From here: (page 3)
Jesus certainly had the character of God; his relationship with God was so close that his contemporaries called him the Son of God; but, without being irreverent, he was only a caricature of God. The author of the letter to the Hebrews chose his words most carefully to distinguish between God and Jesus Christ.
Michael Burslem, the author of this article in the Niagara Anglican, has laboured tirelessly over the years to diminish Christ’s divinity. He probably wouldn’t claim to speak for the whole diocese, but his articles are repeatedly published in the diocesan paper: I suspect he does.
He goes on to venture the following insight:
But is this to mean He is God of God or Light of light? Was God really born of Mary? Before we speak to anyone else about Jesus, I think we ourselves need to do some rethinking.
I’ve done my rethinking and left the diocese.
My! Makes you feel old! This has a real 1970 feel about it (and yes, I WAS there, doing theology … long hair, then …)! … And I thought we were getting over this kind of stuff. The problem with all this kind of revisionism is that it was/is devised by people terribly naive, who never thought to ask what these ideas really were, where they were coming from; their heirs are even more naive.
Someone should tell this Michael Burslem character that in order to be truly Christian one must mean everything they say when they recite all three of the Creeds. Including the part about Jesus being born of the Blessed Virgin Mary. If he can’t accept that than he should stop pretending to be Christian.
A little older than the 1970’s – this is the Arian heresy, refuted by the first Council of Nicea in 325 AD. That’s why we have a Nicean Creed.
To quote Lewis (speaking through Professor Digory) “What do they teach them in these schools?”
Neo Christians have no problem cherry picking their current belief set.
Peace,
Jim
David, just fyi… you need to add a “f” on the end of your link to get the Diocesan Newsletter.
So I do – thanks, Joy.