Ever since we broke this bombshell report, our website has been following the ongoing battle between South Carolina’s oldest Episcopal diocese and the national Episcopal Church, led by liberal bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schori. This protracted legal fight is over the blessing of homosexual unions and the ordination of openly gay clergy (the national Episcopal Church favors both practices, while the South Carolina church opposes them).
As we’ve stated from the beginning of this debate, “we don’t care if churches sanction gay marriage – or if they let homosexuals preach from their pulpits. We don’t support either practice – but we believe such decisions should be left to individual congregations.”
In other words its up to pastors – who will be held accountable by their flocks.
“South Carolina Episcopalians who support the national church’s views on homosexuality should worship in congregations supportive of those views, while those who object to the national church’s views should be free to worship in congregations which reject those views,” we wrote.
Because last time we checked religion is still operating within the broader marketplace of ideas …
Anyway, we repeated this viewpoint in a column this week ripping Virginia Republicans for nominating a slate of intolerant social conservative candidates in advance of the state’s 2013 election – part of a broader push to “Jesus up” partisan politics that we have consistently rejected.
But while this website will always keep its focus on “fiscal values” – arguing against government involvement in the church and its institutions (most notably marriage) – it’s curious to see what’s happening within so-called “Christian” churches.
Take Jefferts-Schori and the national Episcopal Church – which apparently now believes that salvation comes through diversity, not Jesus Christ.
“Human beings have a long history of discounting and devaluing difference, finding it offensive or even evil,” Jefferts-Schori said in a recent sermon. “That kind of blindness is what leads to oppression, slavery, and often, war. Yet there remains a holier impulse in human life toward freedom, dignity, and the full flourishing of those who have been kept apart or on the margins of human communities.”
We agree with that …
But Jefferts-Schori didn’t stop there …
“Looking for the reflection of God’s glory all around us means changing our lenses, or letting the scales on our eyes fall away,” she added. “That kind of change isn’t easy for anyone, but it’s the only road to the kingdom of God.”
Wait … what?
We’re not Biblical scholars (far from it), but the last time we checked the central doctrine of the Christian Church – even liberal Christian denominations – was that the “only road to the kingdom of God” was through Jesus Christ.
Now it’s suddenly diversity awareness?
Wow … that’s quite a shift.
Jefferts-Schori’s sermon immediately (and rightfully) drew sharp rebukes.
“This is quite possibly some if the most delusional exegesis I’ve ever read in my life,” one commenter alleged. “I’m sorry, but this sermon is not a Christian sermon.”
Critics also pounced on her condemnation of the apostles Paul and Silas for their liberation of a slave girl from demonic possession, as recorded in the book of Acts.
“Paul can’t abide something he won’t see as beautiful or holy, so he tries to destroy it,” Jefferts-Schori said in her sermon. “It gets him thrown in prison. That’s pretty much where he’s put himself by his own refusal to recognize that she, too, shares in God’s nature, just as much as he does – maybe more so!”
Wait … since when did liberation become synonymous with bigotry and narrow-mindedness? And since when was “God’s nature” shared by the demonic?
Look, we don’t wear a particular faith on our sleeves around here. And we can’t stand sanctimonious souls who do. But this is flat out false doctrine – and further evidence of the wholesale surrender of Christian truth on the altar of political correctness.
America’s diversity – including the diversity of its religious beliefs – is absolutely something to be celebrated. But that tolerance and respect cannot – and should not – lead any religion to repudiate its core convictions as part of a shameless effort to lure more parishioners.
***
61 comments
“decisions should be left to individual congregations” This is what Baptists have always done. Even down to “priesthood of the believer”. Can’t get much more “free market” than that.
decentralization=freedom
Freewill Baptists scare the shit out of me. Just an observation.
Very open minded and accepting of you…
They scare the shit out of me too…I went to one! Nothing open minded about them…
Huh, must be a Southern idiom…I always heard them called “Pentecostals”…this is the first time I’ve heard “Freewill Baptists”.
Are they one and the same?
My brother got invited to a Pentecostal church when he was a kid(like 10) and he came back crying…lol…the speaking in tongues freaked him out.
See GLOSSOLALIA in Wikipedia…..
“decisions should be left to individual congregations” This is what Baptists have always done. Even down to “priesthood of the believer”. Can’t get much more “free market” than that.
decentralization=freedom
Freewill Baptists scare the shit out of me. Just an observation.
Very open minded and accepting of you…
They scare the shit out of me too…I went to one! Nothing open minded about them…
Huh, must be a Southern idiom…I always heard them called “Pentecostals”…this is the first time I’ve heard “Freewill Baptists”.
Are they one and the same?
My brother got invited to a Pentecostal church when he was a kid(like 10) and he came back crying…lol…the speaking in tongues freaked him out.
See GLOSSOLALIA in Wikipedia…..
She preaches from the Brawndo Bible…
The hypocritical dichotomies of religious scholarship are what enlightened me to recognizing that i am not a Christian… Christians tend to oppose even themselves in a debate with their detractors, thereby siding with their detractors… being living breathing oxymorons seems to be the norm…
Christian scholarship is not the same as religious scholarship, and I would be interested in knowing whether you are trying to say you are an atheist or just not a Christian? And I don’t know what debates you are watching, but I would recommend the work of William Lane Craig. You can see him eviscerate the best arguments of the leading lights of the atheist movement. Richard Dawkins appears to be afraid to debate him, but he debated Hitchens, Sam Harris, and a host of others. He puts forth the same arguments, so you would think some atheist who is not a “living breathing oxymoron” would have no trouble besting him in a debate. But it never seems to work out that way.
I am a believer in the Holy Scriptures as they were inspired and not the replacement theology of christiandom. The true premise of a believers faith is not only based on the what is errantly refereed to as the new testament but in the full gamut of His inspired word that include writings that were not canonized. Far too many Christians rely on the arm of flesh rather than the Spirit that should dwell within. We need not to ignore those commands that give us instructions “forever and to ALL generations” as if they do not apply to or present generation; far too many of those commands have been taught to be ignored in the Christian faith along with many obvious deviations from even “new testament” scripture… This is rebellion which is just like witchcraft, and you and i both know that hellfire awaits witches…
She preaches from the Brawndo Bible…
The hypocritical dichotomies of religious scholarship are what enlightened me to recognizing that i am not a Christian… Christians tend to oppose even themselves in a debate with their detractors, thereby siding with their detractors… being living breathing oxymorons seems to be the norm…
Christian scholarship is not the same as religious scholarship, and I would be interested in knowing whether you are trying to say you are an atheist or just not a Christian? And I don’t know what debates you are watching, but I would recommend the work of William Lane Craig. You can see him eviscerate the best arguments of the leading lights of the atheist movement. Richard Dawkins appears to be afraid to debate him, but he debated Hitchens, Sam Harris, and a host of others. He puts forth the same arguments, so you would think some atheist who is not a “living breathing oxymoron” would have no trouble besting him in a debate. But it never seems to work out that way.
I am a believer in the Holy Scriptures as they were inspired and not the replacement theology of christiandom. The true premise of a believers faith is not only based on the what is errantly refereed to as the new testament but in the full gamut of His inspired word that include writings that were not canonized. Far too many Christians rely on the arm of flesh rather than the Spirit that should dwell within. We need not to ignore those commands that give us instructions “forever and to ALL generations” as if they do not apply to or present generation; far too many of those commands have been taught to be ignored in the Christian faith along with many obvious deviations from even “new testament” scripture… This is rebellion which is just like witchcraft, and you and i both know that hellfire awaits witches…
There was also a time when believing in evolution or that the Earth orbited the Sun was heresy. Fact is, people of faith are simply learning to make better value judgments when it comes to their treatment of their Gay friends, family members, and co-workers.
I’m reminded of a commentator on a Southern Baptist website who wrote, “I can’t reconcile how someone could feel he or she was born with strong homosexual feelings, love Christ and yet take on the limitations of what seem to me to be straightforward biblical teachings. That’s agonizing, and I don’t really understand it.”
And this is the weird thing: “Straightforward biblical teachings” should at least be understandable to the average person. So often I hear it said, “OUR ways are not GOD’s ways,” as if God was some sort of inscrutable alien being.
Consider The Golden Rule: We do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Put all the religious dogma and ritual aside, and this is what our laws boil down to. We don’t lie or bear false witness because we won’t want people to lie to us. We don’t steal from other people because we do not want people stealing from us. We don’t betray the trust of our spouses because we wouldn’t want them doing the same to us. Same goes for killing and a variety of other “bad” behaviors.
And yet somehow there seems to be this sheepish adherence to a double standard for Gay and Straight people. If you’re Straight, it’s all so wonderful to be able to find a compatible person of the opposite sex, court and get engaged and marry and live happily ever after. But if you’re Gay, all of that is completely out of the question. Don’t even bother trying to find a compatible person. Lesbians and Gay men are precluded from any hope for romance or commitment. Gay people are simply told: “Gosh, sorry about that. You make us uncomfortable; acknowledging your existence means we might have to revise what we’ve been teaching all these years – meaning, Whoops! No infallible Magisterium or “literal” Bible… so you’ll just have to sacrifice your life and any hope of finding somebody to love. Tough luck, kid. God said it, I don’t necessarily understand it, but there it is.” How could this be considered a good value judgment?
Fortunately, the reason increasing numbers of Americans support marriage equality is because they have learned to make better value judgments. The reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration before friends and family members that they wish to make a commitment to one another’s happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows. THAT’S what makes marriage a good thing, whether the couple in question is Straight OR Gay.
I appreciate that you are trying to approach the issue from the perspective of Christian ideas (rather than just arguing Christianity is false, therefore anything a Christian believes has no merit, which sort of preempts any active engagement with why Christians have an issue with gay marriage), but I think your argument is flawed. What you are really arguing is that the presence of those who do not conform with Christian morality (in your example, those who want to have sex with someone of the same gender) undermines the basis for that moral system. The flaw with the structure of this argument is that you could substitute “gay” with any other behavior Christianity teaches is sinful, such as gambling, addiction, sex out of wedlock or even more extreme behaviors like pedophilia (I am not equating being gay and being a pedophile any more than I am equating gambling with it, I am just addressing what I see as a structural flaw in the argument).
We all struggle with sinful desires. We all sin because we are fallen creatures. That is no excuse to just say the rules don’t apply and delude ourselves that we can govern our lives by our own desires and still expect God’s grace. This is nothing more than a rationalization of our own behavior. That does not mean someone who is gay (or cheating on their spouse or committing any other act that the Bible identifies as a sin) is beyond God’s grace. But I do worry that if we start convincing ourselves that what we do is not even sinful, we are shutting ourselves off from the prospect of asking for or receiving that grace. If we cannot even admit that what we are doing is wrong, then in my opinion we cannot honestly and humbly seek Gods’ forgiveness.
And for a Christian, what makes marriage a “good” thing is that God established it as a covenant between a man and woman for the procreation of children. The value of marriage is not subjective, depending upon how friends and neighbors respond to it. It is an intrinsic good under Christian teaching. Indeed, any subjectivity in determining whether something was good is contrary to the notion of objective morality.
There was also a time when believing in evolution or that the Earth orbited the Sun was heresy. Fact is, people of faith are simply learning to make better value judgments when it comes to their treatment of their Gay friends, family members, and co-workers.
I’m reminded of a commentator on a Southern Baptist website who wrote, “I can’t reconcile how someone could feel he or she was born with strong homosexual feelings, love Christ and yet take on the limitations of what seem to me to be straightforward biblical teachings. That’s agonizing, and I don’t really understand it.”
And this is the weird thing: “Straightforward biblical teachings” should at least be understandable to the average person. So often I hear it said, “OUR ways are not GOD’s ways,” as if God was some sort of inscrutable alien being.
Consider The Golden Rule: We do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Put all the religious dogma and ritual aside, and this is what our laws boil down to. We don’t lie or bear false witness because we won’t want people to lie to us. We don’t steal from other people because we do not want people stealing from us. We don’t betray the trust of our spouses because we wouldn’t want them doing the same to us. Same goes for killing and a variety of other “bad” behaviors.
And yet somehow there seems to be this sheepish adherence to a double standard for Gay and Straight people. If you’re Straight, it’s all so wonderful to be able to find a compatible person of the opposite sex, court and get engaged and marry and live happily ever after. But if you’re Gay, all of that is completely out of the question. Don’t even bother trying to find a compatible person. Lesbians and Gay men are precluded from any hope for romance or commitment. Gay people are simply told: “Gosh, sorry about that. You make us uncomfortable; acknowledging your existence means we might have to revise what we’ve been teaching all these years – meaning, Whoops! No infallible Magisterium or “literal” Bible… so you’ll just have to sacrifice your life and any hope of finding somebody to love. Tough luck, kid. God said it, I don’t necessarily understand it, but there it is.” How could this be considered a good value judgment?
Fortunately, the reason increasing numbers of Americans support marriage equality is because they have learned to make better value judgments. The reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration before friends and family members that they wish to make a commitment to one another’s happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows. THAT’S what makes marriage a good thing, whether the couple in question is Straight OR Gay.
I appreciate that you are trying to approach the issue from the perspective of Christian ideas (rather than just arguing Christianity is false, therefore anything a Christian believes has no merit, which sort of preempts any active engagement with why Christians have an issue with gay marriage), but I think your argument is flawed. What you are really arguing is that the presence of those who do not conform with Christian morality (in your example, those who want to have sex with someone of the same gender) undermines the basis for that moral system. The flaw with the structure of this argument is that you could substitute “gay” with any other behavior Christianity teaches is sinful, such as gambling, addiction, sex out of wedlock or even more extreme behaviors like pedophilia (I am not equating being gay and being a pedophile any more than I am equating gambling with it, I am just addressing what I see as a structural flaw in the argument).
We all struggle with sinful desires. We all sin because we are fallen creatures. That is no excuse to just say the rules don’t apply and delude ourselves that we can govern our lives by our own desires and still expect God’s grace. This is nothing more than a rationalization of our own behavior. That does not mean someone who is gay (or cheating on their spouse or committing any other act that the Bible identifies as a sin) is beyond God’s grace. But I do worry that if we start convincing ourselves that what we do is not even sinful, we are shutting ourselves off from the prospect of asking for or receiving that grace. If we cannot even admit that what we are doing is wrong, then in my opinion we cannot honestly and humbly seek Gods’ forgiveness.
And for a Christian, what makes marriage a “good” thing is that God established it as a covenant between a man and woman for the procreation of children. The value of marriage is not subjective, depending upon how friends and neighbors respond to it. It is an intrinsic good under Christian teaching. Indeed, any subjectivity in determining whether something was good is contrary to the notion of objective morality.
Stick to politics, FITS. First of all, who are these anonymous critics and commenters to whom you refer? In my experience, all opinions expressed in these columns refer back to FITS as the authority on everything. Secondly, it was Saul (soon to be called Paul) who had the scales fall from his eyes, allowing him to finally see Jesus when God restored his sight. It was then he decided that maybe persecuting people wasn’t as much fun as he thought it was. And finally, saying the only road to to the kingdom of god is through Jesus Christ doesn’t mean to walk all over Jesus. It means that you should obey his teachings and practice what he preached, which, let’s face it, was as liberal as all get out.
Will is sticking to politics. Religion and politics are intertwined on social issues (homosexuality, abortions etc). People in United States tend to follow their religious leaders,(especially in the South) thus creating a link between their religious beliefs and politics.
With all due respect, that’s the problem. In politics, people are supposed to follow the Constitution. Obviously there is a wide margin of interpretation over what Jesus’ message was, or he wouldn’t be discussing this RELIGIOUS issue.
What do you mean? I was talking about how religion and politics are intertwined not any messages from Jesus or interpretation. I was explaining how religion and politics is a political discussion.
I understand. I’m merely disagreeing with you by suggesting that we’d be better off if people could keep their politics out of their church and their church out of their politics. The Constitution makes mention of this, I believe. I still cling to the hope that people are capable of critical thinking, if given the facts, and thus don’t need someone telling them what to think, from the pulpit, cable news, or anywhere else. Plus, there’s that bothersome fact that Jesus was a raging social liberal. I don’t see this article as being political in the least, and wonder why you do. Not everything is political, and this is an example. Religiously conservative vs. religiously progressive, maybe, but not politically anything.
Stick to politics, FITS. First of all, who are these anonymous critics and commenters to whom you refer? In my experience, all opinions expressed in these columns refer back to FITS as the authority on everything. Secondly, it was Saul (soon to be called Paul) who had the scales fall from his eyes, allowing him to finally see Jesus when God restored his sight. It was then he decided that maybe persecuting people wasn’t as much fun as he thought it was. And finally, saying the only road to to the kingdom of god is through Jesus Christ doesn’t mean to walk all over Jesus. It means that you should obey his teachings and practice what he preached, which, let’s face it, was as liberal as all get out.
Will is sticking to politics. Religion and politics are intertwined on social issues (homosexuality, abortions etc). People in United States tend to follow their religious leaders,(especially in the South) thus creating a link between their religious beliefs and politics.
With all due respect, that’s the problem. In politics, people are supposed to follow the Constitution. Obviously there is a wide margin of interpretation over what Jesus’ message was, or he wouldn’t be discussing this RELIGIOUS issue.
What do you mean? I was talking about how religion and politics are intertwined not any messages from Jesus or interpretation. I was explaining how religion and politics is a political discussion.
I understand. I’m merely disagreeing with you by suggesting that we’d be better off if people could keep their politics out of their church and their church out of their politics. The Constitution makes mention of this, I believe. I still cling to the hope that people are capable of critical thinking, if given the facts, and thus don’t need someone telling them what to think, from the pulpit, cable news, or anywhere else. Plus, there’s that bothersome fact that Jesus was a raging social liberal. I don’t see this article as being political in the least, and wonder why you do. Not everything is political, and this is an example. Religiously conservative vs. religiously progressive, maybe, but not politically anything.
Oh, goddamn! BigTangoGrandDragon will be yanking his hair out.
Oh, goddamn! BigTangoGrandDragon will be yanking his hair out.
Under her watch the Episcopal Church US has lost 5 dioceses and spent $22 million in lawsuits against them. So much bringing the flock together.
Under her watch the Episcopal Church US has lost 5 dioceses and spent $22 million in lawsuits against them. So much bringing the flock together.
I’m not sure if I’ve ever (tried to) read such a convoluted, hard-to-understand, collection of confused ideas…The first sentence is actually broken into two, and contains 60-plus words, that have no coherent point…
FITS: Find ONE god to serve, and stick w/ it…Your labor to try to please everybody just makes you look a core-less idiot….and in the end, like most pandering, pop-culture yuppies, you have said nothing, other than you have no idea what you believe…because you believe everything…
It’s obvious you never read your own work.
I must be good at what I cook. Because all you’re doing AGAIN, is taking my content, and regurgitating it…
Bottom line: You liberals are Brain-Dead…Why do you have to wait til I say, before you can…How bout try thinking for yourself!!!!
Grand Tango, let me give you a clue – syllables don’t count as words……..
Great read Fits! Sad
Great read Fits! Sad
Basically you have said that you only believe in congregational government. That is perfectly fine for you to do, and you should join a church that operates along those lines.. The point you are missing is that these churches have said they believed in a church governed by councils, and now that they are unhappy with that process, they desire to become congregational. That is great. They should leave a church governed by councils and go to a congregational church. There are plenty of them. Meanwhile they need to let those who wish to continue by the old agreement stay with the church they originally joined, and they need to leave the resources given to a church governed by councils to the church still governed by councils. This is not rocket science. It is basic honesty and integrity, both of which I think you will agree are in short supply in our country today.
Basically you have said that you only believe in congregational government. That is perfectly fine for you to do, and you should join a church that operates along those lines.. The point you are missing is that these churches have said they believed in a church governed by councils, and now that they are unhappy with that process, they desire to become congregational. That is great. They should leave a church governed by councils and go to a congregational church. There are plenty of them. Meanwhile they need to let those who wish to continue by the old agreement stay with the church they originally joined, and they need to leave the resources given to a church governed by councils to the church still governed by councils. This is not rocket science. It is basic honesty and integrity, both of which I think you will agree are in short supply in our country today.
Pffft. Yeah, when the national church wins the lawsuit to keep those pretty buildings, these hypocrites will fold like a lawn chair and come back. When it comes down to it, they find homos icky but they ain’t going to a church at a strip mall on James Island.
Pffft. Yeah, when the national church wins the lawsuit to keep those pretty buildings, these hypocrites will fold like a lawn chair and come back. When it comes down to it, they find homos icky but they ain’t going to a church at a strip mall on James Island.
The atonement theory has never, ever been approved officially by any church council or body of believers in 2000 years of history. Sadly… it has become very popular in fundamentalistic christian communities even if the idea came from an English Archbishop (Ambrose of Milan).
I think this is somewhat overstated. In general terms, atonement is the cornerstone of all Christian faith, that Christ took on our sins so that we could be reconciled to God (“God made him who had no sin to be sin[a]
for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”) . As I understand it, the divide is over the interpretations of how the atonement works. Catholics believe in satisfaction theory, while Protestants follow the substitution theory. But we all believe in atonement.
For my own 2 cents, I think satisfaction (the idea we all owed a debt that we could not pay but Christ covered for us) trivializes the severity of our sin. Sticking with the legal analogy, it is not like defaulting on a debt, which since the abolition of debtors prison is a civil matter that does not really threaten your person and does not really implicate concepts of punishment and justice. Sinning against God justifies the ultimate penalty, separation from God. As such, I would say criminal law is more analogous, where justice requires a punishment that Jesus accepted on our behalf.
I am also confused by your indication that Ambrose of Milan was English. He was a Roman born in Trier, which during that period was frequently the administrative capital of the western empire.
I think this is somewhat overstated. In general terms, atonement is the cornerstone of all Christian faith, that Christ took on our sins so that we could be reconciled to God (“God made him who had no sin to be sin[a]
for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”) . As I understand it, the divide is over the interpretations of how the atonement works. Catholics believe in satisfaction theory, while Protestants follow the substitution theory. But we all believe in atonement.
For my own 2 cents, I think satisfaction (the idea we all owed a debt that we could not pay but Christ covered for us) trivializes the severity of our sin. Sticking with the legal analogy, it is not like defaulting on a debt, which since the abolition of debtors prison is a civil matter that does not really threaten your person and does not really implicate concepts of punishment and justice. Sinning against God justifies the ultimate penalty, separation from God. As such, I would say criminal law is more analogous, where justice requires a punishment that Jesus accepted on our behalf.
I am also confused by your indication that Ambrose of Milan was English. He was a Roman born in Trier, which during that period was frequently the administrative capital of the western empire.
The atonement theory has never, ever been approved officially by any church council or body of believers in 2000 years of history. Sadly… it has become very popular in fundamentalistic christian communities even if the idea came from an English Archbishop (Ambrose of Milan).
I think this is somewhat overstated. In general terms, atonement is the cornerstone of all Christian faith, that Christ took on our sins so that we could be reconciled to God (“God made him who had no sin to be sin[a]
for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”) . As I understand it, the divide is over the interpretations of how the atonement works. Catholics believe in satisfaction theory, while Protestants follow the substitution theory. But we all believe in atonement.
For my own 2 cents, I think satisfaction (the idea we all owed a debt that we could not pay but Christ covered for us) trivializes the severity of our sin. Sticking with the legal analogy, it is not like defaulting on a debt, which since the abolition of debtors prison is a civil matter that does not really threaten your person and does not really implicate concepts of punishment and justice. Sinning against God justifies the ultimate penalty, separation from God. As such, I would say criminal law is more analogous, where justice requires a punishment that Jesus accepted on our behalf.
I am also confused by your indication that Ambrose of Milan was English. He was a Roman born in Trier, which during that period was frequently the administrative capital of the western empire.
Such and uniformed, misguided article. First the Episcopal Church is a hierarchical church not a congregational church.
Second, if you have a problem understanding Bishop Jefferts-Schori, perhaps it will be clearer from the Vicar of Christ.
Using scripture from the Gospel of Mark, Francis explained how upset Jesus’ disciples were that someone outside their group was doing good, according to a report from Vatican Radio.
“They complain,” the Pope said in his homily, because they say, “If he is not one of us, he cannot do good. If he is not of our party, he cannot do good.” And Jesus corrects them: “Do not hinder him, he says, let him do good.” The disciples, Pope Francis explains, “were a little intolerant,” closed off by the idea of ??possessing the truth, convinced that “those who do not have the truth, cannot do good.” “This was wrong . . . Jesus broadens the horizon.” Pope Francis said, “The root of this possibility of doing good – that we all have – is in creation”
Pope Francis went further in his sermon to say:
“The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can… “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!”.. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”
Responding to the leader of the Roman Catholic church’s homily, Father James Martin, S.J. stated:
“Pope Francis is saying, more clearly than ever before, that Christ offered himself as a sacrifice for everyone. That’s always been a Christian belief. You can find St. Paul saying in the First Letter to Timothy that Jesus gave himself as a “ransom for all.” But rarely do you hear it said by Catholics so forcefully, and with such evident joy. And in this era of religious controversies, it’s a timely reminder that God cannot be confined to our narrow categories.”
Exactly where in here does the Pope saying demonic possession is holy and beautiful? Or that casting out a demon makes Paul a bigot?
Such and uniformed, misguided article. First the Episcopal Church is a hierarchical church not a congregational church.
Second, if you have a problem understanding Bishop Jefferts-Schori, perhaps it will be clearer from the Vicar of Christ.
Using scripture from the Gospel of Mark, Francis explained how upset Jesus’ disciples were that someone outside their group was doing good, according to a report from Vatican Radio.
“They complain,” the Pope said in his homily, because they say, “If he is not one of us, he cannot do good. If he is not of our party, he cannot do good.” And Jesus corrects them: “Do not hinder him, he says, let him do good.” The disciples, Pope Francis explains, “were a little intolerant,” closed off by the idea of ??possessing the truth, convinced that “those who do not have the truth, cannot do good.” “This was wrong . . . Jesus broadens the horizon.” Pope Francis said, “The root of this possibility of doing good – that we all have – is in creation”
Pope Francis went further in his sermon to say:
“The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can… “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!”.. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”
Responding to the leader of the Roman Catholic church’s homily, Father James Martin, S.J. stated:
“Pope Francis is saying, more clearly than ever before, that Christ offered himself as a sacrifice for everyone. That’s always been a Christian belief. You can find St. Paul saying in the First Letter to Timothy that Jesus gave himself as a “ransom for all.” But rarely do you hear it said by Catholics so forcefully, and with such evident joy. And in this era of religious controversies, it’s a timely reminder that God cannot be confined to our narrow categories.”
Exactly where in here does the Pope saying demonic possession is holy and beautiful? Or that casting out a demon makes Paul a bigot?