-
Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report
May 17, 2013 | 117 comments
-
Transsexual Flights from Reality
May 3, 2013 | 91 comments
-
State Funerals and Christendom
April 23, 2013 | 12 comments
-
The Hero of Star Wars
April 19, 2013 | 45 comments
-
Margaret Thatcher the Methodist
April 9, 2013 | 38 comments
The Nation's Pulse
Seminary Smorgasbord
A United Methodist seminary is the first in the U.S. to become multi-faith.
A United Methodist school in California is reportedly the first seminary in the United States to become multi-faith. Featured in a recent Los Angeles Times article, Claremont School of Theology outside Los Angeles will begin clergy training for Muslims and Jews this fall, and hopes for future Buddhist and Hindu programs.
Concerned about the new direction, United Methodism’s oversight agency for its 13 official seminaries cut off funding to Claremont early this year and will reevaluate the cut-off later this month. Claremont was getting about $800,000 annually from the denomination. But the school says it has been offered $10 million from private supporters for the interfaith initiative. About 70 of Claremont’s 275 or so students are United Methodists.
“Eventually, I suspect we will have a cluster of seminaries,” Claremont President Jerry Campbell told a church publication early this year. “Each with its own specialty, but in an environment that emphasizes mutual understanding and makes religion the parent of peace rather than the parent of conflict.”
At a press conference on June 9, Campbell officially unveiled the multi-faith plans, joined by Jewish and Muslim partners. “This is a very American approach. It’s an expression of American religion and American religious attitude,” enthused Jihad Turk, religion director for the Islamic Center of Southern California, which is partnering with Claremont. An imam who has studied in Iran and Saudi Arabia, Turk promised: “We promote a theology that is inclusive, that is cooperative, and that is pluralistic in tone and tenor.” Citing “fanatics” who “promote theology of death,” he asserted that Claremont’s interfaith project is the “strongest counter argument” to “fear, hate and violence.”
Claremont’s first Muslim professor is a woman who declared at the press conference: “We are redefining what it means to be righteous in the 21st century.” Najeeba Syeed-Miller insisted Claremont’s goal was not to “dilute our faith but to be better Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Hindus, Protestants or whatever faith you bring.” She urged a “theology of courage” focused on “collaborative action” on issues like homelessness and hunger.
Having struggled with financial solvency and even its accreditation in recent years, Claremont seems to see the multi-faith project as its redemption. Founded in 1885 as a Methodist seminary, in the 20th century it followed most other Mainline Protestant seminaries into theological liberalism, which morphed into radicalism in the 1960s. Claremont became especially renowned for Professor John Cobb, one of the architects of Process Theology, which asserts that God is constantly evolving and mutating rather than immutably sovereign. In the early 1970s, Cobb founded the Center for Process Studies at Claremont, partnering with Professor David Ray Griffin, who is now a leading 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Griffin, who now heads the center and remains at Claremont as professor emeritus, believes the Bush Administration exploded the World Trade Center to justify its imperialist wars. Process theology, with its notion that God is incomplete, is especially susceptible to vast and dark conspiracy theories, since it rejects orthodox Christianity’s confidence that a sovereign God ultimately defeats all evil.
Besides Process Theology, Claremont has been host to countless other theological fads and isms over the last half century or more, with its main stumbling block being primarily orthodox Christianity. California continues to host numerous robustly evangelical congregations, such as Rick Warren’s Southern Baptist Saddleback Church, which regularly draws about 20,000 worshippers. But thanks partly to Claremont’s revisionist theological influence, which de-emphasizes evangelism and Christianity’s uniqueness, United Methodism has lost about half its membership in California and elsewhere on the West Coast over the last 40 years. Less than 4 percent of all United Methodists are now on the West Coast or in Rocky Mountain states. The few remaining evangelical United Methodist clergy in that region typically attend a non United Methodist seminary, including evangelical Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, which has about 4,500 students.
At less than 10 percent of Fuller’s size, and having struggled financially for years, despite a United Methodist subsidy equal to about $10,000 per each United Methodist student, Claremont envisioned institutional salvation outside Christianity. But Claremont still hopes to reclaim its United Methodist funding by placing its non-Christian programs under a legal umbrella called The University Project. Claremont insists it will continue to cherish its Methodist “presence” on campus and will remain under the governance of the United Methodist Church. The school’s board includes the United Methodist bishops of Phoenix and Pasadena, both of whom presumably supported or did not resist the new interfaith direction when the board approved it in 2008. Unsurprisingly, both bishops preside over dwindling flocks and are renowned advocates for homosexual causes and liberalized immigration advocacy, while failing to attract many homosexuals or immigrants to their United Methodist churches.
Producing ministers who actually win converts and sustain congregations may recede in importance if Claremont can gain liberal donor dollars for its multi-religious path. As one Claremont board member has explained: “The confessional seminary is a dead duck.” The $10 million interfaith gift is coming from a liberal Methodist couple in Phoenix and compares to Claremont’s less than $8 million total budget in 2006-2007, when Campbell was first becoming president and struggling to save the school.
Another issue is whether Claremont’s multi-faith initiative will reproduce new adherents of religious pluralism or provide an opening for orthodox Muslims who, unlike the liberal Methodists who run Claremont, believe in proselytism and the objective truth of their own religion. And if the latter, how will dedicated pluralists who largely reject Christianity’s unique truth claims accommodate Islam’s own potent truth claims?
Bedazzled by a $10 million gift and a dramatic financial reversal after a near implosion, Claremont’s momentarily celebrating president, faculty and board may not have thoroughly pondered the ultimate repercussions of a multi-faith seminary whose only core dogma is seemingly self-preservation.
About the Author
Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century. You can follow him on Twitter @markdtooley.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (91) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Mark Tooley
More Articles From The Nation's Pulse
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/18/seminary-smorgasbord
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
michigander_sandusky| 6.18.10 @ 7:08AM
"Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron," (1 Tim 4:1-2)
ENOUGH ROPE| 6.18.10 @ 12:40PM
OBAMA, THE SMILING COBRA
Patrick| 6.18.10 @ 9:31PM
Please, he is a garter snake at best, a minor prelude in the Enemy's offensive.
Alan Brooks| 6.19.10 @ 9:04AM
White trash eschatology.
Bram| 6.18.10 @ 7:50AM
Maybe they will stay afloat fiscally, but I cannot imagine a congregation hiring a new graduate from Claremont. Isn't getting a good job upon graduation one of the biggest reasons for choosing a grad school?
Quartermaster| 6.18.10 @ 6:31PM
UMC congregations do not hire their pastor, he/she is appointed by the Bishop. There are two ways to become a clergyman with the UMC, licensure, which does not require a seminary degree, and ordination which does.
Ordination requires you present yourself to a board which tests you to determine if, in the opinion of the board, you are indeed called by God to the ministry. Passing that, you are assigned to an ordained elder who watches you as you go through seminary. You must attend a seminary that is approved by the UMC, and many of those seminaries are not UMC seminaries. Asbury (Wilmore, KY), and Ashland (Ashland, OH) are two major seminaries that are approved and graduate a good many UMC clergy. The grads from the non-UMC seminaries, and the licensed clergy are all that stand between the UMC and total depravity.
Ryan| 6.18.10 @ 8:15AM
The more that a denomination runs from the Gospel - man's sin and the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as its answer - the more it runs away from God.
Rellis| 6.18.10 @ 8:36AM
Hey, I have an idea: if you're upset about the predictable disintegration of this heresy's cohesion, come back to the Church which Christ (not Wesley) founded:
The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
Catholics come home.
Conan the Grammarian| 6.18.10 @ 8:55AM
Rellis, you mean the church that Constantine founded. Talk about heresy, the RCC is full of it. I used to be a Catholic, but once I read the Bible, I couldn't stay there. I became a John 3:16 Protestant.
Doctor Right| 6.18.10 @ 9:25AM
Conan:
You've opened a HUGE can-of-worms on this site.
Very soon, you will be deluged by posts from "Stuart Koehl" and Teflon93", two absolute RCC-robots. They will throw every Catholic cliche' available at you to prove the primacy of "Holy Mother Church", often in long, rambling, cut-n-paste posts that NO ONE reads and fewer will understand (even them). They will do anything possible to dissuade you from the truth of your post. They usually start with that reliable old chestnut about Peter being the 1st Pope based on "Upon this rock I will build my church", and it will snowball from there. When backed into a corner by their own illogical diatribes, they ALWAYS resort to calling people who criticize the Catholic Church as "bigots".
Like you, I'm a former Catholic who realized the hokum of Catholicism once he read the Bible (which Catholics generally ignore).
So get ready! This may be a fun day on TASOnline.
Nick| 6.18.10 @ 12:07PM
Hey, it's Doctor Wrong, a.k.a. Pope Bigot I.
Let's see what un-charitable, hateful, un-Christ-like comments he will come up with today.
Still have those mommy and daddy issues, Doctor Wrong?
Doctor Right| 6.18.10 @ 12:35PM
Conan:
I forgot to mention "Nick". I'd say he's more fun than the other two, but I wouldn't want anyone to think that I enjoyed making fun of the mentally disabled.
Nick| 6.18.10 @ 1:15PM
Didn't even make it an half hour, Doctor Wrong.
As I expected.
Rich| 6.18.10 @ 9:49AM
Lots of heretics in the Catholic Church, no doubt. Catholics are Catholics because of John 6 however.
Conan the Grammarian| 6.18.10 @ 10:19AM
The only problem with John 6 is that Jesus wasn't talking about communion or transubstantiation; those two thing are not even included in the context. The context was that he was talking about following him completely. And I believe he as speaking in hyperbole, which he did on several occasions.
JP| 6.18.10 @ 12:32PM
Actually he referred to eating his Body. He repeated this 3 times to make his point absolutely clear. He wasn't talking metaphorically, but explicitly. What he said filled his disciples with horror and disgust.Most of his disciples left, and according to the Gospels it was at this time that Judas stopped believing. In the orginal Greek versions, Christ used the verb "to masticate" or chew when referring to his body. It is almost impossible to get around this fact. And when most of his followers abandoned Him in disgust, Christ asked Peter if he would leave too? And Peter's famous answer, "And where shall I go?"
This is the same answers most Catholics give when asked why on earth would they remain in a Church that is so fully disfunctional. Despite what RCC detractors say to the contrary, being a Catholic is not easy. Our Masses do not feature rousing sermons (the rubrics call for a short homily, as the height of Mass in the consecration of the Body and Blood); Catholics are called to study and pray on thier own (some parishes have the Rosary, or Liturgy of the Hours). Catholics must survive heretical nuns, priests, lay people and bishops. The priest abuse scandal rocked the faith of many, and the Bishop's Conference is filled with Democratic Operatives who seem only focused on politics. But we stay because we believe. We stay because we know that Christ is physically present (not just spiritually or metaphorically) in every Mass. John Chapter Six gives many non-Catholics problems. For there is no way around it. From the Last Supper onward, Christ remains present physically in this world through the Mass and the consecration. And thankfully, Christ's mercy towers above the sin of the priest who celebrates Mass. If it didn't we'd all be in trouble. The graces that flow with every Mass are transmitted through every believer (Catholic or otherwise). And it has nothing to do with the RCC being better or worse (in many ways it is worse than the Protestant demominations. As Chesterton wrote, the RCC is filled with Saints and Sinners. All respectable Christians are Protestants). Christ's willed that his Mercy be brought to the world through the Mass. It is his Mass, it is His Mercy, not the Pope's or the priest.
Perhaps that is why the RCC in the US still grows by over 100,000 new adult converts a year. But don't let any Catholic brag. A humble Catholic knows his own sinfullness. And he knows that is only Christ's mercy that gives him hope. It is as simple as that. We are all adults and can make up our own minds. But I must warn anyone who really investigates the RCC in a serious way they may become hooked.
Doctor Right| 6.18.10 @ 12:38PM
Being a Catholic is painfully easy.
Go to mass once a week, listen to a droll, meaningless sermon/homily, pray to idols, engage in vein and repetitious rituals, and assume (wrongly) that your Priest has the power to absolve sin and blame...
And PRESTO! You're good-to-go! (Until the 2nd coming...)
Burgandy| 6.21.10 @ 4:50AM
Priceless. You hit the nail on its head. Catholicism gives me the creeps. Who actually believes those priests are celibate?
Ryan| 6.18.10 @ 1:34PM
At least one scriptural issue with the above - stating that Judas disbelieved at that point isn't explicit, and probably shouldn't be read that far.
Two - the passage makes more sense metaphorically than explicitly; particularly in the light that Christ only needed to be crucified one time., Particularly in light of verse 56:
" 56"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him."
Taken as literally as you point out, all we need to do for salvation is take communion. That's it. No works. No prayers. Nothing else.
It doesn't work with the rest of scripture if John 6 is held in a vacuum (which appears as how you are reading it) - not from what Paul said (by grace...), and definitely not from what Jesus said.
JP| 6.18.10 @ 3:05PM
But one cannot jump on and off the Sole Scruptura band wagon as one sees fit. Christ always repeated himself when he wished to make an important point or clairify a point that some my confuse. In this case he repeated himself 3 times. I only make this point because the Church always believed in the Eucharistic miracle. The earliest recorded Eurcharistic Mass was just 30 years after Christ died. Christians who met in secret during Roman oppression met to recieve the Eucharist. The Eucharist is Christ's body, blood, and Divinity. And Paul himself warns against taking the Body of Christ unworthily (ie with unconfessed sin on one's soul). So no, the Church never believed that that was all that was necessairy. But Holy Communion should be central. Baptism, Confession, and Communion were 3 central sacrements of the early Church.
Ryan| 6.18.10 @ 3:23PM
Sola scriptura doesn't mean hyper-literalism. It does allow for metaphorical use when necessary. I'm not jumping off.
I disagree that Holy Communion should be central.
The Bible doesn't say "how will they know without Communion."
It says "how will they know without a preacher." The proclamation of the Gospel is central.
And honestly, believing that the Christians had it absolutely right in the first 100 years after Christ - or since - is a misnomer. Paul spent most of his time correcting the errors in the early church, and some of the worst heresies weren't dealt with for a long time and were around a while.
JP| 6.18.10 @ 4:24PM
So, the Early Church Fathers we at war with Paul? St Polycarp wrote extensively, preached and evangelized. He was a followe of St John. Much of what I mentioned came from his writings. Polycarp established many Churches in Italy, the Balkans, as well as Asia Minor. I don't remember anyone admonishing him. Least of all Paul. As a matter of fact, most the early Church Fathers were disciples of the original 12. The Didache was the first Church Catechism; it was written during the time of Paul. And it mentioned many of the Church practices and rubrics that the RCC has believed in for 2000 years. The Didache was written for the Churches in Asia Minor and Greece. My point is that from Asia Minor to North Africa to the Iberian Peninsula there is a continuity of pracitce and faith that remained constant through out the Early Church and into the Middle Ages. Things like Purgatory, Confession, Intercessory Prayers, and Euachristic Mass have been around from the beginning. If they were heretical (like for instance temple prostitutes) they would have died out in the first few decades. They survived because they were True and they carried Divine Graces, which continue to this day.
Quartermaster| 6.18.10 @ 6:47PM
The Didache has been placed at about AD 110, more than 40 years after the Romans murdered Paul.
There is no evidence that Polycarp traveled extensively as you claim. He was named Bishop of Ephesus not long after John's death, and would not have been able to travel as you claim.
Irrenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp did travel,, and ended up as Bishop of Nice.
The internal evidence from scripture points to a figurative interpretation of Christ's statement about his body and blood. The fact that he was standing in the upper room holding both the elements is pretty decisive by itself. That Paul quotes Christ as saying "do this in remembrance of me" puts paid to the RCC assertion of transubstantiation. To point to supposed Eucharistic celebrations within 30 years of Christ's ascension is a bit of a reach, frankly. Outside of scripture we have only tradition for church history in the first century. The RCC's assertion that Peter was the first "Pope" is equally ludicrous. We know Paul was in Rome, but we have nothing in scripture to say Peter was. It is ludicrous and foolish to assert that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, and Paul not give us a scratch of a pen to even intimate such an assertion.
I would agree that it sometimes isn't easy to be a Roman Catholic. Having to turn your brain off at the door would be rather hard for a rational individual. Other than that, the guy above has it right. Just go every Sunday to get your ticket punched so you can keep your fire insurance paid up. Only problem is, God doesn't sell fire insurance. You live His way, the way He taught in His Word, or you will be told to leave His presence upon judgment. The RCC has been lying to its faithful, long-suffering membership for centuries.
JP| 6.19.10 @ 8:25AM
The Didache scholars argue existed as early as AD60, Polycarp's influence in what is today Slovenia, Greece, as well as Tuscany and Lombardy indicate that he traveled in those regions.
Nick| 6.19.10 @ 11:06AM
Quartermaster,
Instead of hurling insults, why not stick to trying to make your points.
Doing something "in rememberance" does not make it a symbol. Jews eat the pascal lamb in rememberance of the first Passover. But they have to actually eat an actual lamb.
Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God, as Saint John refered to him. The pascal lamb was a type of Christ, or prefigured the reality of the true Lamb of God, whose flesh would have to be eaten.
The Eucharist is Christ's RESURRECTED Body and Blood, by the way. Not His earthly body. It is still physical, but also supernatural. It also contains His Soul and Divinity.
If you want to make a convincing argument against the reality of the 6th chapter of the Gospel of Saint John, just give me a reasonable explanation of why Christ did not clear up the obvious, to you, misunderstanding His disciples were having as to what He meant by "eat my flesh and drink my blood."
Why did Christ let those MANY disciples leave without clearing up the matter?
Ryan| 6.21.10 @ 8:39AM
Was it devouring the flesh or the sacrifice that brought God's mercy?
Ryan| 6.21.10 @ 8:37AM
I didn't say "at war with" Paul. That's an overstatement.
I merely pointed out that Paul's letters were written to correct errors within the Church. They didn't have it all correct in the first century.
Nick| 6.18.10 @ 12:41PM
Conan,
If what you believe is true, why didn't Christ correct the misunderstanding of the many disciples that "went back and walked no more with him?" Unless He meant that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood?
It states clearly in verse 59 that "[m]any therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: 'This saying is hard; and who can hear it?'"
It also clearly states that Christ repeatedly said, "Amen, amen, I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 54 He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him."
Doctor Right| 6.18.10 @ 1:01PM
Conan:
See what I mean about "Nick"?
He believes in Christ-sanctioned cannibalism.
...[insert theme from "The Twilight Zone"]...
Nick| 6.18.10 @ 1:17PM
I believe what Christ said in the 6th chapter of the Gospel of Saint John, Doctor Wrong.
Why don't you?
JP| 6.18.10 @ 1:33PM
I find it funny, Doctor, that you're words and actions are exactly like those who left Christ (as described in John Ch6). You're words not only indicate that they you reject Him, but they also mock Him.
Ryan| 6.21.10 @ 8:47AM
Christ didn't seem to spend much time correcting misconceptions about His parables and saying - He even specifically said that some things were to be hidden in their meanings.
The other side is this - in the first part of Acts, Peter doesn't preach about Eucharist - particularly Acts 2:38 "Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
If it really were that necessary, wouldn't Peter have proclaimed it from the rooftops, or the author of Hebrews spent more time on it?
You can't look at John 6 in a literal vacuum, as you seem to be doing. You have to see the rest of the apostles' teaching on it.
Judi| 6.18.10 @ 11:40PM
Conan,
Your history is deficient, and some (not all) Catholics read the bible. I guess you were one of the ones who didn't, and I'm sorry for that. I understand you found a relationship with Christ that you hadn't found in the RCC, but don't take your personal experience for "gospel" truth. Some of us have converted from protesting to submitting to the shepherd in the form of the steward of Christ, the Holy Father.
To each his own, but please check your facts and please don't lie, or spread untruth.
Doctor Right| 6.18.10 @ 9:26AM
The Catholic Church is an apostate church. Always has been.
Judi| 6.18.10 @ 11:48PM
Doctor Right:
I don't think you will ever be willing to look at facts. The facts and the truth about the RCC ARE out there for you to find. Please stop speaking hateful things about the RCC that are absolutely your opinion, even if the majority of the people on this thread agree with you, you are still speaking your opinion. Nothing the Church teaches for salvation is in disagreement with scripture, but I don't think you will ever truly take the time to listen to God and follow the call to learn. That is a shame, as you seem to be quite zealous.
Ryan| 6.18.10 @ 10:04AM
Honestly, despite the theological issues I have with Catholicism, I've come to understand one thing.
ANY denomination and Christian who believes that man is a sinner, and that Christ's death and resurrection is the only answer, is part of the catholic (small-c aka "universal") Church.
If there is any other qualification, I have yet to see it in scripture or in life.
Conan| 6.18.10 @ 10:22AM
I agree. I just don't think that the RCC is that salvation comes from being a member of the RCC. That is what Rellis was saying. I believe that Jesus Christ offers salvation.
Doctor Right| 6.18.10 @ 12:41PM
I disagree.
"Believing" in Christ is NOT enough for salvation. Satan "believes" in Christ.
The Christianity that saves is an active faith that is in accordance with scripture and God's commandments.
Belief is man-made creeds, tomes, councils, synods, or catechisms is NOT going to do one thing for personal salvation. NOTHING.
Ryan| 6.18.10 @ 1:41PM
I agree; perhaps my statement was a bit of an oversimplification - true faith in Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, which changes a life.
Even as one who holds the Bible as the primary and only standard of our faith, there's a lot of Christians who don't realize that even such elementary principles that we hold in theology - even the Canon of scripture - came through such man-made issues such as councils and synods.
Several were VERY critical to the development of just about any theology.
cats1cowboy| 6.20.10 @ 9:08AM
Charlemagne invented the catholic church in about 300AD
Petronius| 6.18.10 @ 9:43AM
Constantine did not found the Church. He sanctioned it. None dare claim the words "Tu es Petrus" were not spoken by Christ. But never mind.
These days "God is a liberal." I got kicked out of my parish when the weenies on the council found out I have a CCW permit. So mote it be. " Iron cold iron is the master over all."
toddes| 6.18.10 @ 12:01PM
Just to be contrarian.
Unless you're affirming that Jesus spoke Latin during his ministry, then I'll claim that he never said, "Tu es Petrus".
Doctor Right| 6.18.10 @ 12:58PM
As I've said many times before, when Christ called Peter "rock" he was referring to his strong character. "Peter" in Greek is "Petras", meaning "stone".
Christ was speaking metaphorically, and somewhat wittily, "Peter, you are a 'stone'...But you will be 'the rock', that will spread my word after my body departs this earth."
From this statement, Catholics somehow deduce:
1. That Peter is to be the Bishop of Rome.
2. That the Bishop of Rome will be the head of "Christ's Church", which is nonsensical, since ONLY Christ can be the head of His Church.
3. A monolithic Church hierarchy that will include HUNDREDS of "Cardinals" and Bishops all answering to a centralized authority (also contrary to scripture).
4. Creeds, councils, synods, catechisms, etc...All man-made and designed to further MEN, not Christ.
5. Gudzillions of dollars (so much for "poverty").
6. Umarried clergy (specifically warned against in scripture; in fact, contradictory to scripture).
7. etc
8. etc
9. etc
10. etc
It's a 1,800 year old farce that is unraveling.
Thank God!
JP| 6.18.10 @ 4:38PM
Actually, Christ referred to Peter in Aramaic -that is he called him Kapha (rock). It was translated into Greek as Petros ; however, petra is a feminine noun, and they wouldn't have used this form to describe Peter. In any event, Kapha was the actual word used by Christ. This is how the Church Fathers interpeted it, and since they were followers of the orginal 11 disciples, the Church takes thier word for it.
Judi| 6.18.10 @ 11:53PM
Again, there are layers and layers of meaning behind "Peter, you are rock." The information is out there to explain why Catholics believe what they believe. Some are more knowledgeable than others, but you seem not to have had the perseverance to find the ones who are. So sorry for you, because you are missing out. I don't know why you fall back on familiar cliches yourself to attack the RCC. Maybe you have a chip on your shoulder, but in any case, you should stop talking trash about the RCC.
KyMouse| 6.18.10 @ 9:54AM
"An imam who has studied in Iran and Saudi Arabia, Turk promised: 'We promote a theology that is inclusive, that is cooperative, and that is pluralistic in tone and tenor.'"
No doubt he does. Jesus, on the other hand, does not. He said to Jewish leader Nicodemus in John 3:14-18:
"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness [see Numbers 21:5-9], even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believes in Him is not condemned; but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
Red Phillips | 6.18.10 @ 12:43PM
Amen!
Margie| 6.18.10 @ 2:12PM
And Nocodemus, the Jew, is named personally by the Spirit of God, later came to help with the preparation of Christ's body after He was crucified:
"And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave [him] leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus. And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound [weight]. Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation [day]; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand." Jhn. 19:38-42.
Red Phillips | 6.18.10 @ 2:39PM
I appreciate the Scripture Margie, but was this in reply to me?
I was Amening KyMouse for pointing out that historic Christianity is not "inclusivist," but rather "exclusivist" regardless of how much that might offend modern PC sensibilities.
Patrick| 6.18.10 @ 9:35PM
Shhhh! Every time you say that, a hippie cries!
[/sarcasm]
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.18.10 @ 11:37AM
KyMouse,
Thank you for writing it down here.
I have no fuss with US Roman catholics. An extremely well respected RCC Bishop told me he thinks the US is the best thing that ever happened to the RCC...since Augustine.
I do have a fuss with RCC tyrannical feudalism south of our border.
JS| 6.18.10 @ 12:37PM
Ken,
You are correct about the major problems with the RCC south of the border. They seem to push liberation theology and that is not Christianity. It is marxism created by the KGB specifically to infilltrate and destablize both the church and countries with strong religous groups. At least the research I have done points to that.
As far as Catholics not being Christians, I don't think anyone can paint with that broad of a brush. Christianity is not based on what church one attends (as long as it is a Christian church...mormons are not Christians), it is based on one's personal relationship with Christ. I am a part of the Emmaus community in my area and I regularly worship with people from all of the major denominations that make up the Christian community in this country. They include Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Assembly of God, Church of Christ, non-denominational, interdenomination...and the list goes on. We understand the enemy uses denominations to divide the faithful and we believe in the teachings of Jesus go before the different dogmas of our individual denominations. Recognizing this frees us to put people with God-given talents together to further the Kingdom and to bring others closer to Christ.
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.19.10 @ 1:31PM
JS
Folks
I have not followed closely the back and forth above. I read most of it many many years ago, and being re-hashed is boring....and pointless.
I don't like haters, and I certainly don't like religious bigots of any stripe.
I think I can read about as well as anyone here. Mathew 16;13 begins the paragraph about Peter and the "rock" deal...I like the King James version best. In my forty years of study, I have come to be lieve that the "rock" was not Peter, but instead, Peter's declaration that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God.
I haven't read the Roman version in a long time. Anyone got the Vulgate handy?
One word I haven't spotted in the above conversation. "Grace" a gift of God lest any man boast....of his good works, or the sign on his church door.
Big Leo| 6.18.10 @ 11:48AM
I'm so tired of the Catholic- anti-Catholic debate. Historically, the main body of the Christian church is and always has been the Orthodox. The Catholics broke off from this in 1054. They are the ones who changed the rules, not the Orthodox church. And no, I don't belong to any branch of the Orthodox church. The one true church is the one which declares that Christ is the way and that follows the teachings he gave us. That transcends denomination.
Sheila| 6.18.10 @ 1:12PM
Amen, Big Leo. How/why was this thread hijacked to be Catholic/anti-Catholic? Remember the actual article, about a multicultural, multi-faith "seminary"? If a true church declares Christ is the way (the only way), and the Jews consider him either a blasphemous fraud or an overhyped rabbi, and the Muslims think we're all members of dar al harb, then Claremont is the typically hypocritical liberal institution, believing everything and thus believing nothing. The modern church in America is headed toward the same fate as our once constitutional republic - Decline and fall.
L. Ross| 6.18.10 @ 1:12PM
Well guys, I kind of hate interrupting the Catholic/Protestant shouting match going on here, but why aren't more people offended by a "Christian" school going out of its way to promote islam in the United States. I find this vastly more upsetting than anything else in this article. The Qusislings at Claremont are aiding and abetting our religious and mortal enemies. Make no mistake, the goal of islam is now and always will be domination of the globe. Thanks so much for helping them out, Claremont. Good job. Must be easy when you don't believe in God or right or wrong or most anything. Freaking California liberals. I hate this state.
FTM| 6.19.10 @ 6:08AM
You go L. Ross.
ExPat| 6.19.10 @ 8:48PM
Right you are. The liberal Christian and Jew's eagerness to embrace dhimmitude is not only mind boggling, but suicidal.
JP| 6.18.10 @ 1:35PM
The Methodist Church has many problems. It appears this particular theological institute will do anything to keep the school going and the money flowing -even if it means instituting Islamic theology. Make no mistakes, in a decade this institute will be run by imans.
Red Phillips | 6.18.10 @ 3:07PM
My family is former Methodists, and I come from a long line of Methodists. I have a lot of respect for conservative Methodists like Mr. Tooley who are trying to grab back control of a once orthodox denomination from liberal Christian heretics, but I don't understand how an orthodox Christian who remains in the UMC can tithe in good conscience knowing that part of their money is going to fund renegade liberal seminaries and colleges and "open" congregations with heretic "pastors." The UMC needs to do what the SBC did and seize control of its seminaries and shake out the heretics or else disaffiliate them.
That said, I do think Mr. Tooley is reaching a bit when he blames David Ray Griffin's conspiracy theorizing on his process theology. I am not sure a clear cause and effect relationship can be drawn there.
Larry Cannon| 6.18.10 @ 3:59PM
That's why I left the UMC in 2006 after 43 years. I liked my local church. However, I was funding a bunch of Leftist causes that had nothing to do with Christ.
I'm now with the Congregational Methodist, not perfect by any means, but try best to follow the Bible and the teachings and Lordship of Jesus Christ.
FTM| 6.19.10 @ 6:19AM
I attend a Disciples of Christ Church which is completely overrun with liberals to the extent that now it is less of a Church and more of an activists club. Some of the old timers and the more conservitive members of the Church are completely offended especially by the "No hell, no judgement, Jesus is a hippie with a dog" theology pushed by the "minister." A lot of people have already left the Church. As a countermeasure I have offered the plan to the conservitave members which goes like this:
If you don't like what is going on in your church then when the offering plate comes around, don't put anything in it.
This is an amazingly simple way to re-take control of your church. The Church that I attend is having serious trouble making payroll not to mention keeping up with the mortgage payments on the building and the like.
I make no secret of pushing this agenda at the Church, so much so that the "Minister" confronted me. I told the guy that there were a lot of people in the Chruch that didn't appreciate his monkey-shines and that it was time for him to shape-up or get out.
There is a war on in regards of conventional versus liberal theology in many Churches in the world today. You can surrender your Church to the liberals or you can run them out. The way to run the liberals out is to stop paying them. Stop funding their little little anti-christian, "Ministries" and the like. When the offerning plate comes around don't put anything in it. How hard can it be?
MarkJ| 6.18.10 @ 5:07PM
This story explains why I'm no longer a Methodist: the "Method" in "Methodist" went away a long, long time ago.
jrjr| 6.18.10 @ 5:40PM
This one confirms my belief - organized religion in America has just about ended its usefulness. I engaged 3 of the protestant religions over the past four score years and found them to be kinda useless. I quit visiting the organized churches about 10 years ago. I prefer to remember how it was 30 or 40 years ago. Nowadays it is a disaster.
Ryan| 6.21.10 @ 8:50AM
Where do you live? There are many parts of the country where the disillusioned may fit in, particularly if you're looking for something more traditional. You may be able to find a smaller Southern Baptist or a Presbyterian - PCA church that fits your needs.
Patrick| 6.18.10 @ 9:44PM
Liberalism is a parasitic religion that devours all other faiths that it touches. It is like yeast in dough, even the smallest pinch will change the whole loaf. As such, if you wish to reject any part of it, you must reject it wholly.
Yosemeti Sam| 6.18.10 @ 11:34PM
" ... Jihad Turk, religion director for the Islamic Center of Southern California ...."
No kidding - that's as in-your-face a name as one may christen themselves with.
Is this fellow on a no-fly list?
LOL.
Miguel Estrada| 6.20.10 @ 1:46AM
If you are ignorant of Church History, you are probably a Protestant.
Bruce | 6.20.10 @ 12:07PM
Imagine my surprise, when after about a week away from AmSpec I return to find it's gone - replaced by a religious blog. Wow.
Guess it's time to go for a while. Again. Someone please let me know when AmSpec returns to it's previous incarnation as a POLITICAL blog?
Vic| 6.21.10 @ 9:29AM
Couldn't tell what kind of article it was by the headline? Couldn't ignore and move on?
Ryan| 6.21.10 @ 3:04PM
Sorry, we're conservatives. What use is religion if it doesn't influence our views on politics?
Burgandy| 6.21.10 @ 4:43AM
Aside from Lutheran, the Methodist denomination is the most mundane, boring, irrelevant, and pointless group of religionists in existence. Milktoast with no butter, no jam, and no fringes. Hillary Clinton is a Methodist--need more be said.
Vic| 6.21.10 @ 9:38AM
Sounds like the neo-Mohammedans are re-installing the gods in their neo-Kaaba.
fjdi| 7.1.10 @ 5:03AM
beijing massage
Akira | 7.7.10 @ 9:16AM
This is no surprise. America is run by Jews and Slavemasons after all.
Everything American already has the taint of Jew, and this writer worries about Islam?
Akira | 7.7.10 @ 9:40AM
Re: "Professor David Ray Griffin...believes the Bush Administration exploded the World Trade Center to justify its imperialist wars."
-- Perfectly serving the Jew agenda: Put the blame on the evil White guys, not the guilty Jews.
Re: "Process theology, with its notion that God is incomplete"
-- The definition of vile Slavemasonry, with its Jew-creed that God was in error and needs Jews/Masons to "correct" Him, via Tikkun Olam/"The Great Work".
Louis Vttion handbags | 12.9.10 @ 2:07AM
Nick - Fascinating post. The space-time postulate is absolutely fascinating, though I admit I'm no Einstein and find it hard to get my brain around the concepts. I don't take the 6 days account literally so don't feel the need to search for a way to reconcile it with what we have come to know from science.
On evolution, my readings convince me of the soundness of the concept. Though I reject utterly his atheism, Richard Dawkins' books on evolution as a process are utterly persuasive. They're worth a read.
There are many leading scientists who are believers on a rational basis. One of my favorite is a fellow named Francis Collins, who headed the Human Genome Project. He has written two wonderful books, The Mind of God and The Language of God. In the first, he marvels at how the human brain developed the abstract mathematical reasoning capacity, which really serves no purpose --- except to understand the mathematical way God constructed the universe.
I believe that as God's creation unfolds, He provides humans the capacity and the means to understand more profoundly the wonder of what He has created. He is the author of the evolutionary process that made us into the creatures we have become.