Here is an interesting essay from Fr. John-Julian Swanson, founder of the Order of Julian of Norwich, on the mystical nature of Christ. This comes via Fr. Jakes Stops the World.
How can we say this and not be Universalists (with a presupposition that Universalism is incorrect, rightly or wrongly)? How do we consider what Fr. John-Julian has written juxtaposed with John 14:5-7:

Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?” Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

Money quote, perhaps: “That same Jesus Christ died not for some, but for all, and he has brought the potential for the fullness of salvation to every human soul…”

Continue reading →

Timaeus by: Plato

“We must, then, in my opinion, first of all make the following distinction: What is that which always is and is untouched by becoming? — and what is always in a state of coming-to-be but never is? Now that which intelligence grasps by way of a rational account is what always is self-identically; while that which is the object of belief by way of non-reasoning sense-perception is that which is coming into being and perishing but never in the proper sense is. Everything, though, that is coming into being must necessarily come into being by the agency of some cause; for it is absolutely impossible that anything should be in a state of coming-to-be apart form some cause.”

An interesting post and article on Pontifications about the use the term “Godself” as a non-gender specific variant of the the traditional pronoun “himself.” I could say, rather: the attempted enforcement of political-correctness by a small group of people who think that refering to God in the masculine encourages violence to women – or even wife-beating, so says some Church of England clergy. As the Ponficator writes, send in the folks of Monty Python – this is all getting a bit silly.
Read the article.
via Titusonenine
On the other hand, this need among some to make sure that we never refer to God in any way but the masculine is equally problematic, and in my humble opinion absurd. God, in creating us in His/Her/Godsown image, created us male and female. Doesn’t that suggest that God is both and neither exclusively?
I tend to think that we simply cannot competently or correctly demand God be what we want God to be. I may use “He,” with a capital H, but that doesn’t mean I must believe God is completely male. It doesn’t mean I cannot accommodate those who refer to God in the feminine, except maybe when those other people insist that the only way I can refer to God is the way they demand I refer to God. Ya know what I mean? God is my father in heaven, therefore I image God in the masculine, but that’s just me.

This is a good story sent to my seminary class’ Internet group – by Renee Feener, a classmate and now priest at the Cathedral in St. Louis (a great woman!). What I like about the story most of all is the creativity of the professor – whatever it takes to get this stuff across to the next generation. The story itself is somewhat hokie, but good nevertheless.
—– The story…
There was a certain professor of religion named Dr. Christianson, a studious man who taught at a small college in the western United States. Dr. Christianson taught a required course in Christianity at this particular institution. Every student was required to take this course regardless of his or her major.
Although Dr. Christianson tried hard to communicate the essence of the Gospel in his class, he found that most of his students looked upon the course as nothing more than required drudgery. Despite his best efforts, most students refused to take Christianity seriously. This year Dr. Christianson had a special student named Steve. Steve was only a freshman, but was studying with the intent of going on to Seminary. Steve was popular, well liked and an imposing physical specimen. He was the starting center on the school football team and the best student in the class.
One day, Dr. Christianson asked Steve to stay after class so he could talk with him. “How many push-ups can you do?” Steve said, “I do about 200 every night.”
“200? That’s pretty good, Steve,” Dr. Christianson said. “Do you think you could do 300?”

Continue reading →

I’ve finished reading The Last Word by N.T. Wright. Very good, and while Wright tends toward the more traditional, his comments put both liberals and conservatives in their place, as any good Anglican might do.

“Biblical scholarship needs to be free to explore different meanings. This is not just the imperative of the modern scholar, always to be coming up with new theories in order to gain promotion or tenure in the university. It is also a vital necessity for the church. Any church, not least those that pride themselves on being ‘biblical,’ needs to be open to new understandings of the Bible itself. This is the only way to avoid being blown this way or that by winds of fashion, or trapped in one’s own partial readings and distorted traditions while imagining that they are full and accurate account of ‘what the Bible says.’ At the same time, however, biblical scholarship, if it is to serve the church and not merely thumb its nose at cherished points of view, needs to be constrained by loyalty to the Christian community through time and space. When a biblical scholar, or any theologian, wishes to propose a new way of looking at a well-known topic, he or she ought to sense an obligation to explain to the wider community the ways in which the fresh insight builds up, rather than threatens, the mission and life of the church.
“Such a statement will provide protests – some of which will simply indicate that the protesters are still living within the modernist paradigm, and pretending to an illusory detached ‘neutrality.’ Of course, the church has sometimes gotten it wrong, and tried to demand of its scholars an adherence to various forms of words, to ways of putting things, which ought themselves to be challenged on the basis of scripture itself. The Christian ‘rule of faith’ does not, in fact, stifle scholarship; even if it provokes the scholar to try to articulate that rule with greater accuracy and elegance, that itself will be a worthy task. Those who try to cut loose, however, discover sooner or later that when you abandon one framework of ideas you do not live thereafter in a wilderness, without any framework at all. You quickly substitute another, perhaps some philosophical scheme of thought. Likewise, those who ignore one community of discourse (say, the church) are inevitably loyal to another (perhaps some scholarly guild, or some drift on currently fashionable theology).”
(N.T. Wright, The Last Word, p.135-136)

Some important theological work is going on by The Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission (IATDC) concerning communion – what it means, how we abide within it, etc. I have heard it often said the Anglicanism presents no unique theological perspectives to world Christianity. I don’t think I agree with that, although perhaps our contribution is the way we approach the issues rather than making declarative statements pertaining to the issues.
Some of the work being done now, however, shows great potential for an Anglican contribution to world Christianity’s understanding of issues pertaining to communion.
There are four Key Questions presented by the commission:

Following the publication of The Virginia Report in 1997, the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission has been charged to study “The nature, basis and sustaining of communion in the Church, with particular reference to the Anglican Communion”. Four questions have been identified which appear to underlie this issue:
1. When we speak of the Anglican Communion, what do we mean by the word “communion”?
2. What is it that makes some disputes so crucial that failure to resolve them threatens a break in communion?
3. In what ways are Christian teachings about moral behavior integral to the maintenance of communion?
4. In answering these questions we shall be asking how far does the Virginia Report meet the relevant situations that have arisen in the Anglican Communion since its publication?

There are six Propositions that they offer for consideration. These are more detailed and well worth a read-through if these issues are of interest.

Anglican Evangelicalism is different than “American Evangelicalism.” Losts can be said concerning the differences. One of the primary differences is that Anglican Evangelicalism still finds itself resting squarely in a sacramental and liturgical “catholicism.” Some refer to it as “Reformed Catholicism.”
Within the current theological/cultural wars between the “orthodox” and the “heterodox,” much of Evangelicalism, whether Anglican or American, is seen as a movement always against something. The image presented, I assume unintended, is negative, angry, bitter, and oppressive.
Stephen Kuhrt, Curate of Christ Church, New Malden and Administrative Secretary of Fulcrum, writes about what Evangelicalism has been doing and what it needs to do. Basically, he says that liberal theologians find problems and holes in “orthodox” theology and deal with them. Their conclusions or reformulations may be completely incorrect, but they do legitimately find problems. Evangelicals have been responding defensively and simply retorting that liberals are heretics who have capitulated to the culture at large and who wish to diminish the faith. Kuhrt says that Evangelicals need to respond differently, and an example of the good response can be found in the theology and writings of N.T. Wright. At one point towards the end, Kuhrt calls this process “Open Evangelicalism.” I like it!
Here is the link to Kuhrt’s essay. It is short and interesting.

Continue reading →