16 Responses to “Episco-Muslim priest deposed”

1. José Says:
   April 2nd, 2009 at 5:15 pm

   Interesting to see what a traditionalist Episcopalian theologian said about this case:

   “But what’s at stake is central to the church, he said. ‘To be a Christian is to be a Trinitarian and worship Jesus. If we’re not clear on that, we have nothing to offer in our witness.’”

   It’s fine with me that the ECUSA says you can’t be both Muslim and Christian, but we also ought to be clear that you can’t be polytheistic and Christian. At least let’s acknowledge that Muslims are monotheistic, and they hold Jesus in special regard as well.

2. David Duke Says:
   April 3rd, 2009 at 9:53 am

   “To be a Christian is to be a Trinitarian and worship Jesus. If we’re not clear on that, we have nothing to offer in our witness.”

   I think Peter and Paul would have been surprised at this, since the Trinity idea did evolve and become “official doctrine” of the Catholic church until a couple centuries after they were dead.

3. David Duke Says:
   April 3rd, 2009 at 9:54 am

   *”didn’t evolve”*

4. José Says:
   April 3rd, 2009 at 10:45 am

   When you recall that P&P were fallible mortals– fully human, not at all divine– then why would one expect them to be anything but amazed at the state of the Christian faith, two thousand years later? That alone would not prove us wrong today. Don’t get me wrong, I admire the disciples, but they seem an awfully dense bunch in many Gospel stories.

   David’s comment is a great idea for a parlor game. What would it be like if we could transport the early leaders of the church forward? After seeing the excesses of the Roman Catholic Church, Inc., would St. Peter have been as patient as Martin Luther? Imagine a theological discussion between Paul and a modern theologian– Barth, Tillich, Bultmann, Ogden. It could be fireworks! Better yet, have Paul debate the Gospel message with Paige Patterson or Pat Robertson or Jimmy Swaggart or James Dobson. “No, Paul, what you REALLY meant in the letter to the Galatians was…”

   And then think about what Paul would think of Joseph Smith and his fantastic story? My guess is that Paul would either explode with apoplexy or walk away muttering in exasperation.

5. Caleb Powers Says:
   April 4th, 2009 at 12:35 pm

   I’d love to be there to play your parlour game, Jose. I’d add to it the author (now unknown) of the gnostic Gospel of Thomas as well. It would be fun to hear him (or her) recite zen-like koans in response to the logical arguments of Barth and Bultmann. Tillich might like it; I know my old professor Helmut Koester would.

6. David Duke Says:
   April 6th, 2009 at 11:45 am

   The only issue I have with your “parlor game” is that Peter and Paul were both duly ordained apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, which would make them the only ones in your 2nd paragraph with any authority whatsoever. Thus, what they said would be doctrine while the ideas of the others would only be best guesses. The fact that they were apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, called directly by him, should give you pause when you call them dense, Jose. Yes, they were fallible, as are all men, but they had authority given them by the Lord, and were faithful throughout their lives. But hey, since they lived in such ancient times, we must be much more intelligent, right?

   As for Joseph Smith’s fantastic story, which part of it doesn’t fit with Biblical Christianity: The visions? The revelations? Yeah, none of that ever happened to those in the Bible, did they? I find it pretty hilarious that Joseph’s “stories” are found to be fantastic, yet types of all of it can be found in biblical Christianity. All of that stuff is OK for the ancient Christians, but we’re too smart and advanced for God to speak to us today, huh?

   What would you have said about Peter, Jose, when he came to you about his “fantastic” dream regarding a sheet coming down from heaven to explain to him what was clean and unclean? Would that have been just too “fantastic” for you also?

7. Caleb Powers Says:
   April 6th, 2009 at 12:38 pm

   David, I suspect that it’s all in whose ox is being gored. You’re quite willing to believe that Joseph had a modern vision when the Joseph is Joseph Smith; I suspect you’d be a bit more skeptical if it were a Joseph you’d never heard of, and with whose vision you didn’t agree.

   And that ultimately describes organized religion: We each believe in the extraordinary things recognized by our own group, but are less likely to believe those things proposed by others with whose views we don’t agree.

8. Caleb Powers Says:
   April 6th, 2009 at 12:44 pm

   And, to use your own example, David, the only source we have for the story of Peter’s dream is the book of Acts, which is not generally considered very accurate on historical points; one of my seminary professors referred to it as the world’s first science fiction novel. I’m not saying the dream didn’t occur, but just like I’ve criticised various modern religious groups for having religious revelations at exactly the right time to suit their practical or legal needs, one might observe that Peter’s dream is reported only in the Luke-Acts source, specifically addressed to non-Jews, a group who wouldn’t have wanted to be bound by the Jewish kosher laws, just at the time that Christianity was taking off among that group. Nice timing.

   I, for one, am just as skeptical about ancient revelations as I am about modern ones.

9. David Duke Says:
   April 6th, 2009 at 7:40 pm

   At least you’re consistent, Caleb! However, it saddens me that you don’t see the obviously way that our Father has given us to tell the difference. That is simply the ministry of the Holy Ghost. He tells us if something is true or not.

   However, when I speak of visions or revelations it can become confusing because many people have had visions and revelations that really have nothing to do with organized religion. For example, my mother is quite a visionary person. While in prayer with my father regarding if they should take a job in Brazil for a period of time, or one in the state of Washington, she was answered that they should go to Washington because a young boy would be born there that was to be part of their family. They faithfully followed the answer to prayer and I was adopted by them shortly thereafter. You may call that “self-fulfilling prophecy” but my mother would not. She also, as my wife walked through their front door into the kitchen, looked up and said in a matter of fact way, “You are pregnant. I see a young red-headed girl following you right now.” My wife and I did not even know she was pregnant, but we made an appointment the next day and found out she was a few weeks along, and yes, our daughter has red hair. That is the type of “vision” that is personal and happens more regularly than I think we know.

   A vision that is to be used to direct the Lord’s church, however, can only come to one person, that person who has been called and ordained by God to direct his church. It is a pattern we find in the Bible. Joshua, for example, did not receive direction to lead the people of Israel until Moses was dead and he had been named prophet. To do so would have been outside of the pattern of God.

   Using the exampe of Peter again, and assuming it actually happened, why did the vision come to him? Because he was the leader of the church and the senior apostle. It would have not come to James or John.

   I hope you’ll forgive me of this, as your church is obviously a “breakoff” of Catholicism, but that is one reason why I cannot understand why one would believe in the Catholic church, other than the reason of family tradition. The supposed second “pope” was Linus, bishop of Rome, who had been chosen by Peter (of course) and successive popes have had that same title. The thing is, an apostle is of higher authority than any bishop of the church and the apostle John was still alive at this supposed succession of authority. How can a bishop, be they of Rome or anywhere, be the leader of the church when an apostle is still alive? This has nothing to do with visions, per se, but it does have to do with order in the church. (I know that was a tangent, but it’s always been a question of mine. Perhaps you can explain it better than those I have previously asked.)

   Be that as it may, I am not skeptical of revelations or visions when they are used to direct those over whom the receiver has authority. I may receive revelation to direct my own family, for example, or to receive revelation as to how to direct those under my authority in my priesthood calling (the young women and their leaders of my stake)but I would have no authority to receive revelation for my neighbor or for my ward (parish). That is the responsibility of my neighbor and my bishop repectively. My bishop has no right to revelation regarding the stake (diocese) as a whole, as that right belongs to our stake president and so it goes…

   As for the timing of revelations, have you ever considered, Caleb, that the Lord sometimes reveals to us those things we are ready to receive? Just a thought.

10. Caleb Powers Says:
    April 7th, 2009 at 10:28 am

    As you note, David, the Episcopal Church, as the local branch of the Anglican Communion, began as that portion of the Roman church located in Great Britain. While everyone simplifies history by saying that we broke from Rome in order to grant Henry VIII a divorce, this is like saying that World War I broke out solely because of an assassination in Serbia. The forces that split the English church from the Roman were as complex as those leading to the first world war, and the royal lineage issue was merely the spark that set it off, like the assassination in Sarajevo was the spark that set the world at war. Our philosophical differences with Rome go back at least to St. Columba (who, speaking of visions, was apparently the first person to record having seen the Loch Ness Monster). The English church was always flavored more with the Celtic version of Christianity than the Roman.

    But, despite our differences with the Roman establishment, yes, we do consider ourselves catholic (with a small c), in the sense that we believe that our little corner of the theological world is in the apostolic succession, and therefore, that our duly appointed bishops have the authority to make policy. And, when it comes to the development of Christianity among English speaking people, we take a back seat to no one. One of our first projects was producing a translation of the Bible in English that was both accurate and readable. The result was the King James Version of the Bible, which has arguably affected both the English language and the spirituality of English speakers more than any other book ever published. Another of our first projects was translating the Roman mass into English and creating a service book for use in that language. The result was the original Book of Common Prayer, arguably the second most influential book in the English language, the basis for the worship services not only of our own denomination, but those of the Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, and most other “liturgical” denominations. I fear we have had little influence on the Baptists, other than their use of our translation of the bible. Each of these things was a cutting edge issue at the time. The Catholics had burned people at the stake for translating the Bible into English, and Foxe’s Book of Martyrs is full of the tales of Anglicans who met that fate. And, the Roman church didn’t allow mass to be said in the vernacular until after Vatican II in the 1960s.

    Now, were the decisions to translate the Bible and the mass into English revelations from God? Maybe, though we certainly don’t frame them that way. There had been a desire among English speaking people for years to have church services in their own language, and the rising rate of literacy, coupled with the advent of the printing press, created a hunger for affordable editions of the Bible in the English language. The break from Rome was the political event that made these possible, and yes, we jumped on the chance with both feet. What we didn’t do was announce that someone had had a big vision and that God, who had LOVED the Latin mass in the past, now didn’t much care for it, and liked the Book of Common Prayer a lot better. That’s the sort of thing I object to. I suspect the same thing occurred to Peter, if indeed he was the head of the early church. He knew that most of his converts were gentiles, who didn’t follow the Jewish dietary laws, and didn’t want to. What he, or whomever was in charge, did, we don’t know, other than two things: We know that after some point, the early Christians did not follow the Jewish dietary laws, and we know that the author of the Acts account of Peter’s vision (written years after Peter’s death, no doubt) felt compelled to write something theological, rather than just saying they changed the rules.

    I guess what I’m really saying is that if you have an agreed-upon establishment in a religious organization, and that group decides to change the rules, they don’t need to add layers of frippery on top of it. They need to just say they’re changing the rules.

11. David Duke Says:
    April 8th, 2009 at 2:09 pm

    Caleb,

    Thank you so much for your explanation. While you know very well that I believe the LDS church to be a authoritative restoration of the church established by Christ, I want you to know that I also have much respect for those early Christians who fought for what they believed in and I know that the Anglican church did much to establish Christianity throughout the world. No one can take that from your church, or from the other Protestant churches that were established. My own g-g-g-g-grandfather was a Methodist preacher before hearing the Mormon missionaries in New York and converting.

    I do wonder at your last few statements however. You seem to think that any time there is a claim of revelation as pertaining to the church that it is just “convenient.” My question to you is, do you believe that revelation (ancient or modern) is possible? How did God communicate with his prophets of old if not by this means? How would he communicate with us now, if not by revelation?

12. Caleb Powers Says:
    April 8th, 2009 at 2:39 pm

    I suppose that I consider revelation to be a slower and more mundane process. I think that there have always been “prophets” in the biblical sense, who have pointed out what was right to do in given situations. I think that the Bible gives us the means of testing these folks’ revelations, that is, do they bear good fruit, and are they consistent with the teaching of the church.

    Sometimes, perhaps, revelation can come from circumstance. The Episcopal Church probably did little to further the interests of black Americans prior to the 1930s and ’40s. But as society became more open to those of other races, the Episcopal Church became a leader in the movement. Now, do you credit that to revelation, or to a change in society that made the revelation possible?

    For example, Berea College, a small liberal arts college in central Kentucky was founded by abolitionists in the 1850s and was integrated from its beginning. However, in 1910, Kentucky passed a law forbidding integrated education even by private schools, a law that was challenged in the US Supreme Court by the college, which lost. So, a school that “knew” what to do correctly was legally prohibited from doing so until Kentucky repealed that law, as it pertained to private schools, in the early ’50s (before Brown v. Bd of Ed, by the way).

    So, revelation itself is not sufficient. One must be able to act on that revelation. I have teased you about some of the revelations that the LDS Church has claimed, and have suggested that they were driven more by circumstance than divine guidance, but that’s also been true of social stances taken by my own church and by most others. I suppose that, like the Quakers, I tend to think that revelation comes to those who seek it, by studying society and its problems and making an honest effort to look at all possible solutions. I see this large shift in consciousness among believers as the best indication of God’s revelation. Certainly the Episcopal Church didn’t go from being “the Republican Party at prayer,” as Frank has characterized it in the ’50s, to the church of gay bishops, Episco-Buddhist bishops, and a passion for civil rights that we are today because any one person or small group of people had revelations. It evolved in that direction because its people evolved in that direction, and began electing bishops who shared those views. So, I suppose I’m more a believer in evolution than revelation. Imagine that!

13. David Duke Says:
    April 8th, 2009 at 6:15 pm

    Thanks for answering my question, Caleb. Although we don’t always agree, I certainly admire your level of knowledge and always learn something knew from your posts.

14. David Duke Says:
    April 8th, 2009 at 6:16 pm

    “new” (I guess I need a proofreader, and one better than they have at BYU!)

15. Caleb Powers Says:
    April 9th, 2009 at 1:10 pm

    David, you and I come at things from different perspectives, but I suspect that we are not far apart on the substance of most things. I also learn a great deal from your posts. You must understand that for a guy who grew up in the mountains of Kentucky, then got some veneer of eastern education, the Mormons are as exotic as the Hottentots, and about as hard to understand. You have helped a great deal.

16. David Duke Says:
    April 9th, 2009 at 1:59 pm

    Caleb, if I had not grown up with in the atmosphere I did, regarding my religion, I’m sure I would think Mormonism was most peculiar. I think one of the best things that happened to me is to grow up outside of Utah or Idaho. It gives me a different perspective on things, and at least helps me understand that there are different points of view out there.

Leave a Reply