I’m Chalcedon compliant! Boy, is that ever a relief!
You scored as Chalcedon compliant. You are Chalcedon compliant. Congratulations, you’re not a heretic. You believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man and like us in every respect, apart from sin. Officially approved in 451.
Are you a heretic? |
From the New York Times:
Mark Hallett, a researcher with the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, said, “Free will does exist, but it’s a perception, not a power or a driving force. People experience free will. They have the sense they are free.
“The more you scrutinize it, the more you realize you don’t have it,†he said.
That is hardly a new thought. The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said, as Einstein paraphrased it, that “a human can very well do what he wants, but cannot will what he wants.â€
Einstein, among others, found that a comforting idea. “This knowledge of the non-freedom of the will protects me from losing my good humor and taking much too seriously myself and my fellow humans as acting and judging individuals,†he said.
Via: Titusonenine
I’m thinking that a primary aspect of a peaceable life has been lost to us through however many years passing up to this year of 2007. We have lost our ability to be patient and to bear with one another through times of trouble and disagreement.
This post is very wordy, I know. Just don’t have the time to tighten it up.
We have also lost our perspective concerning time. All things must be resolved, NOW. We must defeat our enemies, NOW. We must force through our pet legislation, NOW. We must purge from our churches those people and their beliefs that we perceive as apostate and heretical, NOW. We must make everyone Westernized and love democracy NOW. No compromise.
I made a comment on TItusonenine yesterday about realizing that God’s truth will be realized in time, particularly concerning the whole gay issue within Anglicanism that we’ve been fighting over for the past three years and whether this “innovation” is of God or just apostasy. This can be applied to all the theological “innovations” that are sweeping through The Episcopal Church right now. I read in Acts yesterday morning about Gamilial and his recommendation to the Sanhedrin that they should just wait and see what happens to these followers of Jesus and the “troubles” they were causing. Gamilial gave two examples of earlier men and their movements and how once the leader was killed, the movement died. He said that the leaders of Israel should just wait – if this man Jesus is like the others, then his movement will die now that he is dead. If this is truly a move of God, then the members of the Sanhedrin will find themselves fighting against God and will surely lose. Being this way, taking this attitude, is risking and impatient and fearful people cannot do it. The leaders of Israel did not head Gamilial’s advice.
A women responded and said that if these theological and practical “innovations” were the work of the Holy Spirit then all the controversy should have died down by now. Since it hasn’t, then it can’t be a move of the Holy Spirit. Three years? Her perspective and her allowance of time for consideration and resolution have been shrunk to three years. What can be said?
We no longer want to use persuasion to convince others of the supposed superiority of our position or argument, because that takes to much time. We revert to coercion to get our way.
When the time frame for change shrinks from centuries or decades or years to NOW, we loose perspective and we begin to see other human beings only as obstacles to achieving our wants or goals. We lose the ability to be patient, kind, and generous. We are no longer willing to bear with one another as we work through problems together, so we lose the whole concept of iron-sharpens-iron and instead seek to simply impose our will on all others because that way is more expedient. This dynamic is born out in all our perspectives – liberal or conservative – it is a problem of our time, period.
What this also means is that the challenges to our arguments are ignored or put down and the veracity of our arguments is impoverished. There is no longer any need to think through our ideas, to consider possible problems with our thought processes or our plans. Our perspective shrinks to the now, to achieving our end goal now and the means are of little consideration.
That which is truly significant is worthy of taking the time to persuade, to bear with those who disagree, to listen and consider problems in our own thoughts and goals, and to see that the end of our efforts may well be realized far beyond our lifetimes. As much as we want resolution and satisfaction NOW, possibly because we are so overwhelmed with daily life and cannot take the effort needed to persuade and bear with one another, true and honest solutions to our problems will only come with time, patience, and forbearance. A peaceable life only comes after honest peace is achieved.
We do not take the time to understand the Arab cultures and Islamic religious followers. We do not take the time for careful diplomacy and persuasion. We do not take the time for careful planning nor listening to those with differing opinions concerning things like, well, what happens after we topple a dictator. We would rather coerce nations and states to do as we see fit, because of course we know best.
We don’t take the time to persuade those who disagree with our biblical interpretation or understanding of tradition or our reasoning behind our position. We do not take the time to bear with the weaker brother, or to pray and allow God to work out His will, or to allow for the fact that our perspectives could be wrong. It takes too much time to understand the position of our “enemy” to where we could argue their point as well as our own, to walk in their shoes, if you will. It all takes too much time and effort. Just do as I say, NOW! I’m right and don’t challenge me!
All this does is bread contempt, hubris, and oppression. We need to bear with one another in love. Our time perspective needs to be elongated. We need to heed to the process of time and make every effort to persuade, not coercive. If the veracity of our argument is true and deep and sure, it will prevail. It will prevail over time, even if not NOW.
As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.” (Ephesians 4:1-3)
Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. Colossians 3:12-14
In reading this essay by Rev’d Dr. Leander Harding, particularly the beginning paragraphs, I remember so many of the reasons why I, as a former Pentecostal/American-Evangelical, came into this Anglican expression of the Christian faith, and why I remain and relish it so much. I remain an Evangelical, I retain Pentecostal sympathies, and I am becoming more and more a Catholic.
I am reading a book right now of a dialogue between Process theologians (“liberalâ€) and Free-Will Theist theologians (“Arminian-Evangelicalâ€). All I can say is that I am not one who is attracted to Process or Naturalist theology. My fear in all of our troubles is that there are those who would not acquiesce to such a dialogue even taking place and who would forestall such a debate because it isn’t what we already believe to be the True faith. What I see in play all too often is the worst of the tradition I left as I entered into Anglicanism.
All of us at one time or another have spouted off some heresy or another. I read this morning in the book of Acts about Gamaliel suggesting to the Sanhedrin that they simply wait to see what happens. If these guys who speak in this name are not of God, the will die away. If they are, then the Jewish elders and teachers will find themselves fighting against God. As we know, they didn’t listen. Can we head Gamaliel’s suggestion, today concern such things as women’s ordination or gay inclusion or other stuff? Anglicanism seems to have over the centuries past.
All of the “innovative†theologies that pass here and there will come and go, and in time those that are of God will remain and those that are not, will not. Over time, and time that is not measured in just a few years, people will go to where they are brought into relationship with the living God. The full and absolutely Truth of God is not to be found in any one particular Christian theology or form of worship, no matter how comforting it is to think otherwise. That isn’t a relativistic statement, but the realization that we generally get things wrong (councils err) and that in time God brings all things into His will as He reconciles all things unto Himself. God’s economy of time is not ours’ – a thousand years is as a day and all that.
I am so thrilled I found Anglicanism. I will recommend it to anyone! I am also thrilled that God has called me to be a priest in this Church, even though like Harding I was dismayed by much of what was espoused at the last General Convention ’07 – both from the liberal and conservative sides, I might add. God will have the day! Why do I need to work myself into a lather? I remain a follower of Jesus Christ, despite what some might say about me. I rest in His ability to bring all things to fruition and make all things right.
Via: Titusonenine
HAPPY NEW YEAR! It is hard to believe that yet another year has passed by.
General ramblings and thoughts as I get out of bed on January 1, 2007:
Well, the death of former President Ford has given the Episcopal Church some press that doesn’t revolve around gays in the Church and foreign Primates invading this province at the invitation of certain parishes and diocese. Despite what side of the troubles one might be on, there is recognition that with these kinds of things we do well.
I had New Years Eve dinner with Ashton and Peaches last night in Manhattan. After a lot of discussion of movies and Broadway (more Ashton and Peaches), we ended up talking about society and religious experiences (more Peaches and me, Peaches grew up in a Manhattan Episcopal Church). She made a comment that I thought was quite good concerning belief in such things as the birth of Jesus by a virgin – Mary. Considering the admittance that there are vast amounts of things we are yet to learn or understand in the universe and given that within that vast space there might be something like “God” or “miraculous happenings,” she said that those who cannot believe in such a thing as a virgin birth should consider the fact that we humans can now accomplish such a thing. A virgin can in fact become pregnant and give birth, and if that is possible by the efforts of very limited humans how is it then such a stretch to think that God could have accomplished the same thing? I had never through about artificial insemination as a possibility for a “virgin birth.”
Considering adherence to such things as the birth of Jesus by a virgin, I am reading a new book entitled: Searching for an Adequate God: A Dialogue between Process and Free Will Theists. Since I grew up within a denomination that is predominately Arminian, Free-Will Theism – otherwise known as Open(ness) Theism – makes sense to me. I do not and probably will never agree with a good number of positions held within Process Theology.
Anyway, in the first essay by Process theologian David Ray Griffin, he presents the idea of dogma divided into three groups: Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary doctrines. Primary doctrines of the Christian Faith, according to Griffin, are: 1. God, the creator of the universe, is loving; 2. the world is therefore essentially good, although it is now filled with evil; 3. it is God’s purpose to overcome this evil; 4. this overcoming will include a salvation for us in a life beyond bodily death; and 5. God has revealed these truths and acted decisively to realize the divine purposes in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. (p.8)
Over time there developed Secondary doctrines to support the validity of the Primary doctrines, and Tertiary doctrines where devised as a third layer to support the Secondary doctrines. For example, the virgin birth of Jesus and the immaculate conception of Mary are considered secondary doctrines by Griffin that speak to the sinlessness of Jesus in relation to the development of doctrines of “original sin.” Griffin goes on to give additional examples of Secondary and Tertiary doctrines, such as the Trinity hammered out at Nicea and Constantinople, transubstantiation, divine impassibility, omnipotence, and predestination – all of which were developed over time in order to support the Primary doctrines.
I like the idea of the primary doctrines, which Griffin claims most all Christians of whatever stripe can agree to. Griffin says that problems occur when different groups elevate the importance and necessity of Secondary and Tertiary doctrines for defining who is and who is not really a Christian. He says that the differences between the Primary and the Secondary/Tertiary are vital as we attempt to explain the Good News to new and different societies or periods of time (he wrote “redefine”). Think about the looming battles between “Modernist Christians” and “Post-Modernist Christians”! What must we absolutely declare as necessary and essential as a starting point or foundation for Christian belief?
I suppose we can all agree on the “essentials” – those Primary doctrines presented above. But, what happens after those? I agree that too many of us want to demand that our pet doctrines are essential for defining the faith. We fight wars over such things – physical, verbal, and mental. Imagine that.
Is it essential to believe in double predestination to be a Christian? Some have told me that it is, and anything else is heresy and excludes their adherents from the faith. Okay. I’ve been unchurched over other issues, too. Anyway, Griffin’s comments are a good instigator of thought to ponder whether one claims Process theology or not. What is truly essential and necessary and how might we bring ancillary or extemporaneous things/issues into the equation erroneously?