Charity Toward Other Christian Faith Practices

Discussion in 'Questions & Suggestions' started by seeking.IAM, Oct 6, 2013.

Page 3 of 3
  1. JonahAF

    JonahAF Moderator Staff Member Typist Anglican

    Posts:
    237
    Likes Received:
    222
    I personally would again like to ask where you would draw the line of what is and isn't respectable, a question you hadn't answered.


    It seems that if we were to place the statements "hurt no body by word nor deed," "be true and just in all my dealing," and casting a person "as an Heathen and Publican," next to one another, you would embrace all three statements equally, and in the process of your embrace erase the latter two. If we must "love" be "just" and also "hate" (or excommunicate), you say we must acknowledge contradictions and therefore just love. This doesn't do justice to the text at hand.

    I think we are much more justified in looking at writings in context, as I hinted at in my initial reply. In our postmodern context it would be wrong to "hurt no body by word nor deed", as our apostles and fathers did just that. The Catechism's meaning, of a different context, is altogether compatible with doing "just dealing" (which can be hurtful to others), or calling some men "Heathens and Publicans" (which is hurtful by definition).
     
    JonahAF, Dec 5, 2013
    #41
  2. Onlooker

    Onlooker Active Member

    Posts:
    133
    Likes Received:
    37
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Religion:
    None
    I'm off into the weather for a few days, but a quick word: in your first paragraph, I would erase only the last one ... The first two seem to me not contradictory. But thank you for your response. I shall reply.
     
    Onlooker, Dec 5, 2013
    #42
  3. JonahAF

    JonahAF Moderator Staff Member Typist Anglican

    Posts:
    237
    Likes Received:
    222
    It will be helpful if I added that I sometimes also post under the Admin account (not so much anymore lately since I have this one) and thus I'm materially concerned in this discussion. It is not just an academic question for me.
     
    JonahAF, Dec 5, 2013
    #43
  4. seeking.IAM

    seeking.IAM Member

    Posts:
    96
    Likes Received:
    89
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    Another Anglican's thoughts on the matter (underlining is mine):​

    ​
    "It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall, I have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think preferable. .You must keep on praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house...When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. This is one of the rules common to the whole house." ~ C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity​

    ​

    ​
     
    seeking.IAM, Dec 5, 2013
    #44
    Thomas Didymus, Peteprint and Lowly Layman like this.
  5. Mockingbird

    Mockingbird Member

    Posts:
    78
    Likes Received:
    28
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican
    The Terms of Service are fine as they are, though they might be improved by a rule requiring that female Anglican priests be aways referred to as "priests", not as "priestesses" or "priestettes" or with any similar infantile label. Referring to them as "so-called priests" must of course be allowed, since female priests are, in fact, so-called.
     
    Mockingbird, Dec 6, 2013
    #45
  6. Admin

    Admin Administrator Staff Member Typist Anglican

    Posts:
    734
    Likes Received:
    273
    Everyone's contribution is appreciated. The stumbling block remains the method of discerning how far the toleration must go. C.S. Lewis merges a peaceableness with people being labeled as in error and even enemies, which puts us back at square 1.

    The Terms prohibit derogatory terms used towards Anglicans while permitting them in all posters towards other groups. We could limit the use of these historical terms, derogatory or not, to the Anglican members alone. Eliminating all derogatory language is out of the question largely because we aren't holier than the Christians, Anglican theologians, and apostles that have used it, often correctly. Ceding the reigns to anyone making themselves into a self-perceived victim is also never a good idea.
     
    Admin, Dec 7, 2013
    #46
  7. seeking.IAM

    seeking.IAM Member

    Posts:
    96
    Likes Received:
    89
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    Admin, thank you for speaking even though not having yet sorted this all out apparently. To be clear, I am not a victim, self-perceived or otherwise. No one has insulted me here. However, it pains me to see others insulted which I think diminishes the forum, makes it appear an unwelcoming place, and/or is uncharitable to other members of the Body of Christ.

    I find this benchmark of the language of the Apostles or Anglican theologians curious. May we not aspire to be holier than the apostles or Anglican theologians who were mere persons & sinners like us also capable of error? After all, Peter denied Christ three times. I think our Lord wants us to do better than that. I think our Lord wants His church to be One. I think our Lord wants us to love our neighbor created in God's own image as ourselves. I do not understand this attitude that it is somehow okay to speak ill of other believers merely trying to keep the faith as they understand it.

    Challenge the belief if you must, but love the believer.
     
    seeking.IAM, Dec 7, 2013
    #47
    seagull likes this.
  8. Onlooker

    Onlooker Active Member

    Posts:
    133
    Likes Received:
    37
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Religion:
    None
    But if one were to reconcile the three statements in the way you propose, one opens up two objections (to my mind). Firstly, if one holds that abusive language is OK if it is designed to do justice, one has a view of ends and means that in itself may not be orthodox. Secondly, and in my mind decisively, the first statement is not just about words but about deeds: if it is acceptable to use abusive words in a good cause, why not abusive deeds as well? Are we now to hold that recourse to the stake and the fire would be fine since it once was so orthodox?
     
    Onlooker, Dec 9, 2013
    #48
Page 3 of 3