Bishop Robert F. Waggener will trade his bishop’s mitre for a priest’s biretta in the Western Rite.
Bishop Waggener, who until recently served as bishop of the Diocese of the Holy Cross, has become the first Continuing Anglican bishop to convert to the Antiochian Orthodox Church’s Western Rite Vicariate.
Fr. Michael Keiser will receive Bp. Waggener and his parishioners at Christ Church of Lynchburg, VA, as catechumens on March 5. Deo volente, Bp. Robert Waggener will then be ordained to the priesthood within the Orthodox Church.
Bishop Waggener and his congregation have truly expressed their desire to attain Christ above all, joining themselves to His Holy Church. All have chosen to lay aside their titles, leave their church homes, and temporarily do without communion (very temporarily, we hope) in order to enter the Ark of Salvation. God will surely reward their zealous self-sacrifice.
Our thoughts and prayers are with His Grace and his congregation during this time of preparation. Some doubted this day would ever come about, but this should prove to our critics that the WRV is highly attractive and effective as a missionary tool. Deo gratias!
“O Lord, save Thy people, and bless Thine inheritance.”
http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2006/03/continuing-anglican-bishop-converts-to.htmlBen Johnson at 3:50 AM
JBL, weak presentation
The average high school student could have seen that they had no real foundation for their approach. As to the finer points, I have taken a “vow” not to attempt to discuss theology because I don’t know what I am talking about.
How could it be uniatism? These parishes were not under Protestant or Catholic jusrisdiction and compelled to come under an Orthodox bishop. They were started and continue as Orthodox parishes.
Note 47.
Yes, and appropriately so, if by “economic justice” you mean (as JBL pointed out) a Marxist economic analysis. In religious circles “economic justice” is code for Liberation theology where the Christian obligation to the poor is subsumed to Marxist categories. Christ was really a crypto-Marxist in their view. This certainly is “leftist.”
Note 50 & 52:
I think perhaps an assumption behind Fr. Dowd’s question is that ‘uniatism’ represents a situation that two “equal” traditions meet, and that one over reaches into the other traditional territory, so to speak. Behind this is the idea of “western” and “eastern” churches. For the eastern church to create a western rite in a traditional western territory of the US/Canada is such an overreach or trespass. (I will not address the historical claims of Rome or Russia here)
It is such notions (of two “equals”) that some Orthodox promote (sometimes even expressly) when they participate in dialogue. The question to my mind, is why this assumption of equality? If we (or the those of Rome for that matter) affirm that we are the “One, Holy, and Catholic Church” then how can such equality be a real ground in such dialogue?
Social Justice
I have always understood “social justice” to mean the idea that any economic inequality is per se unjust. The idea is that it is not fair that one person own or earn more than someone else. An attractive idea at first blush, but, history and economics show that socialism and communism are disasters.
As I type French University students are protesting proposals that the government allow employers to fire young workers during their first year of employment, as opposed to the virtual job for life system now in place. Note,
Dean and Jim, French unemployment in every population category is twice ours, due primarily to the fact that an employer cannot afford to hire the expensive help in France.
Jim Holman pretty much rejects the concept of “economic justice.” Economic justice defined as rewarding the productive and refraining from rewarding the non-productive. At this point Jim pops up and posits an instance in which a worthy person is unable to care for himself. My answer is that people in need should first be cared for by their families, then by their churches and local communities and lastly, only if absolutely necessary by government.
Government benefits enable sloth and it doesn’t take much in the way of government benefits to create real dependency. Welfare dependency is the trap that a large number of Black Americans are in, along with a fair number of white Americans. Families collect more in welfare if the father of the children is not married to their mother. Fathers stay out of the settled households and children grow up without an good example of what a responsible adult man is. Women end up trying to be the anchor that men should be;men end up being little more than destructive and dependent teenagers that won’t grow up.
It is not a great system, try driving through the center of any major metropolitan area.
JBL writes: “The issue though is not how much Scripture has discussed any particular social agenda.”
It seems to me that a reasonable principle of interpretation is that those things that are most frequently mentioned in a text should be assigned more importance, especially when they appear in law, wisdom, poetic, and prophetic books in the Old Testament, and when they are mentioned in the gospels, Acts, and the letters. Taken together, it is really a remarkable collection of material that spans hundreds of years and various cultural settings.
JBL: “I have problem with your interpretation though of economic justice coming from Scripture. It’s a paradigm based upon Marxian theology. That somehow the purpose of faith is to correct worldly injustice (primarily economic). It’s not.”
But isn’t that the point of many of these passages, especially those in the Old Testament? The OT prohibits discrimination against the poor in legal decisions and disputes. It mandates leaving leaving fields, vinyards, and orchards fallow every seven years so that the poor can eat from them. It mandates leaving parts unharvested so the poor can have them. Every seven years there was supposed to be a release of debts. Call it Marxism or whatever, it’s right there in multiple passages. In the Pentateuch, concern for the poor isn’t just a good idea, and it isn’t just expressed through personal charity; it’s the law.
In other words, in the Old Testament concern for the poor is not some abstract sentiment. It was active, concrete, built into the law, and those who failed to do right by the poor were condemned.
JBL: “When you bring up some argument about the failure of economic justice it’s a red herring. It’s just another form of justifying a sin, because we fail in one we should excuse another.”
Again, it’s the issue of what constitutes a “timeless” statement. Divorce and remarriage are explicitly condemned in the gospels, as they also were in the early church. But today Christians marry and divorce and remarry and are members in good standing. What has happened is that the views of Christians have changed to the point that remarriage is largely acceptable, and the timeless statements aren’t so timeless. But then when it comes to homosexuality — poof! — the timeless statements reappear, in all their prohibitive force.
In effect heterosexual happiness trumps the timeless statements, but the timeless statements trump homosexual happiness. And as I mentioned in a previous post, the homosexuals are supposed to live lifes of abstinance that few heterosexuals could endure.
JBL: “It’s just another form of justifying a sin, because we fail in one we should excuse another.”
In other words, just because the sins of heterosexuals are excused is no reason to excuse the sins of homosexuals? In the case of heterosexuals we accomodate theology to the realities of the situation, but not in the case of homsexuals?
Fr. Hans writes: “In religious circles “economic justice” is code for Liberation theology where the Christian obligation to the poor is subsumed to Marxist categories. Christ was really a crypto-Marxist in their view. This certainly is ‘leftist.'”
An emphasis on economic justice need not be seen as Marxism, even if there are similarities. For example, were the Old Testament laws permitting the poor to glean the fields “Marxism?” Clearly they were not, even though a modern Marxist government might mandate the same thing. To say that advocacy of economic justice is Marxist is like saying that the Eucharist is cannibalism (a charge against which early Christians actually had to defend themselves).
We didn’t call the Bible “Marxist” you did
Jim, you have a facile mind, but, you are again, confused. JBL and I did not call the Biblical injunction for concern for the poor to be Marxist.
The biggest Marxist and Leftist lie is that the ONLY way to demonstrate concern for the less fortunate is to engage in redistributionist government policies. Their are many other ways, ways which I have mentioned numerous time and which you conveniently avoid.
Talk to any Leftist and they are convinced that no one can fulfill the ethical and Biblical injunction to be concerned for the less fortunate UNLESS they embrace a controlled economy, a redistributionist ethic and socialism. The Left never releases its grip on this concept, it is what makes them Left to begin with.
Missosurian writes: ‘Jim Holman pretty much rejects the concept of ‘economic justice.’ Economic justice defined as rewarding the productive and refraining from rewarding the non-productive.”
Actually I think economic justice has to do with making opportunities for advancement available to the poor, and in the meantime making sure the poor don’t fall into the abyss.
But we do have a system in which in many cases the people who are non-productive are precisely the ones who get the benefits, while the productive people get the shaft. Look at Enron. Look at Abramoff. Look at George Bush.
My favorite character in the Enron scandal is Lou Pai. He was “in charge” of their energy services division, rarely going to the office and spending his free time in strip joints. Eventually he got divorced, married a stripper, and cashed out his stock for $365 million before the ship went down. Today he’s one of the richest guys in the country. Hopefully the “death tax” will be eliminated and he’ll be able to pass on his vast fortune to the children of his stripper-wife. I mean, it would be unjust for the estate of someone so productive to have to pay taxes on all that just so some welfare mom can have food stamps.
Of course, your example of non-productivity would be the welfare mom, not Lou Pai.
Jim’s myths:
Jim, you will search this blog in vain for any defense of corporate corruption. You don’t really have a defense to my comment so you are vearing off on a tangent again.
MYTH ONE: The Left “owns” concern for the poor. If you wish to obey the Biblical injunction for concern for the poor then you must endorse their policies: redistribution, heavy government control of the economy, massive entitlement programs, etc., etc., etc. Not so, not true.
MYTH TWO: A critique of the debilitating system of welfare disincentives which have trapped many Americans in a cycle of poverty is an attack on “welfare moms.” Quite the contrary, people who are serious about reducing poverty have to be serious about reforming the entitlement system.
MYTH THREE: If you reject heavy control of the economy by the government you MUST support illegal corporate conduct. What happened in Enron was illegal, period. It should have been stopped and prosecuted earlier, but, it was illegal. I support the full enforcement of the law and the end to corporate welfare.
Missourian writes: “Jim, you will search this blog in vain for any defense of corporate corruption. You don’t really have a defense to my comment so you are vearing off on a tangent again.”
It’s interesting to me that when you think of non-productive people getting money for nothing, you think of the welfare system. When I think of non-productive people getting money for nothing, I think of corporate America, and especially when it’s done legally — as in Shrub being bailed out of failed businesses by friends (who later line up at the trough when he is an elected official).
Missourian: “MYTH ONE: The Left ‘owns’ concern for the poor.”
Let me put it this way: The Bible contains a very large number of passages in the Bible that deal with the poor and with other issues related to economic justice. These appear throughout, from start to finish, in all kinds of biblical literature. If you had to identify the major themes of the Bible, certainly the care for the poor and stranger would be one of them.
But when conservative Christians read this material, it seems that they never come away with any “actionable items.” I hardly ever hear any of them say “because the Bible says this about the poor, we need to do that.” On the contrary, they seem to be interested in dismantling existing programs, often without anything to replace them.
Concerning the role of government — many of the passages in the Bible are from the Old Testament books of law. Note the word “law.” Not suggestions, not reminders, but law, and they were treated that way.
Subsequent explications of Jewish law filled in some of the gaps left by the Torah. For example, the Mishna defines who is “poor” — who could take advantage of the benefits for the poor — the early version of eligibility requirements, if you will. Rabbi Hilel dealt with a situation in which the rich didn’t want to lend to the poor as the Sabbatical year approached. So “caring for the poor” meant that there were many related issues that had to be worked out, including the fact that sometimes things with good intention didn’t come out like you planned.
But the point is that in Jewish tradition care for the poor is a community responsibility. It’s not a matter of private charity. As Father Hans is fond of pointing out modern society’s debt to the Judeo-Christian tradition, I would note that the modern welfare state is to some extent an outgrowth of the Jewish tradition of community care for the poor.
Simply put, community care for the poor is not “leftist,” or “Marxist.” It is part and parcel of the Jewish tradition, the very same tradition in which Jesus lived. It is not a modern add-on or innovation. Now to the extent that the Right abandons that tradition, then I suppose it does become “left,” but only because the Right has departed.
Jim’s Filter: Conservative Christian Private Charity isn’t “actionable”
Jim, you filter out of your consciousness and argument all the of the private charitable work that what you call “conservative Christians” do. For instance, there are at least five homes for unwed molthers in my metropolitan area run by what you would call conservative Christians. These people work quietly to help young women with unwanted pregnances. They supply housing, pre-natal care, the cost of delivery and start up help for the young mother. Yet the Left constantly trots out the tired old cliche that pro-life conservatives don’t care about babies after they are born. Sure. What the Left has to offer the young woman with an unwatned pregnancy is a legal way to kill her baby.
You completely discount efforts such as these. Again, Jim, your sole idea of “help for the poor” is government help, public help, official help, not private charitable help. It is precisely those government programs initiallly intended to help people that ends of infantilizing them.
Being Liberal means never having to accept responsibility for the disastrous consequences of their policies.
Ancient Israel was a theocracy, was it not?
If we are reading the history of the ancient Kingdom of Israel, shouldn’t we remember that it was a theocratic kingdom and not a religiously neutral democratic republic. Hmm, that might have a bearing.
Jim H wrote
Jim don’t confuse what heterdox Evangelicals and apostate Protestants do in America as being the standard for all Christianity.
The issue is forcing the church to openly accept a sin as though it was never a sin. Even though there are problems with marriage and re-marriage, these people are not trying to force the church to recognize them by organizing groups called “Adulterers for Christ” to put political pressure churches to change. As homosexual groups have done.
Secular Reasons to Oppose the Legitimization of Homosexual Conduct
Produce children or dissappear or lose the competition with societies that do produce children. Society has every right to reward reproductive behavior and behavior that best socializes children.
Any economist will tell you that you cannot build a truly great and prosperous society without multi-generational effort. People need to be motivated to begin a great enterprise, such as founding a college, or buildling a new hospital. Great enterprises may frequently take generations to bear full fruit.
Secondly, ordinary economic arrangements are built on the assumption that a second generation is coming up behind the current generation. Much of the crisis in social security is the result of a baby dearth (although I concede there are other problems)
Thirdly, a large population is simply an economic advantage for a country. In America with 300 million people, we can have literally thousands of engineers who are specializing in developing new computer chips. In Iceland, they never will have that many, as clever as their people are. Volume does count in economic progress.
Lastly, a complex and advanced society requires a high level of socialization in its citizens. This means that children need an extended and laborious period of socialization to be able to take a productive place in life.
Cross cultural studies show that social dissapproval suppresses much homosexual conduct. Many homosexual men have been married and have fathered children. Many lesbians have given birth. This means that under some circumstances they can function in the same reproductive manner as anyone else. As far as society goes, it doesn’t matter much if they are not fullfilling what they think their sexual destiny is. It does matter that they are producing babies and raising those children in homes with a man and a woman together as a unit.
Paul Ehrlich did a disservice to this country, he is simply a Malthusian who doesn’t understand technology and how it can transform and revolutionize a society. Luckily those people who do not believe in having babies are dying out rapidly.
Degree of Human Obedience to God’s Word doesn’t affect Force of God’s word
Jim, you should first reveal whether you believe in the Judeo-Christian God. I don’t think you do, I think you are an appostate.
If you do believe in God reciting instances in which humans in different centuries and different cultures may have disregarded or violated God’s directions proves nothing but that humans are prone to be disobedient to God.
Again, the theological case for homosexual conduct is very weak by any standard. Many in ECUSA don’t even bother to attempt to justify homosexuality by previously accepted Scriptural standards. Gene Robinson has had the nerve to claim that the Spirit working through him is writing new Scripture which supercedes the existing Scripture. Gene has dug himself a very, very deep hole. I wouldn’t want to be around when the moral bill comes due.
It makes one wonder if the bill has come due with rehab?
JBL
I think VGR believed his own position sincerely and I think he is surprised that things just haven’t fallen together quite the way he had in mind.
Missourian writes: “Degree of Human Obedience to God’s Word doesn’t affect Force of God’s word.”
Sure it does. To a large extent Christianity is an interpreted religion. By that I mean that how people view the various elements of Christianity significantly depends on how they interpret the Bible, combined with the relevance of the Bible to particular times and places.
I think this is pretty obvious. I don’t hear people talking much about selling all that they have and giving to the poor. I don’t hear priests and ministers recommending, as St. Paul did, that Christians remain single.
Or take military service. Several people here have pointed out that an ethic that makes sense under a military occupation does not make sense when the Christians are suddenly in charge of an empire. In 150 a.d. military service was all but unthinkable. By 450 a.d. it’s acceptable, even seen as virtuous.
Same with divorce and remarriage — prohibited as adultery in the gospels except for the gounds of adultery, but today almost universally accepted.
So let’s talk a little more about divorce and remarriage. It is a fact of modern society that divorce is common. Furthermore it is a fact that people are happier and live longer when they are married. It is another fact that it is difficult to get anywhere financially without being married, because a single person usually doesn’t generate enough income. These are the facts on the ground.
Let’s say that the church decided to completely prohibit remarriage after divorce. The main effect of that would be that people would leave the church when they got remarried. So after those people were gone, what then? A policy like that would be a great way to keep people out of church, and I doubt it would prevent many divorces or second marriages. So the church accomodates to the reality of the situation, as it should.
I thiink the same kind of accomodation will happen with homosexuality. It may be 100 years from now. It may be 10 years from now. I don’t know. Two thousand years ago there was no public consciousness of the possibility of homosexuals living in committed, long-term relationships. Times have changed, and now there is.
Missourian: “If you do believe in God reciting instances in which humans in different centuries and different cultures may have disregarded or violated God’s directions proves nothing but that humans are prone to be disobedient to God.”
Well, it’s a lot more complicated than that. Christianity is a developmental religion. By that I mean that it changes over time. It’s not that people are disobedient to “God’s directions,” but that how people understand “God’s directions” changes.
Missourian: “Jim, you should first reveal whether you believe in the Judeo-Christian God. I don’t think you do, I think you are an appostate.”
I think it’s clear that I don’t believe in the fundamentalist version of God. I have also said before that many of descriptions of God, both in the Bible and in the creeds, I take as metaphor, not as literal fact. Beyond that, in my many discussions of religion over the years, I have learned not to try to characterize or label myself — first, because it is irrelevant to the issues under discussion, and second, because it typically leads to unhelpful ad hominem arguments. But it’s a free country, and you are certainly free to apply whatever label to me that you wish – and I to you.
Jim, spoken like an atheist
Jim writes:
I will have to let Fr. Jacobse step in here and provide a fully correct answer, but, Christians believe that the Holy Spirit leads the Church as a corporate body to the correct interpretation of the Scriptures.
This is not a bunch of lawyers reading a legal text, it is the Word of God mediated by the Holy Spirit. Believe and you will see. The Scripture comes alive with meaning when it is put into effect in a person’s heart. As a matter of its corporate existence, I think that the teaching is the Christ handed down to the Apostles the correct understanding of the Faith, which was then transmitted through the generations with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Again, we need Fr. Jacobse to properly state these doctrines. My statement is very rough. Consequently, your entire presentation demonstrates your effective atheism. As an atheist why do you care what Christians believe? What is the source of your emotional investment in challenging Christian belief? Would you feel better about the choices you made if you could “disabuse” others of their Faith? Probably. You wouldn’t be as intellectually lonely. Cold fire that you are huddling around. Come on in from the cold, its cozy in here.
Missourian writes: “As an atheist why do you care what Christians believe?”
It’s hard for me to answer that, since I don’t consider myself to be an atheist. My father-in-law is a card-carrying atheist, and he is continually astonished by what he considers to be my theism. So I guess I can’t make anybody happy!
Missourian: “The Scripture comes alive with meaning when it is put into effect in a person’s heart.”
Fair enough. But does it only come alive with meaning through a literalistic reading?
Missourian: “Consequently, your entire presentation demonstrates your effective atheism.”
The problem with talking about my religious orientation is that we cease talking about the more important issues. I have made the very specific claim that divorce and remarriage provide an example of how Christian thinking has changed over time. This claim is based on passages in the gospels that oppose that practice, specific statements by the early church fathers also to that effect, and then the very different view of remarriage that exists today. I also claim that this provides a model for how the church may eventually deal with the issue of gay marriage. I would be interested in your opinion regarding those points.
There is a distinct difference between divorce and re-marriage and homosexuality. Jesus himself makes it quite clear that divorce exists due to the hardness of our hearts. That has not changed. In the Orthodox Church, there is even a different marriage ceremony for remarriage that calls up rememberence of Rahab the Harlot, made righteous by an act of mercy. I don’t know how many priests choose to use it. Nevertheless, divorce and remarriage is clearly seen by the Church as a falling away from the ideal due to sin, selfishness, and lack of love. Remarriage is an accomodation to our falleness and a chance for redemtion made possible only by the Grace of God.
We sometimes look at the Fathers of the Church as representatives of the mass mind of the Church at their time. Not true. They were expressing the highest calling that they perceived by the Holy Spirit for the Church and those that live in her. Most of the members of the Church at the time the Fathers lived and taught, did not live up to the standards they expressed. They were expressing the revelatory reality of God Incarnate. That has not changed.
Jesus expressly forgives adultry with the admonition to “Go and sin no more” In the Orthodox Church there is a limit to the number of remarriages that are permitted.
Homosexual behaviour is quite different in its nature. While divorce and remarriage is a distortion and twisting of a divine institution that expresses the reality of the communion with God and His creation. Homosexual behaviour is an immoral idolatry that is essentially blasphemous.
It is not surprising that you, Jim see little difference. Your father-in-law has hardened his heart to any reality beyond himself while you still entertain the pious illusion of a god created by man, i.e., man’s ideals expressed in mythological symbols that can help guide us to a better life in this world. He sees even this weak, ineffecutal faith as theism rather than the last dying gutter of a candle being extinguished.
Lord have mercy. May the Holy Spirit revive your soul and give you life.
Missourian notes that “the Holy Spirit leads the Church as a corporate body to the correct interpretation of the Scriptures.”
Well, therein lies the problem. It has always been a stumbling block for myself to see that there are numerous “correct interpretations” of Scripture within Christendom. As this is an Orthodox site, I’m assuming that most here believe that Orthodoxy holds as close to a semblance of objective Truth as can be gained in this lifetime. I have no wish to convince anyone otherwise.
What I do wish to underline is that there are, in fact, earnest Christians who seriously degree on many elements of the faith. Either the Holy Spirit is sending mixed messages on Scripture, or some or all of us are wrong. These issues are not trivial, either, and many involve the very nature of salvation itself. Infant baptism, the sacraments, election, faith vs. works, you name it: there are as many passionate beliefs about these topics as there are denominations. I don’t know whether anyone here would suggest that the Holy Spirit is absent from the lives of people on opposite sides of the theological fence, but I wouldn’t.
I think Missourian’s implication was that there is one “universal interpretation” of Scripture within Christendom. There isn’t, although there is some consensus on many passages.
I just don’t see how anyone can speak of a religious truth as being true in the same manner that one speaks of other objective sensory realities. At some point, it seems that one must say “I’m not certain that this it true, but I’m going to live as if it were”.
IOW, it seems there should be some humility here in stating what one believes as true. We were told that at best, we see “through a glass darkly”, although at times it seems that it’s more akin to driving at night in the fog with tinted windows and the headlights off.
Michael wrote:
It’s more than just idolatrous, it is a direct rejection of ordered creation. It is a life style contrary to everything that God established at the beginning
I usually don’t read these off topic posts but I made the mistake of reading note 72 🙂
James, why don’t you go to the trouble of reading a basic introduction about Orthodoxy and the Church? If you did, you would realize that there is one and only one “universal interpretation”. Also, you would perhaps begin to understand the manner that the Truth of God is known to us, and why it is of a different category than “objective sensory realities”, and how these categories are related. You might begin with Bishop Ware’s “The Orthodox Church” or even better Clark Carlton’s “The Faith”. If you did, then Missourian would not be troubled with having to answer your “through the glass darkly” interpretation…;)
Christopher why should he bother to read Bishop Ware when JamesK comes to truth by his own interpretation and feelings?
JBL and Christopher:
I’m sure you are both aware that there are these sects within Christianity called denominations. All of them believe themselves to be under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit on issues ranging from the sacraments to salvation. All of these denomations have long histories and established traditions originating with very esteemed thinkers and pious men who claimed a faith in Christ. Most are filled with very sincere and well-intentioned people.
Now, if both of you wish to suggest that ALL other denominations (besides Orthodoxy of course) are filled with heretics who are completely and totally under the possession of Satan, well I guess that ends the discussion.
I don’t believe that, however, and I don’t even think that that is the official position of the Orthodox Church.
These differences are real and are not trivial, as I have said. Go look up the Calvinist/Arminian debates (are you familiar with the differences between supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism?). I’m sure your familiar with the history of the Reformation and the split between the Eastern and Western Churches. People have even shed blood over these differences, so when someone says there is “one universal interpretation of Scripture”, my question is “Whose interpretation are you talking about? St. Augustine’s? Pelagius? Calvin? Luther? Chrystostom? Origen? Aquinas?”
You can even suggest that Orthodox Tradition (capital T) has the fullest knowledge of the Truth. My point was simply that there are other interpretations of Scripture held by “real Christians” that compete with and contradict the Orthodox tradition (which cannot be denied), so I don’t see how anyone can claim that there exists some “universal acceptance of Scripture”. It’s like suggesting that everyone in the world is a Mormon just because one happens to live in Utah.
James,
I am going to have to risk sounding very arrogant and condescending: Again, please, a basic text is what you need. I now would not recommend Bishop’s Ware’s introduction because frankly, it’s too advanced (which is to say it glosses over or assumes a basic acquaintance with Christian history and dogma). Carlton’s text is for you. Just as a teaser a single fundamental, core, back-to-basics-at-the-very-beginning, crawl before you walk Christian Dogma fully accounts for (and much more) and explains your two dilemma’s which I take to be 1) denominationalism and 2) Revelation, or to reduce it a bit, Christian epistemology. It is something called 1) fallen nature, sometimes referred to as original sin (included of course is both human nature and ‘the natural world’, that of the “objective sensory realities”). You will have to read this text, as opposed to “interpret” it. In other words you will have to really listen to what Christian Dogma is saying about the nature of life, the universe, and everything. Unsurprisingly, it is not assuming an epicurean metaphysic…
p.s. Think about it: if it was not for “denominationalism” what reason would St. Paul have possibly had writing all those letters to the Churches of “Corinth”, “Galatians”, and “Romans”…;)
JamesK, Why are Multiple Interpretations a Problem?
Look at the world of politics. There are many schools of thought about what the proper role of government is, correct? There are paleo-conservatives, neo-conservatives, libertarians, socialists; the list goes on and one. Yet, no one throws up their hands and says “Poof to politics, there is no political truth, there are too many people claiming to many conflicting things.” No, you sift your way through the various ideas and arrive at a judgment.
This is a rough analogy. A political philosophy is far different than Divine Truth and my understanding is that the Holy Spirit is working in our lives to guide us towards that Truth even if we don’t fully understand His influence at the time.
No one throws up their hands and gives up in the face of multiple political ideologies, why should they in the case of religion. As a rough answer, I suppose I would say that the Lord gives humans the freedom to err, hopefully, we will find the Truth. I think honest seekers after the Truth are rewarded, I think that Scripture promises us that. However, please resort to someone who genuinely knows something about these topics. I am not very well informed.
Note 76. James, Truth (capital T) is not propositional but a person. Look at the scripture itself, the Good Samaritan for example. The Samaritan (a breakaway sect of the Jews, ie: people who defiled and ultimately abandoned the tradition of the Israel) was deemed righteous over the priest and Levite (who, according to the Law behaved properly by passing the bloody man on the road) because he understood and practiced the Truth.
Don’t imply because the propositional dimension of the Truth is a matter of continual debate and exploration that Truth cannot be known.