Santorum says the 45,000,000 Protestants in America are not Christians

[ajb]

Random conference, indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-Imagining:_Christian_feminist_conference

Note that the conference led to the firing of the highest-ranking Presbyterian woman of the time.

Not a single mainline Protestant denomination withdrew the Nicene Creed from regular liturgical use as a consequence of the Re-Imagining conference. All still use it today.

[asexual trans victimologist]

To be fair to Bob, a lot of what went on at Re-Imagining was theological woo of the sort that's incredibly damaging to the reputation of feminist theology.

[ajb]

To be fair to Bob, a lot of what went on at Re-Imagining was theological woo of the sort that's incredibly damaging to the reputation of feminist theology.

Fair enough. But it's pretty amusing to characterize the event as having led to the overturning of centuries' worth of doctrine for several major denominations.
Or it would be amusing, if it weren't pernicious.

[asexual trans victimologist]

To be fair to Bob, a lot of what went on at Re-Imagining was theological woo of the sort that's incredibly damaging to the reputation of feminist theology.

Fair enough. But it's pretty amusing to characterize the event as having led to the overturning of centuries' worth of doctrine for several major denominations.
Or it would be amusing, if it weren't pernicious.

Oh, I completely agree. It went over like a lead balloon. It was probably the most pointless theological exercise of its kind in decades, up there with the career of Mary Daly.

[ajb]

To be fair to Bob, a lot of what went on at Re-Imagining was theological woo of the sort that's incredibly damaging to the reputation of feminist theology.

Fair enough. But it's pretty amusing to characterize the event as having led to the overturning of centuries' worth of doctrine for several major denominations.
Or it would be amusing, if it weren't pernicious.

Oh, I completely agree. It went over like a lead balloon. It was probably the most pointless theological exercise of its kind in decades, up there with the career of Mary Daly.

Thinking of Mary Daly, at least one of the participants at the Re-Imagining conference was a Catholic nun. I wonder if that means that the Catholic Church abandoned the Nicene Creed as well?

[Harry]

Santorum has done irreperable damage to the reputation of the Catholic Church (which even in America is majority pro-choice and pro-gay marriage).  It's heart-breaking.

[BigSkyBob]

Random conference, indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-Imagining:_Christian_feminist_conference

Note that the conference led to the firing of the highest-ranking Presbyterian woman of the time.

Not a single mainline Protestant denomination withdrew the Nicene Creed from regular liturgical use as a consequence of the Re-Imagining conference. All still use it today.

Here's another link for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong

John Shelby Spong was a bishop.  You can't simply dissociate his church from him as you attempted with the re-imaging conference. [Nor, is pointing out the fact that someone was fired an answer to the question why in the heck did the Presbyterian Church sponsor the conference in the first place?] Spong clearly was advocating the rejection of Nicene Christianity. The schisms are occuring for a reason.

[ajb]

Random conference, indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-Imagining:_Christian_feminist_conference

Note that the conference led to the firing of the highest-ranking Presbyterian woman of the time.

Not a single mainline Protestant denomination withdrew the Nicene Creed from regular liturgical use as a consequence of the Re-Imagining conference. All still use it today.

Here's another link for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong

John Shelby Spong was a bishop.  You can't simply dissociate his church from him as you attempted with the re-imaging conference. [Nor, is pointing out the fact that someone was fired an answer to the question why in the heck did the Presbyterian Church sponsor the conference in the first place?] Spong clearly was advocating the rejection of Nicene Christianity. The schisms are occurring for a reason.

OK, I think I now understand the argument that you're trying to make, which hasn't been fully clear. You're arguing that the presence of prominent individuals within mainline Protestant churches, who openly doubt aspects of the Nicene Creed, and are not expelled from their churches as a result, somehow impugns the commitment to the Nicene Creed of the church as a whole, and that this is responsible for defections from those churches?
I'll certainly give you the latter point. As for the former, I have to remind you that the Nicene Creed remains an active part of the liturgy of every major mainline Protestant denomination. And schisms or no, millions of honest Americans continue to attend these churches, and to recite and believe in the Nicene Creed. As long as you can accept that those people are fully Christian, and that any denomination that follows the Nicene Creed is Christian, then we don't have anything to disagree about.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Santorum has done irreperable damage to the reputation of the Catholic Church (which even in America is majority pro-choice and pro-gay marriage).  It's heart-breaking.

Catholics may be pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. The Catholic Church (the entity as distinct from its adherents) is most certainly not.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Random conference, indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-Imagining:_Christian_feminist_conference

Note that the conference led to the firing of the highest-ranking Presbyterian woman of the time.

Not a single mainline Protestant denomination withdrew the Nicene Creed from regular liturgical use as a consequence of the Re-Imagining conference. All still use it today.

Here's another link for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong

John Shelby Spong was a bishop.  You can't simply dissociate his church from him as you attempted with the re-imaging conference. [Nor, is pointing out the fact that someone was fired an answer to the question why in the heck did the Presbyterian Church sponsor the conference in the first place?] Spong clearly was advocating the rejection of Nicene Christianity. The schisms are occuring for a reason.

As an Episcopalian, may I explain what happened here?

Spong represents the extreme left wing of Episcopalian thought, a fact a lot of which came out after his consecration. He wrote a few relatively anodyne books before then. He wrote like a dozen extremely reconstructionist books while in office. It's hard to depose an Episcopal bishop and nobody wanted to go to the trouble. Nobody wanted to go to the trouble with Bob Duncan either until he unilaterally initiated schism. When it's known that somebody holds these sorts of views before they are consecrated, they tend to not get through (this is why Kevin Thew Forrester is not Bishop of Northern Michigan, never has been, and never will be). People whose consecrations have been flash-points who have gotten through, such as Gene Robinson, have usually been relatively inoffensive in terms of their actual liturgy and theology.

Obviously people are leaving the church in some number over this--there have been a few schismatic dioceses, although they were quickly reestablished by loyalists--but structural problems related to younger age groups drifting into secularism, non-Christian religions, or BRTD-style hipstertypal churches are a much greater concern, since people who leave over ideological disputes and people who join from the Catholic Church or whatever over the same sorts of ideological disputes are about at parity.

The Presbyterians sponsored Re-Imagining because they didn't know beforehand what it was going to turn into, obviously.

[BigSkyBob]

To be fair to Bob, a lot of what went on at Re-Imagining was theological woo of the sort that's incredibly damaging to the reputation of feminist theology.

Fair enough. But it's pretty amusing to characterize the event as having led to the overturning of centuries' worth of doctrine for several major denominations.
Or it would be amusing, if it weren't pernicious.

Since I originally said, "The long answer involves a careful study of the "Re-imagining 1993" conference held in Minnesota with the support and participation of the National Council of Churches [mostly mlp], and a series of other theological debates within those churches,"I think I am safe in noting that you are arguing against a strawman and not me.

[ajb]

To be fair to Bob, a lot of what went on at Re-Imagining was theological woo of the sort that's incredibly damaging to the reputation of feminist theology.

Fair enough. But it's pretty amusing to characterize the event as having led to the overturning of centuries' worth of doctrine for several major denominations.
Or it would be amusing, if it weren't pernicious.

Since I originally said, "The long answer involves a careful study of the "Re-imagining 1993" conference held in Minnesota with the support and participation of the National Council of Churches [mostly mlp], and a series of other theological debates within those churches,"I think I am safe in noting that you are arguing against a strawman and not me.

Presumably, though, the "long answer" also involves looking at the fact that each and every one of those mainline Protestant denominations remains within the fold of Nicene Christianity, in doctrine and in liturgical practice.

I'm quite willing to admit that there are individuals within some of these churches who are not supporters of the whole of the Nicene Creed. Are you willing to agree that those churches, as institutions, remain adherent to the Nicene Creed?

[So the Heroes Fall]

By the logic of extrapolating Spong's views to the entire Episcopal Church, one could do the same with Cynthia McKinney to the Democrats while she was in Congress or Ron Paul to the Republicans or Helen Chenoweth when she was still in office.

The last time I was at an ELCA service was Christmas Eve (not that long ago) and we recited the Nicene Creed as it was posted there. That seems like an unusual practice if it's being rejected.

[Harry]

Santorum has done irreperable damage to the reputation of the Catholic Church (which even in America is majority pro-choice and pro-gay marriage).  It's heart-breaking.

Catholics may be pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. The Catholic Church (the entity as distinct from its adherents) is most certainly not.

So?  A group (Catholics, Protestants, Democrats, Republicans, Tea Partiers, whatever) should be judged by what its members actually believe, not what they're unenforceably "supposed" to believe.

[So the Heroes Fall]

I'd be quite surprised if a majority of US Catholics were pro-choice or pro-gay marriage.

[asexual trans victimologist]

I'd be quite surprised if a majority of US Catholics were pro-choice or pro-gay marriage.

This is people who identify as Catholic, not necessarily practicing Catholics.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

I'll give you this, bk: at least you are an unapologetic fellow cultural warrior who, like rick, is to the right of most us bishops on the issue of ecumenicalism. Unlike bsbob youhyouu don't dissembling garbage about 'misstatements' and instead simply reponded with an unapologetic 'hell yes!'.

I'm not sure how I'm 'to the right' of most bishops on ecumenicalism. I believe that you don't have to be a member of the Catholic church, or even a Christian to be saved. It's God's will not ours. I also believe that most faithful protestants are brothers + sisters in Christ.

What I do believe is that those who profess themselves to be Christian ought to follow what Christ teaches. Christ is pretty clear on homosexuality, that it is sinful and disordered. If that makes me a bigot, then I'm in pretty good company.

[Likely Voter]

I look forward to this being brought up at the debate...I assume moderator will ask, and Rick will do what he can to defend it. But will Gingrich or Romney or Paul pile on?

[So the Heroes Fall]

I'd be quite surprised if a majority of US Catholics were pro-choice or pro-gay marriage.

This is people who identify as Catholic, not necessarily practicing Catholics.

Even then I'd be surprised. Bush won Catholics in 2004 and then take into account many who voted for Kerry are Hispanic.

[asexual trans victimologist]

What I do believe is that those who profess themselves to be Christian ought to follow what Christ teaches. Christ is pretty clear on homosexuality, that it is sinful and disordered. If that makes me a bigot, then I'm in pretty good company.

I'm not sure how exactly one reads that into Christ's statements (some of Paul's, I'll give you), but I understand what you mean, and I sincerely hope my admittedly highly personal (not myself, but my best friend among other people) position on this particular issue and the fact that my politics are very different from yours do not alone hinder you from considering me a brother. I certainly consider you one.

[patrick1]

Eh, I would think Rick is right.  IMO, You have to jump through a lot of hoops to make biblical Christianity compatible with mainstream cultural norms. You water it down until it doesnt really mean anything anymore- other than Jesus is Lord/love and everything else in the Bible is only posturing.

Maybe I'm creating a false dilemma but I really do see it as you can either follow what was taught or just see it as a whole lot of hocus pocus. I waver between those two extremes.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

I'm not sure how exactly one reads that into Christ's statements (some of Paul's, I'll give you), but I understand what you mean, and I sincerely hope my admittedly highly personal (not myself, but my best friend among other people) position on this particular issue and the fact that my politics are very different from yours do not alone hinder you from considering me a brother. I certainly consider you one.

Matthew 19:4-5

"From the beginnning, the Creator made them male and female, and for this reason a man will leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

The interesting word here is proskollethesetai, used nowhere else. NIV renders it 'unite', but KJV renders it cleave. It means the complete spiritual and physical union. Men and women were made this way to join with one another in this fashion.

I asked the same question as you - not that many moons ago to a seminarian and he could not answer my question. I eventually came upon this myself in my own investigations and I find this whole Matthew chapter 19 to really be an amazing chapter that encapsulates so many things.

As for politics, I could give two hoots about someone's politics. So long as they teach what Christ taught to the best of their understanding then they are my brother. Even if they fall - you are still my brother and sister in Christ and I have an obligation to help you back.

[asexual trans victimologist]

I'm not sure how exactly one reads that into Christ's statements (some of Paul's, I'll give you), but I understand what you mean, and I sincerely hope my admittedly highly personal (not myself, but my best friend among other people) position on this particular issue and the fact that my politics are very different from yours do not alone hinder you from considering me a brother. I certainly consider you one.

Matthew 19:4-5

"From the beginnning, the Creator made them male and female, and for this reason a man will leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

The interesting word here is proskollethesetai, used nowhere else. NIV renders it 'unite', but KJV renders it cleave. It means the complete spiritual and physical union. Men and women were made this way to join with one another in this fashion.

I asked the same question as you - not that many moons ago to a seminarian and he could not answer my question. I eventually came upon this myself in my own investigations and I find this whole Matthew chapter 19 to really be an amazing chapter that encapsulates so many things.

As for politics, I could give two hoots about someone's politics. So long as they teach what Christ taught to the best of their understanding then they are my brother. Even if they fall - you are still my brother and sister in Christ and I have an obligation to help you back.

I actually really like Matthew 19. You're right that it's a really great chapter that as you say takes in quite a lot of Christ's teachings on how life is to be lived. In this case, I certainly agree with your basic interpretation of that phrase but there are aspects of verse 12 that I interpret to moderate this as regards sexual orientation (perhaps not to the extent of condoning specific sexual practices, since it seems to be discussing what today would be viewed as variances in expression of gender and socialization rather than any actual acts; this too I will grant). I of course understand that there are received interpretations that do not view 19.12 this way in many churches.

We don't have to discuss this now, though, since it's getting rather off-topic. I admire your intellectual honesty and moral courage as you understand it on these subjects.

[argentarius]

I'd be quite surprised if a majority of US Catholics were pro-choice or pro-gay marriage.

Pro-choice, not a chance. But I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of catholics were pro-gay marriage. Are American catholics similar to Irish catholics (Irish catholics were very conservative before 2000, and around 20 years ago divorce was illegal, before being really narrowly passed in a referendum, but I would say a gay marriage referendum would pass without much trouble in Ireland today)?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'm not sure how I'm 'to the right' of most bishops on ecumenicalism. I believe that you don't have to be a member of the Catholic church, or even a Christian to be saved. .

how so?  I though the NT teaches there is now only one path to salvation, Jesus Christ.