David,
I think I am a simple man. There are more questions than answers in this life. God, who sees the past, the present and the future at a single moment, knows all the answers; that’s good enough for me.
It doesn’t take much pondering to realise what is going on. I imagine that the trumpeting of a legal victory by a well-remunerated bishop against a blogger’s satirical postings, costing said blogger thousands of dollars without so much as an effort to discuss the issue in civility, probably does not go down well as a PR exercise.
When one considers that even unchurched people of the world can see what a flim-flam this whole case has been, it demonstrates in spades why the Anglican Church of Canada is declining as a prelude to an imminent demise. Its leaders now exist in a bizarre twilight world of their own manufacture. They are more worthy to be pitied than despised.
Besides, this is not the medieval era any more and bishops who try to throw the book at people and demand exorbitant sums of other people’s treasure in order to maintain their superior dignity; just does not work any more. It is more likely to excite hostility and tomato throwing than intimidation.
BTW: I too, enjoy reading the comments from the rusted-on supporters of the Canadian Anglican Church. Although, unlike David who favours the characters of Russian novelists, I find Dickensian characters – the deplorably spineless Stephen Blackpool, for instance – to be more appropriate avatars. Firm belief in the system; starry-eyed working against their own interests; a range of virtues that are rendered vices for lack of discernment and passion for reality.
There are amazing comments coming from many of your contributors. We have many things in common. We believe that the Anglican Church of Canada has been on the decline since 1966. We suspect that some of the factors may include Prayer Book revisions, remarriage after divorce, ordination of female persons, and the blessing of same-sex relationships. We believe in the authority of the Holy Bible as well as the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. Jesus alone leads us to the triune God.
I don’t believe that we can fully understand God and God’s way of dealing with people of all denominations. I don’t believe that life is fair. The wicked seem to prosper. The innocent seem to suffer. I don’t believe that we can solve all our biblical and theological problems in this life. I am a simple man. I believe in the Holy Bible. I don’t understand why some churches allow remarriage after divorce. I don’t understand why some churches ordain female persons to the priesthood. I don’t understand why some churches need to bless same-sex relationships.
But, I do know that I am not God. I know that I must not condemn others. I believe in the triune God who governs all things according to the purposes of His perfect will. God will triumph in the end.
There is so much wrong with the statement “I must not condemn others” that it would require a library of essays to address, starting with a fundamental re-exposition and exegesis of the entire New Testament, perhaps the entire Bible, and a systematic instruction in Christian doctrine. In short, it would require conversion to Christian orthodoxy, the faith once and for all delivered unto the saints.
But, in short, there is a key difference between “condemnation” and “discernment”. The former is often misapplied by liberals who wish to either by-pass the exercise of their moral faculties in the face of difficult and controversial disputes, or to silence those whose position is uncompromisingly biblical.
We are most certainly summoned to be discerning. Indeed, no sooner had Christ taught that we ought not to hypocritically judge, he told us not to cast our pearls before swine (thus necessitating a discernment as to who the “swine” are), and that we can tell the nature of a person’s profession by the fruit they exhibit. Again, this requires discernment.
When you write that “we suspect” some of the factors of the Anglican decline “may” be the allowance of sin to exist within the Anglican Communion – sin that persists in naked defiance and rebellion against God’s decrees, I am staggered indeed.
There is a timidity and hesitancy here; a reluctance to roll the cogs of the mind over that most difficult of all terrain: the acceptance of guilt and responsibility, either within oneself (for tolerating and colluding with it), or within the Anglican community itself and its leadership.
Jason,
Thanks for your long and thoughtful response! Space will not allow me to comment on everything you wrote. Perhaps just a few words about the subject of judging others may be in order.
Jesus said, “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned” (Luke 6:37). Many say that “judge not” must be taken literally as it is. They believe that we should never express an opinion about others. There must be no judging whatsoever. Can we accept this literal interpretation?
“Judge not” does not mean the refusal to exercise any discrimination or judgment. It does not mean “to refuse to discern between truth and error”. Jesus does not prohibit the administration of justice in law-courts. He does not prohibit the distinction between good and evil.
“Judge not” warns against the danger of condemning, of pronouncing judgment in a final sense. We should not be judgmental. We should not adopt a judgmental attitude. We should not assume the place of God to judge people harshly. Do we have the right to condemn others?
We sometimes condemn others because we are being hypercritical. There is a huge difference between being critical and being hypercritical. True criticism of literature, or art, or music is one of the highest exercises of the human mind. Criticism in a true sense is constructive, it is appreciation.
The person who is guilty of judging is the one who is hypercritical. It means that he or she delights in criticism for its own sake and enjoys it. If we are pleased when we hear something unpleasant about another, that is this wrong spirit.
We cannot condemn others because only God knows and understands every person in all his or her conditions and circumstances. Only God has in the final analysis the right to condemn where His salvation has been rejected. “Man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).
Hello Michael,
I think I understand your position about judging. And if I do than I would agree.
Telling a alcoholic that they have a drinking problem that will likely result in serious health consequences and possibly death is not being judgmental. It is simply being honest. Telling an alcoholic that he deserves to be sick or even die because he refuses help is.
Sincerely,
Allan
Perhaps they’ve twigged that whether you win or lose, in any defamation case some of the mud always sticks.
I think they’ve twigged that the “win” was actually a loss.
The case is over. Doesn’t make sense that the press release is removed from the website? The whole thing is old news now.
Michael,
Although entirely predictable, I always enjoy reading your comments: they are those of a Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin naif.
David,
I think I am a simple man. There are more questions than answers in this life. God, who sees the past, the present and the future at a single moment, knows all the answers; that’s good enough for me.
Back under your bridge.
It doesn’t take much pondering to realise what is going on. I imagine that the trumpeting of a legal victory by a well-remunerated bishop against a blogger’s satirical postings, costing said blogger thousands of dollars without so much as an effort to discuss the issue in civility, probably does not go down well as a PR exercise.
When one considers that even unchurched people of the world can see what a flim-flam this whole case has been, it demonstrates in spades why the Anglican Church of Canada is declining as a prelude to an imminent demise. Its leaders now exist in a bizarre twilight world of their own manufacture. They are more worthy to be pitied than despised.
Besides, this is not the medieval era any more and bishops who try to throw the book at people and demand exorbitant sums of other people’s treasure in order to maintain their superior dignity; just does not work any more. It is more likely to excite hostility and tomato throwing than intimidation.
BTW: I too, enjoy reading the comments from the rusted-on supporters of the Canadian Anglican Church. Although, unlike David who favours the characters of Russian novelists, I find Dickensian characters – the deplorably spineless Stephen Blackpool, for instance – to be more appropriate avatars. Firm belief in the system; starry-eyed working against their own interests; a range of virtues that are rendered vices for lack of discernment and passion for reality.
There are amazing comments coming from many of your contributors. We have many things in common. We believe that the Anglican Church of Canada has been on the decline since 1966. We suspect that some of the factors may include Prayer Book revisions, remarriage after divorce, ordination of female persons, and the blessing of same-sex relationships. We believe in the authority of the Holy Bible as well as the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. Jesus alone leads us to the triune God.
I don’t believe that we can fully understand God and God’s way of dealing with people of all denominations. I don’t believe that life is fair. The wicked seem to prosper. The innocent seem to suffer. I don’t believe that we can solve all our biblical and theological problems in this life. I am a simple man. I believe in the Holy Bible. I don’t understand why some churches allow remarriage after divorce. I don’t understand why some churches ordain female persons to the priesthood. I don’t understand why some churches need to bless same-sex relationships.
But, I do know that I am not God. I know that I must not condemn others. I believe in the triune God who governs all things according to the purposes of His perfect will. God will triumph in the end.
There is so much wrong with the statement “I must not condemn others” that it would require a library of essays to address, starting with a fundamental re-exposition and exegesis of the entire New Testament, perhaps the entire Bible, and a systematic instruction in Christian doctrine. In short, it would require conversion to Christian orthodoxy, the faith once and for all delivered unto the saints.
But, in short, there is a key difference between “condemnation” and “discernment”. The former is often misapplied by liberals who wish to either by-pass the exercise of their moral faculties in the face of difficult and controversial disputes, or to silence those whose position is uncompromisingly biblical.
We are most certainly summoned to be discerning. Indeed, no sooner had Christ taught that we ought not to hypocritically judge, he told us not to cast our pearls before swine (thus necessitating a discernment as to who the “swine” are), and that we can tell the nature of a person’s profession by the fruit they exhibit. Again, this requires discernment.
When you write that “we suspect” some of the factors of the Anglican decline “may” be the allowance of sin to exist within the Anglican Communion – sin that persists in naked defiance and rebellion against God’s decrees, I am staggered indeed.
There is a timidity and hesitancy here; a reluctance to roll the cogs of the mind over that most difficult of all terrain: the acceptance of guilt and responsibility, either within oneself (for tolerating and colluding with it), or within the Anglican community itself and its leadership.
Jason,
Thanks for your long and thoughtful response! Space will not allow me to comment on everything you wrote. Perhaps just a few words about the subject of judging others may be in order.
Jesus said, “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned” (Luke 6:37). Many say that “judge not” must be taken literally as it is. They believe that we should never express an opinion about others. There must be no judging whatsoever. Can we accept this literal interpretation?
“Judge not” does not mean the refusal to exercise any discrimination or judgment. It does not mean “to refuse to discern between truth and error”. Jesus does not prohibit the administration of justice in law-courts. He does not prohibit the distinction between good and evil.
“Judge not” warns against the danger of condemning, of pronouncing judgment in a final sense. We should not be judgmental. We should not adopt a judgmental attitude. We should not assume the place of God to judge people harshly. Do we have the right to condemn others?
We sometimes condemn others because we are being hypercritical. There is a huge difference between being critical and being hypercritical. True criticism of literature, or art, or music is one of the highest exercises of the human mind. Criticism in a true sense is constructive, it is appreciation.
The person who is guilty of judging is the one who is hypercritical. It means that he or she delights in criticism for its own sake and enjoys it. If we are pleased when we hear something unpleasant about another, that is this wrong spirit.
We cannot condemn others because only God knows and understands every person in all his or her conditions and circumstances. Only God has in the final analysis the right to condemn where His salvation has been rejected. “Man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).
Hello Michael,
I think I understand your position about judging. And if I do than I would agree.
Telling a alcoholic that they have a drinking problem that will likely result in serious health consequences and possibly death is not being judgmental. It is simply being honest. Telling an alcoholic that he deserves to be sick or even die because he refuses help is.
Sincerely,
Allan
I agree with this. Mark the day, people. 🙂