December 29, 2003

John Chane: ECUSA's First Openly Jewish-Muslim Bishop

Here's an excerpt from Chane's Christmas sermon, illustrating what can only be called the most blatant example of willful patronizing of the adherents of the world's three great monotheistic faiths:

And what was God thinking... when the Angel Gabriel was sent by God to reveal the Law to Moses?
And what was God thinking... when the Angel Gabriel was sent by God to reveal the sacred Quran to the prophet Muhammad?
And what was God thinking... when the Angel Gabriel was sent by God to reveal the birth of Jesus Christ, the Son of God?
Were these just random acts of association and coincidence or was the Angel Gabriel who appears as the named messenger of God in the Jewish Old Testament, the Christian New Testament Gospels, and the Quran of Islam, really the same miraculous messenger of God who proclaimed to a then emerging religious, global community and to us this morning that we are ALL children of the living God? And as such we are called to acknowledge that as Christians, Jews and Muslims we share a common God and the same divine messenger. . . .

So, let me ask: Would the Orthodox Jewish community in Skokie, Illinois really think that the God they worshipped was the same as the one worshipped in the mosques of Saudi Arabia? Or at All Saints Orthodox Church in Chicago? What would one of those unemployed Muslim Palestinians, who prays daily to Allah, has no desire for war with Israel, and just wants to put food on the table for his family, think of Chane's equating of his God with the God of those Israeli's who keep blowing up his people in attempts to "get the terrorist leadership"?

Chane and his ilk are so full of themselves and their Gnostic heresies that they think just by endless bloviation they can assert their smarmy bovine scatology and make it so by flapping their gums.

Clearly Chane has not read the Qu'ran seriously, nor the Torah, and definitely not the Christian Scriptures. For if he had, he'd realize that he is patronizingly dismissing the claims of exclusivity that each of these religions make about themselves and the God they claim to worship. Now if Chane wants to simply ignore those contradictions and smilingly pat the heads of their respective adherents, nodding knowingly in an all-wise gesture--"But of course, what you really mean to say is . . ."--then so be it. But he's a fool's fool.

And his claim of tolerance and love is showed to be the lie that it is by his failure to tolerate the exclusive claims of these Jews, Muslims and Christians and treat them seriously. If this is ecumenism--the liberal affluent West dictating to the poverty-stricken, war-torn rest of the world what it really believes--then World Council of Churches and its North American bastard offspring deserve to oversee the emptying churches they do.

But then, men such as Chane, and churches which buy into his sort of religion, show themselves for what they are by their actions. James has something to say about them.

Posted by Clifton at December 29, 2003 06:00 AM | TrackBack
Comments

In DC a Bishop called Chane
found his credo a chain
when yuletide drew near
a sermon quite queer
the parishners ears did stain

Noting a likness of names
the angels whose revealing enflames
the monthesims
and patriarch schisms
among those whom Avraham claim

The bishop in robes opining
a secret mist'ry divining
that relgions these three
the same faith must be
their differencea henceforth declining

And so the bishop departed
and on the credo he farted
but heresy's easy
no one is queasy
ECUSA is multiple-hearted

And so on yultide benighted
the Bishop of DC delighted
he quietly stole
his parishoners souls
and his church satanicly blighted

Posted by: Huw Raphael at December 29, 2003 09:07 PM

Sorry about that. It's hard for me to spell check on the fly!

Posted by: Huw Raphael at December 29, 2003 09:17 PM

oversee the emptying churches, etc?

I do realize your life is devoted to Orthodoxy, but from purely sociological, Gallup-poll, population statistics point-of-view, do you believe that cleaving hard to orthodoxy (little o intentional) will fill pews to overflowing?

Posted by: daled at December 30, 2003 11:17 AM

I'm not sure if this is directed to Clifton or not... but my answer is a firm "no".
Is filling pews the important idea or is preaching the Gospel the point?

Posted by: Huw Raphael at December 30, 2003 06:17 PM

I would agree that filling the pews is not more important than preaching the Gospel. But is Orthodoxy the same thing as preaching the Gospel?

I heard an excellent sermon last spring at my school. The punchline, so to speak, was that we have "zero need for correct doctrine" and such. That the focus should be on the Gospel and not on sticking to some notion of what is orthodox and what isn't, especially since a lot of what we call orthodox isn't necessairly grounded in Gospel.

Posted by: Mark at December 30, 2003 06:46 PM

daled:

Two comments.

First, the mainline liberalism Chane represents is emptying the churches far faster than O/orthodoxy is "slow" in filling them.

Second, as Huw notes, it's not about numbers. It's about faithfulness.

And the second point is more important than the first.

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at December 30, 2003 10:52 PM

Mark:

There's no way you can legitimately and consistently draw a distinction between Gospel and doctrine.

In terms of salvation, we aren't saved by dogma, yet we are saved by the reality the dogma communicates to us. If faith comes by hearing, then it's going to come by communication, not intuitition or a burning in the bosom. And that means dogma is essential to the faith.

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at December 30, 2003 10:55 PM

I would go so far as to say that you can not preach the gospel without preaching dogma, even if that dogma is "there is no dogma". It begs the question, however, as to what is the right doctrine.

Posted by: Huw Raphael at December 31, 2003 06:54 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?