It's a matter of emphasis. What did or didn't happen 2000 years ago in a cave outside Jerusalem is of academic interest only in and of itself.
If it means Jesus is alive now, then regardless of the details it matters now.
And frankly I find it easier to believe Jesus is alive than that a corpse resuscitated. Which doesn't mean one didn't; it just means it's not my focus and not something I have to worry about.
Of course, plenty of "sound" Evangelicals err on the side of Adoptionism too...
In which case they aren't 'sound'.
I've often heard this charge but in all my years in evangelicalism never knowingly encountered an Adoptionist.
Can you cite examples?
I will admit that some evangelicals are hazy on some of these things but I've not known any who have consciously toppled into actual Adoptionism.
It has, of course, been a recurring bone of contention in some denominations. The Baptists have had instances of it from time to time.
I can't cite anything but my own experiences - my own experiences of Evangelicalism have been very much on the Reformed end of things so maybe it's more of a thing in those circles? In my experience the more hardcore PSA apologia can lean into this. I'm not saying it was conscious Adoptionism either, I don't think I suggested that it was - more that it tends to be a side-effect of their theology more generally. And I know it means they aren't really sound, the use of quotation marks was supposed to be read facetiously.
Ok. Thinking about it, looking back I did hear that charge levelled at the more Reformed (or reformed) end of the evangelical spectrum.
It wouldn't surprise me come to think on't.
I've been told off a few times aboard Ship for suggesting that evangelicalism - including charismatic evangelicalism - can be weak on the Trinity at times.
The Holy Spirit as some kind of 'faith force'.
To be fair, all Christian traditions/Traditions can be prone to that.
We've got 'cradle Orthodox' who seem puzzled when we tell them that Jesus is God despite it being clearly referred to in the Liturgy week by week.
When do these things become a 'disciplinary' matter?
My 'sort of' impression @Pomona is that the tendency in some forms of evangelicalism and reformed is not so much towards Adoptionism as a sort of semi-Arianism, Jesus is still the Son of God but is lesser than the Father and not one with him, a failure to recognise fully the implications of 'one substance with the Father'. This sometimes goes with a dogmatic exclusively penal substitutionary understanding of the atonement and with rather a weak perception of the full divine personhood of the Holy Spirit, as either hardly mentioned at all, an almost binitarian understanding of the deity, or seeing the Holy Spirit as a divine force, 'power from on high' without any particular personality at all, as described by @Gamma Gamaliel and cited below.
Ok. Thinking about it, looking back I did hear that charge levelled at the more Reformed (or reformed) end of the evangelical spectrum.
It wouldn't surprise me come to think on't.
I've been told off a few times aboard Ship for suggesting that evangelicalism - including charismatic evangelicalism - can be weak on the Trinity at times.
The Holy Spirit as some kind of 'faith force'.
To be fair, all Christian traditions/Traditions can be prone to that.
We've got 'cradle Orthodox' who seem puzzled when we tell them that Jesus is God despite it being clearly referred to in the Liturgy week by week.
When do these things become a 'disciplinary' matter?
Should they?
So much of the Trinity is difficult either to understand or to put into words that I'd feel inclined to say, never in the case of the laity.
With those in ministry, only when they are contumaciously proclaiming their personal credal foibles and seeking to persuade others to agree with them, in circumstances when they should be expected to know better.
It strikes me that the problem is those who appear to be resolutely determined to believe less - who almost seem to be looking for excuses to do so - rather than who would like to believe more but find it hard to do so.
It strikes me that the problem is those who appear to be resolutely determined to believe less - who almost seem to be looking for excuses to do so - rather than who would like to believe more but find it hard to do so.
IME, to those who find belief easy, the latter looks like the former.
I remain pretty convinced that trying to make ourselves believe more or less is a fools' errand; we believe what to us appears to be true, virtually by definition.
Of course, plenty of "sound" Evangelicals err on the side of Adoptionism too...
In which case they aren't 'sound'.
I've often heard this charge but in all my years in evangelicalism never knowingly encountered an Adoptionist.
Can you cite examples?
I will admit that some evangelicals are hazy on some of these things but I've not known any who have consciously toppled into actual Adoptionism.
It has, of course, been a recurring bone of contention in some denominations. The Baptists have had instances of it from time to time.
I can't cite anything but my own experiences - my own experiences of Evangelicalism have been very much on the Reformed end of things so maybe it's more of a thing in those circles? In my experience the more hardcore PSA apologia can lean into this. I'm not saying it was conscious Adoptionism either
I think I may know what you mean. Eternal Subordination of the Son has been a thing in certain circles for a while (endorsed by Bruce Ware and Grudem - who is a kind of hack theologian at this point), and I've occasionally heard people say things that could be influenced by it. I don't think Adoptionism is a particularly good descriptor, though it's extremely problematic in its own right.
There also Richard Gaffin/David Garner's views on son-ship and divine adoption. but again that isn't Adoptionism either and in any case hasn't travelled further than a few small denominations in the US.
Or, at least for clergy, serious heresy or blasphemy or becoming apostate.
IMHO excommunication is a serious heresy. Savanorola was burnt at the stake, only to later be exonerated. Too many religious leaders are into power trips and needing to demonstrate "holier-than-thou-ness".
I met a particularly nasty man who pushed for St Mary's in Brisbane to be excommunicated. This resulted in priest and people forming St Mary's In Exile. They were the ones bringing good news to the poor with love. Being Christlike is so much more important than heartless dogma. https://www.micahprojects.org.au/about-micah-projects/who-we-are/our-story
I think we'd all agree that ecclesial power trips never end well. Heck, We've got enough of that going on in my own Tradition at the moment - as well as in times past.
An Orthodox priest I know relates the story if how he once celebrated the Liturgy for a Greek community that used an Eastern Catholic church building for their services.
They would put their own icons in front of the Eastern Catholic ones, presumably to avoid 'infection'!
As he was serving the Liturgy he noticed that one of the icons was of an Eastern Catholic Saint who had been martyred by the Orthodox.
He paused and 'said' to the Saint, 'Now I know you are somewhere where these things no longer matter but we owe you an apology and I would like to offer that to you before I proceed with the Liturgy.'
@Enoch, I agree with you but can also sympathise with @KarlLB's objection in that I don't think it's healthy to 'psyche' ourselves up into believing things we find difficult.
I don’t think we should sweep doubts under the carpet.
But neither should we parade them in a smug, 'I'm more sophisticated than you simple peasants' kind of way. I don't think @KarlLB is arguing for that position either, I hasten to add.
He's concerned about genuine doubts.
Some traditions seem to harbour no room for questioning at all whereas others seem to make a virtue of deconstructing the whole thing.
I wouldn't know how to 'advise' KarlLB on these things nor would I presume to do so but would offer to listen to him over a pint of his choice if I were ever in his neck of the woods.
Thank you @Enoch and @chrisstiles - those were the sorts of things I meant. I would also say that they come from a very different place to the kinds of doubts discussed by @KarlLB and repeesent a need for hierarchy within the Trinity that comes from them projecting their views about society onto God in a negative way. If you believe in a version of the "Great Man" theory then it follows that you would want to see God in that kind of framework. I can see where clergy and writers (and the people they influence) brought up in a public school, Muscular Christianity kind of environment might end up going down an Eternal Subordination of the Son route - and there is a lot of that kind of background in the Reformed end of the Church of England as well as the HTB end.
Thank you @Enoch and @chrisstiles - those were the sorts of things I meant. I would also say that they come from a very different place to the kinds of doubts discussed by @KarlLB and repeesent a need for hierarchy within the Trinity that comes from them projecting their views about society onto God in a negative way.
Actually, in Ware and Grudem's case it was clearly a need to find some kind of 'biblical basis' for 'compatabilism'.
Whether Spong was an apostate or just an extreme heretic might be a fine line. If he wanted to redefine Christianity into something with all the central doctrines taken out, but still wanted to call that “Christianity,” I’m not sure what side of that line he’d count as. I don’t recognize what he wanted Christianity to become (without Jesus actually rising from the dead, especially) as “Christianity.”
As said above, you can do many good and worthwhile things without that.
Hmm. I've always said I'm less hung up on the question of whether Jesus physically rose from the dead than the question of whether he is alive now.
I don't know how you mean this. And, well, yes, "He rose from the dead" is pretty much central to basic Christianity.
Jesus does live in our hearts, and in the bread and wine, but one of the most central doctrines of Christianity is that He literally, physically, died and rose from the dead. I can’t pretend otherwise.
Jesus does live in our hearts, and in the bread and wine, but one of the most central doctrines of Christianity is that He literally, physically, died and rose from the dead. I can’t pretend otherwise.
No, but you have to admit, it’s not necessarily an easy thing to believe, at least for many people. It’s certainly something that it’s pretty safe to say none of us have encountered first-hand.
The physical resurrection of Jesus is certainly a central teaching of Christianity. But it’s not central because it is an end in itself, but because of what it means: that death is conquered and that Christ lives and reigns. And that latter bit gets to what it could be argued is the even more central, foundational claim of Christianity—Jesus is Lord.
I think that’s what @KarlLB was getting it, though he can certainly correct me if I’m wrong. If Jesus is not alive now, does any claimed resurrection of whatever kind matter? And if Jesus is alive now, is he really calling us to spend our time and energy arguing about exactly what the resurrection was or looked like, and anathematizing those who don’t see it exactly like we do?
... The physical resurrection of Jesus is certainly a central teaching of Christianity. But it’s not central because it is an end in itself, but because of what it means: that death is conquered and that Christ lives and reigns. And that latter bit gets to what it could be argued is the even more central, foundational claim of Christianity—Jesus is Lord. ...
I can, sort of, I think, see a difference between the first of those tenets and the other three, and at first reading, I think I can get a sense of what the difference is between them. On second reflection, though, I am not so sure the difference is quite the one that you might be implying, or that it is one that our first and second century brothers and sisters would have either recognised or regarded as mattering. To them, and I think, to me, it is the physical resurrection that is the central and significant teaching of Christianity. The tomb was and remains empty. The other three truths, that death is conquered, that Christ lives and reigns and that Jesus is Lord do not exist without that first one, and follow on automatically from it, the working out of the same truth that Jesus is risen.
It's all these things of course. What @Nick Tamen said and what @Enoch said. There is no need to dichotomise any of them or set one element over another.
... The physical resurrection of Jesus is certainly a central teaching of Christianity. But it’s not central because it is an end in itself, but because of what it means: that death is conquered and that Christ lives and reigns. And that latter bit gets to what it could be argued is the even more central, foundational claim of Christianity—Jesus is Lord. ...
I can, sort of, I think, see a difference between the first of those tenets and the other three, and at first reading, I think I can get a sense of what the difference is between them. On second reflection, though, I am not so sure the difference is quite the one that you might be implying, or that it is one that our first and second century brothers and sisters would have either recognised or regarded as mattering. To them, and I think, to me, it is the physical resurrection that is the central and significant teaching of Christianity. The tomb was and remains empty. The other three truths, that death is conquered, that Christ lives and reigns and that Jesus is Lord do not exist without that first one, and follow on automatically from it, the working out of the same truth that Jesus is risen.
Yes, I don’t disagree. The convictions that Christ lives and reigns and that Jesus is Lord flow from the conviction that he rose, and that we should not seek the living among the dead. I am hesitant, though, to say it’s the central teaching of Christianity, as divorced from the Incarnation, the life and ministry of Jesus, his death and his ascension, how is Hesuz’s resurrection different from, say, the raising of Lazarus?
Rather, I’d say that if we’re going to identify the central teaching of Christianity, it’s that Jesus is Lord. The Resurrection, along with the Incarnation, etc., are acts that demonstrated his lordship over all.
In any event, I don’t think any of that negates the point I was trying to make with regard to the specific statement from @KarlLB that was under discussion: If Jesus is not alive now, does any claimed resurrection of whatever kind matter? And if Jesus is alive now, is he really calling us to spend our time and energy arguing about exactly what the resurrection was or looked like, and anathematizing those who don’t see it exactly like we do?
... The physical resurrection of Jesus is certainly a central teaching of Christianity. But it’s not central because it is an end in itself, but because of what it means: that death is conquered and that Christ lives and reigns. And that latter bit gets to what it could be argued is the even more central, foundational claim of Christianity—Jesus is Lord. ...
I can, sort of, I think, see a difference between the first of those tenets and the other three, and at first reading, I think I can get a sense of what the difference is between them. On second reflection, though, I am not so sure the difference is quite the one that you might be implying, or that it is one that our first and second century brothers and sisters would have either recognised or regarded as mattering. To them, and I think, to me, it is the physical resurrection that is the central and significant teaching of Christianity. The tomb was and remains empty. The other three truths, that death is conquered, that Christ lives and reigns and that Jesus is Lord do not exist without that first one, and follow on automatically from it, the working out of the same truth that Jesus is risen.
Yes, I don’t disagree. The convictions that Christ lives and reigns and that Jesus is Lord flow from the conviction that he rose, and that we should not seek the living among the dead. I am hesitant, though, to say it’s the central teaching of Christianity, as divorced from the Incarnation, the life and ministry of Jesus, his death and his ascension, how is Hesuz’s resurrection different from, say, the raising of Lazarus?
Rather, I’d say that if we’re going to identify the central teaching of Christianity, it’s that Jesus is Lord. The Resurrection, along with the Incarnation, etc., are acts that demonstrated his lordship over all.
Which is why I said “one of the most central doctrines of Christianity”—though how we split up things that are arguably a kind of unified whole (His being God made flesh, His Resurrection, etc.), how all these things work together, is stuff which can likely be debated. But to get back to the discipline issue, in the case of heresy/apostasy, I’m thinking of the denial of really central doctrines like those. That we’ve had tons of clergy, including certain bishops, promoting those denials of central tenets of the faith, writing many books about how they don’t believe in the basic doctrines of the actual Creeds, and yet remaining hired and paid “active duty” clergy, is to me a very, very messed-up thing.
... The physical resurrection of Jesus is certainly a central teaching of Christianity. But it’s not central because it is an end in itself, but because of what it means: that death is conquered and that Christ lives and reigns. And that latter bit gets to what it could be argued is the even more central, foundational claim of Christianity—Jesus is Lord. ...
I can, sort of, I think, see a difference between the first of those tenets and the other three, and at first reading, I think I can get a sense of what the difference is between them. On second reflection, though, I am not so sure the difference is quite the one that you might be implying, or that it is one that our first and second century brothers and sisters would have either recognised or regarded as mattering. To them, and I think, to me, it is the physical resurrection that is the central and significant teaching of Christianity. The tomb was and remains empty. The other three truths, that death is conquered, that Christ lives and reigns and that Jesus is Lord do not exist without that first one, and follow on automatically from it, the working out of the same truth that Jesus is risen.
Yes, I don’t disagree. The convictions that Christ lives and reigns and that Jesus is Lord flow from the conviction that he rose, and that we should not seek the living among the dead. I am hesitant, though, to say it’s the central teaching of Christianity, as divorced from the Incarnation, the life and ministry of Jesus, his death and his ascension, how is Hesuz’s resurrection different from, say, the raising of Lazarus?
Rather, I’d say that if we’re going to identify the central teaching of Christianity, it’s that Jesus is Lord. The Resurrection, along with the Incarnation, etc., are acts that demonstrated his lordship over all.
Which is why I said “one of the most central doctrines of Christianity”—
Yes, and I tried to use similar language (“a central doctrine”).
But to get back to the discipline issue, in the case of heresy/apostasy, I’m thinking of the denial of really central doctrines like those. That we’ve had tons of clergy, including certain bishops, promoting those denials of central tenets of the faith, writing many books about how they don’t believe in the basic doctrines of the actual Creeds, and yet remaining hired and paid “active duty” clergy, is to me a very, very messed-up thing.
I suspect it’s a very safe bet that has always been thus, people being human. Yet I stand by what I said above: As best I can tell, heresy trials rarely work to the church’s benefit in the long run.
... The physical resurrection of Jesus is certainly a central teaching of Christianity. But it’s not central because it is an end in itself, but because of what it means: that death is conquered and that Christ lives and reigns. And that latter bit gets to what it could be argued is the even more central, foundational claim of Christianity—Jesus is Lord. ...
I can, sort of, I think, see a difference between the first of those tenets and the other three, and at first reading, I think I can get a sense of what the difference is between them. On second reflection, though, I am not so sure the difference is quite the one that you might be implying, or that it is one that our first and second century brothers and sisters would have either recognised or regarded as mattering. To them, and I think, to me, it is the physical resurrection that is the central and significant teaching of Christianity. The tomb was and remains empty. The other three truths, that death is conquered, that Christ lives and reigns and that Jesus is Lord do not exist without that first one, and follow on automatically from it, the working out of the same truth that Jesus is risen.
Yes, I don’t disagree. The convictions that Christ lives and reigns and that Jesus is Lord flow from the conviction that he rose, and that we should not seek the living among the dead. I am hesitant, though, to say it’s the central teaching of Christianity, as divorced from the Incarnation, the life and ministry of Jesus, his death and his ascension, how is Hesuz’s resurrection different from, say, the raising of Lazarus?
Rather, I’d say that if we’re going to identify the central teaching of Christianity, it’s that Jesus is Lord. The Resurrection, along with the Incarnation, etc., are acts that demonstrated his lordship over all.
Which is why I said “one of the most central doctrines of Christianity”—
Yes, and I tried to use similar language (“a central doctrine”).
But to get back to the discipline issue, in the case of heresy/apostasy, I’m thinking of the denial of really central doctrines like those. That we’ve had tons of clergy, including certain bishops, promoting those denials of central tenets of the faith, writing many books about how they don’t believe in the basic doctrines of the actual Creeds, and yet remaining hired and paid “active duty” clergy, is to me a very, very messed-up thing.
I suspect it’s a very safe bet that has always been thus, people being human. Yet I stand by what I said above: As best I can tell, heresy trials rarely work to the church’s benefit in the long run.
Oh, agreed. The whole “wheat and tares” thing applies here. But calling these things out when appropriate is another matter. Indeed, this is part of why I stuck with the Episcopal Church, with all its failings, rather than leaving for a particular group that broke off, decades ago, and I believe I made the right choice.
The "And yet it moves" style of thought is OK for me for any of "five impossible things" that people have a problem with.
And that includes JSS who has been a great help to many who want to follow the teachings of Jesus within their congregation.
I know the some here think JSS is/was "beyond the pale". I think the religious/political authorities of the time would have applied such a phrase to Jesus. They were the ones He reserved criticism for.
The "And yet it moves" style of thought is OK for me for any of "five impossible things" that people have a problem with.
And that includes JSS who has been a great help to many who want to follow the teachings of Jesus within their congregation.
I know the some here think JSS is/was "beyond the pale". I think the religious/political authorities of the time would have applied such a phrase to Jesus. They were the ones He reserved criticism for.
@LatchKeyKid, I may just be being very thick or have missed something in what you've already said in other posts, but what or who is JSS, please?
As a Person Who Finds Some Things Very Hard To Believe but still wants to follow Jesus' way, I appreciate having fellow godless heathen heretics in leadership positions. Representation. And I can relate to them in ways I can't to the sure or the apparently sure.
Sorry @Enoch . After I pressed the "POST" button I wondered if I should have given JSS's full name. He seems to be a particular "bete noire" for some shippies and has been mentioned recently.
Sorry @Enoch . After I pressed the "POST" button I wondered if I should have given JSS's full name. He seems to be a particular "bete noire" for some shippies and has been mentioned recently.
Comments
Not dead and gone.
It's a matter of emphasis. What did or didn't happen 2000 years ago in a cave outside Jerusalem is of academic interest only in and of itself.
If it means Jesus is alive now, then regardless of the details it matters now.
And frankly I find it easier to believe Jesus is alive than that a corpse resuscitated. Which doesn't mean one didn't; it just means it's not my focus and not something I have to worry about.
In which case they aren't 'sound'.
I've often heard this charge but in all my years in evangelicalism never knowingly encountered an Adoptionist.
Can you cite examples?
I will admit that some evangelicals are hazy on some of these things but I've not known any who have consciously toppled into actual Adoptionism.
It has, of course, been a recurring bone of contention in some denominations. The Baptists have had instances of it from time to time.
I can't cite anything but my own experiences - my own experiences of Evangelicalism have been very much on the Reformed end of things so maybe it's more of a thing in those circles? In my experience the more hardcore PSA apologia can lean into this. I'm not saying it was conscious Adoptionism either, I don't think I suggested that it was - more that it tends to be a side-effect of their theology more generally. And I know it means they aren't really sound, the use of quotation marks was supposed to be read facetiously.
It wouldn't surprise me come to think on't.
I've been told off a few times aboard Ship for suggesting that evangelicalism - including charismatic evangelicalism - can be weak on the Trinity at times.
The Holy Spirit as some kind of 'faith force'.
To be fair, all Christian traditions/Traditions can be prone to that.
We've got 'cradle Orthodox' who seem puzzled when we tell them that Jesus is God despite it being clearly referred to in the Liturgy week by week.
When do these things become a 'disciplinary' matter?
Should they?
So much of the Trinity is difficult either to understand or to put into words that I'd feel inclined to say, never in the case of the laity.
With those in ministry, only when they are contumaciously proclaiming their personal credal foibles and seeking to persuade others to agree with them, in circumstances when they should be expected to know better.
It strikes me that the problem is those who appear to be resolutely determined to believe less - who almost seem to be looking for excuses to do so - rather than who would like to believe more but find it hard to do so.
IME, to those who find belief easy, the latter looks like the former.
I remain pretty convinced that trying to make ourselves believe more or less is a fools' errand; we believe what to us appears to be true, virtually by definition.
I think I may know what you mean. Eternal Subordination of the Son has been a thing in certain circles for a while (endorsed by Bruce Ware and Grudem - who is a kind of hack theologian at this point), and I've occasionally heard people say things that could be influenced by it. I don't think Adoptionism is a particularly good descriptor, though it's extremely problematic in its own right.
There also Richard Gaffin/David Garner's views on son-ship and divine adoption. but again that isn't Adoptionism either and in any case hasn't travelled further than a few small denominations in the US.
IMHO excommunication is a serious heresy. Savanorola was burnt at the stake, only to later be exonerated. Too many religious leaders are into power trips and needing to demonstrate "holier-than-thou-ness".
I met a particularly nasty man who pushed for St Mary's in Brisbane to be excommunicated. This resulted in priest and people forming St Mary's In Exile. They were the ones bringing good news to the poor with love. Being Christlike is so much more important than heartless dogma.
https://www.micahprojects.org.au/about-micah-projects/who-we-are/our-story
An Orthodox priest I know relates the story if how he once celebrated the Liturgy for a Greek community that used an Eastern Catholic church building for their services.
They would put their own icons in front of the Eastern Catholic ones, presumably to avoid 'infection'!
As he was serving the Liturgy he noticed that one of the icons was of an Eastern Catholic Saint who had been martyred by the Orthodox.
He paused and 'said' to the Saint, 'Now I know you are somewhere where these things no longer matter but we owe you an apology and I would like to offer that to you before I proceed with the Liturgy.'
@Enoch, I agree with you but can also sympathise with @KarlLB's objection in that I don't think it's healthy to 'psyche' ourselves up into believing things we find difficult.
I don’t think we should sweep doubts under the carpet.
But neither should we parade them in a smug, 'I'm more sophisticated than you simple peasants' kind of way. I don't think @KarlLB is arguing for that position either, I hasten to add.
He's concerned about genuine doubts.
Some traditions seem to harbour no room for questioning at all whereas others seem to make a virtue of deconstructing the whole thing.
I wouldn't know how to 'advise' KarlLB on these things nor would I presume to do so but would offer to listen to him over a pint of his choice if I were ever in his neck of the woods.
Actually, in Ware and Grudem's case it was clearly a need to find some kind of 'biblical basis' for 'compatabilism'.
I don't know how you mean this. And, well, yes, "He rose from the dead" is pretty much central to basic Christianity.
Some understand it in the Neville Longbottom way of understanding that, although Harry Potter has died, he is still with them in their heart/spirit.
How about Sir John Betjeman's line, 'he lives today in bread and wine'?
The physical resurrection of Jesus is certainly a central teaching of Christianity. But it’s not central because it is an end in itself, but because of what it means: that death is conquered and that Christ lives and reigns. And that latter bit gets to what it could be argued is the even more central, foundational claim of Christianity—Jesus is Lord.
I think that’s what @KarlLB was getting it, though he can certainly correct me if I’m wrong. If Jesus is not alive now, does any claimed resurrection of whatever kind matter? And if Jesus is alive now, is he really calling us to spend our time and energy arguing about exactly what the resurrection was or looked like, and anathematizing those who don’t see it exactly like we do?
Rather, I’d say that if we’re going to identify the central teaching of Christianity, it’s that Jesus is Lord. The Resurrection, along with the Incarnation, etc., are acts that demonstrated his lordship over all.
In any event, I don’t think any of that negates the point I was trying to make with regard to the specific statement from @KarlLB that was under discussion: If Jesus is not alive now, does any claimed resurrection of whatever kind matter? And if Jesus is alive now, is he really calling us to spend our time and energy arguing about exactly what the resurrection was or looked like, and anathematizing those who don’t see it exactly like we do?
Which is why I said “one of the most central doctrines of Christianity”—though how we split up things that are arguably a kind of unified whole (His being God made flesh, His Resurrection, etc.), how all these things work together, is stuff which can likely be debated. But to get back to the discipline issue, in the case of heresy/apostasy, I’m thinking of the denial of really central doctrines like those. That we’ve had tons of clergy, including certain bishops, promoting those denials of central tenets of the faith, writing many books about how they don’t believe in the basic doctrines of the actual Creeds, and yet remaining hired and paid “active duty” clergy, is to me a very, very messed-up thing.
I suspect it’s a very safe bet that has always been thus, people being human. Yet I stand by what I said above: As best I can tell, heresy trials rarely work to the church’s benefit in the long run.
Oh, agreed. The whole “wheat and tares” thing applies here. But calling these things out when appropriate is another matter. Indeed, this is part of why I stuck with the Episcopal Church, with all its failings, rather than leaving for a particular group that broke off, decades ago, and I believe I made the right choice.
And that includes JSS who has been a great help to many who want to follow the teachings of Jesus within their congregation.
I know the some here think JSS is/was "beyond the pale". I think the religious/political authorities of the time would have applied such a phrase to Jesus. They were the ones He reserved criticism for.
Sorry @Enoch . After I pressed the "POST" button I wondered if I should have given JSS's full name. He seems to be a particular "bete noire" for some shippies and has been mentioned recently.