Here you go. Knock yourself out. But be warned: they’re a little pricey…

Do you know where one might be able to purchase one of those hats? I would really love to own one for myself.

Thanks so much for any help that you might be able to give.

David

First of all, rules are made to be broken, thus, this is a general principle only, and will not hold in all cases. Second, I’m not sure that it is developed in my own mind much beyond what I wrote above.

It really is born out of an experience I had of serving on staff for several years with a dispensationalist preacher. The idea conjured by the word “dogmatic” would be far, far too gentle to describe this pastor’s beliefs regarding eschatology, and it seemed to me that he had to bend so many verses to fit his scheme that I am possibly too biased toward the message to the original audience as a result, but here I am.

An example would be Ezekiel 39:6, which reads in the KJV (!):

And I will send a fire on Magog, and among them that dwell carelessly in the isles: and they shall know that I [am] the LORD.

My former pastor dogmatically asserted that, in this verse, there is biblical proof that there is coming a nuclear war between the United States and Russia.

I could cite many (many, ad infinitum, ad nauseum…) more examples, but it is out of this background that I have determined to lean strongly toward what the inspired biblical author intended to communicate to his target audience. As I said, I’m not saying it is altogether well-developed in my own mind, but I hope this explanation at least shows where I’m coming from.

Thanks for your comment.

We are in gereral agreement that (1) in the western world, we have an invididualistic orientation and thus a lens of interpretation that was largely unknown to the Scriptural writers, and (2) that Bishop Schori goes farther than I am confortable with.

But my question is in regard to a comment you made to Debbie, “One of the hermeneutical principles by which I try to operate is the understanding that the text cannot mean to us today what it did not mean to those to whom it was originally written.” Can you unpack that a little more? It would seem to me that it is necessary to understand the meaning of the text for its original audience before we can understand its meaning for us; and I think I would agree that the meaning for one set of people cannot be the diametric opposite of what it means for another. But the way you phrase this seems to be more restrictive than that. I’d luike to udnerstand exactly what you mean, and where you are coming from with this. Thanks,

John

I really only wrote this post as an excuse to post the picture of that sweet mitre. Don’t be hatin’…

Its one thing to agree with a portion of speech…. but please, if I have the privilege of coming to fellowship with your church and hear you preach the word, I hope I won’t see you in a multi-colored suit with a head dress and staff.

cb might like that type of thing…but I’m still mulling it over.

You do make a good point in the post….

Blessings,
Chris

Thanks for your comment. I’m certain you’re right, that Schori would never suggest that salvation is only for Episcopals. If I suggested she believed that, I was wrong to do so, and have made a minor update to the original post in an effort to make that more clear. Though this is a case where, though we may be using the same words (i.e. salvation, community, etc.), we mean such different things by them that meaningful conversation would be rather challenging.

Really, the only point of agreement is that we both recognize that an individualist focus seems to be a peculiarly western phenomenon, and that it is often incompatible with Biblical faith. But sadly, as we have seen over the days of their General Conference, so now is the Episcopal Church.

Thanks for your comment; you offer some important points to consider. One of the hermeneutical principles by which I try to operate is the understanding that the text cannot mean to us today what it did not mean to those to whom it was originally written. Thus, I’m not sure I can agree with your statement that “This passage is speaking of the Universal church, not just the local church.” When the words “love our brothers” first hit the ears of those in the first-century churches of Asia Minor, I’m not sure they would have thought immediately of all Christians everywhere, but more likely the people with whom they were gathered at that moment. So while I would not reject out of hand an application to a “Universal church” in that we ought to evidence love for all who name the name of Christ, I believe that this is, first and foremost, applied to the local church of which every believer ought to be a part.

But if I can agree with the head of the Episcopal Church, I can certainly express agreement with you, and I certainly embrace your last sentence: “Love for Christ and others is the fruit of salvation.”

Thanks for your comment.