Having engaged some of those who are threatening to leave the church for something 'better' I sought to engage with someone who assumed the church would be a 'better' place once those who were so disaffected had left.
This person spoke of 'tolerance' and 'unconditional love', of 'fidelity' and 'acceptance' and to be honest, the words were attractive and enticing. We needed to revise the ways we read the Bible and to see that we needed to be relevant and realistic in this twenty-first century if we were to bring Jesus into it. Or, as they put it:
"What we need to do is to see how we need to change to fit in with the world and its lifestyles and attitudes. Jesus needs to be brought up to date and the Bible to be interpreted for today so that it is relevant for today, and this means re-interpreting it and perhaps changing the taboos of old for the acceptance of the new. Jesus needs to be welcoming and supportive, not condemning and against what is these days the norm! Those who oppose suchviews are like a cancer, they eat away at the love of God by their rules and their old oppositions and condemnations."
I have to be honest, I'm not sure what's more frightening, the potential for some to leave or that some remain! On one hand we have people who will leave because of the errors before them (rather than make a stand). On the other hand we have people who are so accepting of others and their views that they will (apparently) harry and vilify any who dare to oppose them. Oddly, I see in many of these combatants nothing to separate them from the other!
It is grossly immature to say that ones support all views and lifestyles and yet so obviously (and spitefully in some cases) oppose those who hold differing views. It is arrogant (and bordering on the insane) to believe that taking up the position of, "Because we say so!" will confer any weight to a position or make it any more valid.
We are supposed to be Christians, that is 'followers of the Way that is Jesus, the Christ' and so my question is, "Why the bloody hell don't we act like it?" (I know, but that's what I feel).
When we discuss homosexuality, it might be a topic to discuss for us, but for the homosexual it's talking about who they are!
When we discuss women and ordination, we're talking about people and although for us it might just be an issue, for women who are ordained, considering a call to ordination, or just being women, it's something that's up close and personal.
When people discuss misogyny and the wicked 'high church' types they are condemning people who are merely trying (in many cases) to maintain their integrity insofar as what they believe is true regarding ecclesiology.
Whenever we attack others to defend our positions we weaken that position.
I don't believe we can exist in a church where homosexuality is supported and the minority who practice it can be ordained without destroying the integrity of the whole. It is as absurd as thinking that a vegetarian organisation can have a meat-eating section. What we have is a split church - so perhaps better to separate it and have two entities who might then discover where the mutual areas are and celebrate them rather than continue the spats, factions and divisive antics within it.
Pax
5 comments:
So you're telling us what we already know - the liberals need to be forced out of the church or we'll be gone a and you'll be left with all that the Church of England deserves.
Pity you're not a bishop but then you'd be too honest for most of the people at the top and too biblical for the revisionists and liberals below.
Thank you for your candour and courage.
Pax Vobis
Here in the Epsicopal church (U.S.), the liberal argument that you present in this post is the prevailing view, and conservatives are the ones left to wonder if they have a place in the church.
Thank you (both) for your comments.
It is certainly a sad situation and one which does need to be addressed and some resolution achieved before the Church of England finds itself become nothing more than a secular organisation who meets in building that once hosted Church!
As for the endorsement for promotion, I'll forward it to Rowan and see what happens (LOL).
On second thoughts,perhaps not - the laughing might kill him!
Like The Underground Pewster said - it it the conservatives who are being forced out - same is true here in the Southern hemisphere.
The problem is that dialogue appears to be providing space for some people to act whilst others are still expecting to talk and this situation results in people (more often the orthodox) finding moves have been made behind the scenes such that they are 'forced' out.
(wow, what a looong sentence).
We need to stand and make our position (practical and theological) known..
I was told recently that the biggest reason for support of the orthodox grouping will come when the pointyheads realise just how much money they are, and will, lose. As I understand it, liberal/revisionist churches grow by clumping like-minded together rather than evangelizing - so it is therefore a self-fulfilling demise ahead of us if the orthodox withdraw!
Post a Comment