So, the Anglican Journal arrived in my mailbox today. Usually it goes from the mailbox to the blackbox, but today I read it. I know, I’m a glutton for punishment. I found something that just begged to be fisked…. (There’s a letter to the editor in the print edition that I would dearly love to respond to here as well, but it doesn’t seem to be online. If it ever pops up, I will write about it.)
Dealing with Lambeth moratoria
House of bishops discusses next steps
MARITES N. SISON
staff writer
Oct 1, 2008The Canadian house of bishops will discuss this month how best to respond to renewed proposals for moratoria on the blessing of same-sex unions, the ordination of persons living in same-sex unions to the episcopate, and cross-border interventions.
Repentance would be nice. If they went back to following Jesus, cross border interventions wouldn’t be necessary any more.
In a related development, Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, said he has asked Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to facilitate a meeting between him, the primate of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, Gregory Venables, U.S. presiding bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, and the primate of Brazil, Mauricio de Andrade, to discuss cross-border interventions.
The three primates – Archbishop Hiltz, Archbishop de Andrade, and Bishop Jefferts Schori – have repeatedly asked Archbishop Venables to stop meddling in the internal affairs of their provinces. Archbishop Venables has, of his own accord, been providing episcopal oversight to churches that are in serious theological dispute with their respective provinces over the issue of sexuality. Archbishop Williams has said he will do his best to facilitate the request. Archbishop Venables told the Toronto Star he would find it “difficult” to attend such a meeting.
That would be because he has seen through your talk, delay, talk, delay and talk some more ’till all the evil orthodox just get tired and go away strategy.
In an interview, Archbishop Hiltz said the Canadian bishops will have “a very focused conversation” around how they understand the call for moratoria. He said there are conflicting interpretations on what the moratorium on same-sex blessings means, with some thinking it means not having any new blessings, and some interpreting it as retroactive, which would require a synod like New Westminster to rescind its 2002 motion that allowed same-sex blessings in their diocese.
Golly, I can help with that, because I know how to use a dictionary! Here’s the Websters definition:
1 a: a legally authorized period of delay in the performance of a legal obligation or the payment of a debt b: a waiting period set by an authority2: a suspension of activity
It means you stop.
He added that the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent letter about the moratoria was also “significant.” Archbishop Williams had acknowledged that, while the call for moratoria received support from “a strong majority” at the conference, he was nonetheless aware of the “conscientious difficulties this posed for some.”
It would require submitting themselves to God’s word. I guess that would be a cause of “conscientious difficulty” for some.
Archbishop Hiltz said that the diocesan bishop of New Westminster, Michael Ingham, “rightly pointed out that it’s not for him to rescind the motion; the synod has to debate the issue.” The primate said that he’d be “very surprised if they rescind that motion.”
You are the boss, Bishop Ingham. If you wanted to rescind it, you could. I’d be buying umbrellas to protect myself from pig dung if that ever happened, though.
Archbishop Hiltz said that the call for moratoria would also be “a huge pastoral challenge” for bishops of four dioceses that have pending requests from their synods for the approval of same-sex blessings “given the kind of strong majority votes those synods” had.
Since when is obedience to God subject to popular vote?
He also said that the question of reciprocity remains. Bishops who are being asked to hold off on same-sex blessings are bound to ask, “Am I going to see a similar act of graciousness on the part of a primate or a bishop who intervenes from another province?”
Graciousness??? Graciousness??? Obviously, +Hiltz and I have different definitions of the word.
He said that there is clear evidence that the interventions are not going to cease. Already, conservative primates who boycotted the conference and formed a council for the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) have announced plans for church plantings and the possibility of creating a new province in North America“It’s very complex because (they) feel their intervention is a pastoral response,” he said.
That would be because it is a pastoral response.
Archbishop Hiltz said that he was “not surprised” by GAFCON’s rejection of the proposals to address the conflict over sexuality. “It almost feels to me that whatever accusations or charges they lay against us, they appear to me to function very much as a separatist group,” he said.
Asked about GAFCON’s plan to set up a North American province, he said “the province has to be in communion with the See of Canterbury and it’s the Anglican Consultative Council that determines (whether a province can be set up), not a group of primates and bishops, not even the Archbishop of Canterbury.”
He said that the Archbishop of Canterbury had already expressed earlier that he only recognizes one Anglican ecclesial body in Canada, and that is the Anglican Church of Canada.
I used to have a great emotional attachment to Canterbury. I used to think that you had to be in communion with the See of Canterbury to be authentically Anglican. No more. I am becoming more and more convinced that those of us who want to remain both Anglican and Christian must look to GAFCON for leadership, not Cantuar.
Archbishop Hiltz said that while he can’t predict what the bishops will do, he is aware of that they are wrestling with the “tensions between the local and global.”
The dioceses of Ottawa and Montreal – whose synods a year ago approved a motion requesting their bishops to allow same-sex blessings— are having synods on Oct. 24 and 25, a few days before the house of bishops meeting.
“Their local constituency has spoken, an overwhelming majority in some cases,” said Archbishop Hiltz. “While some would say it was inappropriate for them to even debate the issue after the outcome at General Synod…the synod was an opportunity to hear the mind and heart of the church local, and the pastoral needs are as significant there than they are in other places as evidenced by the vote.”
Warning. Politically incorrect statement to follow. The pastoral needs of lesbian and gay Christians are being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.
At the same time, Archbishop Hiltz said, “behind them and around them is the wider picture.” The question posed by the St. Michael Report (issued by the Primate’s Theological Commission in 2005) still remains, he said. “Do we hold unity as the ultimate value and so we cling to that at the risk of making a pastoral response that is called for unnecessary in the local context, or is it the other way – the gospel imperative is so important in this pastoral context that we proceed at the risk of unity?”
The latter is in fact what I think ANiC is doing, although I rather think that our leaders have a different definition of “gospel imperative” than +Hiltz does. Like, maybe, reading the Bible and trying to obey what it teaches?
Archbishop Hiltz said that while the recent Lambeth Conference didn’t resolve anything, “I think a lot of us came away a lot more aware of the context in which people are wrestling with the issue.”
Translation: We managed to arrange Lambeth so as to make any real decisions impossible, and further delay any real action.
He said that Anglicans around the world operate in very diverse contexts. While countries like Canada allow gays and lesbians to be civilly married, there are other parts of the Anglican Communion where “if it’s found out that you’re homosexual, your life is on the line – you could be imprisoned or killed,” he said.
Of course it’s wrong to make homosexuality a crime, and I would be flabbergasted to hear any ANiC leader saying anything different. This is simply an attempt to demonize the orthodox.
The diocesan bishop of Montreal, Barry Clarke, told the diocesan paper, Montreal Anglican, that he is “still in a process of prayerful thought” and “still in a space of listening to the diocese” on the issue of whether to allow priests to bless same-sex marriages under certain circumstances.
How about trying to be in a space of listening to God’s word written?
The diocesan bishop of Ottawa, John Chapman, told the diocesan newspaper, Crosstalk, “I came home from Lambeth no further along than I was before I left.”
Define further along, please, sir.
Bishop Chapman said he would only consider a moratorium if the duration of such a moratorium is reasonable. He noted that there had been no conversation on how long the moratorium would last. “I posed the question at Lambeth – moratorium? Until when? The next Lambeth?” He said he is waiting to hear what the Anglican Consultative Council and other bodies have to say about the matter.
…while his churches continue to lose members and close, and the ANiC churches continue to grow.
Well done Kate!
Peace,
Jim
I can certainly understand the depth of anger toward the ACC and Canterbury reflected in these recent posts, but seriously, don’t you think our energies would be much better spent praying for Abps Hiltz and Williams rather than mocking them?
[2]
Sean,
Although I still have a vistige of Christian concern for the ABC, this does not extend to the Primate of the ACoC.
In my opinion, Hiltz is a second rate shill for a secular takeover of a once proud church and as such has no claim on my prayer time.
Peace,
Jim
I don’t think Kate was particularly angry here, in fact is was a pretty mild fisk by all standards
Don’t think that because we critisise them we don’t pray for them.
What Peter said! If I was angry, that fisk would have been very different.
On another note… Jim – we are supposed to pray for our enemies, aren’t we?
[5]
Kate,
I’d like some of my friends weigh in on this one (Frank, Gerry).
Question: do you pray for the minions of hell?
I don’t.
Peace,
Jim
The same old tactics being waged in a propaganda tool that pretends to be a newspaper. Stall for time, accuse others of the evils that I (Hiltz) do, and portray myself (Hiltz again) as the wrong done by.
Regarding the moratoriums. He seems to feel that the “intervention” (which is truly a rescue mission) should stop before he even thinks about, someday, considering the difficulties, beginning the process, that will eventually lead to, the cessation of sinful ordinations and marriages, which of course most likely would not be retroactive, and thus not undue those sinful ordinations and marriages that had occurred up until the time the ACoC finally, perhaps, maybe, possibly, gets around to dealing with this issue, never mind undoing all of this sin that had occurred previously.
And he wants us to take him at his word that he would do this, after the “intervention” had not only stopped, but all ANiC parishes (both former ACoC and newly planted) are handed over to ACoC.
Not only does this heretic not live in God’s world, he does not live in the real world either.
Pray for those who persecute you, perhaps? It seems to me that it can never be a bad thing to lift leaders, even those so misguided as +Hiltz up in prayer. Let God sort out the rest.
No matter what We sayWe believe about Christ’s Person and work, if we are not constantly bathed in itthe end result will lead to a God without wrath, bringing people without sin into a kingdom without judgement through a Christ without the cross. satanloves war, violence, injustice, poverty, disease, opression, immorality, and other displays of human sinfulness, he’s very displeased whenever a cup of water isoffered to the thirsty in Christ’s name He spends most of his time shifting the focus of Christ Jesus away from the ministry and mission of the Church,keeping unbelievers blind, and Believers distractedis his main strategy. Ibelieve God has already removed the lampstand from it’s place in the Anglican Church of Canada. Rev.2v5b.In old testament timesin order to enter the Holy of Holies in order to qualify for the priviledge of meeting with God the priest had to go through a ritual of purification .It’ seems today we can come into the presence of God no matter if we are repentent or not. Yes we know we are all sinners but the Bible says we must confess all our sins to the one who died and took them with Him to the Cross, but He gave us freewell to accept Him or reject Him.Ibelieve in order for us to come into the presence of a Holy God to go beyond the veil to commune with Him at the deepest level requires that we be transformed. God cannot look upon sin
Bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you. In all we do and say we must remain meek and respectful. Never give another person cause to reject what you have to say because of how you said it or your actions. Remember as long as there is life there is hope for repentance and renewal. Even the Son of Sam is now a born again Christian.
Jim [3,5]
I have been a reader of this blog for quite some time and this has to be the first time I have disagreed with any stand you have taken, i.e. not to pray for Archbishop Fred Hiltz. My reason? It’s because the same One who said “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6, NIV) also said “But I say to you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.” (Matt. 5:44, NIV)
I concur with Peter (#8) and it seems to me that Christ sets the example. As he was being crucified, Jesus prayed for those who put him to death.
Don (10) and Scott (11), good points. Let us follow our Lord, and pray for Mr. Hiltz. That he may see the error of his ways and repent, before it is too late. Not just too late for his own immortal soul, but also too late for what is left of the ACoC.
Thanks for all the input folks (Peter, Cathy, Don, Scott, AMPisAnglican). I believe that how we relate to the institutuional church leadership is a very important issue. I would hope that we adopt a biblically solid position. In order to help frame the debate, I’d like to pose some questions:
1) is what the ACoC and TEC preaching truly apostasy
2) is apostasy to be treated the same as persecution
3) what does the Lord say about those that teach apostasy and the afterlife
4) when are we to shun and under what circumstances
5) are we required to pray for those we shun
For those of you who have read my posts, you know that I am very careful with words. Please have a careful re-read. Let’s debate.
Peace,
Jim
[10]
Don,
I’d love to chat with you off-line muirheadfamily[at]gmail.com.
Peace,
Jim
Edited to keep spambots from picking up the email address. –admin
Don (#10), while I accept that Christ instructs us to pray, how we should pray can be a more thorny question. I am interested in your view on the matter. I assume that you may not have Psalm 5 in mind; but perhaps you do. I am currently leading a Bible study on Second Peter and, had he included guidelines on praying for those that he was warning about, I wonder what Peter would have said? Our next meeting is tonight and I may throw the question out for discussion.
On a related note, I suspect that some of us at least have been guilty of agreeing to pray for someone or something, but did not follow through because we ran out of time (for praying in more than a superficial manner at least). Do you think that praying for Archbishop Fred Hiltz and others is of sufficient importance that you would recommend that people bump someone else from their prayer list?
Hello Jim Muirhead (14)
Re. 1)
I looked up apostasy. Definition is:
“A total desertion of or departure from one’s religion, principles, party, cause, etc.”
So what ACoC is doing may not be a total desertion or departure, but it is most certainly at least a serious desertion or departure.
Re. 2)
Not sure what you are asking here. Is it are we to treat those who are apostate in the same manner as we treat those who persecute us? If than:
Assuming ACoC is doing one but not both, than I would think that the answer would be no. We should not associate with the apostate, but may befriend those who persecute us. However, my feeling is that ACoC is both apostate, and persecuting the Faithful. In this case, departing from those who preach a false gospel and finding others who are Faithful to God’s Holy Word is, I think, the wisest course of action.
Re. 3)
Assuming those who teach apostasy are “false prophets”, I went to Biblegateway.com and did a search for “false prophet”. This resulted in a listing of 22 passages. I found Matthew 24:9-14 somewhat distressing, especially considering our present circumstances. Also 2 Peter 2:1-3 and 1 John 4:1-6 were pertinent to our current situation. The Holy Bible speaks of grave and severe consequences for the false prophets. Dare I say, the warnings are prophetic.
Re. 4)
Proverbs 3:7 tells us to “fear the Lord and shun evil”. Additionally Proverbs 14:16 states “A wise man fears the Lord and shuns evil”. On a quick look at several other passages, it would appear that we are to shun that which is evil. Thus a question arises. Are those that are apostate evil? If so, than it would seem prudent to shun such people.
Re. 5)
My “gut feeling” is that we should pray for those who we shun. Although we do not associate with them, they are none-the-less also part of God’s creation. Did Jesus Christ die on the cross for them also? I would like to think so.
Of course I am a lay person with limited religious education, and would be interested in reading the thoughts of others regarding these questions.
I regularly pray that God will soften the hearts, turn the hearts, of the ACoC leadership. However, since I have zero hope that that will happen, I wonder why I bother in light of what James says about such things.
Is there even any point in praying if, as Kate #18 said, we have “zero hope” of it happening? I prefer to pray and leave eternal consequences in the Lord’s hands. He made us; He will decide. Remember the Damascus road. Remember John Newton. Remember St. Augustine. Pray that He will turn hearts of stone into hearts of flesh. All things are possible with God. Every parent with a wayward child will continue to pray no matter how far that child has strayed, and will continue to pray in hope. And every person, no matter how wicked, needs prayer.
[17]
AMPisAnglican,
Thanks for the detailed response. Nice research.
Many of us have accepted that the ACoC and TEC are in apostasy. Strictly speaking, we may not be correct in tarring the entire organization with the same brush. Where heavy consequences will ensue is when there is “teaching” of false doctrine. Of course we are to pray for those that persecute us, but I would distinguish, for instance -the Roman persecution, from that of apostates. “Forgive them for they know not what they do”, doesn’t apply to those who knowingly betray the gospel.
I raise the issue of shunning because it is biblical. One Jewish tradition has the saying of Kaddish as the public acknowledgement of a total break.
Every Christian striving to be faithful has a call on my prayer time. Those that are dead to me, in my view, do not. A rejection of follow me leads to a response of “let the dead bury their dead”.
I’m looking forward to your further insights.
Peace,
Jim
I’m thinking that I agree with #17, that to shun does not equate not to pray. An apostate or a persecutor could both be rightly regarded as an enemy, and we know what we are called to do there. Not that it’s easy!!
I’m thinking too that the dead also need prayer, perhaps even more so than the living but wounded. Can these dry bones live? We were all dead once, and to be honest many are not fully alive yet.
I think it calls for wisdom to judge when the dead are to bury their own dead, and when to pray that the dry bones might live. I prefer to try to go the extra mile.
[21] Peter,
I stand to be corrected, but my understanding of the biblical shun was as if one never existed. (Pretty hard to pray for something that doesn’t exist.)
One of my concerns is that we throw terms like apostasy around, often without considering the biblical consequences. Knowingly teaching counter to the Gospel condemns the eternal soul.
The dead buring their dead doesn’t require one’s judgement, it’s a passage found in
(Matthew 8:22) Luke 9:60
59He said to another man, “Follow me.”
But the man replied, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.”
60Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”
61 Still another said, “I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say good-by to my family.”
62Jesus replied, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.”
Nice use of “go the extra mile”. The Romans had the legal right to order any bistander to carry their pack for a full mile down the road. Jesus exhorted to “go the extra mile”.
Peace,
Jim
It does. I think that is all the more reason to pray for their repentance.
[23]
Kate,
Since it is God condemning their eternal souls, what position does it place you in asking God to create repentance in the condemned?
What about “say aye or nay, anything more is blasphemy”?
Peace,
Jim
It isn’t God condemning their souls, they are condemning themselves. God doesn’t send us to hell, we choose it. CS Lewis said that there are two kinds of people in the world – those who say “Thy will be done, Lord” and those to whom God says “Your will be done.” That is why I think it is appropriate for us to pray that God soften their hearts and turn them back to Him. It is only too late for repentance once you are in your coffin.
[25]
Kate
If nothing happens without the Father wills it, eternal damnation is not something one can construct for oneself.
When our Saviour prayed to the Father to forgive them for they know not what they do, did it prevent the destruction of the temple and the fall of the city?
Logically, things must happen that the Father doesn’t will – He can’t will evil, and evil exists.
[27]
Kate,
Free will or determinism?
Peace,
Jim
Going in deep now! If I might observe something, we are come close to a paradox, that what the Lord does not will is nevertheless held in His will to His higher purposes. Shades of the Ainulindalë (and I leave you to google that!)
Jim, you have become cryptic enough to have lost me with that last comment. I still maintain that
God does not consign people to hell. He is perfect love, he can’t will for us to be separated from him. Every decision we make in our lives either brings us closer to, or further from, the One who loves us and made us. If we reject Him, he honours our choice and allows us to be permanently separated from Him. I shuddered as I wrote that. It is hard for me now to imagine that I have flirted with that choice at some points in my life.
Peter, I don’t think it is a paradox at all. Romans 8:28 says that all things work together for good for those who love God. The evil things of this world cannot be His will, but he can and does use them to work good things for us. If I didn’t believe that I don’t think I could love God.
Meaning, are you a Calvinist or an Arminian? Heh. Think I’m off to bed now.
It’s now morning where I am, Peter, and I’m going to throw in another two cents. (Full disclosure: I’m a Calvinist, although not always a consistent one.)
As it has been given to me to understand, every human being is born in sin. We all inherit the sin of Adam. We are all born already condemned. The church has captured this fact in the doctrine of original sin.
God has provided a way of salvation through the life, death, and resurrection of His only Son Jesus. Those who do not believe and trust in Him remain in darkness.
Also, I affirm what Kate (#25) said earlier from C.S. Lewis. Those who remain condemned are so because, of their own free will, they do not choose to accept God’s way of life through Jesus.
Moreover, in this life we do not know who will be sent out of our Lord’s presence at the last day. By God’s grace, those who are teaching falsely may be convicted of the error of their ways, brought to repentance, and then begin teaching the truth of the Gospel. That very thing has happened countless times in human history.
All that said, I’m not sure how this bears on the question of praying for the apostate. As I suggested earlier, my view is that such prayer is appropriate.
The closing verses of the epistle of St James say something that I think fits here:
My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
Is not prayer one of the ways of bringing back someone who has departed from the truth?
Hello Kate (30)
You expressed what I have thought. It is our actions that determine our fate. We choose to follow God, and this leads to redemption and salvation. Or we choose to follow something else, and this leads to eternal damnation. I like to think that Jesus Christ did many things, including making the path to our Father in Heaven much more obvious to us. Praise be to God, that by His Son, we have a way to “give up (our) sinful ways and follow (him)”.
But what a sad state of affairs, that the current leadership in ACoC have either deliberately left the path that leads to God, or have allowed themselves to “have erred and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep” and “have followed too much the devices and desires of (their) own hearts”.
At St. George’s, Owen Sound, there are stained glass windows of three “ladies”. Faith, Hope, and Charity. I like to think that so long as we have Faith, we also have Hope. But we must also have Charity. This includes Charity to those who are persecuting us.
Apostates are described as being in grave danger as Kate #30 has said and warning them of this (as the NT writers do as well as the Lord Jesus) is probably the best thing we can do for them to stir them to repentence. Just writing them off seems to me to be playing into the devil’s hands.
We do need to remember that these people are not the final enemy. Ephesians 6:12 tells us who our real enemies are: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].”
Humbling bearing in mind that we too were formerly enemies of Christ, we need to be alert to the Lord’s leading us to pray for even the worst of sinners. Perhaps, even at the last minute, he/she will be snatched out of the fire.
For 2 and 3
Firstly I must say we are called to pray for bishops and clergy, even if they are clearly apostate, but that means we are called to pray for their conversion even if that takes a “2 x 4 to the head”. Clearly Hiltz and Ingham – I no longer call them bishops as they have clearly renounced their vows and have repudiated the sacrifice of Christ – should do the honourable thing and resign. However, we must continue to pray for their conversion and repentance. This also applies to their weak kneed followers. They continue to make remarks suggesting that the authority of Scripture is subject to a majority vote and that the church should blindly follow in the steps of society.
The tragedy is that many parishioners are being quietly – and might I say in some cases willingly – deceived. It is time for orthodox parishioners in parishes that have joined the Network to take a stand and actively support their clergy and church council. .If we fail to do this we will see apostate bishops stealing church properties to which they have made minimal or no contribution and will then dispose of said properties to developers. The apostates, particularly Michael Ingham, believe all religions lead to God. If that were true, God would have to be incredibly unjust and cruel to put His son through the cross. Now is the time for us to “Stand up! Stand up for Jesus ye soldiers of the Cross” and we do not have to wear a purple shirt to do so.
I think we all subscribe to the 39 Articles? Perhaps we need to reread Articles 9, 10, 16, 17. Definitely Calvinist. Btw, good book to read on this subject: “Willing to Believe” by R.C. Sproul which gives a great overview of all sides of the “free will/predestination” debate for us “lay” people.
One scripture reference also comes to mind: Exodus 32, particularly seeing how God “changed His mind” when Moses prayed in verses 11-14.
LOL. Hands up anybody who has never had that 2 x 4 to the head? thought not.
Just checked my emails and in the AEC call to prayer for the 1st Friday of the month I ran across Garth Hunt’s article: “Praying with the Eyes of Jesus” – definitely has a bearing on our conversation.
I’m a Calvinist Arminian
Or to say I beleive in free will and predestination. Did I mention I like paradoxes?
The crux of the paradox is in our limited and finite understanding and nature. Simply put, we cannot grasp more than the faintest impression of the omniscient and omnipresent nature of God. In Him is the paradox reconciled.
I shall now stop going mystical on y’all.
Calvin also believed in free will, as did Augustine before him
What paradox, Peter? I don’t think there is one. God is outside of time, and we have no way to understand that, being trapped in time, as it were. Just because He knows what he knows what we are going to do, doesn’t mean He made the decision for us.
Re #16:
Um, some of us have a problem with that at the best of times.
#26 What if “praying for those who persecute you” is more about our own hearts than the hearts of the people we are praying for? It sounds like a self centered idea, but – I think that prayer is less about “getting God to do what we want” – as if – count those as queer quotes -and more about opening our hearts to relationship with the Father. I know that personally, if I am very angry (I’m talking the sinful kind of anger) with somebody, if I pray for him or her the anger dissipates.
Going back to Sean (#2),
don’t you think our energies would be much better spent praying for Abps Hiltz and Williams rather than mocking them?
The implication here is that it is only possible to have the energy to either mock or pray, but not both. Leaving aside whether mocking a wayward leader is a suitable vehicle through which to demonstrate his error (I think it is), the problem with the premise is that it asserts that prayer and action should not proceed simultaneously – something entirely foreign to the way Jesus taught us to behave.
God is inside and outside of time, transcendent and imminent. Our descisions may be our own (though more complex than that), but they have no meaning outside the permissive will of God. In this complex interplay I look at it as going beyond God “allowing” us to do something, as if we could do anything independently, but not to a place where we are wooden pawns of a helpless predestined future.
The mystery for me is that God exists in the eternal NOW, both in our past, present and future. We have dealings in the present, for where else could we be, but all points are held together in a reality I cannot begin to comprehend. In that eternal NOW is the paradox reconciled.
Anyway, I could ramble on more, but I’m sure I’ll be getting in hot water, if not here then at work
I meant that he isn’t bound by time as we are – so there is no contradiction between our having free will and His knowing what we will do with it. Are we perhaps using different words to say essentially the same thing? Not sure…
Probably