Comments: Mark Lawrence re-elected

Timing is everything.

Posted by Leonardo Ricardo at Saturday, 4 August 2007 at 11:00pm BST

Unless he makes his commitment to the Episcopal Church much less equivocal, he may be rejected again. Much of what he has said sounds like "Network." TEC does not need or want another Scholfield.

Posted by Andrew at Sunday, 5 August 2007 at 1:04am BST

Timing is everything?

You mean the saviour of all?

Posted by Margaret at Sunday, 5 August 2007 at 1:30am BST

I'm with you, Leonardo.

It's kind of sweet when the legalists follow, you know, the rules. I have no problem with that whatsoever. Prayers and best wishes to Bishop-elect Mark. Perhaps this is a teaching moment for the insurgency.


Posted by Jay at Sunday, 5 August 2007 at 2:27am BST

Timing is everything.
Posted by: Leonardo Ricardo on Saturday, 4 August 2007 at 11:00pm BST

And location is the rest (unless it is theater -- then it is lighting -- which is this?)

Well, the election is not exactly a surprise (Stalin couldn't have arranged it better -- I don't suppose it ever occurred to the authors of the canons that any diocese might not have more than one candidate) -- the question is whether Fr Lawrence will get the consents this time around (after even more outrageous statements and conduct on his part than the first go)

Posted by Prior Aelred at Sunday, 5 August 2007 at 2:33am BST

Is it even canonical to hold an election with only one candidate? To chose between what?

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Sunday, 5 August 2007 at 5:35am BST

"Is it even canonical to hold an election with only one candidate? To chose between what?"

So what happens when there genuinely is no second candidate?

Posted by Erika Baker at Sunday, 5 August 2007 at 2:50pm BST

No candidates?

No purple fever in the Anglican Communion these days ;=)

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Sunday, 5 August 2007 at 5:54pm BST

The issue with Lawrence is very much the same same same as before: Will he pledge to TEC via GC? Or does he dissent to the extent that two prior qualifications must be made by him in that assent, i.e., (1)What GC discerns is NOT believer alternative discernment, but NON-believer period?, plus (2)Given the frame(s) in point one, Will he lead the diocese to stay in TEC as pledged via GC and other processes, or will he lead the diocese to leave?

Anybody in eighth grade in USA can hear how his prior published comments hedge his willingness to stay in relationship with believers in TEC. Would you even date, let alone marry a guy who was talking just like this about his relationship with you, and with your family, including of course your gay brother or uncle or cousin or Dad, or your lesbian sister or aunt or Mom?

His previous comments about queer folks mostly involve the mid-range homphobias - (as loosely evaluted on the Riddle Scale, negative ranges 1 to 2, barely glimmers of negative 3). His views tell us in effect, I have nothing in particular against Those Folks, but I have nothing in particular for Them, either.

Posted by drdanfee at Sunday, 5 August 2007 at 7:05pm BST

What drdanfee said -- plus the fact that when attending the "baby bishops workshop" he publicly refused to receive communion when Presiding Bishop Katharine celebrated the Eucharist -- apparently he is already "not in communion" with the PB of his own church -- I really think South Carolina should just tell Chuck Murphy that he was right & they were wrong & announce that they are joining AMiA (which they can't as a diocese, but that is the logic of their actions)

Posted by Prior Aelred at Sunday, 5 August 2007 at 9:35pm BST

Drdanfee

Your comments about souls having nothing in particular for or against Them reminds me of Revelation 3:15-22:

"I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm — neither hot nor cold —I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

As a word of caution, overcoming in this passage is not exhorting a military victory, but rather a victory of personal mastery. It is not acting out one's aggression, but overcoming the desire to manifest aggression.

Posted by Cheryl Clough at Sunday, 5 August 2007 at 10:09pm BST

Drdanfee
I am interested in your comment:

"His previous comments about queer folks mostly involve the mid-range homphobias - (as loosely evaluted on the Riddle Scale, negative ranges 1 to 2, barely glimmers of negative 3). His views tell us in effect, I have nothing in particular against Those Folks, but I have nothing in particular for Them, either."

I wonder what the relevance is of your statement. You see the TEC is inclusive -- therefore it will include any viewpoint. If ML has this viewpoint (and I don't know if he does or not) then that is irrelevant. Inclusive means inclusive -- everything is acceptable. Otherwise it is exclusive. And the TEC has made it very clear what it thinks of exclusive thinking.

Posted by MG at Sunday, 5 August 2007 at 11:03pm BST

Thank you, MG.

Mark Lawrence said he'd work as hard to keep So. Carolina in ECUSA as ECUSA would work to stay in the AC. Fair enough. And perhaps those responding so shrilly understand ECUSA is not headed in a direction to keep it in the AC.

Mark Lawrence seems to be trying to remain faithful, in a difficult time. His commitment to Christ is encouraging.

Posted by harvard man at Monday, 6 August 2007 at 3:18am BST

I think you will have to take Mark Lawrence at his word. After all, the Bishop of Hereford is in trouble for not doing so in refusing to appoint a gay man who promised celibacy.
Also, I should hope there is no requirement to receive communion from anybody within the Church if your conscience so dictates. Man or woman. Indeed it would be a disgrace for somebody like ML to receive communion from a woman priest or bishop if he is an 'impossibilist' about women's ordination.

Posted by Neil at Monday, 6 August 2007 at 8:48am BST

Neil
Is Mark Lawrence an "impossibilist" about WO? Are there no women ordained in South Carolina? Since KJS has been accepted as a primate in the AC and is on the exec committee, one wonders how much longer any impossibilist would WANT to remain in the AC. Fr. Lawrence is clearly in a difficult and contradictory position--seeking confirmation of his episcopal legitimacy from the very people he's struggling to have declared anathema.

Posted by dmitri at Monday, 6 August 2007 at 1:02pm BST

"Inclusive means inclusive -- everything is acceptable. Otherwise it is exclusive."

As the earwig said as it fell of the cliff .......

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Monday, 6 August 2007 at 2:13pm BST

Saith Neil: Also, I should hope there is no requirement to receive communion from anybody within the Church if your conscience so dictates.

The PB is not just "anybody in the church." Refusal to be in eucharistic fellowship with the Presiding Bishop is a powerful symbolic statement that ought to be heeded carefully by the Standing Committees of the dioceses of TEC. Something along the lines of "actions speak louder than words."

Lou

Posted by Lou Poulain at Monday, 6 August 2007 at 6:24pm BST

"I think you will have to take Mark Lawrence at his word. After all, the Bishop of Hereford is in trouble for not doing so in refusing to appoint a gay man who promised celibacy."

Fortunately we don't "have to take Mark Lawrence at his word".

We will all know by his actions presently (that is if he gathers enough consents and South Carolina Standing Committé doesn't screw up a second time ;=)

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Monday, 6 August 2007 at 7:07pm BST

Lou,

And being divorced and living in a homosexual relationship is something SCs should ignore?

Posted by Chris at Monday, 6 August 2007 at 7:17pm BST

I suppose Neil's thing about receiving communion is OK if you're a protestant at a memorial meal. For me, it would be turning away Christ because I didn't like the waiter.
Even critical catholics have some sticking points.

Posted by mynsterpreost (=David Rowett) at Monday, 6 August 2007 at 10:00pm BST

Wait, DioSC followed the Canon and assuming Bishop-elect Lawrence says the right things and gets the consents of the SCs there shouldn't be any questions - he will be a "duly elected" bishop in TEC.

I mean, if we'll chirp on with that logic for Robinson (who is obviously in a gray zone as indicated by his quasi-invite to Lambeth), it seems like the same logic should hold here. Unless you make the presupposition that TEC Canon has more authority than Scripture.

Posted by Chris at Monday, 6 August 2007 at 10:02pm BST

"Inclusive means inclusive -- everything is acceptable."

Nonsense! We can be inclusive without accepting pedophiles who refuse treatment, for example. Inclusive is about meeting people where they are and bringing the love of Christ to them. Exclusive is about requiring people to comply with a particular moral code before deeming them acceptable to us and to God. WWJD? You will find the anser in the mouths of those who the Gospel tells us criticized Him. "This man eats with sinners."

Posted by Ford Elms at Monday, 6 August 2007 at 10:08pm BST

Chris asked: And being divorced and living in a homosexual relationship is something SCs should ignore?

If Mark Lawrence is not in eucharistic fellowship witht he Presiding Bishop, who was elected by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church and ratified by the House of Deputies at General Convention, then I think it raises a serious question whether the Standing Committees of the various dioceses should ratify his election. I didn't say anything about "ignoring" the issues of divorce and homosexual relationships. However your question cuts to the heart of this thing. Either one can live with the tension of differing views and interpretations within a church, or one cannot. If Mark Lawrence cannot, he may better serve his conscience and his constituency by leave TEC now and seek episcopal ordination within one of the GS provinces. He knows full well what is, and what is NOT, likely to happen at the HB meeting in September. I suspect he knows equally well his own intentions regarding his future relationship with TEC.

Lou

Posted by Lou Poulain at Monday, 6 August 2007 at 10:44pm BST

"Inclusive means inclusive -- everything is acceptable."

Actually, any line of inclusion is at the same time a line of exclusion. Notice how many people like to draw the line of inclusion in such a manner that it excludes someone juuuuuust past what ever belief or activity they hold tightly.

Posted by Chris at Monday, 6 August 2007 at 11:03pm BST

Lou said:
"Either one can live with the tension of differing views and interpretations within a church, or one cannot."

That is an oversimplification as no evangelical or conservative is demanding total agreement to a body of doctrine on every point. Even the ACN board has Anglo-catholics sitting on it.

The real question is what are the limits of diversity that a church can hold and a) still remain w/in the bounds of orthodoxy and b) still have a meaningful unity over doctrine? Surely the Communion is more than unity of belief in Christ - even the demons believe.

I'm not sure what the core doctrines needed to establish true unity entail, but certainly the Creeds, the Lambeth Quadrilateral and the 39 Articles (which are FAR more than simple historical documents!!!) provide a good starting point.

Posted by Chris at Monday, 6 August 2007 at 11:47pm BST

"Notice how many people like to draw the line of inclusion in such a manner that it excludes someone juuuuuust past what ever belief or activity they hold tightly." You're not speaking for me on that one Chris, and I think I can safely say that you're not speaking for the majority of those who post on TA. So who might you be referring to?

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Tuesday, 7 August 2007 at 12:26am BST

I prefer the idea of orthopraxy over orthodoxy - right actions over right belief. Right actions would include worship and symbolism. Theology that is Christian is too diverse now to say that the Creeds are straightforward items to believe, however they may define the line of tradition. The discussion group I attended seem to regard the 39 Articles as statements of their time and not very consistent ones. The Lambeth Quadrilateral - is it a dance?

Posted by Pluralist at Tuesday, 7 August 2007 at 3:08am BST

If Mark Lawrence had toned down what Titus One Ten once called the "whore of Babylon rhetoric" after his consecration was denied, I'd be a lot more comfortable consenting to his consecration this time. I pray that our standing committees will have the wisdom to make what might be a difficult choice - and I also pray that it won't be a difficult choice.

Posted by Weiwen at Tuesday, 7 August 2007 at 3:12am BST

"Inclusive means inclusive -- everything is acceptable."
Nonsense! We can be inclusive without accepting pedophiles who refuse treatment, for example. Inclusive is about meeting people where they are and bringing the love of Christ to them. Exclusive is about requiring people to comply with a particular moral code before deeming them acceptable to us and to God. WWJD? You will find the anser in the mouths of those who the Gospel tells us criticized Him. "This man eats with sinners."
I agree the above quote is nonsense. It is illogical. Untenable. Unbiblical. If everything is acceptable, nothing is of particular worth. To think that all things and their opposites can be included in Christ turns Him into some kind of amoral apersonal force. But you too mistake about inclusion and exclusion. If you really understood inclusion in the way you express here you would have to agree with the inclusion-as-primary-truth doctrine. Jesus said, I think ironically, I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. You, and many others, confuse invitation with inclusion. WWJD? He would offer healing and love, followed by his doxology, “go and sin no more”.

Posted by Scott Henthorn at Tuesday, 7 August 2007 at 5:38am BST

"You, and many others, confuse invitation with inclusion. WWJD? He would offer healing and love, followed by his doxology, “go and sin no more”.


Which he said only once in the whole of the NT. There are many other instances where he healed without demanding that the sinner be pure forever onwards.

I'm not saying its ok to keep going wrong in life once you've understood what you've done wrong, but we really need to stop portraying Jesus as a moral policeman.

Posted by Erika Baker at Tuesday, 7 August 2007 at 8:50am BST

""Inclusive means inclusive -- everything is acceptable."

It is true, our increasing understanding of the human condition with the help of science and psychology, has pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable. But what is so wrong with that?

In many cases this has led us to understand that what we thought to be sinful isn't sinful at all, and is truly included in God's creation.

Accepting that the earth wasn't flat didn't deny God's truth, although the church at the time feared that it would. Neither does accepting those who we have previously held to be sinful deny God's authority. It just shows that we are growing in understanding, in compassion and in love.

Posted by Erika Baker at Tuesday, 7 August 2007 at 9:15am BST

Scott - you are right but the problem is that many "liberals" have made up their own Jesus who says, "go and sin, its ok as long as you don't hurt anyone....."

The fact that the real Jesus used very exclusive language and pictures does not seem to matter to such "liberals".....they obviously think they know better.

Posted by NP at Tuesday, 7 August 2007 at 10:02am BST

"That is an oversimplification as no evangelical or conservative is demanding total agreement to a body of doctrine on every point."

Funny, because this is precisely what is heard when people try to make, what is at best tertiary issues, primary.

"Even the ACN board has Anglo-catholics sitting on it."

Now, that's more on topic. "Even..."

The schismatics aren't even acceptable to themselves.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Tuesday, 7 August 2007 at 12:01pm BST

"It is true, our increasing understanding of the human condition with the help of science and psychology, has pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable. But what is so wrong with that?"

Well, science and psychology often get it wrong. If you actually peel the onion on much of it you find the answers offered are less robust than we've been led to believe. This idea replaces the words of God with the ever changing theories of man. That's a fairly raw deal.

Rejecting the idea of Jesus not caring about morals seems to discount the doctrine of sanctification.

Posted by Chris at Tuesday, 7 August 2007 at 1:49pm BST

Erika,

The Bible never said the earth was flat.

And much of the new science, while not placing the earth at the centre of the cosmos insists that the earth would not be unless the cosmos were not just so.

Posted by Scott Henthorn at Tuesday, 7 August 2007 at 3:03pm BST

Re: placing our trust in science

It would appear TEC's science is more than a decade out of date. Here is a very interesting article from the dreaded ACI, written by Dr. Jacqueline Jenkins Keenan, detailing research over the past decade.

http://anglicancommunioninstitute.com/content/view/108/1/

Posted by Chris at Tuesday, 7 August 2007 at 3:17pm BST

Scott Henthorn,

See Lee Strobel's "The Case for Faith" for two interviews with practicing scientists on cosmology and evolution. Even men like Dr. Crick (co-discoverer of DNA's double helix structure) are conceding that after 50 years of intense research, science can't produce a better explanation than the Bible.

Posted by Chris at Tuesday, 7 August 2007 at 3:21pm BST

Chris: "Rejecting the idea of Jesus not caring about morals seems to discount the doctrine of sanctification."

It isn't that some are arguing about Jesus dismissing morality as is what is truly holy?

Do you for a minute believe that we know all that there is to know about Jesus?

Do you evangelicals EVER question yourselves?

Posted by choirboyfromhell at Tuesday, 7 August 2007 at 3:38pm BST

The problem with Bishop-elect Lawrence's views is not so much that they are evo-con in tilt. But that they participate so frequently in the new realignment spin which claims that these are the only views believers can legitimately hold as an Anglican, while often trash talking de facto and de jure any other Anglican believer's views. I doubt very much that the bishop would accept the Chicago-Lambeth Quad as a sufficient boundary/guide for being Anglican, plus his comments published might lead us to doubt that he views alternative thinking believers as anywhere near as close to God by following Jesus as he is himself.

The problem is not con-evo views in themselves - a plain spectrum of varied thinking exists in that regard, surely - and nobody is demanding that the bishop betray his own sexual orientation and embodiment in his daily life - but the new Anglican realignment vigor which leads con-evo folks to proclaim themselves the only righteous left on the face of the planet.

So far as the hot button sex stuff, which is read directly from scripture by most con-evo preachers: Either the traditional legacy beliefs about non-straight people - mostly that they are always by prior definition damaged or crippled straight people who fail to be whole and competent - are accurate - or as newish data tell us, the legacy views are increasingly revealed to be inaccurate.

So far, the data clearly suggest that there is hardly one real world competency which a straight person innately and/or potentially possesses which is innately denied by developmental sexual orientation variance to a non-straight person.

So far these changes are confined to particular domains, but research continues so stay tuned.

Posted by drdanfee at Tuesday, 7 August 2007 at 3:55pm BST

choirboyfromhell,

Absolutely I question myself and test my ideas and theology against what others are saying and in my prayer time. I don't for a minute think I know everything about Jesus. But I accept what He has revealed to us and believe the Scripture - all of it - is part of that revelation.

Posted by Chris at Tuesday, 7 August 2007 at 4:09pm BST

Dr. Crick concedes that "science can't produce a better explanation than the Bible"? Citation? (Preferably from a credible source.)

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Tuesday, 7 August 2007 at 4:59pm BST

Lapinbizarre,

That's YOUR interpretation of the posts at TA...

Posted by Chris at Tuesday, 7 August 2007 at 5:17pm BST

Scott, the anthropic principle which you appear to defend is no more a conclusive pro-creation/ID argument that a winning lottery ticket. If the electron voltage of Carbon were not as it is (as Hoyle calculated) we wouldn't be here to marvel. But that's a long way from saying that the EV of carbon was designed to get us here.

Or as the late Douglas Adams said, 'isn't it wonderful that the water in a puddle exactly fits the hole made for it?'

Posted by mynsterpreost (=David Rowett) at Tuesday, 7 August 2007 at 5:55pm BST

I'm sorry, Chris, but your last statement promoting Strobel's "Case for faith" adds nothing to this already pretty itinerant thread. Strobel's "two interviews with practicing scientists", out of the tens of thousands of "practicing scientists" out there, are meaningless. And attempting by implication to represent Francis Crick as tolerant of Biblical creationism is plain ridiculous.

"Even men like Dr. Crick" - Englishmen? Former Fellows of Churchill College, Cambridge? Discoverers of DNA? Winners of the Nobel prize for Physiology or Medicine? Bi-peds? All of the above?

Give me a break! Though I'll settle for a half-way reasoned argument.

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Tuesday, 7 August 2007 at 7:57pm BST

_the real Jesus_ (NP)

Who's that then?

Posted by Pluralist at Wednesday, 8 August 2007 at 12:50am BST

Chris - And YOUR interpretation of what you wrote is?

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Wednesday, 8 August 2007 at 12:56am BST

Did anyone else notice that Dr. Jacqueline Jenkins Keenan is a veterinarian?

Posted by JPM at Wednesday, 8 August 2007 at 1:55am BST

Chris: "in my prayer time..."

Are you questioning yourself during that time?

You have said that you do not know everything that there is to know about Christ, at least that part of that revelation as in scripture. So what about the part that has not been revealed?

Am I correct in that are you limiting Jesus's teaching to what is solely written in scripture? Nothing about the Holy Spirit being relevant in this? Or a person's justification by faith alone. Oh yes...

Article XI.

The Bible, whether we like it or not, is a work of man. That's not science, that's a fact.

Posted by choirboyfromhell at Wednesday, 8 August 2007 at 2:48am BST

mynsterpreost (=David Rowett),

Are you a Theist?

Posted by Scott Henthorn at Wednesday, 8 August 2007 at 4:47am BST

Lapinbizarre,

Perhaps I overstated Dr. Crick's comments, mea culpa. But he no doubt was at a loss to come to a scientific explanation for how life began.

"Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I swear I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts."
-Life Itself, pg. 153

But when confronted with the lack of evidence supporting evolution, Crick speculated that life on Earth came from outer space. That does nothing to solve the spontaneous generation issue inherent in evolution. It simply moves the problem to another planet while creating the problem of explaining how fragile life can survive in the vacuum and radiation of space.

I would argue the Bible gives at least as good an explanation on the origins of life as life spontaneously generating on some distant planet, find its way into space and somehow ending up here. The odds of a single amino acid forming are fairly long. When you think of the conditions needed to form multiple amino acids and somehow get them to line up to form a protein you start to think the lottery is a better bet. But to think you can get from a single protein to where we are today in only 3B years makes a number of heroic assumptions.

Posted by Chris at Wednesday, 8 August 2007 at 5:49am BST

Dr. Jacqueline Jenkins Keenan of the Anglican Communion Institute of Don Anderson fame, is a Vet...

(interestingly, her scribbeling doesn't contain anything of all that is known about sexual orientation in animals ;=)

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Wednesday, 8 August 2007 at 6:24am BST

Good question Pluralist....the real Jesus is the one you can see in the gospels!

(he is the one who talks of love, mercy, forgiveness and also judgment and punishment.....he is quite different from the person some liberals tell us about who seems to have nothing to say on sin and judgment - they are misrepresenting the real Jesus of the bible)

Posted by NP at Wednesday, 8 August 2007 at 8:54am BST

choirboyfromhell,

I never said God was limited to revealing himself in Scripture - where did you pull that idea from? But He will be consistent with it.

The Holy Spirit plays a very important role in Scripture and is still active today; the most ardent fundamentalist would agree. Justification by faith can be seen through out the Bible. Paul lays it out clearly and we see many people who's "faith was credited to them as righteousness."

Scripture was written by men who somehow with the help of the Holy Spirit were able to communicate God's message. If God can create the world and save us from sin then certainly He can use men to faithfully write down His word.

Posted by Chris at Wednesday, 8 August 2007 at 1:38pm BST

"The odds of a single amino acid forming are fairly long. When you think of the conditions needed to form multiple amino acids and somehow get them to line up to form a protein you start to think the lottery is a better bet."

And this does not constitute creation in that.......? Essentially, you seem to be saying: "The odds of this happening are pretty small, so God can't have done it this way." I kind of think the laws of probability don't altogether apply to the Almighty. Stringing together a bunch of amino acids doesn't seem outside the bounds of possibility. It's pretty soulless, I think, to assume that God must have created the universe in some fashion that you can accept and understand. I would submit that God used evolution to create us. I would submit the Big Bang is what we, from inside Creation, can see of what happened when God, allegorically, said "Let there be light!" The basic flaw, as I see it, in Creationism/ID is that these positions see modern science as something to be debunked, as denying the existence of God, possibly because science pretty conclusively shows Genesis to not be historically factual, thereby being a huge threat to any literal interpretation of at least the earlier books of Scripture. Too bad. Setting science against religion is a false dichotomy, one eagerly nurtured by fundamentalists in both camps.

Posted by Ford Elms at Wednesday, 8 August 2007 at 1:44pm BST

Lapinbizarre,

It wouldn't be an interpretation of what I wrote - it would be an explanation.

I think some people draw a line of inclusion that includes monogamous, committed SSRs but excludes open and non-committed relationships because that line lets them "in" while also showing some semblance of morality that forces others "out."

Of course for this line of inclusion to be accepted one must show a reason for why it lands where it does - otherwise claims of hypocrisy would emerge. The problem is I have not seen any formal, Scriptural argument for why monogamous, committed, (lifelong?) SSRs should be acceptable. If I haven't been paying attention please site the theological paper or study that makes this case.

My presupposition is that Scripture is the word of God and accurate as to what God desires for his people. Unless someone can make the case based on that presupposition I will not be convinced.

Posted by Chris at Wednesday, 8 August 2007 at 1:59pm BST

Ah, not the real Jesuses then, the ones who alter according to what is read, what theology has developed, what is being claimed in his name, which mirror is pointing in which direction, what cultural shifts have been made, what no longer exists outside our plausibility structures, according to some sort of mechanics of a world view that has somewhat gone by and now gets misrepresented in a hall of cracked mirrors.

Posted by Pluralist at Wednesday, 8 August 2007 at 3:23pm BST

"My presupposition is that Scripture is the word of God and accurate as to what God desires for his people."

Chris,
My problem with this is that it doesn't address the fact that Scripture is inconsistent in many areas. I have posted a link before to:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

Now, some of these things are just little nitpicky details, but some of them go to the nature of God, how God acts, and what God wants. I'm interested in how you reconcile what would seem to me to be paradoxes.

Posted by Ford Elms at Wednesday, 8 August 2007 at 3:24pm BST

Ford Elms,

Creationists may at times be anti-scientific, but not so for IDers.

Bellow is a link that has several videos on ID, the problems with Darwinism, and other philosophical/scientific subjects. The new(old) approach is to say we would never have had science without a firm grounding in theism. The vagaries of pluralism would have never produced such an orderly system.

http://www.theapologiaproject.org/video_library.htm

I forgot we were talking about Fr. Mark Lawrence. SC want him, twice they have spoken. Will you ask them to do it a third? The next time will be after September 30th. Who will be dividing from whom then? His presence in TEC will speak better for your continuance in the AC than his rejection.

How long do you think reappraisers will last once opposition is removed? Can you survive without something to react to? Reappraisal is parasitic to Orthodoxy. Without the preservation of the faith through the centuries reappraisers would have no formal objects to toy with. If you find yourselves free of us will you have enough foundation to stand on? Will you have enough in common to hold yourselves together? Novelty is an uncertain foundation.

God Bless Mark Lawence

Posted by Scott Henthorn at Wednesday, 8 August 2007 at 4:05pm BST

Pluralist,

In the mosaic of possibilities you postulate can you find one called true faith in Christ Jesus. I invite you to engage this concept. If you have a hard time understanding how, find a good Bible believing evangelical pastor to ask how. Treat them like a guru for this cult option, don’t argue, but really try to believe and ingest this worldview. See where it takes you. Try this for at least a month before you turn back on you standard responses.

Posted by Scott Henthorn at Wednesday, 8 August 2007 at 4:27pm BST

Scott inquired:
"mynsterpreost (=David Rowett), Are you a Theist?"

There are several possible replies.
1) Off Topic.

2) that is a matter for me and my confessor.

3) and most seriously. Is it not worrying that the querying of a recent and highly questionable piece of apologetic thinking (the anthropic principle) causes someone to doubt the orthodoxy of a contributor to TA?
An interesting example of doctrinal creep akin to the ConsEv absolutising of PSA. (And a good reason why there should be no new covenant nonsense - what next will we have to believe in because a consev needs it?)

I cannot personally see Barth liking the anthropic principle as an argument. Does that make him not a theist?

Posted by Mynsterpreost (=David Rowett) at Wednesday, 8 August 2007 at 5:09pm BST

Chris: "Scripture was written by men who somehow with the help of the Holy Spirit were able to communicate God's message. If God can create the world and save us from sin then certainly He can use men to faithfully write down His word."

And if the Holy Spirit were still around, then people would still by writing about God's continuing messages. When was the last time we added to the volumes that comprise scripture? (Book of Spong--just kidding) Do you seriously think that all there is to know about God is limited to scripture?- just answer that one if you would, no rhetoric please.

And I suspect that the Holy Spirit acts through us, and not through the bible. Now if man could be as faithful in interpreting His word.

Posted by choirboyfromhell at Wednesday, 8 August 2007 at 5:45pm BST

Ford,

That's a very interesting link. Thank you for posting.

1) Morgan adopts a very literalist frame in creating this list.

2) Morgan then creates room for these not being inconsistent or contradictions if one moves away from a literalist or fundamentalist frame. I would suggest that the idea of "using Scripture to interpret Scripture" addresses many of the issues here. Some basic theology around grace, faith and righteousness explains some of the inconsistencies in the list.

3) Other inconsistencies are addressed by asking the questions like "is it possible BOTH events happened?" (see the annunciation to Mary and Joseph) or "does the fact God asks someone a direct question necessarily imply He doesn't know the answer?"

4) Issues such as anger and vengeance need to be seen what falls into God's power and what He expects of us. God may be Love, but even lovers can get justifiably angry with each other. Jesus had righteous anger when he cleared the Temple, but we don't exactly get the impression he lost control.

5) Some contradictions like number counts and specific events are a bit harder to address - I don't have an easy answer and may not for some time.

Moving through the list and struggling with the questions Morgan raises would be a good exercise. I'm sure I haven't addressed every type of case in the list, so this answer is incomplete.

Posted by Chris at Wednesday, 8 August 2007 at 5:51pm BST

Scott Henthorn,
You make continual references to "you", seemingly identifying a group to which you think I belong? What is that group? What is it you think I believe? What do you think my "agenda" is? I suspect, like so many others, that you have fallen for the world view put forward by those who see this as a struggle between some good solid Christian people fighting against a pagan TEC that wants to undermine all of Christianity in its search for worldly acceptance. So, justify these statements:
"Can you survive without something to react to?"
"If you find yourselves free of us"
"Will you have enough in common to hold yourselves together?"

Who is this "you"?

And Chris, thanks. We'd need a lot more room for this discussion, I think.

Posted by Ford Elms at Wednesday, 8 August 2007 at 7:17pm BST

Chris: you are taking refuge in the sort of fudging which make the average liberal look positively inquisitional (today being St. Dominic's day).

There is no way of reconciling things like the twin accounts of the death of Judas without - at some point - saying 'we have two incompatible accounts'. Why can't you accept the plain meaning of Scripture?

Posted by Mynsterpreost (=David Rowett) at Wednesday, 8 August 2007 at 7:38pm BST

Mynsterpreost (=David Rowett),

My question came from your statement below.

Scott, the anthropic principle which you appear to defend is no more a conclusive pro-creation/ID argument that a winning lottery ticket. If the electron voltage of Carbon were not as it is (as Hoyle calculated) we wouldn't be here to marvel. But that's a long way from saying that the EV of carbon was designed to get us here.

I could see that any other response would be mere guesswork on my part and a waste of time. It seems inoffensive for me to ask if you are a theist based on your statement. You seem to be denying the Designer. I have no rack on hand to strap you too whatever answer you give. I am new to this bloging thing and am not certain it has any worth at all. I waste time and discuss with people subjects that cannot possible be hashed out in such an atomic format.

Yes I do believe God made this whole universe just so he could create creatures to fellowship with. This makes me Theo- not anthropocentric.

God Bless you all, My life calls me.

Posted by Scott Henthorn at Wednesday, 8 August 2007 at 7:47pm BST

David,

For theists, the anthropic principle says we were the result of God's plan for Creation.

For scientists, the anthropic principle says that we live on one of those planets, amongst billions of others, in the Goldilocks zone - neither too hot nor too cold - which allows life to evolve. All the chemical ingredients and atmospheric conditions were just right - 3 billion years ago - to generate the self-replicating molecules which became the simplest organisms.

Not only that, but the six fundamental consonants of the universe were finely tuned to allow life. If the numbers were different, life couldn't evolve. This suggests we live in one of billions of universes with different physical consonants.

Science tries to find the simplest(!) solution to explain a complex problem, but the origins of the universe and life on Earth, remain unsolved mysteries. It is suggested that positing an intelligent designer creates more complexity than is needed - what explains the designer and how did it evolve? Oddly enough, "a"-theist biologist Richard Dawkins has not ruled out the possibility of a supreme intelligence (which is kind of what we knew all along!).

Posted by Hugh of Lincoln at Wednesday, 8 August 2007 at 8:17pm BST

"If you find yourselves free of us will you have enough foundation to stand on?"

Not sure I understand the question. My foundation is my faith, my understanding of who Jesus Christ is and what He is saying to us today.
As someone said on this forum a while ago - even if there are just 3 of us left and a priest, it will not change anything for me.

Posted by Erika Baker at Wednesday, 8 August 2007 at 8:23pm BST

"Yes I do believe God made this whole universe just so he could create creatures to fellowship with."

As do I. What's your point?

Posted by Ford Elms at Wednesday, 8 August 2007 at 9:01pm BST

Ford,

the second half of my post was not directed to you.

In it I give the group I am writing to as Reappraisers. I think at a certain level of abstraction it is not inappropriate to draw a line between two rough groups in our communion. And I do not think the differences are minor.

You too engage in this kind of prejudice:

I suspect, like so many others, that you have fallen for the world view put forward by those who see this as a struggle between some good solid Christian people fighting against a pagan TEC that wants to undermine all of Christianity in its search for worldly acceptance.

To talk in a completely open-ended way means to be on one side of this divide.

Even though you did not say please I will try to justify my claims:

"Can you survive without something to react to?"
I am truly curious if those who undermine the basis of our faith will have anything to call substantial if there is no longer an argument. Does reappraisal only exist in the context of a debate? Will it be formed enough to exist on its own? What is it?

"If you find yourselves free of us"
TEC may find it is no longer in the present debate if a vocal Orthodox population leaves.

"Will you have enough in common to hold yourselves together?" Can pluralism hold as a center. I doubt it.

Posted by Scott Henthorn at Wednesday, 8 August 2007 at 9:16pm BST

Once we get off on the wrong foot it just carries on. I apologise for my agrosaxxon ways contributing to this.

Posted by Scott Henthorn at Thursday, 9 August 2007 at 1:27am BST

Please would commenters comment specifically about the South Carolina election...

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Thursday, 9 August 2007 at 8:36am BST

Well, I for one, still wonder how there can n o t be a requirement of at least 2 candidates to an election.

Is it even canonical?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Thursday, 9 August 2007 at 8:49am BST

Goran,
What would be uncanonical about the acclamation of the single candidate who offered himself for the position? It happens in any other election where only one candidate is available. Is it required for the unwilling to stand so that there be a "choice", however manufactured?

Posted by Ford Elms at Thursday, 9 August 2007 at 1:25pm BST

Mynsterpreost (=David Rowett),

Actually there are a number of theories that reconcile the two accounts of Judas. I've seen this one in several places:

1) Judas hanged himself, but since it was the Sabbath no one would remove the body. Later, the rope or branch he was hanging from broke, his body fell and his bowls ruptured. There's an issue with how you translate the verb that we see as "fell headlong," so some may disagree.

2) The Temple priests bought the field w/ the money they had given Judas. But, under the law of the day, Judas still owned the money and thus would have held title to the field. Basically, the priests would have bought the land on behalf of Judas - thus both groups can be said to have bought the field.

3) Two explanations for the name "The Field of Blood" are given. Perhaps two traditions developed that explained the names and Matthew and Luke recorded the tradition they encountered. If both traditions existed can you say one of the authors was inaccurate in their writing?

You can choose to reject these theories if you please. I'm just given you what others have suggested.

Posted by Chris at Thursday, 9 August 2007 at 2:38pm BST

We're wildly off course, so why not a degree or two more? I once read that during the performance of one of the passion plays (Oberammergau I think, rather than one of the English cycles, but could be wrong) the death of Judas culminated in the Devil's ripping open his stomach. This was stuffed with goodies, formed in the shape of intestines, which were gleefully ripped apart and devoured on stage by children, dressed as imps.

Sadly, edited out of modern performances.

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Thursday, 9 August 2007 at 6:47pm BST

CHris (off topic, Simon, so I'll shut up after this) your '3' is a pretty perfect summing up of mainstream critical scholarship, but phrased in such a way that the faithful don't notice it.

Posted by Mynsterpreost (=David Rowett) at Thursday, 9 August 2007 at 7:37pm BST

Lapinbizarre, nice (smiling wryly).

Posted by Chris at Thursday, 9 August 2007 at 7:50pm BST

...and the band played on.

Posted by Leonardo Ricardo at Thursday, 9 August 2007 at 8:53pm BST

T19 has a new thread on Father Jake's comments on the latest SC election. Both Fr. Jake and Mark Lawrence have participated directly in the discussion, Fr. Lawrence at some length.

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/4984/#comments

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Saturday, 11 August 2007 at 3:37pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.