Monday, November 13, 2006
Imperfect God
According to the Episcopal Church in America (ECUSA). To be fair this is the conclusion given in a comment thread in my previous posting on the Ms. Katharine Jefferts-Schori Interview.
A particular reader was debating with Matt and I on whether a woman can become a priest. The reader was basing his argument that our God is a dynamic God and we used the Bible and Tradition argument on why women can’t be priests. Well after some give and take the discussion came to a sudden halt when this reader declared that God is imperfect.
Basically this discussion came to a dead end since how can someone hold that God is imperfect yet hold to certain basic truths of Christianity? But then again these truths ‘evolve’ and can progress to meet the needs of the world according to this particular reader.
For if God is imperfect then there is no God. It could be rationalized that Jesus may have made a mistake to die for our sins? This particular reader represents what is wrong when you deviate from Sacred Scripture and Tradition by personal analysis. This reader in one fell swoop rendered his Episcopal faith, ie Anglican, marginalized and lumped together with all other Protestant branches instead of being the ‘third trunk’ (along with Catholicism and Orthodoxy) of the Christian tree.
Where personal interpretation trumps nearly 2000 years of Tradition, referred to by Protestants as ‘classical’ Christianity or ‘Biblically-based’ Christianity, of the development of Christian theology.
To be honest, my own limited knowledge of Christian theology prevents me from developing a coherent argument to this reader’s assault on the perfection of God. But I believe the illustration below perfectly depicts to which god the ECUSA adheres to (Hat Tip: CaNN)
I guess with thinking such as believing in an imperfect God and praying to the Golden Calf of homosexuality produces Bishops from the Church of England endorsing the killing of disabled newborn babies as alright since it costs to much to keep alive.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(Atom)
5 comments:
I talk about my "beliefs" and "opinions," and you talk about "truth." When have I ever implied that I had a monopoly on truth, as you have when talking about "your Church" and its "truth?"
--(reader from Mr. Schori posting)
My only response to this is that the Truth is absolute. How can one question the Truth? If we start devolving into each owns' truths then the debate ends.
My mind is still spinning from reading this guys arguements.
Write me off or ridicule me as you desire; that is your prerogative as a "blogger."
However, you must recognize that is unfair to fault the Episcopal Church because of my beliefs; my thoughts about God are most certainly NOT those of Episcopal Church at large. Indeed, my definition of what is truly "Christian" forces me to consider my communion as a Christian in the Episcopal Church as being impaired at this moment of my life. I cannot conscientiously consider myself a Christian right now.
Additionally...
"My only response to this is that the Truth is absolute. How can one question the Truth?"
You are defending your views by asking how I can question "absolute truth," and in so doing, you seem to be associating "absolute truth" with yourself. Like Carl Jung, I am always weary of those who would claim (either explicitly or implicitly) to own anything of an "absolute truth." I believe in absolute truth, but I think that believing that you can possess it is analogious to believing that you can possess its origin: the deity. This is what I would call self-idolatry; it is an act of "ego inflation," as it is called in psychology. That is what offends me about your ethic.
It is also interesting that you claim that I am avoiding your questions, and yet you submit your "only response" to my thoughts on this other page, where I am less likely to look, and you are more likely to be praised by those who think like you.
I have ego too, but I fully expect to be confounded for my transgressions upon His "truth." I think somebody in the Bible said something about those who would exalt themselves being eventually humbled... but I'm certainly wrong, as my arguments are all so flawed, and I worship the "Golden Calf of homosexuality," and stuff.
Walt D.,
The beliefs of the Episcopal Church are varied and various. It's difficult to discern what the ECUSA believes in.
Carl Jung is a hypocrite since that statement you are referencing is an absolute statement in and of itself. That pretty much discredits that paleo-Noam Chomskey hack.
Perhaps it is difficult to understand what ECUSA believes, but it does NOT believe that which I have claimed. The reason that beliefs are varied in the Episcopal Church is because there is a dialogue, rather than a monologue. Oh and condoning something is different from worshipping it.
Precisely how is being weary of those who talk about "absolute truth" an absolute statement about truth itself? Jung's statement is referring to a fear of the person who talks about it (it is a statement about the person claiming to know); he does not say that truth cannot be possessed. He doesn't say anything about truth at all (in this particular statement). And though I may have implied it, I didn't say truth could not be possessed either. Furthermore, do you know the statement to which I'm referring? If not, how do you presume to understand it?
And don't insult Jung please, particularly if you haven't read him (that's the main reason I responded; that'll give you something over which you may ridicule me, I suppose). Thanks.
Walt D.,
What do you believe in?
Back to absolute Truth, so you would question if Jesus had the truth is basically what you're saying?
By the way, thanks for continuing this dialogue.
As for Carl Jung, I have waaay to many books right now that I am reading and processing through, but I will keep that in mind the next time I head out to the bookstore, I might just pick one of his books up and read a chapter or two.