NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080708/ap_on_re_eu/britain_women_bishops

Once again the traditionalist zombies are rendered powerless!

Ahh! The hounds of Hell have been let loose! The rapture is coming!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080708/ap_on_re_eu/britain_women_bishops

Once again the traditionalist zombies are rendered powerless!

Glad to see some progress once and a while

I believe I have a reputation around here as an orthodox conservative, and rightly so, because I am one. I believe that I can defend my theology with scripture interpretation sufficiently.

With that being said, I would also like to submit that I'm entirely in favor of women bishops and women ministers, and I believe that the NT works and Paul too, are also in favor of Women ministers and women bishops, and yet I'm entirely dumbfounded by the Anglican Churches obvious disregard for their current predicament and irresponsible reckless driving, full speed off the cliff into oblivian... Fair thee well, I suppose, it was nice knowing you.

I believe I have a reputation around here as an orthodox conservative, and rightly so, because I am one. I believe that I can defend my theology with scripture interpretation sufficiently.

With that being said, I would also like to submit that I'm entirely in favor of women bishops and women ministers, and I believe that the NT works and Paul too, are also in favor of Women ministers and women bishops, and yet I'm entirely dumbfounded by the Anglican Churches obvious disregard for their current predicament and irresponsible reckless driving, full speed off the cliff into oblivion... Fare thee well, I suppose, it was nice knowing you.

1- What's your point? What "predicament"?

2- Are you an American? I'm a Brazilian. Just checking.

3- If they're still here and doing well in a few years, will you think "I sure look pretty foolish now"?

1- What's your point? What "predicament"?
Many priest and Bishops in England have been converting to Catholicism, and highly visible public figures too, for years this has been going on...http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0504018.htm

The Episcopal Church America has been losing about 5% of it's membership every year since 2003, gay bishop in MA and all that.

And the Episcopal Church in the US has tried to sue breakaway churches that leave the Episcopal Church and join Anglican African Bishop churches for their property back, and they have started to lose those law suits, namely in Virginia most recently. Rulings say that the church membership can vote to leave and take their church building with them...More loses for the American Anglicans.

And just a couple of weeks ago a conference in Jerusalem, with some 300 conservative Anglican bishops and archbishops from around the world announced the creation of a new grouping that does not recognize the authority of Anglican leader the Archbishop of Canterbury. The potential death knell of the world Anglican Church as it has been known for the last two hundred years.

2- Are you an American? I'm a Brazilian. Just checking.
Why do you think this is relevant? But to answer the question, I'm American.

3- If they're still here and doing well in a few years, will you think "I sure look pretty foolish now"?

Probably not, there is no indication that they are 'doing well.' IF they turn it around and they stay united, then that will be surprising and I will be happy for them. But there is no reason to pridict that they will be doing well,

Many priest and Bishops in England have been converting to Catholicism, and highly visible public figures too, for years this has been going on...http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0504018.htm

The Episcopal Church America has been losing about 5% of it's membership every year since 2003, gay bishop in MA and all that.

And the Episcopal Church in the US has tried to sue breakaway churches that leave the Episcopal Church and join Anglican African Bishop churches for their property back, and they have started to lose those law suits, namely in Virginia most recently. Rulings say that the church membership can vote to leave and take their church building with them...More loses for the American Anglicans.

And just a couple of weeks ago a conference in Jerusalem, with some 300 conservative Anglican bishops and archbishops from around the world announced the creation of a new grouping that does not recognize the authority of Anglican leader the Archbishop of Canterbury. The potential death knell of the world Anglican Church as it has been known for the last two hundred years.


Why do you think this is relevant? But to answer the question, I'm American.



Probably not, there is no indication that they are 'doing well.' IF they turn it around and they stay united, then that will be surprising and I will be happy for them. But there is no reason to predict that they will be doing well,

1- They seem pretty united to me.

2- It's not, not to the matter at hand, at least. Thanks for answering.

3- Well, if it's politics you're talking about, hey, diversity is a good thing.

1- They seem pretty united to me.

LONDON (AFP) - A divisive row over homosexuality and women bishops has left the worldwide Anglican Communion facing one of its worst ever crises, to the point where there is talk of an irrevocable schism.
link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080702/lf_afp/britainreligionanglicangayswomen;_ylt=AgyoyspAxPKJgZWm5wiZbJA7Xs8F)

Side note edit: notice that this schism talk was even BEFORE the most recent events took place, how much worse is it going to be now? They couldn't wait until after or during the conference to do this vote?
2- It's not, not to the matter at hand, at least. Thanks for answering.
You're welcome.

3- Well, if it's politics you're talking about, hey, diversity is a good thing.

Diversity is a good thing, up until civil war anyway, and the Anglicans (both sides) are pushing for civil war.

Hot damn, they're only 136 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Woodhull#Presidential_candidate) years behind the US!

Hot damn, they're only 136 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Woodhull#Presidential_candidate) years behind the US!

What? She was a presidential candidate... nothing to do with religion. Besides, considering how her attempt was treated I wouldn't think it was really anything to trumpet about.

Oh no! They are taking over everything we have! Why, we just had a Woman waste millions of dollars on a campaign she lost when she started! They are slow starting to clime the latter...

This has been a long time coming. Not ordaining women bishops has always been a botch - if you ordain women priests, you should be able to appoint bishops (a bishop just being a type of priest). There is no theological reason to have one but not the other.

Now, in typical CofE fashion, they're going to botch this one too to keep the traditionalists on board. But I suppose we should be happy with that - it's how the church works. Other people take a step forward, we take decades of 'prayer and contemplation' before coming up with a stupid solution that pleases no one. But at least it does (eventually) move us on.

Hot damn, they're only 136 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Woodhull#Presidential_candidate) years behind the US!
What has that got to do with anything?

Besides, considering how her attempt was treated I wouldn't think it was really anything to trumpet about.
What he said.

Diversity is a good thing, up until civil war anyway, and the Anglicans (both sides) are pushing for civil war.

*tries to imagine civil war about something as insignificant as religion in the UK*

*fails*

I hate to break it to you, you might have had a point about 400 years ago, but things have moved on a bit by now.

*tries to imagine civil war about something as insignificant as religion in the UK*

*fails*

I hate to break it to you, you might have had a point about 400 years ago, but things have moved on a bit by now.

I think he meant civil war in the rather narrower context of within the church itself. As in people shouting at each other and the church breaking up.

Oh god, religious people arguing is so lulzworthy, kinda reminds me of Trotskyites arguing...

*Waits for the Church of England to start arguing about whether women bishops can be lesbians*

*Waits for the Church of England to start arguing about whether women bishops can be lesbians*
Should that not be the other way around?

I think he meant civil war in the rather narrower context of within the church itself. As in people shouting at each other and the church breaking up.

Sort of like a dispute? Quite possible. You tend to get that in groups where one part feels it's time to catch up with the rest of the population, and the other feels that the Middle Ages were just fine and dandy, thanks so very much.

*shurgs*

My educated guess is, very few people in the UK will give a f....

Should that not be the other way around?

Yes you are right it should.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080708/ap_on_re_eu/britain_women_bishops

Once again the traditionalist zombies are rendered powerless!

Pentecostals are way ahead of the C of E there... we've had women clergy for almost 100 years now.

Actually social conservatism has almost no basis in Christianity at all, most of it's basis is actually in medieval Islamic tribal law. These being the main things we associate with social conservatism: separation of genders, repressed sexuality, modest dressing etc. If you look at Western Christian culture in the medieval times, relations were relatively liberal, the whole 'courtly love' concept basically made the Christian kingdoms into sex-crazed places, this is actually something the Muslims particularly disdained.

Just a thought anyways.

I think he meant civil war in the rather narrower context of within the church itself. As in people shouting at each other and the church breaking up.

Exactly right, thank you. I was talking about the potential split of the Church Communion, i.e., the possibility of the world Anglican church becoming 2 different churches (if not more).

Sort of like a dispute? Quite possible. You tend to get that in groups where one part feels it's time to catch up with the rest of the population, and the other feels that the Middle Ages were just fine and dandy, thanks so very much.

*shurgs*

My educated guess is, very few people in the UK will give a f....

The Anglican Church is far larger than just the membership in Great Britain. It's kind of silly to think that only the English have any say about their disputes on the global scale. To put it into perspective, there are 38 Anglican Provinces, and only 4 or 5 are in GB. The Anglican church in the southern hemisphere will soon have more members than the Anglican churches in the northern hemisphere if they don't already. A global scale splitting of the Anglican Provinces was what I meant when I used the words Civil War.

The Anglican Church is far larger than just the membership in Great Britain. It's kind of silly to think that only the English has any say about their disputes on the global scale.
That's rather like saying that it's kind of silly to think that only the Pope has any say about disputes within the Catholic Church. Either the Anglican Church is a single entity made up of all those provinces, or it isn't. I agree with your earlier point, this will lead to ever more bitter infighting, and it looks inevitable that there will be a full-blown schism.

That's rather like saying that it's kind of silly to think that only the Pope has any say about disputes within the Catholic Church. Either the Anglican Church is a single entity made up of all those provinces, or it isn't.
I would say it's not the same at all really, because the Anglicans don't 'have' a Vatican type of overseer or oversight of the Anglican Provinces. They have a 'Communion,' which is more like a club of similarly minded independents, they share an 'agreed to theology of basic concepts' and that holds them together. In a way, the Anglican church still sees itself both as a non-provinced Catholic church and a reformed church. Archbishop Rowan Williams can't 'mandate' any rule changes in any of the provinces outside of his own province, and yet, he is the agreed to 'high' archbishop. Kind of like the UN I suppose, the UN President, for example, has no real power in any of the country members, he only tries to hold them all together so they all stay in the UN.

I agree with your earlier point, this will lead to ever more bitter infighting, and it looks inevitable that there will be a full-blown schism.

It's not a sure thing yet, but we'll find out soon enough I think, at their Lambeth Conference of Bishops later this month...

Pentecostals are way ahead of the C of E there... we've had women clergy for almost 100 years now.

I'm not challenging you, I'm curious, which Pentecostals are you thinking of? There are many different Pentecostal Churches, I'm pretty sure they don't all have women clergy. Are you thinking of one in particular?

I'm not challenging you, I'm curious, which Pentecostals are you thinking of? There are many different Pentecostal Churches, I'm pretty sure they don't all have women clergy. Are you thinking of one in particular?

Assemblies of God.

Assemblies of God.

Okay, now its my turn to be surprised. I know something of the AoG churches and their general church bylaws, and after seeing what you say about yourself in other threads on this forum, I'm surprised you said that one here. Are you saying that you are an active church goer or an active member of a AoG church now, or are you saying that you once were an active member or were raised in an AoG church, but you are no longer a member? Because you said the words we've had women clergy, I'm under the impression you weren't just mentioning them, but associating yourself with them.

Okay, now its my turn to be surprised. I know something of the AoG churches and their general church bylaws, and after seeing what you say about yourself in other threads on this forum, I'm surprised you said that one here. Are you saying that you are an active church goer or an active member of a AoG church now, or are you saying that you once were an active member or were raised in an AoG church, but you are no longer a member? Because you said the words we've had women clergy, I'm under the impression you weren't just mentioning them, but associating yourself with them.

Active churchgoer, active member of an AoG church, and raised in one. The church I belong to has had female clergy (and still does) for over fifty years.

Active churchgoer, active member of an AoG church, and raised in one. The church I belong to has had female clergy (and still does) for over fifty years.

Oh, I wasn't surprised by women clergy, I was surprised that you said them, after what you say about yourself in other threads on this forum, I was surprised that you go to a AoG church and they let you. Seems like you would have been placed under discipline by the AoG for doing the stuff in your personal life that you talk about here. I was surprised that you go to a church that you obviously don't agree with.

Oh, I wasn't surprised by women clergy, I was surprised that you, after what you say about yourself in other threads on this forum, go to a AoG church and they let you. Seems like you would have been placed under discipline by the AoG for doing to stuff in your personal life that you talk about here. I was surprised that you go to a church to obviously don't agree with.

All sinners are accepted. And there's no public confessional.

All sinners are accepted. And there's no public confessional.

All sinners are accepted, yes, I am aware of this. There is an AoG policy for disciplining members though ... ah heck, I'll just quote it:
Recommended Bylaws for Local
Assemblies

Recommended by
The General Presbytery of
The General Council of the Assemblies of God
Revised to August 2006
Discipline is an exercise of scriptural authority for which the church is responsible (Matthew 16:19; 18:15-20; Luke 17:3; John 20:23; Acts 16:4; Ephesians 5:11; 1 Timothy 5:20; 2 Timothy 4:2; Hebrews 13:17). The purpose of discipline is to promote repentance and restoration through exposing sinful behavior. It is to be redemptive in nature as well as corrective. Any member of the assembly is subject to discipline on the basis of unscriptural conduct or doctrinal departure from the Tenets of Faith of this assembly, as determined in the sole discretion of the church board. The discipline of ministers who hold credentials with the Assemblies of God is administered by the District Council and General Council of the Assemblies of God.

They have a policy of how the minister is supposed to go to the person in private, and if that doesn't work, then in public, and the person can't vote or even resign while they are under discipline, etc. Like I said, I was surprised that said them is all.

All sinners are accepted, yes, I am aware of this. There is an AoG policy for disciplining members though ... ah heck, I'll just quote it:
Recommended Bylaws for Local
Assemblies

Recommended by
The General Presbytery of
The General Council of the Assemblies of God
Revised to August 2006
Discipline is an exercise of scriptural authority for which the church is responsible (Matthew 16:19; 18:15-20; Luke 17:3; John 20:23; Acts 16:4; Ephesians 5:11; 1 Timothy 5:20; 2 Timothy 4:2; Hebrews 13:17). The purpose of discipline is to promote repentance and restoration through exposing sinful behavior. It is to be redemptive in nature as well as corrective. Any member of the assembly is subject to discipline on the basis of unscriptural conduct or doctrinal departure from the Tenets of Faith of this assembly, as determined in the sole discretion of the church board. The discipline of ministers who hold credentials with the Assemblies of God is administered by the District Council and General Council of the Assemblies of God.

They have a policy of how the minister is supposed to go to the person in private, and if that doesn't work, then in public, and the person can't vote or even resign while they are under discipline, etc. Like I said, I was surprised that said them is all.

Where does it say they are mind readers?

Where does it say they are mind readers?

Ah, not guilty if you're not caught eh? ;) Should I pray for you?

Ah, not guilty if you're not caught eh? ;) Should I pray for you?

Be my guest. But I always recommend that people pray for themselves first.

LONDON (AFP) - A divisive row over homosexuality and women bishops has left the worldwide Anglican Communion facing one of its worst ever crises, to the point where there is talk of an irrevocable schism.
link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080702/lf_afp/britainreligionanglicangayswomen;_ylt=AgyoyspAxPKJgZWm5wiZbJA7Xs8F)

Side note edit: notice that this schism talk was even BEFORE the most recent events took place, how much worse is it going to be now? They couldn't wait until after or during the conference to do this vote?

Meh a scizm in a church, so whats new then?

There's already a schism over the gay bishop on the landing...

Good news from (one of) the purveyors of Good News. Though there's been female and gay ministers in The Kirk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scotland) for some time now, along with a couple of female Moderators (yaaay for my parents church?).

Anyhoo, as Balderdash has been saying, it'll be interesting to see what happens to the Anglican alliance after Lambeth.

What I'd love to see within my lifetime would be the first married lesbian Pope, married to a lesbian imam! :D

What I'd love to see within my lifetime would be the first married lesbian Pope, married to a lesbian imam! :D

Who get divorced...

Who get divorced...

Yup, both having gotten divorced first, too, one from a lesbian rabbi, the other from a lesbian hindu monk.

What I'd love to see within my lifetime would be the first married lesbian Pope, married to a lesbian imam! :D
I wouldn't hold your breath.

Yup, both having gotten divorced first, too, one from a lesbian rabbi, the other from a lesbian hindu monk.

after getting a sex change from being a man

I wouldn't hold your breath.

You can't. *Blows on Chumbly and watches as he can't catch it or hold it* See?

after getting a sex change from being a man

Nice touch, I must admit.

You can't. *Blows on Chumbly and watches as he can't catch it or hold it* See?
*inhales deeply*

*holds breath*

*pedantically points to the obvious*

*inhales deeply*

*holds breath*

*pedantically points to the obvious*

But you said you wouldn't hold MY breath, not YOURS. :D

Anyhoo, as Balderdash has been saying, it'll be interesting to see what happens to the Anglican alliance after Lambeth.

Y'all are presumably aware that there won't be any pronouncements coming out of Lambeth this year? By the time the conference starts the news stories will be over -- it's all about who's going to boycott in a huff, who's not, and who can't actually boycott because they're not invited in the first place, and most of that is known now.

Not that folks outside the Communion won't use the occasion to say nasty, dismissive things about the Anglicans, but then what else is new?

Y'all are presumably aware that there won't be any pronouncements coming out of Lambeth this year?
Not pronouncements, no, but the Lambeth conferences are a good catalyst for the oft-threatened schisms.

Or at least, for certain Bishops to go off in a huff and create a new group of disgruntled Anglicans.

Go Anglicans! Now if only the Catholics and the hardline Protestants would start doing the same thing. It's good to know that they're letting women serve their faith in the same capacity as men.

Fair enough, but it seems to me that such things have already happened without the conference taking place to spark them. Despite my best efforts to be cynical, I retain a shred of hope for a positive outcome from this year's conference. Given that they can't settle the split by tying Peter Akinola and Gene Robinson up in a burlap sack and seeing who wins (there's something in conference rules about a one-bishop-per-sack limit, I believe,) the "Hai Guyz! Les jest talk face-to-face an re-forge conneksions an stuf!" seems to be the next-best thing.

Given that they can't settle the split by tying Peter Akinola and Gene Robinson up in a burlap sack and seeing who wins (there's something in conference rules about a one-bishop-per-sack limit, I believe,)
Each is allowed a deacon as a second.

the "Hai Guyz! Les jest talk face-to-face an re-forge conneksions an stuf!" seems to be the next-best thing.
The spotlight is on Rowan Williams, I suppose.

Side note edit: notice that this schism talk was even BEFORE the most recent events took place, how much worse is it going to be now? They couldn't wait until after or during the conference to do this vote?

Is a schism always a bad thing?

In my mind, religion is very personal. The formation of a church structure should be people with similar religious views coming together. It should work from the bottom up, as it were, rather than from the top down.

So, with that mindset, I don't think a schism is horrible. It means that there is an issue that people differ on to the point that they no longer see eye to eye. Thus, they have no reason to remain affiliated.

That said, I do think keeping women and homosexuals out of the clergy (or higher levels of clergy) is a silly reason to break up a church over. But, to each his own...

Is a schism always a bad thing?

Yes, it is always a bad thing. However, sometimes, like divorce, it is necessary, but it is always a bad thing. But similar to a divorce, a 'required' divorce probably necessitates there being at least one guilty and unrepentant party...

In my mind, religion is very personal. The formation of a church structure should be people with similar religious views coming together. It should work from the bottom up, as it were, rather than from the top down.

I am not against a personal religion. However, without oversight, a personal interpretation will frequently lead to incorrect conclusions and incomplete theology. If you are not convinced, think of any other field of study, think of Medicine, Scientific research, think of archaeological linguistic translation. History has shown that those that work alone work the least efficiently, sometimes even in entire futility. Peer review and corroborating assistants and colleagues help ensure a successful outcome in every field, and the same is true for theological pursuits.

So, with that mindset, I don't think a schism is horrible. It means that there is an issue that people differ on to the point that they no longer see eye to eye. Thus, they have no reason to remain affiliated.

Unity of the church is a value to itself, and that would be one reason that the CoE has been in twenty year discussions with the Vatican about how to reunite the Communion between them. Clearly this vote will not assist that endeavor. Members of both parties felt the potential reward of the union made the talk worthy of the effort, even if they are doomed to failure. I suspect that many of the orthodox clergy of the CoE will resign and join the Catholic or Lutheran (depending of their objection to the CoE's moves) churches in the next couple of years. The schism may be required though, and it will be ugly if it happens, churches suing congregations for property and monetary compensation etc., all over the world, it will be sad, if it happens.

That said, I do think keeping women and homosexuals out of the clergy (or higher levels of clergy) is a silly reason to break up a church over. But, to each his own...

I agree with the first and I can support that viewpoint scripturally and with examples from the historic church and scriptural translation, I suspect a person would be a bit hard pressed to make that second argument scripturally or historically or by any tradition though.

Yes, it is always a bad thing.
Why?

Two sets of people get to worship their god in the way they wish. What's bad about that?

Yes, it is always a bad thing. However, sometimes, like divorce, it is necessary, but it is always a bad thing. But similar to a divorce, a 'required' divorce probably necessitates there being at least one guilty and unrepentant party...

Not always, but I don't see this like divorce.

It's more like people who form a committee for some goal, but find themselves at odds on how to accomplish that goal. As such, it is likely better for them to split up and try their own methods.

I am not against a personal religion. However, without oversight, a personal interpretation will frequently lead to incorrect conclusions and incomplete theology.

Incorrect and incomplete by whose standards? Yours?

What makes you think that your own conclusions are correct and your theology is complete if not your own personal reflection?

If you are not convinced, think of any other field of study, think of Medicine, Scientific research, think of archaeological linguistic translation. History has shown that those that work alone work the least efficiently, sometimes even in entire futility. Peer review and corroborating assistants and colleagues help ensure a successful outcome in every field, and the same is true for theological pursuits.

Not really. It's a very different field of study - one that relies much more upon internal reflection. I can't show you my guidance from God. We cannot both examine it with the same measurement techniques to see if we both get the same thing out of it.

In many ways, trying to peer review religion would be like trying to peer review one's emotional reaction to something. Someone else's description/opinion may be useful, but the two of you are never actually experiencing the same thing, so neither can say that the other is objectively wrong.

In all honesty, I think religious organizations likely keep people from the truth, by locking them into dogma that they are expected to accept without question.

Unity of the church is a value to itself, and that would be one reason that the CoE has been in twenty year discussions with the Vatican about how to reunite the Communion between them.

Why is that a value unto itself?

Clearly this vote will not assist that endeavor. Members of both parties felt the potential reward of the union made the talk worthy of the effort, even if they are doomed to failure. I suspect that many of the orthodox clergy of the CoE will resign and join the Catholic or Lutheran (depending of their objection to the CoE's moves) churches in the next couple of years. The schism may be required though, and it will be ugly if it happens, churches suing congregations for property and monetary compensation etc., all over the world, it will be sad, if it happens.

Perhaps. But if those pushing for the change believe they have found the right path, would it be better for them to avoid it just to keep the church together?

I think not.

I agree with the first and I can support that viewpoint scripturally and with examples from the historic church and scriptural translation, I suspect a person would be a bit hard pressed to make that second argument scripturally or historically or by any tradition though.

*shrug* It depends on how much stock you put in human beings, society, and tradition. I think that scripture is useful, but I don't see it as the final arbiter of truth. History only tells us what has been done, not what is right. And tradition most definitely is not the final arbiter of truth.

Meh a scizm in a church, so whats new then?
Especially a Protestant church.

Not always, but I don't see this like divorce.

It's more like people who form a committee for some goal, but find themselves at odds on how to accomplish that goal. As such, it is likely better for them to split up and try their own methods.

They not only are a committee, they are a family, a family of generations. Those members are torn apart, like a family that is split apart because of a divorce. It's not a perfect analogy, but it is much closer than a committee.

Incorrect and incomplete by whose standards? Yours?

What makes you think that your own conclusions are correct and your theology is complete if not your own personal reflection?

First of all, I didn't define 'my' belief as the correct belief, I supported the theory that I can't achieve the best answer if left to my own resources. If we use only our own resources, Jesus said we would fail, we need him, we need God because we all fall short. Only through Jesus do we have hope. If I attempt to intellectualize my own salvation or save myself through concepts created out of my humanity, I pretend that I can save myself.

Not really. It's a very different field of study - one that relies much more upon internal reflection. I can't show you my guidance from God. We cannot both examine it with the same measurement techniques to see if we both get the same thing out of it.

In many ways, trying to peer review religion would be like trying to peer review one's emotional reaction to something. Someone else's description/opinion may be useful, but the two of you are never actually experiencing the same thing, so neither can say that the other is objectively wrong.

Jesus taught. Jesus preached, and walked and made examples. IF the apostles thought like you say here, they wouldn't have heard him because they would have been off in their own world imagining that his truth wasn't their truth? If you were right, then Jesus shouldn't have bothered trying to teach other people. That would have been erroneous, and I'm sure you know it.

And it wasn't just Jesus himself that Jesus said should preach, after they learned Jesus told them to go and preach themselves of what they had learned, proclaim the good news, eventually to the whole world. He didn't say keep it to yourselves because no one can share what they've learned and no one can understand anything from what they hear others say... Clearly he expected them to learn and teach in groups.

In all honesty, I think religious organizations likely keep people from the truth, by locking them into dogma that they are expected to accept without question.

You built a strawman there. You said the group expects dogma without reason and they are stopped from questioning. Who advocated such a group? Not I. Neither did I describe one. A group that prayerfully approaches Bible studies together can do it all on their own, they can do it with pre-made course material, they can do it via collective research, there is a myriad of ways. How are they stifled?

Why is that a value unto itself?
We have fellowship with Jesus, and having fellowship with Jesus we have it with one another. If we think that Jesus has fellowship with them, why wouldn't we think that Jesus would expect us to get along and have fellowship with them too? Together we are stronger, separated we are individually weak. Our adversary gains advantage if he can divide us. Among other reasons.


Perhaps. But if those pushing for the change believe they have found the right path, would it be better for them to avoid it just to keep the church together?

I think not.
I agree. But they need to be able to justify their theology with Scripture, with convincing insight, and with the help of the Holy Spirit. None of those things alone would suffice. Jesus is either the leader of a movement, or he is not.

*shrug* It depends on how much stock you put in human beings, society, and tradition. I think that scripture is useful, but I don't see it as the final arbiter of truth. History only tells us what has been done, not what is right. And tradition most definitely is not the final arbiter of truth.

Scripture and tradition and history is how Jesus' teachings are conveyed to us through the ages. Without that, we aren't Christians per-se, we are secular humanists or something else using Jesus name like a brand name label to draw customers attention. Jesus either is the Son of God and the method of salvation for mankind or he is not. If he is, then his 'true church' (not a denomination) is his flock and he watches over it and they recognize his voice when they hear it (and the Holy Spirit has certainly spoken to us through scripture, tradition and apostolic transmission). If he is not, then Christ's message and "Good News" is not required and we can save ourselves?

I think he is what scripture, tradition and authentic apostolic teachings have said he is.

Not really. It's a very different field of study - one that relies much more upon internal reflection. I can't show you my guidance from God. We cannot both examine it with the same measurement techniques to see if we both get the same thing out of it.

In many ways, trying to peer review religion would be like trying to peer review one's emotional reaction to something. Someone else's description/opinion may be useful, but the two of you are never actually experiencing the same thing, so neither can say that the other is objectively wrong.
I agree. God (at least the Christian God) views each person as an individual, and so it's silly for that person to not spend at least sometime pondering personal interpretations, revelations, etc.

In all honesty, I think religious organizations likely keep people from the truth, by locking them into dogma that they are expected to accept without question.

I disagree. People are social animals. An individual without a society is an incomplete individual, and so it makes sense to have a religious organization. Also, I accept at least somewhat with Balderdash's peer-review analogy. Religious organizations lay down dogma, but they also provide a way for people to discuss their views. Much of religion is subjective, but plenty of it is objective, too. (That is, its adherents believe in certain objective truths.) Discussion tends to cancel out the "rose-colored glasses" that individuals in a group may have, and that's a good thing.

The Congregationalist Church is pretty much founded on using schism as their system. That church is possibly one of the least organized and dogmatic of the Christian churches because any time a congregation gets too big, or any time members of a congregation come to disagree sufficiently with the rest of the group, they splinter off and create a new congregation. Each congregation is independent and not led by a clerical hierarchy above the level of the congregation.

Now, it's true the Congregationalist Church is much smaller than the Anglican Church, but maybe that's not a bad thing. Look how much trouble it is to hold such a large group together. Let the disputing parties go their separate ways and wish each of them the best of luck. What's so bad about that?

They not only are a committee, they are a family, a family of generations. Those members are torn apart, like a family that is split apart because of a divorce. It's not a perfect analogy, but it is much closer than a committee.

Individual congregations are like a family. But very few people have anything at all to do with the hierarchy at the top. If they're "family", they're that distant part of your family that you see at family reunions and wonder, "How is that person related to me?"

First of all, I didn't define 'my' belief as the correct belief, I supported the theory that I can't achieve the best answer if left to my own resources. If we use only our own resources, Jesus said we would fail, we need him, we need God because we all fall short. Only through Jesus do we have hope. If I attempt to intellectualize my own salvation or save myself through concepts created out of my humanity, I pretend that I can save myself.

I bolded the important part there. Jesus made it clear that we can all have a personal connection with God. We don't need a hierarchy of priests to figure it out for us - we need Him.

Jesus taught. Jesus preached, and walked and made examples. IF the apostles thought like you say here, they wouldn't have heard him because they would have been off in their own world imagining that his truth wasn't their truth? If you were right, then Jesus shouldn't have bothered trying to teach other people. That would have been erroneous, and I'm sure you know it.

Do you believe that Jesus was just another human being?

Meanwhile, I never said that we shouldn't listen to others - just that we shouldn't rely on them to provide some sort of infallible truth. We have to find truth in our own way - which can certainly include examining the teachings of others and determining for ourselves whether or not they are accurate.

And it wasn't just Jesus himself that Jesus said should preach, after they learned Jesus told them to go and preach themselves of what they had learned, proclaim the good news, eventually to the whole world. He didn't say keep it to yourselves because no one can share what they've learned and no one can understand anything from what they hear others say... Clearly he expected them to learn and teach in groups.

At what point did I say anything about keeping it to yourself? What I said was that we all have our own paths to find. We may find the teachings of others useful, but relying on them alone is putting our faith in human beings, rather than in God.

You built a strawman there. You said the group expects dogma without reason and they are stopped from questioning. Who advocated such a group?

Every organized religion ever formed.

Not I. Neither did I describe one. A group that prayerfully approaches Bible studies together can do it all on their own, they can do it with pre-made course material, they can do it via collective research, there is a myriad of ways. How are they stifled?

If they are expected to follow dogma that they find to be incorrect in order to avoid schism, they are stifled.

If they should not do so, you should be applauding two groups that have come to different conclusions on how a church should be run splitting into two groups.

We have fellowship with Jesus, and having fellowship with Jesus we have it with one another. If we think that Jesus has fellowship with them, why wouldn't we think that Jesus would expect us to get along and have fellowship with them too? Together we are stronger, separated we are individually weak. Our adversary gains advantage if he can divide us. Among other reasons.

Having fellowship is possible without agreeing or being a part of the same hierarchy.

In truth, I think the hierarchies that have been created in most of the churches of the world are opposed to Christ's teachings.

I agree. But they need to be able to justify their theology with Scripture, with convincing insight, and with the help of the Holy Spirit. None of those things alone would suffice. Jesus is either the leader of a movement, or he is not.

People can use those sources and still come to different conclusions. Whatever we find in those sources is filtered through our own fallibility.

Scripture and tradition and history is how Jesus' teachings are conveyed to us through the ages.

If you believe in a personal relationship with Christ, that isn't the only way.

And if you look closely, a great deal of tradition has no basis in anything we have of Christ's teachings.

I think he is what scripture, tradition and authentic apostolic teachings have said he is.

Ok. I think you're relying too heavily on men, and not enough on Jesus himself.

I disagree. People are social animals. An individual without a society is an incomplete individual, and so it makes sense to have a religious organization. Also, I accept at least somewhat with Balderdash's peer-review analogy. Religious organizations lay down dogma, but they also provide a way for people to discuss their views. Much of religion is subjective, but plenty of it is objective, too. (That is, its adherents believe in certain objective truths.) Discussion tends to cancel out the "rose-colored glasses" that individuals in a group may have, and that's a good thing.

I'm not against discussion. Quite the contrary in fact, I think it is one of the best tools we have for exploring religion and working out our beliefs.

You don't need a structure in which you are expected to follow majority dogma in order to have discussion.

And you definitely don't need a hierarchy in which some people dominate the discussion and others are just expected to listen. A true discussion requires everyone in the group to be able to provide input equally. Otherwise, it isn't really a discussion - it's a lecture.

In the case of organized religion, what you generally have is a top-down, rather than a bottom-up organization. The people at the bottom are engaged in discussion only in so much as they are supposed to learn to agree with the people at the top or in things that the people at the top deem unimportant. The people at the top make all the major decisions and send them down the chain.

Individual congregations are like a family. But very few people have anything at all to do with the hierarchy at the top. If they're "family", they're that distant part of your family that you see at family reunions and wonder, "How is that person related to me?"
I won’t disagree.

I bolded the important part there. Jesus made it clear that we can all have a personal connection with God. We don't need a hierarchy of priests to figure it out for us - we need Him.

We absolutely need Jesus first and foremost, I completely agree. And as one of the fundamental tenants of the faith, the early apostles would have used that sort of thing as a measuring stick to know who was preaching and understanding in the ‘faith’ and who was not. Anyone who was teaching something different than that would have been addressed. If someone was taught something different, they could go to one of the witnesses and ask them for clarification etc., the hierarchy of authority was and should be used to maintain the integrity of those basic truths and keep them for posterity.

Do you believe that Jesus was just another human being?
Jesus was Man and God.

Meanwhile, I never said that we shouldn't listen to others - just that we shouldn't rely on them to provide some sort of infallible truth. We have to find truth in our own way - which can certainly include examining the teachings of others and determining for ourselves whether or not they are accurate.
Jesus placed the responsibility for the transmission of his message to humans beings through other human beings, Jesus seems to trust humans more than you and I normally would. And yes, testing the spirit is an essential part of being a Christian, no one is advocating for ignorant and blind obedience.

At what point did I say anything about keeping it to yourself? What I said was that we all have our own paths to find. We may find the teachings of others useful, but relying on them alone is putting our faith in human beings, rather than in God.

Relying on the transmission of the message, through the ages, from the voice of Jesus to us through the handwriting of people, we can know what is from the apostles and what is new or different than what they taught. If it’s new of different, it’s not what Jesus and the Apostles taught. If they didn’t teach it, maybe we shouldn’t either. In that regard putting faith in our fellow human beings is nothing other than following what Jesus himself put together when he assembled his followers.

Every organized religion ever formed.

Your bias is showing when you paint with such a wide brush…
If they are expected to follow dogma that they find to be incorrect in order to avoid schism, they are stifled.

As you’ve successfully argued and pointed out, at some point you have to choose to disassociate yourself from wrong teaching. Leave that church if after through investigation, theological study, examination of self motives and hard prayer you find that there is no reconciliation between your side and other side. Unlike what many have said and continue to teach, I think one of the two sides is most likely going to be wrong, whereas the modern way is to try and argue that maybe both sides are ‘right’ for themselves. Jesus way is the correct way, not, whatever works for me.

If they should not do so, you should be applauding two groups that have come to different conclusions on how a church should be run splitting into two groups.

If Jesus is applauding, then I should be applauding, if he is not, than neither should I. If wrongful teaching has been allowed to permeated Jesus' Church, to the point that surgery is required to cut it out, then pray for a successful surgery but don’t applaud because the illness was allowed to grow until surgery was required. It should have been dealt with before surgery was needed.

Having fellowship is possible without agreeing or being a part of the same hierarchy.
In this we (you and I) agree.

In truth, I think the hierarchies that have been created in most of the churches of the world are opposed to Christ's teachings.
Most is a big word. And if by most you mean, all of their teaching and no truth for salvation can be found there, then no, I disagree. If by most you mean, most churches have some erroneous technicalities in their tradition that isn’t supported by scripture or authentic tradition, then yes, I agree, most churches have nuances that aren’t quite right. But I also think that Christ can be found by the individual in ‘most’ Christian denominational or independent churches.

People can use those sources and still come to different conclusions. Whatever we find in those sources is filtered through our own fallibility. And our fallibility is one good reason that we need to critically evaluate our beliefs against the historic tradition and the teaching of the Apostles records, especially if our opinions are contrary to theirs.

If you believe in a personal relationship with Christ, that isn't the only way.

And if you look closely, a great deal of tradition has no basis in anything we have of Christ's teachings.

I would say the reverse is true in my experience, the more research I do, the more I find that the traditions reach back further than first impressions would indicate. But I suspect that what you are thinking of when we use the word tradition and what I am thinking of when we say it are not exactly the same. Ethnic and cultural differences, in my view, are not the ‘traditions’ I am thinking of. Salvation through Christ and his ordinances, such as Baptism and the Communion or Eucharist, are the traditions that reach back. Hierarchy can be measured to chapter 1 in the Book of Acts. When searching for examples for understanding the assignment of authority within the church, reading the entirety of the Book of Acts is a good place to start. Clearly they developed a process of transmitting tradition to us right from the beginning.

Ok. I think you're relying too heavily on men, and not enough on Jesus himself.
I’m relying on the transmission of Jesus “Good New” through the method Jesus picked and set in motion.

We absolutely need Jesus first and foremost, I completely agree. And as one of the fundamental tenants of the faith, the early apostles would have used that sort of thing as a measuring stick to know who was preaching and understanding in the ‘faith’ and who was not. Anyone who was teaching something different than that would have been addressed. If someone was taught something different, they could go to one of the witnesses and ask them for clarification etc., the hierarchy of authority was and should be used to maintain the integrity of those basic truths and keep them for posterity.

Having a hierarchy requires the assumption that those in authority are somehow privy to a closer relationship to Jesus than those at the bottom.

In my mind, that is directly opposed to Christ's teachings that we can all have a direct relationship with God.

Jesus was Man and God.

Not fallible then, right?

Jesus placed the responsibility for the transmission of his message to humans beings through other human beings, Jesus seems to trust humans more than you and I normally would. And yes, testing the spirit is an essential part of being a Christian, no one is advocating for ignorant and blind obedience.

That isn't the only transmission, however. The Word is also written on our own hearts. And that is a source much closer than word of mouth.

Relying on the transmission of the message, through the ages, from the voice of Jesus to us through the handwriting of people, we can know what is from the apostles and what is new or different than what they taught.

From what we know of the apostles teachings, they weren't really consistent themselves. They each taught from their own points of view and the early churches became a hodgepodge of beliefs. Most of the generally held "absolutes" of Christianity weren't settled upon until long after the apostles were dead - and after quite a bit of dispute.

The apostles weren't made infallible by their interaction with Christ any more than any other human being is.

Your bias is showing when you paint with such a wide brush…

The very concept of an organized religion is meant to quell dissent within the religion. In the end, there are always points at which it's either sit down and agree, or get out. Some churches do that to a greater extent than others, of course, but they all do it.

As you’ve successfully argued and pointed out, at some point you have to choose to disassociate yourself from wrong teaching. Leave that church if after through investigation, theological study, examination of self motives and hard prayer you find that there is no reconciliation between your side and other side. Unlike what many have said and continue to teach, I think one of the two sides is most likely going to be wrong, whereas the modern way is to try and argue that maybe both sides are ‘right’ for themselves. Jesus way is the correct way, not, whatever works for me.

But people can reasonably disagree on what exactly is Jesus' way. And since we are all fallible human beings, we can never be certain that the wrong teaching truly is wrong. We can only pray for guidance and hope that we have properly interpreted it.

If Jesus is applauding, then I should be applauding, if he is not, than neither should I. If wrongful teaching has been allowed to permeated Jesus' Church, to the point that surgery is required to cut it out, then pray for a successful surgery but don’t applaud because the illness was allowed to grow until surgery was required. It should have been dealt with before surgery was needed.

I don't think Jesus expects perfection. We are, and will remain, fallible. Jesus is well aware of that. I think the search for truth - honestly trying to find and follow it - is the important thing. Disagreements, then, aren't the end of the world. We will all be wrong about some things.


Most is a big word. And if by most you mean, all of their teaching and no truth for salvation can be found there, then no, I disagree.

I didn't talk about teachings. I talked about the hierarchy itself. Christ was clear that we can all have a person relationship with God - that we can all search for truth and find it written on our hearts. We don't need another human being as an intermediary for that. We are all equal and flawed before God.

So the organized hierarchies are, in my opinion, very much opposed to Christ's teachings. The idea that a priest or cardinal or bishop (or similar rankings where they are called something different) should have more say in a religion than any member of the congregation is a problem, in my mind.

That isn't, of course, to say that we cannot respect the opinions of those who have spent more time in study than we have.

And our fallibility is one good reason that we need to critically evaluate our beliefs against the historic tradition and the teaching of the Apostles records, especially if our opinions are contrary to theirs.

The people who formed the traditions and the apostles were equally fallible. They can be good references, but they should not be given reverence over the guidance we get from God.

I would say the reverse is true in my experience, the more research I do, the more I find that the traditions reach back further than first impressions would indicate. But I suspect that what you are thinking of when we use the word tradition and what I am thinking of when we say it are not exactly the same. Ethnic and cultural differences, in my view, are not the ‘traditions’ I am thinking of.

I'm thinking of all sorts of things. Take, for instance, the Catholic traditions of confession and penance. These things were formed because the church leaders didn't know what to do about a person who was baptized and then sinned again. So they made something up. Originally, the penitent would be kept separate from the rest of the congregation during worship until the priest determined that they could rejoin. These days, it's saying a certain number of prayers or whatever.

Salvation through Christ and his ordinances, such as Baptism and the Communion or Eucharist, are the traditions that reach back.

The existence of these things definitely reach back. The details, however, have always been in dispute.

Hierarchy can be measured to chapter 1 in the Book of Acts. When searching for examples for understanding the assignment of authority within the church, reading the entirety of the Book of Acts is a good place to start. Clearly they developed a process of transmitting tradition to us right from the beginning.

...which tells us, at best, about how the apostles thought the church should be organized.

Unless we place our faith in the infallibility of a few human beings, we cannot assume that they were correct. Personally, given much of what is reported of Christ's teachings and the guidance I've received, I think they were wrong to create it that way.

I’m relying on the transmission of Jesus “Good New” through the method Jesus picked and set in motion.

But it isn't the only method of transmission. Why rely on the more distant one over your own personal relationship with God?

I’ve rearranged some quotes of yours so that they could be answered together, instead of repeating my responses in several places…

Having a hierarchy requires the assumption that those in authority are somehow privy to a closer relationship to Jesus than those at the bottom.

No, that is not the case. Having a hierarchy system is more like the ranking system of a University, for example. As a simplified overview, first you’re a student and then maybe an assistant, then a professor, then with tenure and maybe you take a route for management instead of hands on instruction with the students and you go for the board and school president etc., etc., etc. The more learning you have, the more qualifications achieved etc., the more you move up in the hierarchy. Is it implied that the higher the level the more qualified the person has shown themselves to be, but just like at a university, the best does not always rise to the top, I’m not pretending otherwise. But the system of a hierarchy is not in itself inherently wrong or bad. As a person learns their trade (the history, theology, the higher the education they achieve), the higher they move up in it. But everyone recognizes that the lay person is just as capable of achieving a successful ministry or spiritual insight as the highest educated person in the hierarchy, even in the Catholic system they recognize that poor children are just as likely as the Pope to receive a spiritual insight or visit from an angel, or whatever, so I would say that your perception that they assume those in authority are somehow privy or with a closer relationship to Jesus is incorrect in it’s implication.

In my mind, that is directly opposed to Christ's teachings that we can all have a direct relationship with God. I didn't talk about teachings. I talked about the hierarchy itself. Christ was clear that we can all have a person relationship with God - that we can all search for truth and find it written on our hearts. We don't need another human being as an intermediary for that. We are all equal and flawed before God.

So the organized hierarchies are, in my opinion, very much opposed to Christ's teachings. The idea that a priest or cardinal or bishop (or similar rankings where they are called something different) should have more say in a religion than any member of the congregation is a problem, in my mind.

Everyone agrees that we can all have a direct relationship with God, so that is not a dispute between you and me. How can the existence of a system of hierarchy be opposed to Christ’s teachings though when he is the one that implemented the hierarchy of authority in his own ministry when he walked on Earth? He installed the twelve, who held more ‘authority’ than the seventy two, and it is believed that within the twelve there was hierarchy as well, spokesmen for the group before Jesus’ Resurrection and leaders of the group (s) after Jesus’ Ascension. Jesus implemented hierarchy himself, there is no other way to discern the structure of the relationship between the apostles, the seventy two and other followers.

Not fallible then, right?

You might be thinking that you’re setting me up here, but no, he’s wasn’t ‘fallible,’ as in he didn’t fail. He created the situation that would transmit to us, thousands of years later, his words and his “Good News.”

The people who formed the traditions and the apostles were equally fallible. They can be good references, but they should not be given reverence over the guidance we get from God. If you are talking about guidance outside of the Scripture, then I couldn’t disagree with you more…see next response.
But it isn't the only method of transmission. Why rely on the more distant one over your own personal relationship with God?
See next…
That isn't the only transmission, however. The Word is also written on our own hearts. And that is a source much closer than word of mouth.
Without the written word and teachings and the authentic transmission of his ministry and traditions though, if we only have or trust on his ministry in our hearts, we can find salvation, this is true, but without the message and the written word, we are more like the unreached heathen who knows in his heart what is right but he has no way of discerning when he is deceived.

Romans 16:18
For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.

It is clear that our hearts can be deceived, and the less knowledgeable of the scripture we are the more gullible we are. So that what we ‘feel’ in our hearts must be tested against the word, test the spirits. That’s why Jesus implemented the system to ensure the transmission of his words and Good News, because our hearts can be deceived. Testing our hearts feelings against the written scripture is essential for good theology and good interpretation, absolutely required, not optional.

From what we know of the apostles teachings, they weren't really consistent themselves. They each taught from their own points of view and the early churches became a hodgepodge of beliefs. Most of the generally held "absolutes" of Christianity weren't settled upon until long after the apostles were dead - and after quite a bit of dispute.

Nonsense. You assign to the apostles the teachings of others. The apostles themselves clearly began their ministry together, and separated after the books of Acts events. Again, the book of Acts is a good place to start for putting the very early church history together, but if you want to go past that, then go to the stuff like the Syriac version of the Teachings of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0854.htm), and or the Didache (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04779a.htm). The teachings of others outside of the Apostles can not be blamed on them.

The apostles weren't made infallible by their interaction with Christ any more than any other human being is.
That is true. But without them we would have no knowledge of what Jesus said and did, not even that he lived and was crucified. Dismissing their collective experiences would be foolhardy.

The very concept of an organized religion is meant to quell dissent within the religion. In the end, there are always points at which it's either sit down and agree, or get out. Some churches do that to a greater extent than others, of course, but they all do it.

I agree, but I do it without the hostility to the idea. There has to be a teacher in the class or there will be chaos and nothing will be accomplished.

But people can reasonably disagree on what exactly is Jesus' way. And since we are all fallible human beings, we can never be certain that the wrong teaching truly is wrong. We can only pray for guidance and hope that we have properly interpreted it.
And in addition to that, we can learn more about what has gone on before. Study the traditions and teachings of the great many people that have come before us, we are not the first to have asked these questions and the Holy Spirit has not been silent for the last two millennia. The Catechism for Catholics, the Book of Concord for Lutherans, The Book of Common Prayer for Anglicans etc.,. These are sources that Christians can use to understand their traditions better, rather than rail against them because they had never learned why doing such and such a thing came from Christian transmission from the Apostles and or Christ himself.

I don't think Jesus expects perfection. We are, and will remain, fallible. Jesus is well aware of that. I think the search for truth - honestly trying to find and follow it - is the important thing. Disagreements, then, aren't the end of the world. We will all be wrong about some things.

I agree.

I'm thinking of all sorts of things. Take, for instance, the Catholic traditions of confession and penance. These things were formed because the church leaders didn't know what to do about a person who was baptized and then sinned again. So they made something up. Originally, the penitent would be kept separate from the rest of the congregation during worship until the priest determined that they could rejoin. These days, it's saying a certain number of prayers or whatever. Catholics believe taht confessionals ARE scriptural, not tradition outside of the scripture. They believe it started when Christ first appeared to the apostles after his Resurrection. Breathing on them, he said: “Receive the Holy Spirit. For those whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven; for those whose sins you retain, they are retained” (John 20:22-23). They believe it was instituted by Christ as the proper method to ask for forgiveness of our sins. They preach that we should not only be willing to receive the sacrament, but we should embrace it as a gift from a loving God, repenting of our sins can be done directly to God of course, but when people were forgiven by Christ himself, he was always up close and physically near to the person who heard the words, “You are forgiven” and as such, the Catholic Priest is the surrogate physical presence of Christ. God still does the forgiving, he has a delegate in attendance is all.

The existence of these things definitely reach back. The details, however, have always been in dispute.

...which tells us, at best, about how the apostles thought the church should be organized.

And they were the ones that got it directly from Jesus…

Unless we place our faith in the infallibility of a few human beings, we cannot assume that they were correct. Personally, given much of what is reported of Christ's teachings and the guidance I've received, I think they were wrong to create it that way.
We place our faith in the infallibility of God, and his oversight. God through Jesus and Jesus through the people he appointed for the tasks of transmitting his “Good News” to us. And the testing of the Spirits via the scrutiny of that spirit against the scripture.

In the case of organized religion, what you generally have is a top-down, rather than a bottom-up organization. The people at the bottom are engaged in discussion only in so much as they are supposed to learn to agree with the people at the top or in things that the people at the top deem unimportant. The people at the top make all the major decisions and send them down the chain.
(My main experience with religious organizations has been with the Catholic Church. I'm sure plenty of other groups don't function the same way it does, but I can only talk about what I know.)
There are certainly plenty of faults with actual organizations, but that doesn't mean they are a bad idea in theory. The biggest problem, I think, is when religious organizations become extrinsic to society. People split their lives into religious and secular halves, and listen to the "professional religious" with as much credulity as when they listen to professional doctors talk about medicine. Then, the organization becomes either harmful or useless, as the laity will either accept everything they hear without reflection or simply ignore the parts they don't like. The Church is slow-moving, it has a great deal of "social inertia," but if its members truly believe it is doing something wrong, it will change, as history has shown.

No, that is not the case. Having a hierarchy system is more like the ranking system of a University, for example.

More like a government than a university, but there are similarities.

And, in both a university and a church hierarchy, a person who has done a great deal of independent study is considered to be at the bottom rungs because their study wasn't within the structure. And someone who doesn't agree with the establishment generally won't rise in the hierarchy - no matter how much study they've done.

Everyone agrees that we can all have a direct relationship with God, so that is not a dispute between you and me. How can the existence of a system of hierarchy be opposed to Christ’s teachings though when he is the one that implemented the hierarchy of authority in his own ministry when he walked on Earth? He installed the twelve, who held more ‘authority’ than the seventy two, and it is believed that within the twelve there was hierarchy as well, spokesmen for the group before Jesus’ Resurrection and leaders of the group (s) after Jesus’ Ascension. Jesus implemented hierarchy himself, there is no other way to discern the structure of the relationship between the apostles, the seventy two and other followers.

It can be interpreted that way, but I think that is a viewpoint more colored by "the way things are" than by anything Christ actually did.

The early church leaders began setting up a hierarchy - and later leaders made it more official and put more and more power in the hands of those at the top - because that's the type of organization they were used to seeing. Incidentally, this is also probably why women were kept out of the clergy. The societies of the time didn't have women in places of power, so the church structure followed that example as well.

You might be thinking that you’re setting me up here, but no, he’s wasn’t ‘fallible,’ as in he didn’t fail.

Then it doesn't make sense to try and hold him to the same standards as normal human beings, or to try and hold them to the standards you would use for him.

If you are talking about guidance outside of the Scripture, then I couldn’t disagree with you more…see next response.

Clearly.

But it still remains that I find the guidance I get from God to be of more importance than the guidance I get from other human beings - including the writings of other human beings. To me, scripture is a good starting place. But you get the in-depth and more important information from your relationship with God.

It is clear that our hearts can be deceived, and the less knowledgeable of the scripture we are the more gullible we are. So that what we ‘feel’ in our hearts must be tested against the word, test the spirits. That’s why Jesus implemented the system to ensure the transmission of his words and Good News, because our hearts can be deceived. Testing our hearts feelings against the written scripture is essential for good theology and good interpretation, absolutely required, not optional.

Again, this requires the assumption that those who wrote the scripture were infallible - that their hearts could not deceive them.

Nonsense. You assign to the apostles the teachings of others.

So do you - every time you refer to scripture and tradition. We generally don't have direct record of the actual apostles' teachings. They were out there preaching, not writing. At best, it was their immediate students who wrote those teachings down.

The teachings of others outside of the Apostles can not be blamed on them.

But, according to you, what has been passed down is what is correct. As such, we must assume that the apostles properly passed on Christ's teachings and that it was in no way changed by their own viewpoints. We must then assume that their followers did the same. And so on and so on until a canon was formed, well after all the original people were dead. We have to assume that the political process used to determine the "right" canon was infallible and that no important scripture was left out and no incorrect scripture was included.

That's an awful lot of faith in human infallibility.

That is true. But without them we would have no knowledge of what Jesus said and did, not even that he lived and was crucified. Dismissing their collective experiences would be foolhardy.

Dismissing it would be a problem. Like I said, it's a good starting place.

But treating it as if it were infallible is another thing altogether.

I agree, but I do it without the hostility to the idea. There has to be a teacher in the class or there will be chaos and nothing will be accomplished.

There is one. God.

And in addition to that, we can learn more about what has gone on before. Study the traditions and teachings of the great many people that have come before us, we are not the first to have asked these questions and the Holy Spirit has not been silent for the last two millennia.

And, if we find that they are wrong, we must reject them.

You are doing that yourself. With the possible exception o fa few very early churches, women were kept out of the clergy. And yet you are now willing to dump that tradition for your own interpretation.

Catholics believe taht confessionals ARE scriptural, not tradition outside of the scripture.

They also believe that there has always been a pope, despite the fact that it isn't historically true. The primacy of the Bishop of Rome was an idea that was gradually formed. At least one of their "popes" specifically wrote to other bishops not to give him special authority - that he had no more primacy than any of the other bishops of major sees.

One of the big problems with the Catholic Church is that it attaches "we've always done this" to things that they have not always done. Then they go back and look in scripture for something to back it up.

God still does the forgiving, he has a delegate in attendance is all.

In other words, the belief is that you cannot do this through a personal relationship with God. You need an earthly intermediary.


(My main experience with religious organizations has been with the Catholic Church. I'm sure plenty of other groups don't function the same way it does, but I can only talk about what I know.)
There are certainly plenty of faults with actual organizations, but that doesn't mean they are a bad idea in theory. The biggest problem, I think, is when religious organizations become extrinsic to society. People split their lives into religious and secular halves, and listen to the "professional religious" with as much credulity as when they listen to professional doctors talk about medicine. Then, the organization becomes either harmful or useless, as the laity will either accept everything they hear without reflection or simply ignore the parts they don't like.

Of course, the organizations encourage this. For a long time, the Catholic Church intentionally kept the scripture out of the hands of the laity specifically so that they would have to look to the church hierarchy for all things religious. The idea of questioning on the part of the laity was something dangerous to be forbidden and punished.

In many cases, even questioning by those within the hierarchy was punished.

The Church is slow-moving, it has a great deal of "social inertia," but if its members truly believe it is doing something wrong, it will change, as history has shown.

Or, quite often, they'll leave (or be removed) and form their own church.

We are recycling our arguments, I know your position and you seem to understand my position, neither of us agree with the other's position but there doesn't seem to be much point in continuing to hit each other over the head with them. Thus, I'll leave most of your points alone and let them be the last word on those topics. As to the following though, these seems to be different, so I'll address them.

...You are doing that yourself. With the possible exception o fa few very early churches, women were kept out of the clergy. And yet you are now willing to dump that tradition for your own interpretation...

Actually, this is a perfect example of what I have been talking about all along. Using the scripture and history and tradition to show WHY women should be allowed to be priest and clergy is a successful argument. If there was no scripture and history and tradition to counter the status quo, then the status quo wouldn't be changed. The scriptural arguments for allowing women clergy are stronger than the arguments against it. Scripturally speaking, the women should never have been opposed (I'm arguing this from a non-catholic position obviously, Catholic tradition has more than one argument why Priests are Men and Women are Nuns, that's a different issue). But in a church that allows their clergy to marry, the arguments for allowing women to be clergy are scriptural and tradition and historical teachings of the Apostles, that's why they are good arguments.

...They also believe that there has always been a pope, despite the fact that it isn't historically true. The primacy of the Bishop of Rome was an idea that was gradually formed. At least one of their "popes" specifically wrote to other bishops not to give him special authority - that he had no more primacy than any of the other bishops of major sees.

The amount of power vested in the office of the Bishop of Rome has changed, Catholic tradition knows this. At one time the Roman Pope was nothing more than the equivalent of the Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams now. But over the centuries the church found it best to assign more and more authority to that office, that doesn't make their statement that there as always been a pope incorrect.

...One of the big problems with the Catholic Church is that it attaches "we've always done this" to things that they have not always done. Then they go back and look in scripture for something to back it up.

Of course, the organizations encourage this. For a long time, the Catholic Church intentionally kept the scripture out of the hands of the laity specifically so that they would have to look to the church hierarchy for all things religious. The idea of questioning on the part of the laity was something dangerous to be forbidden and punished.

Both of those things are more along the lines of things that Protestants and those opposed to Catholicism, frequently like to accuse them of doing, stereotypical slander that is oft repeated, but there is more bite in the accusations then there is truth in the actuality of it.

Of course, the organizations encourage this. For a long time, the Catholic Church intentionally kept the scripture out of the hands of the laity specifically so that they would have to look to the church hierarchy for all things religious. The idea of questioning on the part of the laity was something dangerous to be forbidden and punished.
Not exactly. For most of its history, the laity in the Catholic Church were illiterate, and scripture was useless to them. I actually think the current system would have made a lot of sense in, say, 1100. It wasn't until people started reading, maybe mid-1400s, that the Church opposed individuals reading scripture. (Many of the negative aspects people attach to the "medieval" Church were in fact from the Renaissance; a bit of epochal favoritism.) And of course, now the Church is officially fine with non-clergy reading the Bible.

In many cases, even questioning by those within the hierarchy was punished.
True, but like the opposition to individuals reading the Bible, this was something that swayed with history. If the Church felt its existence was threatened, it would become reactionary. If its position was secure, it would tolerate dissidence. The same is true with any organization. (Just look at the United States during the Cold War or "the War on Terror.")

Or, quite often, they'll leave (or be removed) and form their own church.
Right, which I believe is unfortunate. It would be nice if we could all be one, big, happy family. However, I don't think it's an either/or situation: dissidents will leave/be excommunicated OR they will change the Church. For example, Luther's revolt led to thousands of people leaving the Church, but it also led to internal reformation which in many ways went beyond Luther's original complaints.

Not exactly. For most of its history, the laity in the Catholic Church were illiterate, and scripture was useless to them.

Even someone who cannot read can hear scripture and understand it. They can even memorize it.

But it does need to be in their own language for that to work.

True, but like the opposition to individuals reading the Bible, this was something that swayed with history. If the Church felt its existence was threatened, it would become reactionary. If its position was secure, it would tolerate dissidence. The same is true with any organization. (Just look at the United States during the Cold War or "the War on Terror.")

But this, in my mind is part of the problem with the hierarchy structure. It becomes a creature unto itself - an end unto itself. And preserving the structure becomes more important than the actual religion.

Right, which I believe is unfortunate. It would be nice if we could all be one, big, happy family. However, I don't think it's an either/or situation: dissidents will leave/be excommunicated OR they will change the Church. For example, Luther's revolt led to thousands of people leaving the Church, but it also led to internal reformation which in many ways went beyond Luther's original complaints.

Indeed. A power structure will do what it must to preserve itself.

But wouldn't it be better if, instead of having a top-down structure that has to be greatly shaken before changes will be made, we had a bottom-up structure that could handle differences in opinion without being shaken up by it?

Actually, this is a perfect example of what I have been talking about all along. Using the scripture and history and tradition to show WHY women should be allowed to be priest and clergy is a successful argument.

What tradition are we talking about here? From the start of the church, tradition has generally held that women cannot be clergy.

And, if anything, there is evidence that women may have artificially been kept out of the process by even the apostles. Of course, that depends on what scripture you do and do not accept and how much faith you place in those who decided on the official canon.

The amount of power vested in the office of the Bishop of Rome has changed, Catholic tradition knows this. At one time the Roman Pope was nothing more than the equivalent of the Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams now. But over the centuries the church found it best to assign more and more authority to that office, that doesn't make their statement that there as always been a pope incorrect.

I'm not exceedingly familiar with the Anglican church, but if there is only one archbishop, the analogy is incorrect.

Initially, the bishop of Rome had exactly the same power and same office as any of the bishops of the 5 major sees (Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and 2 others I can't remember off the top of my head). As I pointed out before, when some people began treating the bishop of Rome as a higher office, at least one of those "popes" protested the distinction and specifically stated that he should be seen and addressed as no higher an official than them.

The office of the pope didn't even exist in the early church. The bishop of Rome was just another bishop.

Both of those things are more along the lines of things that Protestants and those opposed to Catholicism, frequently like to accuse them of doing, stereotypical slander that is oft repeated, but there is more bite in the accusations then there is truth in the actuality of it.

Protestant churches have often done similar things, albeit in different ways. These types of structures seem to invariably work to keep their followers from questioning handed-down dogma.

Even someone who cannot read can hear scripture and understand it. They can even memorize it.

But it does need to be in their own language for that to work.
Originally it was. The Vulgate, the first Latin translation of the Bible, has the same root as "vulgar," as in "common." Even when a majority of people no longer spoke Latin, keeping it the language of the Bible wasn't just to keep people in the dark: plenty of religions have their own sacred languages, and Latin sort of evolved as Catholicism's. Even today, the official language of the Vatican is Latin. It is to Catholicism as Hebrew is to Judaism, or Sanskrit is to Hinduism.



Indeed. A power structure will do what it must to preserve itself.

But wouldn't it be better if, instead of having a top-down structure that has to be greatly shaken before changes will be made, we had a bottom-up structure that could handle differences in opinion without being shaken up by it?
I'm not so sure. Again, look at the U.S.: it has a bottom-up structure government, as far as governments go, but that didn't stop the McCarthyism, or Japanese internment.
Also, there's an element which you probably don't believe in but most Catholics do, which is that the hierarchy is directed by the Holy Spirit. If this were true, a bottom-up structure would be no better than the current one (can't do much better than God).
My own feelings are that while the Holy Spirit does lead the Church, the men in the hierarchy are no more impeccable than lay people. I think their failings can be kept in check, though, if the Church remains as open (not even democratic, necessarily) as possible, and tries to remain as humble as it can.

What tradition are we talking about here? From the start of the church, tradition has generally held that women cannot be clergy.

Authentic Tradition means an ordination or policy or directive (etc.,) handed down to us from Christ and or the Apostles themselves.

And, if anything, there is evidence that women may have artificially been kept out of the process by even the apostles. Of course, that depends on what scripture you do and do not accept and how much faith you place in those who decided on the official canon.

Women were not kept out of the process in the cannon scripture nor the oldest Christian writings. Gnostic scripture dealing with women may have come to a different conclusion about them but gnostic scripture did not come from the Apostles' traditions. Gnostic scripture was kept out of the cannon for the very same reason that Arianism was rejected... it wasn't Apostolic, as in, it wasn't taught from the beginning and if it wasn't taught from the beginning than Jesus and the Apostles must not have taught it. Simple and efficient safeguard against adding false teachings to the tradition.

Gnostic writings being kept out does not mean that all authentic tradition writings were kept in though either, I'm not claiming that there are no 'lost' books that are authentic.

Originally it was.

For some. A great deal of the theological schism between the Eastern and Western Church seems to have started out with language issues. =)

Even when a majority of people no longer spoke Latin, keeping it the language of the Bible wasn't just to keep people in the dark: plenty of religions have their own sacred languages, and Latin sort of evolved as Catholicism's. Even today, the official language of the Vatican is Latin. It is to Catholicism as Hebrew is to Judaism, or Sanskrit is to Hinduism.

It wasn't just to keep people in the dark, but that was part of it. From what I understand, Judaism uses Hebrew, but it also teaches the translations of the passages. Preaching and reading the scripture in the common language of the area is not a problem.

At this point, that is true of the Catholic Church as well, but it wasn't until Vatican II, IIRC.

I'm not so sure. Again, look at the U.S.: it has a bottom-up structure government, as far as governments go, but that didn't stop the McCarthyism, or Japanese internment.

Despite being bottom-up in many ways on paper, the US government generally has not been run that way. I think many of our political problems could be solved if people would actually get involved and treat it that way.

Also, there's an element which you probably don't believe in but most Catholics do, which is that the hierarchy is directed by the Holy Spirit. If this were true, a bottom-up structure would be no better than the current one (can't do much better than God).

Personally, I believe that everyone who seeks it receives guidance from the Holy Spirit and, as I explained to Balderdash, I think that guidance should be the most important part of our spiritual journey. This is a large part of the reason that I don't agree with top-down hierarchy. Such organizations us ask us to place our faith, not in God and our relationship with God, but instead in human beings who we are supposed to assume have been given some insight we have not.

My own feelings are that while the Holy Spirit does lead the Church, the men in the hierarchy are no more impeccable than lay people. I think their failings can be kept in check, though, if the Church remains as open (not even democratic, necessarily) as possible, and tries to remain as humble as it can.

The problem with that, however, lies largely in human nature. Power is generally a corrupting force - and it feeds itself.


Women were not kept out of the process in the cannon scripture nor the oldest Christian writings.

"Kept out of the process" was poor wording on my part. Women have generally been included in the church as a whole - but have nearly always been given a lesser role. Women have either been kept out of leadership roles altogether or given separate, less important roles. Ordination of women was virtually unheard of throughout most of the history of Christianity.


Gnostic writings being kept out does not mean that all authentic tradition writings were kept in though either, I'm not claiming that there are no 'lost' books that are authentic.

I think there very well may be. And I think it is possible that some writings that were declared canonical were of lesser importance. The process by which the canon was determined was largely political. The general idea was that canonical scripture would have to be used everywhere from the beginning. Of course, in actuality, there was very little, if any such scripture. Up until the process of creating a canon was begun, each church had their own, generally unique set of scripture they used. Quite a bit of scripture was destroyed during the persecution that plagued the early church. Universality didn't really exist.

"Kept out of the process" was poor wording on my part. Women have generally been included in the church as a whole - but have nearly always been given a lesser role. Women have either been kept out of leadership roles altogether or given separate, less important roles. Ordination of women was virtually unheard of throughout most of the history of Christianity.

Cultural norms certainly permeated the social customs and practices of the various Christian Churches, Greek in Greece, Egyptian in Egypt and Roman in Rome and so on and so forth, of course, it should be expected. And in various situations women were treated better or worse than women in other places, as can be shown through historical records. However, the Christian Traditions, via the Apostles and even in Paul's writings, we can see that women were teaching and were fellow workers for Christ with the men. All people are equal in Christ, as Paul made it clear. Slaves and Slave owners, rulers and peasants, all working together. Tabitha (Dorcas) was a disciple and had a ministry (Acts 9:36), Syntyche and Euodia were coworkers with Paul who worked to spread the gospel (Philippians 4:2,3), Priscilla, fellow worker in Christ Jesus (Romans 16:3,4). Authentic Christian tradition has many examples for women clergy to be inspired by.

I think there very well may be. And I think it is possible that some writings that were declared canonical were of lesser importance. The process by which the canon was determined was largely political. The general idea was that canonical scripture would have to be used everywhere from the beginning.

Less political than you would think. The litmus test for the applicant writings being, authentic Apostle teaching, makes it easy to keep gnostic writings out. And by keeping the gnostic writings out, you still have the Scriptures that support the Apostles Creed fundamental Christianity that we have today. It may look like politics decided which scriptures to keep because only "Physical Resurrection" writings ended up included in the cannon, but in actuality, "non-physical resurrection" writings were not Apostle teachings.

Of course, in actuality, there was very little, if any such scripture. Up until the process of creating a canon was begun, each church had their own, generally unique set of scripture they used. Quite a bit of scripture was destroyed during the persecution that plagued the early church. Universality didn't really exist.

You are combining together too large a period of time, I think. The first century and early second century was guided by the Apostles and their immediate followers, they created and guided the authentic traditions into existence. The gospel traditions of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were already widely recognized as the authentic versions. And by the late second century Ireaneus and others were already using "authentic Apostle tradition" as a litmus test for what was real Christian writing and what was heresy. You combine with that period, things that happened hundreds of years later, methods used to quell endless 'new' teachings that were not Christian Tradition, but claimed to be. Modern research has shown that the evidence we've found suggests that the early Church leaders were very good at discerning what was authentically old and what was not.

I think the way you are seeing the early early church and the creation of the traditions as fundamentally different than I do. I recognize that you aren't likely to accept the way I see it, so I won't write a longer essay about it. But I will link to a essay report I've seen elsewhere that I hope can be accepted by you and I, as an unbiased essay, if you should care to read it. Although it is at the ORB, an encyclopedia for Medieval Studies, this essay is about early Christianity and they used sources that can be researched outside of religous sources.
http://www.the-orb.net/encyclop/religion/early/jcdoctrine.html

*snip*

I don't have the time or the materials with me to form a good reply to this and you're right that we'll probably end up going in circles anyways.

I will save the link to the essay, though, and hopefully I'll be able to come back to it later.

Thanks!