All Comments (38)

idvkf vcuxlgy yegdjwvb icnjpom qirnkmuws tpufxnag jrafusgno

idvkf vcuxlgy yegdjwvb icnjpom qirnkmuws tpufxnag jrafusgno

idvkf vcuxlgy yegdjwvb icnjpom qirnkmuws tpufxnag jrafusgno

idvkf vcuxlgy yegdjwvb icnjpom qirnkmuws tpufxnag jrafusgno

hksomlfgw njchx vkdfq vsixecnhk fndhrs naqr plghbj

hksomlfgw njchx vkdfq vsixecnhk fndhrs naqr plghbj

gdnl ezxjahqd qycxet vwpdrgsz brday mncxv idmwl

Hi! I'm Dr. Antony Phireman. I find your site very useful! I will use some tips!
order viagra order viagra
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA_-_HUGE-DISCOUNTS!_/]order viagra[/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Antony Phireman. I find your site very useful! I will use some tips!
order viagra order viagra
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA_-_HUGE-DISCOUNTS!_/]order viagra[/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm John Strass and i like your site!
cheap viagra
Thank you!

Hi! I'm John Strass and i like your site!
cheap viagra
Thank you!

Managed Hosting, Colocation and Data Center Services by victoryushchenkonashpresudent ...

dr farrell palos heights

I am an Episcopalian involved in a woman's bible study. Next, we will be using a cd based on a week of lectures you presented in Edmondton, Canada on the book of Romans. Question #1: Do you have any resources you could recommend for us to augment our listeninng to the cd? Question #2a: What is your position on having the Archbishop of Canterbury or an Anglican oversight committee take a supervisory role over the Episcopal parishes who permit their clergy to be practicing homosexuality? #2b: What do think ought to be done to those Episcopal parish churches who refuse to comply with the directives of the Archbishop or an Anglican oversight committee?

"dr farrell palos heights"

dr farrell palos heights

Bishop Wright, I find your article splendidly succinct, nicely stated, and particularly poignant for the Church and theology in our day.

Thanks for the offering.

Who ever wrote the non-profit 501(c)(3) law stifeled churches who, thinking to be good stewards of money, signed up to avoid taxes. It is illegal to lobby for governmental things while under this designation. Many forward thinking pastors are seeing this and moving away from this status in order to get their congregations involved (as they should be) in the affairs of their leaders. We will get there Bishop

Mary C. wrote:
---It surprises—well, astonishes!-- me that you can equate Lenin and Stalin’s persecution of Orthodox Christians with the actions today of evangelicals in America or Catholics in Spain.---

I wasn't equating them, just giving examples of church/government influence in each other's business. My point was that Mr. Wright's surprise at businesses in America toting the line for American big business is nothing new and I gave past examples. So he should not be surprised especially with the American evangelicals in bed with the republicans.

But there is a lesson here. What may start as influence can grow to become more. You can look at Hitler's persecution of jews in the 1930s to see how it escalated from the initial registering as a jew to the exterminiation camps years later. And go to Italy or Spain and try to find a place where the church's influence is not obvious. I favor the separation of church and state to preserve the state AND the church. The evangelical's leaders, being forbidden by their denominations to speak on the topic of global warming, should make anyone's hair stand on end. When Karl Rove is instructing evangelical volunteers to hand out political literature in church functions it should make any American stand up and say that it is wrong. In this small example of evangelical/republican quid pro quo, we see church leaders muzzled, republicans forced to take positions they formerly did not (Guilanni and Romney's previous pro-choice stance has just changed now that they are running). This is not good for democracy or the church. And if you think it is good consider what would happen if the republicans or democrats started hooking up with the mormons or jews or hari krishnas for that matter. And consider that Mitt Romney is a mormon. I remember when Kennedy was running in 1960. Many feared Kennedy would take instructions from the Catholic church. That did not happen, but the republicans have shown that they do take instructions from the evangelicals and visa versa. So now Mitt Romney's mormon religion is a valid issue. That is sad. One's religion should be a private issue, not a public one, but the republicans and evangelicals have made it so.

Fate writes:----The Soviets heavily controlled churches allowing some like the russian orthodox, not allowing most others, and slapped heavy control on what was spoken at the pulpit. China is similar and controls who can be a chinese bishop of the Roman Catholic church. But just as governments exert influence on religious institutions the opposite is also true. The eangelicals in America and the catholics in Italy and Spain work to pass laws favoring their social positions. Why should an atheist in Spain not be allowed to divorse when the law against divorse derives from catholic teachings?---

Fate, are you certain in this assessment? What happened in Russia and China was not a government exerting “influence”. In 1918, in almost their first ‘official’ act, the Bolsheviks summarily shot ten of the highest Orthodox hierarchs with the explanation: ‘Soviet power will keep shooting these lords until we smash and crush the criminal counter-revolutionary activity of Church leaders.’

And they were true to their word. Oh, Fate, I would not call this *influence*… *extermination* might be a better word.

It surprises—well, astonishes!-- me that you can equate Lenin and Stalin’s persecution of Orthodox Christians with the actions today of evangelicals in America or Catholics in Spain. Working to make divorce more difficult (and many conservatives, religious or not, would agree with this, ) cannot, must not, correspond to razing churches, executing thousands—no, tens of thousands-- of clergy & imprisoning the same number of believers. (This would also happen to millions of Buddhists some thirty years later when communists gained power in China and sought to *influence* religious institutions.)

This is moral equivalency gone mad!

Mr. Wright, you say you in England can't understand how they can allow business intrests to dictate over the word of God in American churches! Isn't that whats happened to create the Anglican church to begin with?

E Favorite,

Thank you for telling me the meaning of IMO and BTW.

Now I can feel that I've gone modern. COOL!

I wonder where Mary C picked up their meanings - she's usually so scrupulously formal in her writing.

Thanks again, E Favorite, and Cheers!

Fate Writes:

"Hmmm, "properly". Now this just makes me wonder, if the bible is the word of God, how can someone read it improperly? Why would God's words have multiple meanings or the meaning be missed? Why must it be interpreted "properly" by those who claim to understand it? I find it very hard to "believe" that God would give humanity his words but require us stupid humans to learn from the priests, pastors, rabbis and ministers of organized religion just what it says because it cannot be figured out without someone annointing themselves."

Exellent question! Yes, according to various faith traditions, the bible is viewed as the Word of God and "inspired." But even within this view there can be several layers of meaning. I appreciate Bishop Wright's ability to view the scriptures through the historical time period of the 1st century. A lot of his books on the New Testament are based on his 1st century research. Scholars are always learning of how 1st century greek words and phrases were used in different contexts.

Also, I'm from the Anglican/Wesleyan faith tradition which uses the quadrilateral approach to discovering the bible's meaning: The bible is the primary source with tradition (how Christians and the church through the centuries have interpreted passages), reason (God gave us minds to use in interpreting scripture), and experience (which includes our contemporary context as it relates to scripture.) All four of these, scripture (interpeted through tradition, reason, and experience) help us to discern the meaning of this ancient book which people of faith believe communicates "God's Word."

In my faith tradition, it's interesting that we get all kinds of perspectives based on the scriptures (at least based on the bible studies that I have conducted in my church) which is why we also believe that interpreting the scriptures should be a communal enterprise and not simply a solitary activity. The church plays an important role in helping us as individuals discern the meaning of the scriptures.

I hope this is helpful to some degree! Thanks for your input.

PS

Fate: Poverty is always relative. Psychologists have asked subjects to choose between:

1) $50,000 net worth in circumstances where the average household was worth $10,000.
2) $100,000 net worth in circumstances where the average household was worth $140,000.

Guess which one--by an impossibly large amount--the subjects opted for?

Christ was right in his view of poverty. We will never 'eliminate' it, although we can help alleviate it and should remember the poor are always more favoured in His eyes--camel passing through the eye of a needle & all that. In our zeal to 'do good' TO the poor we forget the dignity with which He always treated them. I try to remember that before Christ fed the poor or cured them, He blessed them.

Fate:

I would say this quote from Corinthians:

---"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."---

is one of the most beautiful and egalitarian in the NT...remember Paul was writing during *Roman* times, a Rome that was feared,a Rome whose laws said that the owner could do whatever he wanted to another human being-- if the 'other' was a slave--with impunity. Yet Christianity--so subversive!--actually included slaves as equal with their masters: "we are baptized into one body" that of the Christian Church. No wonder the authorities put them into the arena.

To Norrie H:

Thank you for your response. Will reply the pm.... And I take take your point on agnosticism.

Back later...

E Favorite wrote:
---Seems to me, just perusing the questions and essays on this forum, that the Bible, written so many years ago, is understandably quiet about on the environment and out-of-date regarding women and slavery. Thus, IMO, it makes sense not to look to the Bible for answers to all life's questions.---

The problem is it does talk about these things. Slavery is mentioned numerous times but in an indifferent way and at other times saying it is ok. Women being subsevient to men is mentioned as well. The environment is not mentioned as far as I can see. The main thing to worry about back then was a good crop, the outcomes of wars, and politics. That's what the gods were created for.

You also wrote:
---I also fear that many people don't read the Bible properly.---

Hmmm, "properly". Now this just makes me wonder, if the bible is the word of God, how can someone read it improperly? Why would God's words have multiple meanings or the meaning be missed? Why must it be interpreted "properly" by those who claim to understand it? I find it very hard to "believe" that God would give humanity his words but require us stupid humans to learn from the priests, pastors, rabbis and ministers of organized religion just what it says because it cannot be figured out without someone annointing themselves.

How about this, its clear to me that the OT says slavery is ok as is beating slaves and the NT was certainly aware of slavery:

1 Corinthians 12:13: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."

but never is slavery mentioned as wrong, just in some places to treat them well. Now, if the bible says nothing about slavery and slave holders actually used the bible as justification in America's 19th century, then tell me how they read the bible improperly? And, the question I really want an answer to is whether man can go beyond the bible and do things like protect the earth from the damage we are doing and even things Christ said could not happen, such as eliminate poverty?

Thank you Robert, for your thoughts.

I think this comment of yours illustrates the difference in our points of view:

"...the Bible when read appropriately provides the theological framework for the care of creation."

The Bible may well provide a theological framework, but I think we need much more than a theological framework to care for our planet.

I also fear that many people don't read the Bible properly.

E Favorite:

Regarding your comment:

"...that Seems to me, just perusing the questions and essays on this forum, that the Bible, written so many years ago, is understandably quiet about on the environment and out-of-date regarding women and slavery. Thus, IMO, it makes sense not to look to the Bible for answers to all life's questions."

I believe that Bishop Wright is making the point that the biblical story has the care of all of creation, including issues such as the environment, slavery, and women at the very center of it.

In the biblical tradition, God created a good world and called upon human beings to care for it with the promise that God will one day put it all to rights.

While the Bible isn't an encylopedia of each and every contemporary issue, it does have the overall concern and care of all creation as a reoccurring theme throughout.

I agree with you that there are also other sources to help us with the important issues you mentioned, but the Bible when read appropriately provides the theological framework for the care of creation.

Sincerely,

oops - meant "there are plenty of excellent...."

Norrie -

BTW = by the way and IMO = in my opinion

NT Wright -

Seems to me, just perusing the questions and essays on this forum, that the Bible, written so many years ago, is understandably quiet about on the environment and out-of-date regarding women and slavery.

Thus, IMO, it makes sense not to look to the Bible for answers to all life's questions.

BTW, there are good plenty of excellent modern sources that offer wisdom and guidance on current life issues.

Bishop Wright,

Your first two paragraphs set up some false premise-conclusion dichotomies. TO WIT: Thinking the world is trash leads to not caring about the world and its people; Believing in a redemptive God leads to caring for the world and its people.

Consider the Cathars and the Roman Church. The Cathars thought the material world was essentially evil, created by Yahweh, the "Ignorant Demiurge", who thought he was the Ultimate Godhead but wasn't. He was/is the God worshipped by the Roman Church.

The Cathers were universally regarded as a noble, caring people, even by the ordinary Christians with whom they lived. They were cruelly exterminated for their beliefs by the Roman Church.

The Cathers believed the world was evil - they cared for everyone with kindliness. The Roman Church supposedly believed in a redemptive God. It tortured and exterminated the Cathars.

By your logic the Cathars should have cared nothing for the world and its people, and the Roman Church should have loved the world and its people.

The reverse was true. Where did you go wrong?

Mary C. wrote:
---Churches in the Soviet Union and China, both authorities avowedly atheist, were not so much influenced as banned. Nazi Germany tolerated churches, so long as they knew their place & didn't criticize their totalitarian masters. Then the Gestapo put the offending clerics into concentration camps where they were subject to the tortures of the damned.---

In Germany the Catholic church as you say layed low and was controlled through threats. The Soviets heavily controlled churches allowing some like the russian orthodox, not allowing most others, and slapped heavy control on what was spoken at the pulpit. China is similar and controls who can be a chinese bishop of the Roman Catholic church. But just as governments exert influence on religious institutions the opposite is also true. The eangelicals in America and the catholics in Italy and Spain work to pass laws favoring their social positions. Why should an atheist in Spain not be allowed to divorse when the law against divorse derives from catholic teachings?

Brambleton responds to the point that evangelicals made a pack with the republicans by saying:
---And why was that? Maybe because the left wing liberal crowd is lobbying for an America that consists of rampant pornography, abortion, gay marriage, and condoms to 6th graders.---

Which proves my point, religion uses government as much as government uses religion when it suits either's purpose. Mr. Wright was "shocked" to see this happening in America with respect to business interests influencing religion. Maybe he does not understand the American Republican party and its very close ties with American business. Once the evangelicals made the pact with the republicans to get their social agenda into law, they should not be surprised when a quid pro quo is expected. The question that needs to be debated is whether religious institutions should attempt to directly influence business or government. If you say yes, how should these institutions handle the expected quid pro quo? And isn't this why the separation of church and state was considered important to those building this nation?

MARY CUNNINGHAM,

I WAS AWAITING YOUR RETURN SO I COULD SEND YOU THIS REPLY TO YOUR POST IN ANOTHER THREAD, WHICH I WAS UNABLE POST AS THE THREAD HAD CLOSED.

HERE IT IS:

I'm sorry I've only now managed to catch up with your post addressed to me yesterday morning at 8:34 AM. I uncharacteristically had to tend to some things in the real world, and that delayed my return to this more exciting universe.

You're right: when I learn of cruelty or oppression to innocents by a religious organization, I think first of the Roman Church.
Now why would I do that? Could it be because of world history and the quantity of victims assignable to each sect? Hasn't the RC Church always come in #1 in that contest?

I know about the Anglo-Catholic and Protestant outrages as well. As I may have told you, a woman whose mother's maiden name was Hoyt was hanged as a witch by the Puritans at Salem, where my Hoyt ancestors arrived from England in 1628.

I have my own decades-old grievance against the Roman Church. I went to public school in Massachusetts at a time when every class was required to recite the Lord's Prayer every morning (really nice for the Jewish students!).

One year our Roman Catholic teacher, every day, would bang down a ruler on her desk when the Catholic students reached the end of their shorter version of the Lord's prayer, attempting thereby to prevent those of Protestant extraction from finishing their version of the prayer. (We kept going anyway.)

Not exactly like being burned at the stake, but a very minor psychological version of it for six year olds. The lesson backfired with me.

By the way, despite my repeated requests that you not do so, you keep referring to me as an "atheist." For the umpteenth time, Mary, I am not an atheist. I do not deny the possibility that something that could reasonably be referred to as a "God" is behind everything.

I'm very sure though that it can't be the Abrahamic RC God. I much prefer the "atheistic" Buddhist cosmology to the Christian. So, please, no more atheist epithets directed at me. They're plenty of true atheists in these threads that you can direct your shots at.

You can call me an agnostic if you need to label me with something. Makes it easier to dislike someone, I find.

I enjoy our conversations and learn a lot of history from you.

Best wishes to you.

P.S.: What do BTW and IMO mean? I assume they're some internet jive talk, but I don't know what they mean. But then you seem to be more of a hipster than I am. I'm too old!

Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | February 10, 2007 1:53 PM

Bob is not even worth a response.

Fate stated that "The American evangelical movement decided to incorporate itself into the Republican party and thereby made a pact with the devil." And why was that? Maybe because the left wing liberal crowd is lobbying for an America that consists of rampant pornography, abortion, gay marriage, and condoms to 6th graders.

But hey, we agree on the environment.

I always like Dr Wright's posts. And I recognize the passage from Romans he cites--some of the passages most pleasing to me are in Romans.

Anyway just to be nit- picky it's St Thomas More, not Moore; also there are other churches in the UK in addition to the Church of England, which is--as Fate says--a national Church. (I belong to the Roman church: from the Reformation onwards Roman Catholics in the UK were subject to many restrictions--in the early days their life was restricted!--in the practice of their faith; not until emancipation in 1828 were Catholics free to worship.)

Churches in the Soviet Union and China, both authorities avowedly atheist, were not so much influenced as banned. Nazi Germany tolerated churches, so long as they knew their place & didn't criticize their totalitarian masters. Then the Gestapo put the offending clerics into concentration camps where they were subject to the tortures of the damned.

So Church heirarchy and the secular government are not the same thing at all. Priests must obey the former but are quite often in hot water with the latter. And they would say, as did More, that their highest obligation is to the very highest authority

---By the way, it is deeply shocking to us in the UK to discover that some American Christian leaders are being forbidden by their denominations to speak on this topic at all. The day when business interests dictate to the church what preachers may and may not discover in God’s word is the day when idolatry has taken over.---

Oh please. Churches around the world, and mosques and synagogues for that matter, do what they are told by the heirarchy and you know it. Churches have been influenced by governments as we saw in WW2 Germany, Cold War Russia and present day China. The American evangelical movement decided to incorporate itself into the Republican party and thereby made a pact with the devil. But lets not forget who rules the Anglican church eh? The Queen right? Ever get any memos from her on what to preach and not preach? Must I bring up Thomas Moore and what Henry VIII did to him in 1535 for not recognizing YOUR church?? His last words should be remembered by everyone of every religion:
"The King's good servant, but God's First."
No American evangelical can say this today without a pain in the gut and either can an Anglican.

You say:

"God's Power Does Not Excuse Human Despoiling. It all depends what your ‘faith’ is. If you believe that the present world of space, time and matter is basically trash, from which we are supposed to be rescued, then who cares? "

Your faith is irrelevant. We have come to the science of the matter. Your faith is meaningless in the face of reality. That's why you are directly responsible for the (600,000) deaths of Iraqi women, children and elderly today. President Bush, Mr. Blair and you.

Hiding behind any environmental issue simply will not do. And you know that, just as we do.

Thank you.

It has pleased God to give one of his creatures the power to destroy God's good creation. It has also pleased God to give that same creature the ability to foresee the consequences of his actions and to make moral choices.