OlympicsEpiscopal Church
In financial crisis, seminary stops admitting students
After 150 years of preparing Episcopal priests, Seabury-Western Theological Seminary has stopped admitting students and told tenured faculty Thursday that their jobs would end next year.
Comments
|
Anonymous Proxy
|
As I posted in response to another story, the Episcopal Church will inevitably have to shrink as it eliminates conservatives. In the end this will result in a smaller and more inclusive church, but unfortunately there may be some "collateral damage" along the way for under-endowed institutions like S-W. Consolidation of finances, however, will leave a smaller number of financially stronger institutions with a need for fewer clergy, especially as the baby boomers retire. So this is a painful but necessary evolution.
|
Yes. This is not all bad. The reorganization will align TEC more closely with the modern understanding of the teachings of Christ Jesus. KGC |
|
|
“Reader”
Joined: Oct 2, 2007
Comments: 380
ISP Location:
Baltimore, MD
|
Perhaps somewhat smaller in the short run (currently running at about 1%) and (deliberately) crippled by the conservatives while we are in the midst of this false "controversy" (who would deliberately want to join this 'food fight'?). But I believe we will end by being much more relevant and much more capable of true evangelization of the good news, than we have been for decades; granted that's just my opinion, but it seems to be one that is shared by most Episcopalians - espcially those who are in the day-to-day business of evangelizing to the un-churched.
|
I didn't realize that The Gospel had a certain demographic. |
|
Although Christ cleared the Outer Temple, opened the Door and caused the Veil between the Inner Temple and the Holy of Holies to be torn apart, signifying the opening of the Way of Christ to all, He himself suggested that His Gospel would be received better by some than by others. But, the Way is open to all; from the bound slave to the common fisherman to the most highly educated scribe to the wealthy member of the highest council. Everyone is invited, especially those who are generally rejected and cast aside through no real fault of their own. Even those who have made serious errors, like the thief on the cross next to Jesus, are welcomed. No one is excluded before they even try. One significant caution was given. That is, that we - all of us - must be careful to not create blocks to prevent people from coming to Christ. KGC |
|
I agree to what you say above. “Even those who have made serious errors, like the thief on the cross next to Jesus, are welcomed. No one is excluded before they even try.“ Exactly, but we cannot accept unrepentant sin as normalcy. |
|
Because Light, Life and Love are the Characteristics of Christ that permeate everything and everyone, it is impossible to isolate any one factor that can be said to primarily prevent or impede an individual's progression to a life in Christ. But, if there could be such a primary impediment it would probably be our own perception of sin as sin is perceived to be occurring in another individual. We judge ourselves by comparing. We have no perspective except our own. Yet, we seek a common foundation in faith, hoping that we have both a place of eternal social acceptance and a place from which our present lives can be collectively focused together in a positive effort. Sin, whether existing in our own behavior or in the behavior of another is regarded as an impediment to the creation and sustaining of such an effort. That's why we seek to eliminate it. Likewise, that is why we attempt to define it. This defining is a problem in itself. Because we exist within a finite world that our faith tells us is co-existent with the infinite, we are forced to define sin in finite terms. But, because of the presence of the infinite, theoretical or real, any finite definition is inadequate. I am not explaining away sin. But, I am saying that our hard and fast definitions sometimes draw lines where none exist. KGC |
|
Do we really define sin or has God defined it for us in His Inspired Word? Sure, there are new and modern twists on most of the serious discussions and disagreements concerning sin. But when you get to the root of the issue it is very much the same as described in God’s Word. We have the Ten Commandments, and without much effort and some thought you can extrapolate these ten into most of the issues we face today. For example, the first commandment, "I am the LORD your God...You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:2-3). God – your/our Creator - commands that He be the focal point of your affection. If you love your life, possessions, spouse, children, or vocation more than your Father in heaven, you love the gift more than the Giver. The acquisition of wealth is a big issue today and if one puts that before God, then it is a sin. Along with the moral law, God has given every man a conscience. The conscience acts to accuse or excuse us, compelling us to remain within the bounds of God's moral standards of conduct. With use, conscience serves to keep us “safe” and helps us to make the right decisions. After continually ignoring the urging of the conscience for a period of time, the conscience no longer functions as it should. The “excuse” portion of the statement occurs when satan attacks a person’s conscience and tries to redefine what we know is sinful behavior as described in God’s word. Gen 3:1 (NIV)“……….Did God really say, you must not eat from any tree in the garden.” Hence, the first sin and the fall of man. Satan hasn’t changed his methods any, because he hasn’t needed too. We (man) are still falling for that line, even today. We cannot trust our hearts either. John Wesley wrote: There is nothing so false and deceitful as the heart of man; deceitful in its apprehensions of things, in the hopes and promises which it nourishes, in the assurances that it gives us; unreachable by others, deceitful with reference to ourselves, and abominably wicked, so that neither can a man know his own heart nor can any other know that of his neighbor’s." This was Wesley's commentary on Jer 17: 9-10 which says, "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? I the Lord search the heart and examine the mind to reward a man according to his conduct, according to what he deserves." We are forbidden from judging hearts, but we can and should judge actions. Without an absolute and objective moral standard, we become easier targets for these types of deceit. Dr. Peter Kreeft said this,“Of course, objective morality is not one among many moral options; it is the very definition of morality. "Subjective morality" is an oxymoron; it is no morality at all; it is a mere game. If I (or we) make rules, I (or we) can change them. If I tie myself up, I am not really bound. And a nonbinding morality is not morality, only some "good ideas". It has no laws, nothing with teeth in it; only "values": soft, squooshy things that feel like teddy bears." |
|
Clearly, we humans have had significant input defining sin. "His Inspired Word" is fairly non-specific. You can rely upon the Levite and Mosaic code. You can find individual references to things done that displeased the Lord. But, as to the development of and the implementation of a moral code expressed in social context, you know as well as I that humans have been the definition writers. It is the extrapolation that leads to the true iniquities and discrimination. Wesley makes the case for erring on the side of lenience and refusing to judge another when the evidence indicates no sin is occurring. But, Kreeft himself, acknowledges that an objective morality, although necssary for a functioning society to avoid an immoral disintegration is ultimately based on a subjective view. That's why he calls it an oxymoron. You know, I'm sorry, TA, that this issue of sanctioning long-term committed loving and mutually supporting same-sex relationships is such a stumbling block for so many reasonable people. But, until they acknowledge the facts, they are not going to change their minds. The average heterosexual cannot conceive of any other type of relationship simply beacuse he or she is not built that way. Can you blame them for being bigoted as a result? To understand, one has to step out of the bigotry. Its like overcoming the view that slavery is OK. It just isn't OK. KGC |
|
Yes, I can blame them for being bigoted. That is not my message. Many "revisionists" contend that speaking out against homosexuality is in and of itself bigoted. I contend that it is an act of love, at least it is for me. J.I Packer wrote,“The claim traditionally made for Christian morality is that love can be, and indeed has been, embodied in rules, so that in using the moral principles of Scripture prescriptively a Christian will always be expressing love, never frustrating it, and so will always be doing the will of God.” John 14:15 (KJV)“If ye love me, keep my commandments.” 1John 5:1-3 (KJV) Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. A true measure of love is showing one where they are erring in their actions. I believe non-celebate homosexuality is a sin. If I refuse to speak out than I am sinning as well. Matthew 18: 7-9 (NIV – because it is easier to read) Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell. |
|
KGC, I posted this tongue-in-cheek reply the other day but never got a response. Maybe you didn't see it before Luigi started posting. Yes there is some sarcasim but this is what I feel is happening to the convent of marriage. I have had a great new enlightenment after our discussion here on this forum. I have finally bought into your and Bookguy’s way of thinking. BG states “Marriage is something that is defined and created between loving and committed individuals. It wasn't and isn't created by the state. It wasn't and isn't created by the church. It wasn't and isn't created by god. Even though I am married, I have decided that I would like to take another wife or two. If things go well, maybe I will take more. I have found several references in the Bible which I feel will allow me to do this. After all, David, Moses, and Solomon all had multiple wives so it must be cool. Exodus 21:10 (KJV) states:“If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. Since this verse comes only 22 verses after God gave Moses the 7th commandment, well I guess he changed his mind. I certainly have enough love for more than one wife. If we remain celibate until after the vows are said, I should be clear, right? I would be committed to all 2-10 of my wives. It would be loving, committed relationships. Jesus never meant that marriage was between one man and one woman when he spoke in Matthew 19:4 because I have gained a new enlightenment into that passage. Joseph Smith had a new revelation and had 20+ wives, so why can't I get in on this new revelation thing, right KGC? Thanks for your help in this matter! Of course I am not being serious but all you have to do is google polygamy and you will get many of the same justifications by polygamy supporters that you and BG use here. So if we are going to redefine marriage, why not go all the way. |
|
Well, of course, your sarcasm hits at a couple of the core issues that pose difficulties for both views. Your sarcasm illuminates the fact that certain passages in the Good Book, though they be Holy Scripture, are no longer regarded as a modern and enlightened or moral position. However, a marriage between two humans is not the same and can not be compared to what the slippery slopists claim will have to be permitted if homosexuals can be allowed to marry. Even Mr. Ed could recognize a good looking filly. But, no humans will be walking down the aisle, tying the knot with their favorite sheep or flock of sheep. As for Mormons, the Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantees them religious freedom. The same goes for Hindus and Muslims. KGC |
|
|
KCG wrote:“Your sarcasm illuminates the fact that certain passages in the Good Book, though they be Holy Scripture, are no longer regarded as a modern and enlightened or moral position.”
"Each man should have his own wife (singular word), and each woman her own husband (singular word).[I Corinthians 7:2] Polygamy wasn’t God’s will then or now. Much like with the issue of divorce, Moses permitted it because man had “hardened their hearts.” Scripture historically records different events in that time. These events are used to show a dichotomy between God’s will and what happens when man strays from God’s will. The events of that time can also illuminate our paths today. KCG wrote:“However, a marriage between two humans is not the same and can not be compared to what the slippery slopists claim will have to be permitted if homosexuals can be allowed to marry.” KCG, how slippery is that slope? Many of the same arguments used in the advocacy of homosexual marriage or blessings are used in the advocacy of other types of unions as well. Take a look at the acronym, LGBT. B = Bisexual. One definition of bisexual is having a sexual orientation to persons of either sex. If this is their innate orientation, how can they actively pursue both of these orientations simultaneously and sexually within the covenant of marriage without committing adultery? Also, using your reasoning, how can we exclude them from the “table” when this is their innate orientation? Will they be forced to choose? And if so, how is forcing a bisexual person to choose any different than forcing a homosexual to choose, when according to many it is not a choice? |
|
|
I really find the following topic disgusting. I chose to respond to your statement to show you what is beginning to happen with this subject. Before you get angry, I am not comparing this with homosexuality. I am only showing you where the "Zoophiles" are heading and how they are adopting some of the same language and the slope is getting more slippery everyday.
KCG wrote:“Even Mr. Ed could recognize a good looking filly. But, no humans will be walking down the aisle, tying the knot with their favorite sheep or flock of sheep.” Another portion of the “slippery slope” that is undergoing revisions. both semantically and in psychiatry. A person that used to practice what was called ‘beastiality,” is now called a zoosexual. From here: http://www.cotse.net/users/hippo/uzp/index2.h... Zoosexuality is an alternative lifestyle, just as homosexuality or other things are. We do not "choose" to be zoos, it is a part of us. Many of us are zoos exclusively, meaning we do not have human partners. Others of us enjoy the company of both humans and animals. The term bestiality is also used to describe sexual contact between humans and animals, and 'bestialist' and 'zoosexual' are similar terms. Within the zoo community, it is becoming a convention that zoosexual refers to someone who has an emotional attraction for their animal partner(s) and whose sexual attraction to them is a result of the emotional bond, while a bestialist is only interested in the sexual aspects of such practices. From wiki:“The activity or desire itself is no longer classified as a pathology under DSM-IV (TR)(the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) unless accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the person.” From Spectator Magazine: In Maine, in 2001, for example, Phillip Buble lobbied a county judge to have his relationship with his dog Lady acknowledged as equal to a marriage. Buble wants "Zoo couples" to be treated as married couples under the law. According to Buble, Zoophiles "are born with a true love for animals and have a lifelong commitment to their care." (The Spectator, August 11, 2001). Psalm 11 “In the LORD I take refuge. How then can you say to me: "Flee like a bird to your mountain. For look, the wicked bend their bows; they set their arrows against the strings to shoot from the shadows at the upright in heart. When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?" What can the righteous do? |
|
TA, I am not going to get really angry about these things (except when hunans do terrible things to other humans over these issues). But, I do reserve the right to be passionate about what I believe. I also reserve the right to change my mind about these things. I have never claimed to know it all or to be exactly right about this stuff. Rather, it is my position that we are dealing with a gray area - not a black and white issue. Humans come in all shapes and sizes. Some of them come in apparently different forms that don't fit the male-female ideal, as in Adam and Eve. What's the Bishop to do when two people who don't fit this ideal come to him or her to get permission to marry? Is he supposed to ask them to drop trousers or lift skirts to submit to a closer inspection? What would make him an expert in making such a determination, anyway? What if one is born (as some people are) with a combination of genetics and genitalia and later goes through a series of operations and hormone therapy in an attempt to establish one sex or another? Do they then qualify? What if they don't go through the surgeries and the hormone therapy, being content to live as God caused them? Does the Bishop refuse to marry such a person to another who loves him/her/it/them? If the Bishop refuses to marry them solely on the basis of scripture that has no explicitly (or implicitly) quotable provision that allows such marriage, does he not do them a disservice? I think he does them a disservice. I think we are missing something. I think we should come up with a way to bless the union of a couple who don't fit into our ideal of male-female pair-bonding. We're talking about less than two percent of the population who would fit into this category of people, for crying out loud. There is no good or completely right answer to these questions, TA. If we search through scripture, we can find reasonable interpretive positions for both arguments. We do know that a same-sex marriage would not be conventional, by definition. Therefore, as to Christian religion and definition, it is we Christians who have created a catch-22 which says no sex between unmarried and no marriage between unsexed (improperly-paired). Slippery slope? I am not advocating allowing marriage between a man or woman and an animal. KGC |
|
|
KGC wrote: "Slippery slope? I am not advocating allowing marriage between a man or woman and an animal."
I know you are not but I wanted you to see that there is a growing attempt to normalize this behavior by redefining it. Some of the language used in the justifications for normalcy that are being used are the same as in some of your arguements. Not a choice, orientation, alternative lifestyle, life-long commitment, are all the same descriptions used to defend the pro-homosexual marriage side. |
|
Good discussion-allow me to "jump in", if you will. Examining behavior of any kind (and I mean ANY kind-my focus is NOT solely on sexual interaction) in today's world would quite possibly root out genetic or other inherent disposition as a cause for that behavior. Does the cause of the behavior, no matter how deeply rooted, change the nature of the behavior? |
|
|
KCG wrote: "We do know that a same-sex marriage would not be conventional, by definition. Therefore, as to Christian religion and definition, it is we Christians who have created a catch-22 which says no sex between unmarried and no marriage between unsexed (improperly-paired)."
It is not really a catch-22 unless one is trying to redefine what Christian marriage has been for over 2000 years and in my opinion (I know not yours) what the Bible says about marriage. |
|
An example (an I'm not equating same sex relationships with a crime; this is simply to illustrate a position from my prior post). Shoplifting. It is essentially stealing, which scripture declaims as a sin. Modern psychoanalysis has assumptively revealed all manner of root causes for this behavior, and just as assumptively there may be a gentetic disposition for such behavior. In other words, some shoplifters may not be capable of doing otherwise. Does this change the sinful nature of the shoplifting, or does the exisitence of evidence indicating that it may be inherent or part of the genetic makeup of a small percentage of citizens require the nature of the act to be reevaluated? |
|
Dan, Good question. Much like there has been a genetic link to alcohlism there may also be a link to shoplifting. I don't think the act needs to be reevaluated as not being sinful but a cure needs to be sought by the individual. There are many former alcoholics and probably shoplifters in this world who sought help and became cured. The "Good News" of being a Christian is that you can be "cured" and redeemed in the eyes of God through the work of Jesus on the Cross. |
|
Judge it!
Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.
| Topic | Updated | Last By | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Religion Begats Prejudice | 23 min | Catholic cre... | 1344 |
| Group: Anglicans Must Stop Gay Consecrations, B... | 1 hr | LI Watch | 249 |
| Report: Archbishop of Canterbury said Bible doe... | 3 hr | cat | 19 |
| Report: Archbishop of Canterbury said Bible doe... | Thu | faith | 3 |
| CME bishop suspended | Wed | Ms CJ | 1 |
| Anglican Church: Gay 'Wedding' Broke Rules | Tue | Superwit | 147 |
| Wait on gay issues, leader urges Anglicans | Aug 4 | Alvin654 | 1 |
Virgo
Most Popular