the latter was not unknown in gnostic circles). 
The importance of a physical resurrection is that our whole person is changed, not just our spirits.  We are crucified with Christ in our baptism and are given resurrection life.  The fulfillment of that happens in the general resurrection (or at the last Day), but the resurrection affects our physical bodies as well as our “spirits.” 
So, even if 35% of clergy doubt the resurrection, that is 35% that are heretics or apostate (I’ll let you decide which they are).

Where are you?  Do you believe that Jesus died and was raised from the dead or do you believe that the bones of Jesus are lying in some grave in Palestine waiting to be discovered?

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Phil,
you asked:   “why aren’t we offering Christian meditation rather than Buddhist meditation?”

A question I have been asking for years of clergy who seem enamoured of Buddhist, Zen and Yoga traditions.  What’s wrong with exploring those meditative traditions that are uniquely Christian, I ask. 

I get no satisfactory answer, usually, “We seek the truth where it lies, even if that is in other religions”. 

To which I say, isn’t that seeking after other gods before seeking the One True God? 

They don’t seem to think so, though.

Why go to someone else’s religion when ours has so much to offer?

Too much trouble to sift through 2000 years of tradition when you can get a book on Yoga or Zen at the local bookstore. :-(

Of course, I say the same thing about the “U2Charist”. Why not explore the Christian musical tradition and have a Eucharist featuring Michael Card’s music? He supports World Vision, and the offering can go there. Or Twila Paris, she supports Youth With a Mission, the offering can go there. Or John Michael Talbot with Mercy Corps International.

But no, there is a blank wall there.

Peace, Phil
Jim Elliott <><

Phil

“For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit”

1 Peter 3:18

The importance of a physical resurrection is that our whole person is changed, not just our spirits.

That may apply to us, but not necessarily to Jesus.  He was God Incarnate going in and was God Incarnate coming out - the disposition of His earthly body isn’t all that critical.

Dude, He ate the fish.  Thomas touched His wounds.

Where are you?  Do you believe that Jesus died and was raised from the dead or do you believe that the bones of Jesus are lying in some grave in Palestine waiting to be discovered?

I don’t believe that either way is wrong.  I think that He could have had a physical manifestation or a spiritual one.  Again, to me, the distinction is unimportant.  You have to remember that I am a revisionist and hold a different view of Scripture than you.  For example, +Nazir-Ali above say that “many regarded the Bible as a man-made book that could be rewritten rather than a revelation from God.”  I believe that the Scriptures are the Word of God and His Revelation to man.  I also believe that they are man-made and subject to a different understanding as God, through the Holy Spirit, reveals His Truth to us.  With the exception of the “rewritten” part, I don’t see a conflict.

I could not provide a list of 1,000 priests for the simple reason that I do not know the names of 1,000 priests.  What I can give is the anecdotal evidence of a layperson who has lived in several dioceses, has had to go through the long and laborious process of finding an orthodox parish after each move, and who has lived through two church splits—both caused by a revisionist bishop who either worked behind the scenes to impose a revisionist priest, or who sacked the current priest, and imposed a priest-in-charge whose theology was questionable.

Things I have come across:

In Massachusetts, a priest who preached on Easter Sunday that the Good News of Easter was that we did not have to believe that Jesus rose bodily from the dead.

In Massachusetts, a priest who preached orthodox theology from the pulpit but who told me privately that it would make no difference to his faith if the bones of Jesus were discovered in a grave in Palestine.  This priest also told me privately that he greatly admired Spong, that he preached like Barth, but believed like Tillich. The same priest caused a near revolt among the vestry when he chose to use one of Marcus Borg’s books on Jesus as the subject of a vestry retreat. When he left to become a campus minister, this priest dropped the creed from the liturgy because it was “offensive” to college students, and has argued for communion for the non-baptized.  He criticized Alpha in a well-known church publication for its assertions that Jesus alone was the path to salvation.

After this priest left, the bishop and search committee conspired to replace this priest with a practicing lesbian.  For her first advent study, she chose a four week session on Shinto meditation.  For a Lenten guest the next spring, she invited Dominic Crossan—the Jesus Seminar scholar who argues that the body of Jesus was eaten by dogs—to talk about “resurrection.”

In the pulpit of this church, I heard a supply priest preach that the NT was anti-Semitic, and that Paul’s decision to take the gospel to the Gentiles after being refused by the Jewish synagogue led inevitably to the Holocaust, and that the genocide in Bosnia was the inevitable and direct consequence of the New Testament’s exclusivism. The same priest also regularly sang the praises of Sally McFague’s “metaphorical theology”—that since the writers of the New Testament chose metaphors to their liking, we can do the same, substituting our metaphors for the limited and patriarchal metaphors of the New Testament.

Down the road, another priest in the diocese famously used Borg for his own Advent study.  This priest went on to become bishop of a Western diocese where he is at war with the orthodox clergy in his diocese.

After Lambeth 98, the head of the Cowley Fathers in Massachusetts famously compared Lambeth 98 to a Nuremberg rally.  One of the bishops said that “If a__holes could fly, Lambeth would be an airport.”

On moving to CT, I heard one priest preach the Sunday after Matthew Shepard was murdered that the Lambeth Conference was an “obscenity,” and that the bishops of Lambeth were directly responsible for Shepard’s death.

On Palm Sunday, I heard a priest choose as the central theme of his sermon that the idea that Jesus died to save us from our sins had caused more suffering, oppression, and evil than any other idea in the history of humanity.

And, of course, we have a Presiding Bishop who repeatedly insists that Jesus is “a way” to salvation for Christians, and that insisting that Jesus Christ is the exclusive way to salvation puts God in a “small box.”  Her Christmas sermon made clear that she uses “incarnation” as a general principle that can be applied to anything positive, including Santa Claus.  It seems questionable whether she actually believes that Jesus Christ is uniquely God incarnate rather than a human being in whom God is especially present.

In several repeated discussions with one of the central members of a group calling itself the Episcopal Majority, I have found a man who clealy denies the virginal conception, and refuses to specify whether he believes in the bodily resurrection.  This same gentleman repeatedly accuses all who disagree with him of embracing a right-wing political ideology.  In my case, a quite laughable accusation.

After numerous such incidents, I have come to the conclusion that such theology is rather typical of most TEC clergy rather than exceptional.

When Jesus stood and declared, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”, the pharisees heard and said “It took our ancestors 40 years to build this temple, and you say you will raise it up in three days? Truly you are mad!”
The author of the Gospel adds:
But they did not understand that He was talking about his body.

The Greek word for ‘body’ here is ‘soma’ which means physical body.  Thus the early Christians thought the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus was important, indeed.

Phil, Brian, Nathan - Not to be picky but they could have been doubting that the crucifiction occurred - the question seems weak

So, Brian, I see you are not a Christian.  I say this sadly.  You do not believe in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  You said yourself that the physicallity of the resurrection is of no importance whereas Paul puts it of First Importance.  I assume that you have not read N. T. Wrights “The Resurrection of the Son of God.”  In that book, Wright shows through careful analysis that “resurrection” is always physical.  It always involved a physical body.  The terms “physical body” and “spiritual body” in I Cor 15 are more aptly translated “body animated by the psyche” and “body animated by the Spirit.”  Both indicate a “body.”  While you may profess allegiance to Jesus, it is not the Jesus who is God Incarnate and who died for our sins and rose again on the third day. 

The Physical Resurrection is the only thing that shows death being conquered.  Without it, death still wins because death contained the person of Jesus.  Either that, or the gnostics are right and spirit and matter are not intertwined by God in creation and all that matters is spirit.  I reject that death wins or that spirit is all that matters.  God created us as enfleshed souls.  He redeemes all of us, not just our souls or our spirits in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The physical resurrection of Jesus Christ is not a tenent of the Christian Faith, it IS the Christian faith.  Without that, we should all become Jews. 

Without a physical resurrection, Jesus just appears as a spirit to the apostles.  Without the physical resurrection - without the empty tomb, the Christianity is nothing more than the visions of a grief stricken group of men. 

Yours in the Risen Lord,
Phil Snyder

Phil Snyder [p#45] asks Brian from T19: “Do you believe that Jesus died and was raised from the dead or do you believe that the bones of Jesus are lying in some grave in Palestine waiting to be discovered?”

Phil, I remain mystified why intellectual assent to a particular historical claim is supposedly a prerequisite to being a “good” Christian, and disagreement supposedly constitutes heresy.

In one of his books, the Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne quotes David Pailin to the effect that our beliefs must always be concerned with truth, lest we fall into the trap of worshiping human wishes instead of Ultimate Reality. I assume you’d agree that (1) here we have an either/or proposition: Either Jesus was indeed raised from the dead, or he wasn’t; and (2) the truth or falsity of the resurrection claim does not depend on who does or doesn’t believe the claim (“it is what it is”).

Most Christians think Jesus was raised, and that certainly counts for something. But countless intelligent, thoughtful, educated, good-hearted people are unconvinced (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus, among others). That counts for something too, and ought to make us sit up and pay attention.

We could argue that anyone who affirmatively disagrees with the orthodox Christian conviction is either stupid or willfully obtuse. That’d be a tough argument to sell, given the enormous number of unconvinced people in this world.

We have to face the facts: The evidence supporting the orthodox Christian conviction is simply weak — were it otherwise, we’d expect the rest of the world to have joined in that conviction.

So it seems more than a little odd to brand a lack of conviction about the resurrection as “heresy.”

D.C.
People disbelieve the truth for all sorts of reasons.  For many, it is because the Truth will cause them to reevaluate their lives up to this point and who wants to do that?

As for the resurrection, I am only passing on the Tradition.  I don’t really care if you believe the resurrection or not.  However, I do care if you claim to be part of the Body of Christ and don’t believe the resurrection.  I care because I received the news of the Resurrection as being of First Importance.  Without the resurrection, there is no Christianity, there are only the ravings of people who bought a lie borne in grief.
What do you think Paul meant?  Or the Jews meant by resurrection?  Are you seriously proposing that it doesn’t matter if Jesus defeated death or not or are you a Buddhist that just considers death to be an illusion?

Either Jesus rose from the dead or he did not, there is not third way.  If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then I have got much better things do to with my Sunday morning that to lie to a bunch of people.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

# 52: “Most Christians think Jesus was raised, and that certainly counts for something. But countless intelligent, thoughtful, educated, good-hearted people are unconvinced (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus, among others). That counts for something too, and ought to make us sit up and pay attention.”
But what does it count for? It isn’t the Catholic faith, so it isn’t an option for authorized teachers of the Church. Phil’s words are uncomfortable but accurate. Brian is not a Christian in any recognizable New Testament, apostolic-faith sense. Neither is Schori, Bennison or a host of others. And that is the nub of the problem. This is not a judgment on people’s character, just an objective statement against the standard of the Creeds.

I think we’re beginning to see the fountainhead of the conflict in this thread.  If Christ did not rise from the dead then He was, in CS Lewis’ words, a liar or a madman.  It follows that one will not fear such a man nor see anything particularly immutable or eternally truthful in his teaching…so why not change it to suit the zeitgeist?

Bravo, Brian, your candor is refreshing even as your faithlessness distresses me.

But countless intelligent, thoughtful, educated, good-hearted people are unconvinced (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus, among others). That counts for something too, and ought to make us sit up and pay attention.
D.C., if they were convinced, they would be Christians. I’m not sure why their lack of belief has anything at all to do with my belief. I’m pretty sure that they don’t question their faiths based on what I believe. Or what you believe. The point is what Christians believe. A person who is not convinced of Christianity should not be defining it for the church.

A simply priceless thread in which some revisionists demand an accounting of “heresy” in ECUSA, the traditionalists provide it, and the revisionists scream “that’s not heresy” . . . which just goes to show.

Again . . . we don’t share the same gospel.  We don’t agree on what is the most basic reading of the creeds.  This thread is a GOLDEN example of what revisionists really mean when they say “we believe the creeds” . . .

William Witt—your list is moot.  After all . . . according to revisionists . . . none of what you mention is heresy. 

So according to the revisionists . . . “no heretics in ECUSA.”

QED. 

I hope all of us traditionalists now feel much better about the state of ECUSA!  ; > )

The evidence supporting the orthodox Christian conviction is simply weak — were it otherwise, we’d expect the rest of the world to have joined in that conviction.

I am heartily thankful that this was not the attitude of Paul and the disciples or we’d still be painting ourselves blue. Instead of thinking about the people who are not Christian, how about considering the inhospitable places Christianity has taken root and survives.

Phil

I wouldn’t use the term Christian to describe myself.  I simply follow Jesus.  As for the physical resurrection, while I see it as being of little importance, I do indeed believe in the physical, bodily resurrection.  However, that has nothing to do with following the Gospel proclaimed by Jesus.

Brian from T19, have you been studying Jehova’sa Witness theology?  You quote one of their favorite passages to abuse in order to deny the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus:

“For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit”

1 Peter 3:18

Then why did Jesus tell Mary not to cling to Him?  Can you cling to a spirit?  Was He afraid she would blow His cover as a spirit?  Of course, since you seem to work from a 3-ring loose-leaf Bible, you can just remove that and any other inconvenient passages at will.  Happy scissoring!

Phil, Sarah, Gordian, Sherri—we’re drifting off topic here, but on the subject of the resurrection, are you really as implacably indifferent to the question of truth as your comments make you seem? That sounds sadly like the old joke about economists:

A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore. The physicist says, “Let’s smash the can open with a rock.” The chemist says, “Let’s build a fire and heat the can first.” The economist says, “Let’s assume that we have a can-opener…”

At least you’re in good company: Mormons, Moonies, and Scientologists likewise organize their lives around questionable factual assertions, for which the evidence is similarly sketchy.

If you’re going to organize your life around a factional assertion, one would think you’d pick a more robust assertion than you have. If the resurrection were ever to be conclusively disproved, I wonder whether y’all would be able to cope with having your entire belief system shattered.

The Physical Resurrection is the only thing that shows death being conquered.  Without it, death still wins because death contained the person of Jesus.

Wasn’t death conquered when Jesus brought Lazarus back from the dead?  Even if we say no, then how will we be brought back?  Pretty much the same way as Lazarus.

You all have my head swimming! Everybody, including me, is swatting at gnats. In fact, I shut down got in the bed to be alone and be completely quiet, while I tried to make some sense out of all this.  Bear with me please.

The Anglican Communion is in a mess.  Even the most ardent people on both sides admit that.

Let’s start at the top.
1. +++Rowan is an intellectual Christian. This deadly AC problem cannot be solved with him “listening” any longer. To me, he is an intellectual first and a Christian leader second. I believe he is on the side of inclusion, yet he knows his way will split the communion. +++Rowan should, as it is said in many situations like this, “Lead or get out of the way.”

Whoever leads, including +++Rowan, must be resigned to the fact that the clot in the main artery of the Anglican Communion is the TEC. Should he try to be a physician and treat the clot which has moved close to the heart and probably won’t help in the long term, or a surgeon who performs a by-pass operation and take away the clogged artery, thus saving the body called the Anglican Communion?

2. At this point, a strong voice yet unspoken should lead. I believe a Bishop like N. T. Wright might bring order out of chaos. I have personally heard him standup and tell it like it is when answering a question from a homosexual who pleaded with him to say she was okay with the Lord. His answer was kindly and not condemning as he replied with Biblical wisdom, that the only way for her to be free was to repent.

3. My other choice, which might be more acceptable to the GS, but far less to the CofE would be ++Mouneer Anis.  But whoever it is, the ACC must be reconstituted with more Christian and less political members and each region must be equally represented, not by money, but by numbers of Anglican members.

4. Lambeth should be delayed for a short time, maybe six to twelve months, to allow the new ABC to get his feet on the ground and reconstitue the ACC.

Finally, I believe major treatment of a very sick Anglican Communion is the only way to save it.
Thanks for listening and please give your thoughts, but without socking it to me.

My previous post was done while you were posting.  But if Jesus did not rise, then He is a false prophet.  Important, no?

Do you know the truth, D.C? Or just facts?

Without the resurrection, there is no Christianity, there are only the ravings of people who bought a lie borne in grief.
What do you think Paul meant?  Or the Jews meant by resurrection?  Are you seriously proposing that it doesn’t matter if Jesus defeated death or not or are you a Buddhist that just considers death to be an illusion?

Either Jesus rose from the dead or he did not, there is not third way.

Phil

Christianity is creedal:

Nicene:
the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures

Apostles:

The third day He arose again from the dead.

Athanasian

He died for our salvation, descended into hell, and rose from the dead on the third day.

First, none of these creeds necessarily argues for a bodily resurrection.

Second the point of the creeds is not the resurrection or even the crucifixion, but the Incarnation. 

Since Christianity is creedal and the creeds focus on the Incarnation and Nature of Jesus, that is the focus of Christianity.

Jeffersonian

If Christ did not rise from the dead then He was, in CS Lewis’ words, a liar or a madman.

C.S. Lewis was talking about Jesus’ claim to be God Incarnate.  He was not talking about the resurrection.  The resurrection is ancillary.

Brian,
Lazarus died again.  Death was not conquered.  Death was postponed for Lazarus.  Death was conquered when Jesus destroyed it in the Resurrection.  I am glad that you believe in the physical resurrection.  My question is have you placed your faith (trust) in the resurrection?  I still say that the resurrection is essential to what Jesus teaches, else where does his authority come from?  As Paul said, the resurrection is what shows Jesus as Lord. 
D.C.  Historical proof of the Resurrection is lacking, that is true.  That is why it is called “faith.”  I trust (=faith) that God raised Jesus from the dead on the third day.  I risk my self and my life and my communion with God on the resurrection and I risk that God will reform me and remake me and give me a life qualitatively like His own.  I have experienced this new life and can attest to the power of God to change lives because He changed (and is changing) mine.

Without the Resurrection, there is no Christianity.  Without the Resurrection, then this is all a lie and I have better things to do.  If the resurrection is not important to you, then why do you call yourself a Christian?

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Milton [#64] writes: “But if Jesus did not rise, then He is a false prophet.  Important, no?”

According to the gospels, the disciples certainly didn’t act as though Jesus had predicted his resurrection on the third day. Based on that, my own tentative conjecture is this:

1. Jesus told his disciples that he’d be raised, not very shortly after his execution, but as part of the general resurrection at the end of days.

2. One or more disciples “saw” Jesus soon after his execution. We don’t know enough to say what those sightings actually were; they might have been like Elvis sightings, or they might have been like the encounters with dead relatives that several of my family members have had while wide awake.

3. The disciples weren’t at all expecting that anyone would “see” Jesus so soon, and that’s why they were terrified: they jumped to the conclusion that the last days were upon them, hence their prediction that Jesus would return Real Soon Now (which didn’t happen, of course).

Phil

else where does his authority come from?

Seriously?  I’m going out on a limb here, but I am going to go with the radical theology that says His authority comes from the fact that He is God.  Following that logic, God already has the ability to conquer death.  He doesn’t need to die to do it, He simply does it.  I certainly appreciate the resurrection, but I do not put my faith in it in the way that you are asking.  I’m a universalist.

Sherri [#65] writes: “Do you know the truth, D.C? Or just facts?”

That’s actually a great question, Sherri.

I “know” certain facts in the sense that I’m persuaded, by what I cautiously judge to be sufficient evidence, that they are indeed facts and not merely wishful thinking.

I “know” truth only in a very limited sense: I have a mental model of what’s going on in God’s creation, and (so far as I can tell) that mental model is not incoherent with the facts as I “know” them.

Obviously what I “know” is constrained by my severe human limitations.

Philip Snyder [#68] writes: “I have experienced this new life and can attest to the power of God to change lives because He changed (and is changing) mine.”

Except that adherents of other religions, whose claims are mutually exclusive with those of orthodox Christianity, have long reported similar experiences. So there’s no way to be sure what’s really changing your life.

D.C., then faith must be a near impossibility?

DC, has admitted over and over again that he believes that Jesus was a wise man that got himself crucified.  Jesus is not divine.  You all are wasting your time arguing with him and Brian.  They are not Christians in any creedal understanding.

Sherri [#73] writes “then faith must be a near impossibility?”

If by faith you mean invincible belief even in the absence of evidence, and even in the teeth of contrary evidence, then yes, that kind of faith is impossible for me.

I like the Rev. Barbara Brown Taylor’s definition of faith as an openness to truth, whatever that turns out to be. That kind of faith goes hand in hand with trust in God. I’m persuaded by the evidence that, in the long, long term, everything is going to turn out unimaginably wonderfully, and I’m trying to conduct my life as though that were true, viz., trusting that it is indeed true.

Sherri

When you are a universalist, faith means something different to you.  For obvious reasons, questions that others (such as +Nazir-Ali in the above article) can answer with certainty become more open to experience.  The difference isn’t in certainty versus uncertainty, though.  The difference lies within the relationship of God to mankind.  All of us agree that our relationship with God is broken, but the consequences of that breach change the direction of our faith.  The orthodox seek redemption through Christ so that their sin is forgiven and they may have eternal life.  Universalists don’t believe that redemption is necessary.  Therefore, we focus our faith on ways to strengthen and grow our relationship with God.  The two manifest themselves in very different ways.

I’m persuaded by the evidence that, in the long, long term, everything is going to turn out unimaginably wonderfully,

What is your evidence that it will turn out unimaginably wonderful?

Brian, put in those terms, then I have to agree with Sarah that we are of two faiths and probably should not try to share one name and one church.

Sarah’s almost always right Sherri!  I gave up fighting a long time ago.  But I do enjoy the occasional sparring in an exhibition match

Sherri [#77] asks: “What is your evidence that it will turn out unimaginably wonderful?”

Three things:

1. The most plausible explanation for the existence of anything, as opposed to nothing, is that there’s a Creator.

2. In the course of (at least) 13.7 billion years, the universe hasn’t dissolved into a puddle of randomness. This, despite the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which can be paraphrased vulgarly as “left untended,things turn to s__t.”  On the contrary: Seemingly defying all logic, the universe appears to be organizing itself, in a cosmic process in which we seem to be active nano-participants.

3. Overall, the history of the universe, and of humanity, is one of progress, of upward trends — it hasn’t been uniform progress, and the progress has often come at a terrible cost, but overall the trend line is “up,” at least as we define it.

Past performance is no guarantee of future success, as they say in the stock market. But it’s still one of the best indicators we’ve got.

(I also conjecture that (A) the Creator is using us as workers in the ongoing creation; (B) if he were going to callously cast us aside when we were no longer useful, we’d eventually figure that out; (C) that would be demotivating and thus counterproductive; (D) anyone who could create our universe would be smart enough to avoid those adverse effects; (E) therefore, it’s entirely plausible that we won’t be simply cast aside when we die. As I say, this is entirely conjecture, but it’s not inconsistent with the available evidence, such as post-mortem “encounters” that several of my relatives have had with dead family members.)

D.C. from your summary it seems that your faith requires as much *belief* without evidence as mine. Maybe more.

D. C., I know that to cite Scripture to you is like using the National Enquirer as support, but since you dispute that Jesus told His disciples that He would rise from the dead on the 3rd day, here goes:
Matthew 12:40 “for just as ‘Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster’ so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”

Matthew 16:21 From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day.

Matthew 17:22-23 And while they were gathering together in Galilee, Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men; and they will kill Him, and He will be raised up on the third day.”  And they were deeply grieved.

Matthew 20: 17-19 And as Jesus was about to go up to Jerusalem, He took the twelve disciples aside by themselves, and on the way He said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn Him to death, and will deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock and scourge and crucify Him, and on the third day He will be raised up.”

Those are just the passages from Matthew.  A few minutes would turn up many from the other Gospels.  You may argue from silence if you wish (“According to the gospels, the disciples certainly didn’t act as though Jesus had predicted his resurrection on the third day. Based on that, my own tentative conjecture is this:”), but don’t say the text of Scripture doesn’t say what it plainly does in fact say.

William Witt—your list is moot.  After all . . . according to revisionists . . . none of what you mention is heresy. 

Sarah,

Thanks, but as we all know, including those who deny that there is heresy in TEC, the word “heresy” has a historic definition.

To deny that there is heresy in TEC, to challenge those who claim there is to provide examples, and then, when such examples are provided, to respond “That’s not what I mean by heresy” is sheer Humpty-Dumptyism.

I’ve often wondered what motivation lies behind such arbitrary incoherence.  I’ve concluded the intent is to deceive.  Our worthy opponents know well the historic definition of heresy, and they know well that TEC is stockful of examples.  At the same time, they also know well that the laity are largely oblivious.  The hope is that when the laity hear the claim—“There is no heresy in TEC”—the laity will understand the term “heresy” in its historic sense, and conclude that the majority of clergy in TEC really do embrace historic Christianity.  Meanwhile, the worthy opponent has redefined “heresy” in his or her own arbitrary sense, but by not alerting the hearer of the revised definition can “fool the rubes.”

It is the same kind of logic that drove the recent HOB meeting.  I have asked why our worthy opponents have no qualms about embracing blatant deception, but have received no satisfactory answer.

To deny that there is heresy in TEC, to challenge those who claim there is to provide examples, and then, when such examples are provided, to respond “That’s not what I mean by heresy” is sheer Humpty-Dumptyism.

I’ve often wondered what motivation lies behind such arbitrary incoherence.  I’ve concluded the intent is to deceive. 

William, I have to agree with you. An interesting exercise to try is to lookup some church websites which reference heresy, and then look at the online sermons. The sermons all appear to follow historic Christianity, or at least don’t contradict it.

It appears as though they get them in the door by hanging out a sign that says “Christian Church”. They present perfectly acceptable sermons. But in the background they are running teaching series like “Saving Jesus” which are pure heresy. In some cases directly to the youth group. And running Buddhist meditation classes. And organizing New Age labyrinth walks. All under the banner of Christianity.

If they hung out a sign saying “We believe in the truth of all faiths” and taught what they really believe openly I wouldn’t really have a problem. Its the masquerading as being a Christian church which worries me.

I worry about new Christians walking into any of these progressive churches, and thinking they are receiving the historical Christian truth. I worry, because shortly after I became a Christian, I moved town and walked into the nearest church around the corner, and for 2 years I got sermons about the history of the church windows. I nearly decided to give up on the whole thing, because I thought that was all there was. I know better now.

Maybe I should have more faith. The bible promises us that God will lead us to the truth here: “11If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?”

And He led me out of that church. But I still worry about those left behind, who think they are getting Christian truth…..

Hopping into this a bit late, but…

Re: faith versus reason versus proof etc., my short answer is that faith is not the opposite of doubt, faith is the opposite of faithlessness.  For a longer take on what I think about faith and reason, see here.

As to the Resurrection… I do believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus.  However, I can’t see any reason why I shouldn’t go to the altar rail with people who believe in the Resurrection as a spiritual or metaphorical event.  I don’t agree with them on that matter, but so what?  We’re not supposed to go to the rail with enmity between us, but doctrinal disagreement is—one hopes very hard—a far thing from enmity.

However, I can’t see any reason why I shouldn’t go to the altar rail with people who believe in the Resurrection as a spiritual or metaphorical event.

Ross, I agree. We would part company I imagine when it comes to the leadership of the church.

No. 67 - Brian - I think I agree with you that the Resurrection is ancillary to the Incarnation, along with His life in general, His miracles, Crucifixion, and Ascension.  But the Resurrection does, on the other hand, explain what the Incarnation was all about.  Nobody on this thread has mentioned that He now exists in His glorified Body, as hopefully all of us will.  But Phil and others are right, it is heresy to think only in terms of a “spiritual” resurrection, if by that is meant that there is no continuity of His resurrected, glorified, Body with His physical Body prior to the Resurrection.  It is His natural Body, but it is now glorified.  Likewise the mystery of the Real Presence of His Body and Blood in the Mass are properly understood, according to the doctrine of Transubstantiation, as being His natural Body and Blood being present, but in a non-natural, sacramental, way.

RE: “As for the physical resurrection, while I see it as being of little importance, I do indeed believe in the physical, bodily resurrection.  However, that has nothing to do with following the Gospel proclaimed by Jesus.”

Of course, it has everything to do with “following the Gospel” since without the divine intervention of a “heart transplant” by Jesus Christ and the application of His atoning death on the cross to our sins, we are unable to “follow the Gospel proclaimed by Jesus.”

And ultimately following “the Gospel proclaimed by Jesus” includes submission to His proclamation of His resurrection.

But again . . . reasserters articulate one gospel, and revisionists another, leading to the two disparate gospels so brilliantly and clarifyingly illustrated on this thread.

RE: “. . . are you really as implacably indifferent to the question of truth as your comments make you seem?”

No—just implacably indifferent to scientism purporting to speak about the metaphysical.  I am just fine with folks deciding that they are going to use science to determine their beliefs about God, faith, and love.  Puts me in mind of some of Freud’s spectacular “science” about certain matters, as well as other Victorian positivists I could name.

But other than the amusement afforded by reading the positivists’ proclamations in the late 1800s about science, sex, machines that would rule the world, and the total peace that science would produce in the “new century,” I am indifferent.

RE: “Sarah, Thanks, but as we all know, including those who deny that there is heresy in TEC, the word “heresy” has a historic definition.”

William Witt—I do not think you are “living into” the spirit of my words.  For instance . . . what is this thing called “historic”?

Let me use if for you in a sentence.

“Historically, the church welcomed all gays, and therefore our stance is not heretical.”

There.  I think that safely takes care of the formerly troublesome word “historic.” 

And what is this word “deceit”—bah, *you* are “deceiving” people about the word “history” which I myself have just finished defining above.  ; > )

RE: “I have asked why our worthy opponents have no qualms about embracing blatant deception, but have received no satisfactory answer.”

It is for the good of the peasants . . . and The Cause.

Milton [#82], I’m fully aware that the gospels claimed Jesus told his disciples he’d be raised in three days. The claim, however, can’t be reconciled with the shock and disbelief the disciples reportedly experienced when some of them “encountered” him. The gospels’ claim that the disciples didn’t understand Jesus’ straightforward third-day prediction is difficult to accept (cf. Peter’s “I forbid it, Lord!!”); they might have been uneducated hoi polloi, but we have no reason to think they were stupid; quite the contrary. The logical implication is that the purported third-day prediction never happened.

Is it not essential that the resurrection cannot be separated from any of the events in Christ’s life? They are a seamless piece.

  Now I grant and we must all grant that if Christ rose in the the very flesh he died in - and this seems to be the only conclusion we can draw from the little evidence we have-  then he exists in time and space somewhere even at this minute. That is, he has dimension and cannot be a merely spiritual entity.

  Surely this is impossible; and in our universe it is. But there is another possibility that struck me as I was reading SciAm about string theory. Mind you, the theory itself is well beyond my grasp, but some things I can understand, and that is that the string supposition of many dimensions. Mankind simply has no way of perceiving them.
  Moreover, there is the sci-fi notion of alternative universes, which are by definition infinite. It is possible as a speculation that Christ’s resurrection placed Him in more than the standard four dimensions, and the result is that we have no way of perceiving him.

  But how could one reconstitute a dead body? Let me speculate again. There was a time when the x-ray was the last word in high tech, high energy suirveying of the body’s interior. Then the CAT scan and now the PET scan? Have y ou seen the results of a PET scan? They are really quite astonishing. BUt let us suppose something not too far distant from the PET scan: The scan that works at the atomic level so that every atom, scanned in a flash of a second, is located precisely. You would have a blueprint of an entire body. This is of course speculative but not science fiction, for after all, the PET scan would have been the wildest science fiction back in 1934 when I was born. But how, having such a pattern, could one reconstruct the body? Obviously, I have no idea - until someone finds a way to follow the direction: Just add water.

  My point is that there are many things we do not know that we know we do not know, and common sense suggests that such matters are given some slack precisely because for years, common sense has said, “Pooh. Impossible. Can’t possibly happen.”
And then it does.  Christ’s resurrection may not be a “miracle” after all, not in the sense that the laws of all nature are suspended for an otherwise impossible event to take place. LM

After reading all the posts since early evening, I can say positively that Christianity means very little to many posters. Why good reappraisers do you bother us who believe in Jesus Christ and in Holy Scripture and the Creeds?  Since you are so positive, PLEASE start your own religion and let the rest of us follow ours!

This has been so enlightening for now I know the enemy and can stay away from him/her.

Argue until dawn, if you like! Form your own new religion…..maybe you already have.  It is called the Episciopal Church U.S.A.

#92 Larry Morse:

As I said somewhere up above, I do believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus.  That is, I believe that the phrase “Jesus rose from the dead” is the least inaccurate way that mere human beings can state what happened, and that whatever happened it was both real and physical and unique in the history of the world.

That being said, however, I would be very cautious of thinking that we understand too well exactly what happened.  Jesus was dead, God acted, Jesus was alive in a new way… perhaps it’s best left at that.

Oldman, I likewise share your puzzlement.  The Creeds are clear enough, and although often ignored, the official doctrine of the Church (TEC) is clear enough.  Why people who clearly do not believe a word of it would want to call themselves Christian or belong to such an organization is beyond me.

Br. Michael [#95] and Oldman [#93], you certainly raise a legitimate question.

For some of us, church membership is an accident of birth, but the resulting personal attachments are important to us. We’re not going to abandon those attachments just because of disagreements over doctrine. That’d be like walking away from your extended family over a disagreement about who’s going to win the World Series. 

Actually, that’s not a bad analogy: In the long run, time will tell who will win the Series [except we know it’s not the Cubs this year; sorry, Kendall ]. Similarly, in the long run, time will tell who’s right about matters theological.

(On the subject of personal attachments: In his book The Rise of Christianity, Baylor University sociologist Rodney Stark says that studies show personal attachments to be an extremely important factor in the recruitment of outsiders to a religion, with doctrine playing a far lesser role.)

#16 Observing
Very interesting links.  Thankyou.

D. C., your “logic” (outside of a court trial, I’m sure’ in your professional work) runs in a strange, gravity-defying, uphill direction, straight to your preferred conclusion which avoids the clear direction of the text of Scripture:

The logical implication is that the purported third-day prediction never happened.

Really?  Of course the disciples understood the meaning of what Jesus was telling them about how He would suffer, die and rise from the dead on the third day.  But they couldn’t accept it until after they had seen Him risen and glorified and until their eyes were no longer prevented from recognizing Him, a clear statement in the text that you conveniently ignore in reaching your “logical” implication from silence.  They had a preconceived notion that the Messiah would overthrow the Roman occupiers and re-establish the Davidic earthly kingdom of Israel, so of course the cognitive dissonance even with Jesus’s repeated prophecies.  Our minds would no doubt have as much trouble as theirs processing and accepting the obvious, from the sheer staggering implications of it.  When Jesus instantly stilled the storm by crying “Peace, be still!”, they ask each other seemingly seriously what should be a rhetorical question with an obvious, though mind-boggling answer: “What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?”  Obvious answer, but hard to swallow even with the Man Himself living and breathing in your presence.

Also, Jesus’ risen and glorified body, though physical and recognizably of the same person as before death, still had some noticably different characteristics that made the grieving and disbelieving (not stupid) disciples fail to recognize Him until He opened their eyes figuratively.  Paul also acknowledges that our resurrection bodies will be different, though physical and recognizably of the same person before death in 1 Cor. 15.

D.C., I’m with Milton, that’s a very uphill sort of logic. If someone told you they were going to die but would come back from the dead in three days - I suspect you would be pretty surprised if it happened?

n his book The Rise of Christianity, Baylor University sociologist Rodney Stark says that studies show personal attachments to be an extremely important factor in the recruitment of outsiders to a religion, with doctrine playing a far lesser role.

I wonder how that goes, actually. I first came to the Episcopal Church at the invitation of a friend - I would have been unlikely to go otherwise. But I didn’t *stay* because of my friend. Some do, I’m sure.

Personal attachments seem to be a reason to stay when you have no other reason to stay ... and that seems strange to me. It seems to deny the seeking of the soul.

D.C. : “We have to face the facts: The evidence supporting the orthodox Christian conviction is simply weak — were it otherwise, we’d expect the rest of the world to have joined in that conviction. “

Really, DC, your lack of awareness that the world has indeed joined that conviction is appalling!  One of your advantages should be aware of the great moves of God in the world.  If you are not, if you do not believe that Christianity is the first truly worldwide faith, may I humbly suggest you do a bit of research on the growth and expansion of the Church - accomplished without the sword of Mohammed, btw. 

Where precisely did you train?

dwstroudmd [#101], I’m curious why you say that “the world has indeed joined [the orthodox Christian] conviction ....” Christians continue to be a minority of the world’s population; this site gives Christianity in all its variation an aggregate 33% “market share.”

The Great Commission has a clearly defined “business target,” namely making disciples of all the world.  In 2,000 years it hasn’t happened. We can blame the “sales force,” but that’s hardly credible when we’re looking at 20 centuries worth of sales people and their managers, all of whom have failed to hit the target. It’s not unreasonable to wonder whether they’ve simply picked the wrong product to try to sell, viz., the Nicene mutation of Christianity.

#61, D.C. you wrote:

At least you’re in good company: Mormons, Moonies, and Scientologists likewise organize their lives around questionable factual assertions, for which the evidence is similarly sketchy.

If you’re going to organize your life around a factional assertion, one would think you’d pick a more robust assertion than you have. If the resurrection were ever to be conclusively disproved, I wonder whether y’all would be able to cope with having your entire belief system shattered.

People of faith have already counted the cost, D. C. It’s not a question of prudence. The goal of faith is not to construct an inpregnable belief system. If it were, faith is a house of straw. You’re right, logic offers a better refuge from the cold winds of doubt and despair. But the goal of Christian faith is to find meaning and purpose that isn’t built upon the shifting foundations of our own efforts, even upon our most scrupulous and disinterested intellectual and moral efforts. Such meaning is only found outside of ourselves, in relationship with another; and like all meaning that arises within relationship, it is a meaning that is secured only through risk.

What kind of meaningful life can be organized around “robust factual assertions” anyway? Anyone who actually attempted to put off organizing his life till he had enough “robust factual evidence” would die intestate and insolvent and be remembered only for his triviality and sophomoric integrity. But he’d die happy, knowing no one could ever prove he was wrong. What a life!

may I humbly suggest you do a bit of research on the growth and expansion of the Church - accomplished without the sword of Mohammed, btw.

True, they only had the sword of the Roman Empire, the Inquisition, the Crusades…

Where precisely are you getting your history?

AS I recall, the sword of the Roman Empire fell more often than not ON the neck of Christians.

the crusades were in response to Muslim invasion, even though it got out of had—badly.

The inquisition, I have to give you, however, with the caveat that ‘modern scholarship’ shows it was bad, but not as bad as everyone up to now thought it was.