I see that the statement of House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church keeps things more or less as was, and does not fix the as was either. It is a case of Status Quo Ante. This was exactly as was required, to make a case to be in the Anglican Communion, and to let others either accept this or reject it - let those who have shouted the most, or who have marched troops to the top of the hill, do what they have threatened, or instead respond positively. March the troops down the hill again. The phrase is put up or shut up. If the NURKS (Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya, Sydney) cannot put up now, then shut up in the future.
Recently the Archbishop of Canterbury visited and said there is no ultimatum, called on dissident Episcopalians to seek solutions inside The Episcopalian Church and called bishops crossing boundaries from the NURKS "illicit". So presumably the statement of the House of Bishops should satisify him. It may not satisfy some Primates, but what are they going to do? Some may not go to Lambeth 2008. That's up to them. Some may organise their own Not Lambeth 2008 and that is up to them as well. Some may organise their own Communion, and it can add to other breakaways. The ball is in their court. That's it.
Meanwhile another one of those daft quizzes.
I found myself nearly completely disagreeing on just about every doctrinal position! Some came to a central position of neither agreeing not disagreeing. The result of the Are You a Heretic quiz was as follows: Pelagianism 58%, Monarchianism 50%, Socinianism 42%, Chalcedon compliant 33%, Nestorianism 25%, Docetism 25%, Modalism 25%, Apollanarian 25%, Adoptionist 25%, Donatism 17%, Arianism 17%, Monophysitism 17%, Gnosticism 8%, Albigensianism 0%.
So I don't believe in original sin and that we can choose to be good with self-responsibility (correct) ; and it seems I am supposed to emphasise the oneness of God (in either modalist fashion with the Trinity or unequal regarding the Trinity), when this came about by my disagreeing with just about every doctrinal statement presented. I am rather more postmodern than any of these views (including Socinian), and so tend to reject all these precision statements as just so many words. I think it is one of the better quizzes of the daft quizzes that thinks such can measure faith.
-
2 comments:
I was 83% Pelagian, which is good as I've always admired Pelagius.
As a person who doesn't believe in the Trinity, and believes that all human beings are the children of Godde and carry the divine spark within (though I don't reject matter as the Gnostics did), it was very difficult to answer most of the questions. I clicked on the middle button for most of them.
The questions are orientated towards an understanding of Christianity and a denial of it via various preset routes. You may have been able to go down a set preset route better than me. Nevertheless you also found such questions difficult to answer. Many thanks for the comment.
I've never really bothered with Peagius much, but I am probably along those lines somewhat.
Post a Comment