| |
| |
| From: | Peter | Oct-15 1:48 pm |
| To: | ALL |
(1 of 33) | | | | 4009.1 | |
Dear Jack: My old friend, we go back a long way from Kanuga to St. James' San Francisco to Westar. Congratulations! I am glad to join you in your new manifesto. The Apocalyptics and Left Behinders and sad blamers will not be brought into the reality of a new world or the Domain of Love by argument or reason. I have what the Quakers call a query. Is it possible for you to give up the clerical collar, purple shirt and title that marks you as a member of the hierarchical order of deacons, priests and bishops? Your authority no longer rests on the high office of Bishop. In fact your continuing identification as a bishop undermines your well earned and well established leadership of people on the way to a new age for humankind. With love and great respect, Peter Lawson |
| |
|
| | | | | 4009.2 in reply to 4009.1 | |
Once we destroy the inerrancy of the Bible, what is left of "Christian" dogma? Where do we STOP tossing the various parts of what makes up one of the largest businesses in the world? What purpose does religion serve that faith and belief (unforced, personal, unrestricted, and possibly private) do not? Religion is business -- very profitable business. Traditionally, religion has been closely allied with political leadership as a way to unify a population and to incite them to warfare and conquest for the benefit of the already wealthy and powerful. In the Middle Ages, the aristocracy sent their first sons to rule, their second sons to fight, and their third sons to preach. I wonder just how many Popes, for instance, were closely related to aristocratic families and how many came from the poor. Clergy changed their names and hid their origins so that these ties weren't obvious, but I suspect they were fairly important nevertheless. Religion takes in money and spews out dogma, fixed ideas which remain or are intended to remain constant, giving the religion its uniqueness and marking the "faithful" as members in good standing.
|
| |
|
| | | | | 4009.3 in reply to 4009.1 | |
Peter, I take your point. I do not presume to speak for Jack, but for me his authority never rested in ecclesiastical accoutrements but in his words which hit home with the force of a sledge hammer. Jack has made it previously clear that he does not intend to give up the Anglican tradition. In this respect I think he is a prophet and not necessarily the leader of a new form of worship - which in time would become yet another institution. In love and respect. W |
| |
|
| | | | | 4009.4 in reply to 4009.3 | |
W. Well said. I agree that Jack has transcended 'ecclesiastical accoutrements' and authority'. The problem for me is that the hierarchical structure of the churches offers divine sanction to the domination-violence system of our culture and in so doing contravenes Jesus' program of radical, equalitarian, distributive justice.The domain of God is undone by the domain of imperialism. The structure of the Jesus enterprise needs reformation. The hierarchical structure of the churches needs to go and the accoutrements along with it. For more on my thinking about restructuring the churches look at my book, 'Jesus Circles' available at Amazon.com among others. May you and yours thrive, Peter |
| |
|
| | | | | 4009.5 in reply to 4009.1 | |
Peter,
Reading the Amazon description of your book, it appears you are in the camp of those suggesting contemporary Christianity is the Religion ABOUT Jesus instead of the Religion OF Jesus. Would that be an accurate description? I am very interested in discussing this more and I most likely will get your book. However, I will be away from the computer for a period. I will try to get back with you for more discussion.
If I'm reading the descriptions correctly, you are onto something I am seeking -- the thoughts of Jesus without being filtered through Church Patriarchy. |
| |
|
| | | | | 4009.6 in reply to 4009.5 | |
Ron, You're right. When you are back on line I'd like to continue our discussion. Thrive! Peter |
| |
|
| | | | | 4009.7 in reply to 4009.2 | |
The root problem is that there is no inerrancy anywhere at all.... Our neighbor, Dale Webster, out here on the Sonoma Coast, surfed every day for 30 years; a world record. Life is like that. Ride the waves every day. The waves, the small board and you. One day you learn how to hang ten and really feel the rapture of being truly alive. Peter |
| |
|
| | | | | 4009.8 in reply to 4009.7 | |
...and throwing off dogma and understanding the meaning of life is to have a healthy mind in a healthy body and do nothing but good. Or, as Kurt Vonnegut put it, "The purpose of life is to just get through it." I like either purpose and am striving for each.
Not gone yet, |
| |
|
| | | | | 4009.9 in reply to 4009.5 | |
To all. ' ... the thoughts of Jesus without being filtered through Church Patriarchy.' Indeed. I guess that is where I find Jack's words so encouraging - that one has permission to do just that without having to feel they have committed some heinous crime against humanity by doing so.
Edited 10/20/2009 10:14 pm ET by wayseer |
| |
|
| | | | | 4009.10 in reply to 4009.9 | |
Perhaps the following essay may fit into these posts. Archiepiscopal Betrayal
By Harry T. Cook 10/23/09 It was difficult enough to wade through the rococo prolixity of the communiqué issued jointly by the Roman Catholic archbishop of Westminster (G.B.) and his strange Anglican counterpart out at Lambeth Palace earlier this week, but when you got to the signatures: "+Vincent" and "+Rowan," it was to throw up.
Bishop-types love to sign official documents only with their given names preceded by the + mark, indicating that they have Episcopal jurisdiction in and over a certain piece of geographical territory and church members within it. I remember once peering down at a page in a hotel registry and seeing an ornate signature announcing that "The Bishop of Fond du Lac and Mrs. Brady -- +William" had rented a room. I wondered at the time what had gone through the desk clerk's mind when he beheld it, and if he thought maybe he should give the vice squad a jingle. I happen to know that the bishop in question never went out in public without donning his magenta vest, pectoral cross and clerical collar -- with or without Mrs. Brady.
This week's communiqué, the text of which was undoubtedly negotiated over sherry and a biscuit, announced that Anglicans (we're called Episcopalians in the United States) who wish to embrace Rome's homophobic and misogynist ways are welcome to knuckle under to papal rule -- or, as the communiqué so delicately puts it, "accept the Petrine ministry as willed by Christ for his Church." Such unwarranted certitude. Any alumnus/a of my New Testament 101 class could pick apart that biblical mistake in a hot minute.
Some number of U.S. Episcopalians and Anglicans in other nations just can't get past the idea that women have been ordained to the priesthood inasmuch as the distaff side's presidential role in the holy mysteries "offers up the sight, sound and smell of perversion," as one critic put it.
They also cannot stomach the idea of gay and lesbian persons in clerical garb -- in particular "The Bishop of New Hampshire and Mr. Andrew -- +Gene" -- as acknowledged leaders of their church. They say the Bible forbids it -- that plus what +Gene and Mr. Andrew may do in the privacy of their hotel room.
The Archbishop of Canterbury -- that's the + Rowan of the communiqué -- has bent over backwards to accommodate the homophobes and misogynists among his far-flung Anglican flock by trying to make the American church stop ordaining avowed homosexuals and end efforts to craft rites for the blessing of same-sex marriages. +Rowan has failed in that attempt.
So his answer is to climb into bed with his Roman counterpart at Westminster and tell his priests in effect, "Sure, OK, go to Rome if it makes you happy because our church is screwed anyway. We've got this coven of priestesses, not to mention the #### and dykes complicating our life. We're not pure anymore. Meanwhile, +Vincent and I will smooth the way for you." Jesus.
Can you impeach an archbishop? Is it possible to mount a coup on Canterbury and rid ourselves of this troublesome priest? What in Hades does he think he is doing? Ecumenism is one thing. But selling your church down the river is quite another.
On the other hand, if the Vatican wants the ecclesiastical crybabies of Anglicanism who have turned dissent and schism into a high art form, it is welcome to them. Of course, married Anglican bishops who cross the Styx will have to leave their miters with the boatman. Nor could married Anglican priests ascend to any Episcopal throne. They'll always be second-class citizens, which is more than they deserve.
+Rowan is a conspicuous failure. His rental agreement at Lambeth Palace needs to be terminated and his job put out for bids. Harry is Spong's friend. (Two dynamic theologians -both retired). Judith |
| |
|
|
|
|
