is there a consensus of belief among Christians? actually, despite how different it seems, there is, and it is found in the statements of belief called the creeds. 

the Nicene Creed (without the statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son) is the universal creed, and said with the statement about the Holy Spirit, is said by the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Protestant churches.  The fundamental beliefs are in a Triune Godhead, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the sins of the entire world, the divinity of Jesus (if you want a true theological discussion of this, email me or RYP me), the catholicity (little 'c' not big 'C') of the holy church and its transmission from the apostles, that one baptism is all that is needed for redemption from sin, that the dead will be resurrected as Christ was resurrected, and in eternal life (the life to come)....

as long as these beliefs are held, there is no doubt that the church in question is a Christian church, and therefore a denomination, and not a cult.  please notice that there is no mention of a need to believe in any hierarchy or theocracy to be considered Christian.  the roman catholic church states that only roman catholics will be saved by appealing to apostolic succession (direct decension from the apostles) but the anglican church and the orthodox churches are descended directly from the apostles.  the roman church also says that one must accept the authority of the pope (which office issued a papal decree about 200 years ago declaring that office infallible in matters of church doctrine) but that is not part of the nicene creed, and not necessary for Christian faith. 

why Jehovah's Witnesses are considered by mainstream christians to be a cult is that they don't believe in the divinity of Christ; of course, they could also be considered a new religion, but they, themselves, seem to want to try to maintain a christian identity without believing in the ontological divinity of Jesus... for them, he was just the best possible human.

 within the jewish religion, christianity was not considered to be separate but a sect because it held all the same tenets as judaism, except they believed in the fulfillment of the messianic promise.  it was not until the early christians began to admit gentiles into their congregations without requiring circumcision or obedience to dietary laws that they deviated outside the fundamental laws of judaism (both circumcision and obedience to dietary laws were considered foundational) and therefore became a religion unto themselves. 

the church of england existed as a separate entity back at the first council of nicea in 325 CE.  except no one was calling themselves the church of anything then, they were all Christian churches and they all considered themselves to be one body. this is why the council of nicea was formed - there were slight-to-large differences in doctrine creeping up (think a game of telephone dealing with complex theological issues spread from constantinople and extending to the celtic isles (modern day ireland/scotland/england)... we know from extant records that the celtic church, the church of england, had a presence at that council in 325CE.

fast forward 800 years, to when the orthodox churches split from the church centered around rome, and this is when the roman catholic church was formed , not by the "direct word of God" any more than the celtic churches or the orthodox churches or the churches in africa... the split was 50% at least political, since rome felt it could better represent the western churches, and wanted the secular power it had amassed to be reflected in its ecclesiastical power.  the excuse was a portion of the nicene creed that read that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son" which raised an entire theological battle about the composition of the Trinity.

fast forward another 400 years, to the 1500s and the reign of henry viii... he was a roman catholic, and wanted to divorce, but the church in rome said no.  so he approached the then archbishop of canterbury and said he would give the celtic church the primacy in his country, make it the Church of England, so if they would grant him a decree of divorce.  sadly, the archbishop caved to political ambition, and that is how the celtic church became the Church of England.  later politics would divide it into the Church of Ireland, the Church of Scotland, and the  Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America, and colonial aggression would bring the Anglican church into India and Africa and Canada.  now the anglican church has 38 provinces associated with it, of which the Episcopal church is one....

long answer, but an essential one, to the question about the origin of the church of england as it relates to henry viii > all he did was give primacy in his country to a church that already existed....

props where props are due> this post is mostly composed of the editorial of Mortimer B. Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief of US News & World Report, June 12, 2006 issue

The hard reality is that it is no longer possible for more than a very small minority to start out poor, work hard, and become well off... The generation that emerged from World War II enjoyed income growth fairly evenly spread throughout our entire population.  The past 25 years tell an utterly different story.  Median family incomes have risen by less than 1 percent a year - for a total of 18 percent overall - but median incomes for the top 1 percent have gone up more than 10 times faster - by an astounding 200 percent!  From 1980 to 2004, our GDP (gross domestic product) rose by almost two thirds, but when you factor in inflation, the wages of the typical earner actually fell... Among the top 20 percent of American earners, real incomes increased by 59 percent. 

And there is no sign that the trend is moderating.  This year the top 10 percent of wage earners are projected to receive 45 percent of all household cash income, up from 40.6 percent in 2000.  And what about the average family in the 80 percent of the workforce who make up our rank and file?  Incomes are actually slightly lower, after adjusting for inflation, than they were four years ago… those Americans have effectively taken a pay cut since 2002 even though the economy has been growing by over 3% per year.  Except for a few years in the late 1990s, the hourly pay of most workers has done no better than inflation for the past 30 years. 

The gap between the ostentatious new rich and the rest of America is growing fast.  Twenty-five years ago, the top fifth of all American households’ post-tax incomes were 6.7 times those of the bottom fifth.  Today, that ratio has jumped to 9.8 times – nearly a 50% increase.  The result? 37 million Americans living below the poverty line in 2004, but an additional 54 million were the ‘near poor’…

If we look at net worth, as distinct from income, the growing inequality is equally manifest.  Some 85% of the nations’ wealth now resides in the hands of the richest 15% of American families.  The bottom 50% of families, on the other hand, claim only 2.5% of household net worth… The average net worth of the richest 10% of American families rose to $861,000 last year, a 6.5% increase over 2001.  What happened to the typical family in the bottom 25%? Net worth actually fell by 1.5%.

Our tax system has become much less progressive, enabling families in the top decile to benefit, and especially the top families within the top… Taxes for the well-to-do are lower today than they have been in 60 years.  It is role reversal for Robin Hood: We are robbing the poor to enrich the rich. 

"If there is among you anyone in need, a member of your community in any of your towns within the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your need neighbor. You should rather open your hand, willingly lending enough to meet the need, whatever it might be....Give liberally, and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this accoutn the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake.  Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, 'Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.'"   Deuteronomy 15:7-8, 10-11

I give myself to those who offer love -
can it be wrong?
Your eyes tell me so,
and yet,
lonely rivers flowing to the sea
give themselves to many brooks in their passing...

covi

our lunch group got into a discussion today about sexual activity.  it's an interesting mix, our lunch group > one is a young, single mother in her early twenties, one is a recently divorced woman in her mid-thirties who is in the throes of match.com dating, one is a divorced and remarried man in his mid-fifties (his second marriage has lasted over 25 years), and there is me, a divorced and remarried woman in her late forties. i will have been married to my second husband for eight years as of next month, but there were 10 years between my divorce and dating dj...  so we have one member who has never been married, and 3 who have been divorced.  it allows for a broad range of viewpoints.

jz,the youngest, the single mom, was adamant that you should only date one person at one time, period.  she has never been married, but i don't know if that necessarily impacts her belief.  ls, the woman in  her 30s is enjoying the ability to date all sorts of men as often as she likes, but sees finding someone to be exclusive with as her goal.  rc says he is too afraid to cheat, but more because he doesn't think anyone would want him if he were single than that he is afraid of his wife. 

neither rc nor i think that sexual infidelity is the end of the world.  rc always viewed sex as a fun, recreational sport.  i have always viewed it as one more way to create intimacy in a relationship.  but this does not mean that i would be careless of the feelings of another - i do not think i could have sex without there being intense emotional connection, however.  and it would not bother me so much if dj had an affair, dependng on how he felt about her - if he loved her it would be easier for me to take than if he just thought she was hot...

well... i finally got the letter to Bishop Councell written....  i was pleased with it, mostly, but think that i could have expanded more on what my main topic was if i had not had the preamble....

"In Sunday School, my class for 7th and 8th graders, we discussed the Feast of Pentecost.  Although I am confident they had heard the story before, the students seemed unsure when I asked them about the events of that day, so long ago.  And so, we went over that story, familiar to me but fresh to them, and they were surprised to realize that there was a connection between the resurrection of Jesus, and the 'what came next' (their words) of Pentecost.  They had never made the connectioin between the physical death of Jesus and the birth of the Church.  One of the students said she had always wondered what had come after Easter, and so we talked about the book of Acts.

This has made me wonder, however, about the disconnect.  Bishop Spong, in answering a question posed to him via email, qna@johnshelbyspong.com , gave me a clue.  Although the question asked of him, 'So it seems you're pointing to a global movement or alliance distinct from Christianity that is too exclusive.  Will it have a name?', is a little of point, the Bishop's response seems à propos, 'I must be a 21st century Christian. That means I have to force my Christian faith into the thought forms dictated by the 21st century... I draw a distinction betwen the experience of God and the explanation of that experience.  The experience of God is, I beleive, both real and timeless.  The explanation of that experience, however, is always time bound and time warped.  Explanations, because they are always wedded to their time will also inevitably die.  That should be expected.'

It is not that the students were not taught about Pentecost; it was that they could not hear.  We need to be less afraid that our faith will not withstand a change in perspective -- when we discuss the Creation in my class, we discuss it in terms of the Big Bang, but there is never any question about the identity of the Creator.  I do take issue with Bishop Spong's assertion that one's faith must change, but i do concur that the expression of that faith must become more relevant, in discourse if not in worship."

that's the letter.  since Bishop Spong is very controversial in the Episcopal church, and since i admitted to teaching Christianity explained through science, we'll see what Bishop Councell has to say about that .... *sigh*  and sweet_acid_rain, that's about as close to poking a bishop with a stick as i would like to come....

as a postulant, one of the things i am required to do is send a letter to the Bishop (of my diocese) every Ember week.