Truly inside baseball, but anyway: What had been a trickle in the Episcopal Church of the USA may soon become a torrent:
A battle is brewing in the Episcopal Church over the Diocese of San Joaquin, which is poised to be the first diocese to secede and position itself as the “vanguard” of a new U.S. branch of Anglicanism. Home to an estimated 10,000 Episcopalians, the diocese will vote on amendments that would remove all ties to the national church at its convention Friday and next Saturday. San Joaquin Bishop John-David Schofield said the 2.2-million member Episcopal Church is “preaching and practicing heresy” with its progressive approach to homosexuality and the Bible.
In a letter to parishioners, Schofield said his diocese would remain part of the global Anglican Communion but remove itself from the Episcopal Church, its U.S. branch.
First individual churches, now an entire diocese.
So it begins: “Quid est veritas?”
Are we not all God’s children?
I’m not Episcopalian but still – sometimes I think we forget that in the end, we can all be absolved from sin, and we are all welcome in God’s house.
Or at least that’s my view anyways.
Bryan
Certainly we are all God’s children, and all are forgiven through God’s grace who actively seek forgivness.
I’ve got fewer problems with the results of this new search for the truth than for the process by which it is being sought: If we depart from scriptural authority – from what the text plainly say – then we are a scant step away from secularist relativism.
It just seems to me that as faithful people it is one thing to interpret scripture using our God-given reason, and quite another to reason ourselves out of scripture. Virtue becomes a catalogue of personal preference and righteousness is a journey of salad bar morality.
Is there good and evil in the world, and does the Creator distinguish between them? Under this process of divination the only authority is that which we ourselves prefer, and so the answer must be a qualified “maybe.”
Lex, I preface my writing by saying I believe in the 100% truth of the bible as being God’s own thoughts that he inspired men to write.
God has provided us a standard or plumb line to which all human endevor must be measured. He gave it to Moses and it is still in effect today. These commandments were summarized by Christ into 2, given in the gospels, and taken together are the encapulization of all other commandments. They in turn boil down to 1…love. Obeying these commandments is not rewarded by salvation. Salvation is a gift available apart from keeping any commandments, or offending God (sinning), save one. Matthew tells us there is 1 sin that will not be forgiven. This is not to say you have a free pass once salvation is assured. Paul tells us in Romans once reborn, you are dead to sin, so it is impossible to lose this salvation once achieved. Again, this is not a free pass to behavior that offends God. If a person continually willfully disobeys there may be a question whether or not that person was truly born again. Of course, only the individual can know their own state. It is not possible for me to know your heart, therefore, I can not know whether or not you have been born again. God isn’t interested in what you did yesterday. He is interested in what you do with the knowledge you have today.
Now, how does all this apply to the “Schism”. I think you are getting close in your reasoning as to reading into the text, rather than reading out of the text, the latter being the only way to know God’s thought…the former being a technique to inject your thought. Search the scripture, my friend for your answer. God says in Hebrews that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. That reward may well be the knowledge of what to do in your life with this or any other decision. It may be a deeper understand of of his word. In any event reading God’s thoughts is the only way to get to know him on a more personal level. Don’t rely on other peoples interpretation (including my own)…you read it and be convinced. James says unless you do that, you will be double minded, and be tossed about by any opinion that out there. Country/western song line…”you’ve got to stand for something or your fall for anything”. Stand on the word of God…it’s in your bible.
Phil,
Just to pique my own interest here, when you refer to the “Bible”, are you referring to BOTH the “Old” testament & the “New” testament, or just the old or just the new.
Understand that I’m not trying to antagonise you or anything like that at all. It’s a serious question. I ask it because so often I hear people talk about “The Bible” when they really are referring to the “New Testament”. It helps discussions immensly if folks know which sources are being referred to.
Respects,
For my own part Tim, I was taught and believe – I think as Phil does – that the whole text is divinely inspired, that the old testament is foundational to and informs the new, but that the new testament is the new covenant, and the old rules from Dueteronomy are superseded by the invocation he references to “love.”
Tim,
I can not take the bible ala carte. From Genesis to Revelation is the bible I read and rely on for God’s thoughts. I believe that contains the full revelation that God intended for us to know about him and is sufficent for us to know how to be reconciled to him. Romans says we have all sinned and fall short of the glory of God. ALL have sinned save one, Christ himself, being God incarnate.
Which version of the bible, you ask? I prefer the New Internation Version, but I rely on several versions to garner a fuller understanding. There are versions I avoid, one being used by Jehovah Whitnesses own version unique to themselves. Also, I do not consider the Book of Morman to be part of the bible. It is it’s own text and I do not put it in the standing as the bible. I do not believe it’s text was inspired by God. I do engage in conversation with the above demoninations when they come to the door, but in the end we part agreeing to disagree.
It’s hard to believe that the leaders of the American Episcopal church thought that they could go on reinventing the denomination forever with no serious consequences.
“And they that soweth the wind, shall reap the whirlwind.”
Lex,
I think you might like this blog by an Episcopal priest in Raleigh, NC.
http://anglicancentrist.blogspot.com/
John
quid est? in vino!
come on back across the Rubicon big guy, we’ll be waiting for ya in Rome…
This sinner ain’t entering any Old/New Testament discussions but this hit me in the face a couple weeks back:
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4990
Being a snapper and all I haven’t forgotten it and I don’t mean to pile on Lex…
B2
I you cross the Rubicon, don’t forget to bring that “fifth” you mentioned in a previous post.
Us mackerel snappers have a few orthodoxy issues we’re dealing with…
Quo vadis?