Reading through a religious insert in my local newspaper I came across many intriguing articles. It was a little unclear what group was sponsoring these viewpoints, but at least some of the authors were from a local group affiliated with a movement that has split from a national church over doctrinal issues. One such article delved into history of our identities and ultimately focused on the sacrifice of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Quoted was his poem that vouchsafed him as belonging to God, in face of Nazism even while fearing execution. Of course being the cynic I am, I also saw support for the breakaway group to maintain courage and recognition that they truly belonged to God unlike the National Church. Of course this is unspoken since the locals are not really in Bonhoeffer's circumstances and the National Church is not Nazism, no matter how much they're seen unorthodox.
Another fascinating article admonished against fighting poverty by taking from some and giving to others. To underscore this absurdity an example was to take all of Bill Gates wealth and distribute it to everyone with each getting only $300. And this would be just a one time event. Of course this idea of taking from some (the wealthy) and giving to others (poor, non-workers, derelicts) is often a code phrase for lamenting taxes, even a progressive system, and is an easy strawman. Taxes contribute to general benefits and I'm sure each of us can find some objections to the spending of some tax dollars. Nevertheless, the Common Good is a far cry from taking from some to give to others even if there are some efforts to provide a safety net--or health care, disability benefits, education, prevent hunger.
But the most catching article for me was the one dealing with "Focusing on Basics" with supertitle of "Prodigal Son"--recall there are two diocesan congregations apart at the moment and who might be symbolically the Prodigal Son I couldn't say except for perhaps both. Aren't we all?
The author laments how minor details can obscure the really important messages of the church. Gay marriage, abortion, women priests, adult versus childhood baptism, type of music--and I'll add more: the day to the week of worship, handling snakes, speaking in tongues, dancing, alcohol, caffeine, and countless more. I concur with the author that such matters are not very important as denominational determinants. He does believe however that "cultural" wars are important. It's just you don't want to overwhelm a new convert too quickly.
My biggest disappointment came after the author had trumpeted the value of transcending minor beliefs for a more profound and inclusive experience. This inclusive experience turns out to be what we must say as we stand before "God in judgement." For him this is where the rubber hits the road. It's a test. And the correct answer "better include" a version of accepting the doctrine of atonement salvation. I must point out that not even all Christians accept this doctrine and this does not even address the billions who profess Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, forms of what we call Hinduism, and countless other beliefs I can't list for space.
It reminds me of the statement attributed to Jesus about not worrying about the mote in your neighbors eye when there is a beam in your own. I would write more, but my eyes hurt.
--the Bishop
Another fascinating article admonished against fighting poverty by taking from some and giving to others. To underscore this absurdity an example was to take all of Bill Gates wealth and distribute it to everyone with each getting only $300. And this would be just a one time event. Of course this idea of taking from some (the wealthy) and giving to others (poor, non-workers, derelicts) is often a code phrase for lamenting taxes, even a progressive system, and is an easy strawman. Taxes contribute to general benefits and I'm sure each of us can find some objections to the spending of some tax dollars. Nevertheless, the Common Good is a far cry from taking from some to give to others even if there are some efforts to provide a safety net--or health care, disability benefits, education, prevent hunger.
But the most catching article for me was the one dealing with "Focusing on Basics" with supertitle of "Prodigal Son"--recall there are two diocesan congregations apart at the moment and who might be symbolically the Prodigal Son I couldn't say except for perhaps both. Aren't we all?
The author laments how minor details can obscure the really important messages of the church. Gay marriage, abortion, women priests, adult versus childhood baptism, type of music--and I'll add more: the day to the week of worship, handling snakes, speaking in tongues, dancing, alcohol, caffeine, and countless more. I concur with the author that such matters are not very important as denominational determinants. He does believe however that "cultural" wars are important. It's just you don't want to overwhelm a new convert too quickly.
My biggest disappointment came after the author had trumpeted the value of transcending minor beliefs for a more profound and inclusive experience. This inclusive experience turns out to be what we must say as we stand before "God in judgement." For him this is where the rubber hits the road. It's a test. And the correct answer "better include" a version of accepting the doctrine of atonement salvation. I must point out that not even all Christians accept this doctrine and this does not even address the billions who profess Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, forms of what we call Hinduism, and countless other beliefs I can't list for space.
It reminds me of the statement attributed to Jesus about not worrying about the mote in your neighbors eye when there is a beam in your own. I would write more, but my eyes hurt.
--the Bishop
