Randall Ballmer has a new book out, called Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America: An Evangelical's Lament
I have not read the book, and I am not sure that I will. So I won’t take much issue with things that I have no direct knowledge of from the text. On the other hand, I can take a look at what Ballmer has said in interviews. My primary concern is related to Ballmer’s statement in World Magazine related to faith and reason and the hot button issue of Intelligent Design. Odd that I find Ballmer in the opposite corner from Francis Schaeffer and Pope Benedict on that one… but I must digress momentarily.
Ballmer tips his hand on the theme and tone of his book in an iterview in the Star Tribune with Pamela Miller. If the Title doesn’t say enough, try this:
I am a traditional evangelical; it is the right-wing zealots of the religious right who have hijacked my faith. They have taken the gospel, the "good news" of the New Testament, which I consider lovely and redemptive, and turned it into something ugly and punitive.
What is ugly and punitive about the “religious right” one can probably guess. One key passage in his book, quoted extensively on NPR by Linda Wertheimer, is the “Abortion Myth” which is described as “the fiction that the religious right has propagated that it was formed in direct response to the Roe vs. Wade ruling of 1973, when in fact it galvanized as a political movement to defend Bob Jones University”
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Monday, September 18, 2006
Saturday, September 16, 2006
The Pope and Islam
There has been much attention paid to the allegedly insulting words of Pope Benedict toward Islam in a speech titled "Faith, Reason & The University" at the University of Regensburg. The offending remark is one particular line, a quote from 14th-century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos in conversation with a Persian scholar, "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Of course few of the news articles give any context whatsover to the the quotation. More on that below.
Most of the attention has been paid to muslim denunciations of the Pope's comments.
According to the article from the AP by Benjamin Harvey:
Salih Kapusuz, deputy leader of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Islamic-rooted party, said Benedict's remarks were either "the result of pitiful ignorance" about Islam and its prophet or, worse, a deliberate distortion. "It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades," Mr. Kapusuz told Turkish state television and radio. He said Benedict will go down in history for his words, "in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini."
Most of the attention has been paid to muslim denunciations of the Pope's comments.
According to the article from the AP by Benjamin Harvey:
Salih Kapusuz, deputy leader of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Islamic-rooted party, said Benedict's remarks were either "the result of pitiful ignorance" about Islam and its prophet or, worse, a deliberate distortion. "It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades," Mr. Kapusuz told Turkish state television and radio. He said Benedict will go down in history for his words, "in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini."
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
The Path Back to 9-11
So I watched The Path to 911. It appears that whether the general drift of the story is correct or not, some of the details were not. This is unfortunate, because the inaccuracies become the focus and any central truths get lost. Reaction from the left was predictable, and I believe Dennis Prager hit the nail on the head. Clinton administration defenders who decry the film are being hopelessly narcissistic. The film was NOT about them. It was about the terrorists and the fact that we as a nation, collectively, were inexcusably blind to the threat, including the early days of the Bush administration.
What the film portrayed accurately was that Islamic radicals attempted and failed to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993 and continued through the entire eight years of the Clinton administration to plot and execute terrorist attacks. It did document the acknowledged fact that numerous inadequacies made the attacks possible, from lack of communication and outright competition between agencies as well as clueless indifference. It also documented that there were opportunities to get Bin Laden, though the details may have been condensed and “fictionalized" in the film.
As I watched, my one hope was that people would remember who the enemy is. My hope was that folks would understand once again that there is a significant threat from individuals and groups who wish to see a Taliban-like regime instituted worldwide, with Sharia law as the norm and they are willing and ready and willing to commit mass murder to see this goal accomplished. That was my hope. I fear it is a false hope.
Reading today that Rosie O'Donnell can compare Christian fundametnalists to the Islamic terrorists on network television was disturbing enough, though nothing surprises me anymore.
Her specific words included,
“Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have separation of church and state."
“…as a result of the attack and the killing of nearly 3,000 innocent people we invaded two countries and killed innocent people”
When challenged that Christians are not threatening mass murder on anyone here or abroad, she continued “…we are bombing innocent people in other countries. True or false?"
Reading the words online was maddening. Watching the clip was worse. Because the studio audience applauded! Significant numbers of Americans apparently agree that “radical Christianity” is equivalent to radical Islam!
Clearly, there is no clue out there what the war on terror is really about. Yes there have been isolated cases of folks who claim Christianity doing destructive things like bombing abortion clinics and killing abortion doctors. But there is absolutely nothing else that comes close to a comparison between Islamic terrorism and Christianity. There are no Christian church leaders that I am aware of advocating mass murder. Nor does the U.S. Government or the U.S. Military target civilians and no major Christian leader of ANY denomination would dream of advocating such things. That such a point even needs to be made is infuriating. The terrorists behind 9-11 intentionally targeted civilians with the intent of killing as many civilians as possible. Nothing in anything any legitimate Christian group teaches or represents compares to this. In the 9-11 attack, there was no distinction between the killing of women, children, men or military personnel, white, black, Arab, European, multi-ethnic, gay or straight. Any death was seen as a victory for Allah. This in no way compares to any American military action or the support of the war by conservative Christians.
In many places across the world those Muslims who did not participate in the attacks, supported, cheered and celebrated them. Almost no one in the Muslim community, particularly among the Muslim clergy have been willing to publicly repudiate the goals or methods of the terrorists.
There is no evidence or even any rational reason to believe that any civilian deaths caused by the war in Iraq or Afghanistan by our military were intentionally targeted, deliberate, or celebrated in this country. And the fact that the terrorists make a point of not identifying themselves by uniform as military combatants, and instead hide among civilians and use them as shields demonstrates both that they have no regard for human life that would resemble anything we have long held dear and also that they are counting on the fact that we won’t target civilians to make such hiding places effective.
What in the world is behind this moral equivalency lunacy? What is it that Rosie and others on the left fear from Christianity?
The answer, I think, is absolutes. More precisely, absolutism. Those who crave absolute (!) pluralism fear any viewpoint that suggests it is true and all other views false. They fear that anyone who believes in absolute, objective truth will eventually, inevitably resort to violence, coercion, force, and state power to make sure that everyone else accepts that view. I guess they really believe that conservative Christians want to establish a militant theocracy, (which we don’t) and that we, like radical muslims, want to murder anyone who disagrees with us, which is ridiculous.
Christianity, as I have argued here before, balances absolute moral standards with compassion and forgiveness. High standards, plus unlimited grace. Christianity also values free will, even in the most Calvinist circles. Individuals are responsible and cannot, must not be coerced. Faith that is coerced is not faith. Protestant Christianity, in particular, fears absolute power as much as any other worldview in history. The fears Rosie spews are completely unfounded.
And even then, why would Rosie or anyone else fear Christianity even half as much as the extreme form of Islam, which treats women as a fraction of the value of a man, which doesn’t merely disagree with homosexuals but would execute them, and which would tolerate not a whit of the pluralism and free speech she uses to its full extent? I don’t understand how such blindness can be held with such fervency. But I guess rationality is out of style these days.
But the end result, I fear, is that we as a nation will not have the will or the understanding to defend ourselves against this threat that is more dangerous than communism or Nazi ideologies. Communists were willing to kill for their cause. Islamic radicals are willing to commit suicide for their cause. I fear 9-11 will be repeated. The terrorists will continue to be emboldened. Pluralism and multi-culturalism will continue to bend over backward to be fair to the
Khatamis of the world and will insist that pluralism and democracy mean a place at the table for Sharia law. I fear everything Western Civilization has been for centuries may well disappear within the lifetimes of our children.
There was much furor over the “Path to 9-11” For all the wrong reasons. And the main point of the film, that there is a real enemy out there and it is not our own government, has already been lost.
What the film portrayed accurately was that Islamic radicals attempted and failed to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993 and continued through the entire eight years of the Clinton administration to plot and execute terrorist attacks. It did document the acknowledged fact that numerous inadequacies made the attacks possible, from lack of communication and outright competition between agencies as well as clueless indifference. It also documented that there were opportunities to get Bin Laden, though the details may have been condensed and “fictionalized" in the film.
As I watched, my one hope was that people would remember who the enemy is. My hope was that folks would understand once again that there is a significant threat from individuals and groups who wish to see a Taliban-like regime instituted worldwide, with Sharia law as the norm and they are willing and ready and willing to commit mass murder to see this goal accomplished. That was my hope. I fear it is a false hope.
Reading today that Rosie O'Donnell can compare Christian fundametnalists to the Islamic terrorists on network television was disturbing enough, though nothing surprises me anymore.
Her specific words included,
“Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have separation of church and state."
“…as a result of the attack and the killing of nearly 3,000 innocent people we invaded two countries and killed innocent people”
When challenged that Christians are not threatening mass murder on anyone here or abroad, she continued “…we are bombing innocent people in other countries. True or false?"
Reading the words online was maddening. Watching the clip was worse. Because the studio audience applauded! Significant numbers of Americans apparently agree that “radical Christianity” is equivalent to radical Islam!
Clearly, there is no clue out there what the war on terror is really about. Yes there have been isolated cases of folks who claim Christianity doing destructive things like bombing abortion clinics and killing abortion doctors. But there is absolutely nothing else that comes close to a comparison between Islamic terrorism and Christianity. There are no Christian church leaders that I am aware of advocating mass murder. Nor does the U.S. Government or the U.S. Military target civilians and no major Christian leader of ANY denomination would dream of advocating such things. That such a point even needs to be made is infuriating. The terrorists behind 9-11 intentionally targeted civilians with the intent of killing as many civilians as possible. Nothing in anything any legitimate Christian group teaches or represents compares to this. In the 9-11 attack, there was no distinction between the killing of women, children, men or military personnel, white, black, Arab, European, multi-ethnic, gay or straight. Any death was seen as a victory for Allah. This in no way compares to any American military action or the support of the war by conservative Christians.
In many places across the world those Muslims who did not participate in the attacks, supported, cheered and celebrated them. Almost no one in the Muslim community, particularly among the Muslim clergy have been willing to publicly repudiate the goals or methods of the terrorists.
There is no evidence or even any rational reason to believe that any civilian deaths caused by the war in Iraq or Afghanistan by our military were intentionally targeted, deliberate, or celebrated in this country. And the fact that the terrorists make a point of not identifying themselves by uniform as military combatants, and instead hide among civilians and use them as shields demonstrates both that they have no regard for human life that would resemble anything we have long held dear and also that they are counting on the fact that we won’t target civilians to make such hiding places effective.
What in the world is behind this moral equivalency lunacy? What is it that Rosie and others on the left fear from Christianity?
The answer, I think, is absolutes. More precisely, absolutism. Those who crave absolute (!) pluralism fear any viewpoint that suggests it is true and all other views false. They fear that anyone who believes in absolute, objective truth will eventually, inevitably resort to violence, coercion, force, and state power to make sure that everyone else accepts that view. I guess they really believe that conservative Christians want to establish a militant theocracy, (which we don’t) and that we, like radical muslims, want to murder anyone who disagrees with us, which is ridiculous.
Christianity, as I have argued here before, balances absolute moral standards with compassion and forgiveness. High standards, plus unlimited grace. Christianity also values free will, even in the most Calvinist circles. Individuals are responsible and cannot, must not be coerced. Faith that is coerced is not faith. Protestant Christianity, in particular, fears absolute power as much as any other worldview in history. The fears Rosie spews are completely unfounded.
And even then, why would Rosie or anyone else fear Christianity even half as much as the extreme form of Islam, which treats women as a fraction of the value of a man, which doesn’t merely disagree with homosexuals but would execute them, and which would tolerate not a whit of the pluralism and free speech she uses to its full extent? I don’t understand how such blindness can be held with such fervency. But I guess rationality is out of style these days.
But the end result, I fear, is that we as a nation will not have the will or the understanding to defend ourselves against this threat that is more dangerous than communism or Nazi ideologies. Communists were willing to kill for their cause. Islamic radicals are willing to commit suicide for their cause. I fear 9-11 will be repeated. The terrorists will continue to be emboldened. Pluralism and multi-culturalism will continue to bend over backward to be fair to the
Khatamis of the world and will insist that pluralism and democracy mean a place at the table for Sharia law. I fear everything Western Civilization has been for centuries may well disappear within the lifetimes of our children.
There was much furor over the “Path to 9-11” For all the wrong reasons. And the main point of the film, that there is a real enemy out there and it is not our own government, has already been lost.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
The Death of Truth
So there is much buzz about ABCs new miniseries The Path to 911. I hope to find time to watch it, but that may or may not be possible. ABC is under immense pressure from Democrats and Clinton supporters, (free speech champions all) to cancel the series. The reason is for certain events being "conflated" so that multiple statements from a variety of sources are attributed to single individuals, implying that they said specific words that they didn't actually say.
The AP report by David Bauder indicates:
"A cut of the film distributed to TV critics depicts a team poised in darkness outside bin Laden's cave fortress in Afghanistan, while an actor portraying Berger in Washington stalls on giving the final go-ahead to carry out the seizure. He confers via video phone to CIA chief George Tenet.
"'Look, George," Berger says, "if you feel confident, you can present your recommendation to the president yourself.'
"Tenet responds angrily, then Berger's screen goes blank. He has hung up."
Madeline Albright is also upset:
"Albright objected to a scene that reportedly shows her warning the Pakistani government before an airstrike on Afghanistan, which resulted in bin Laden's escape. She said the scene was false and defamatory.:"
And Richard Clarke:
"Another scene in the movie depicts counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke explaining to FBI agent John O'Neill that he doesn't believe Clinton will take chances to kill bin Laden at a time Republicans were pressing for impeachment."
So because the film takes liberties with the association of certain statements with specific people who weren't the ones who made them, Clinton's people and much of the Democratic party is crying for the film to be edited if not scrapped entirely (that is, censored, isn't it?). Sandy Berger, best known for stuffing secret documents in his pants in the defense of truth and justice claims: "You can't fix it, you gotta yank it."
On the one hand, I am uncomfortable with the "docudrama" genre. By its very nature, it is difficult to compress a mountain of "docu-" into even five hours worth of "-drama" in a way that is watchable. There were plenty of complaints about the liberties Peter Jackson had to take with The Lord of the Rings. Had he not conflated certain passages, the film would either have been unwatchable, or key elements would have been left out completely. Certainly writer/producer Cyrus Nowrasteh faced those sorts of decisions. Still, attributing specific words to individuals when they didn't say them, even though they said or did things consistent with the words is problematic. So I don't entirely blame Albright, for example.
But I have to say, there is considerable hypocrisy in the outrage.
How many Democrats were outraged by the inaccuracies and outright lies of Michael Moore, whom Christopher Hitchens', in his demolition of Farenheit 911, referred to as "beneath contempt".
Is anyone in the Democratic alternate universe upset about charges that President Bush let people die in New Orleans based on economic status or race?
The fact that we should even be wasting time having to debunk 9-11 myths is an indication of how useless the words "journalism" and "objectivity" have become, but nobody in Bill Clinton's party seems to be concerned about fairness there, much less serious about actually fighting the terrorists who were responsible. Frightening how willfully blind to the needs of the hour these people are.
And aside from "conflation" of events, the events that implicate the Clinton administration in failing to comprehend any sort of threat appear to be worthy of examination. Powerline documents the long string of Islamic extremist attacks during the Clinton years, attacks that were rarely, and completely unsuccessfully responded to.
And now, the Senate Intelligence Committee once again insists there was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, an unfortunate conclusion apparently in search of evidence from the start. There appears to be a fair amount of evidence in documents recoved in Iraq that would contradict such a conclusion, but presumably this evidence was dismissed. Thomas Joscelyn's article in the Weekly Standard notes at least a couple of pieces of evidence available to the general public that were apparently conveniently ignored in the report:
"One of Saddam's senior intelligence operatives, Faruq Hijazi, was questioned about his contacts with bin Laden and al Qaeda.
"Hijazi admitted to meeting bin Laden once in 1995, but claimed that "this was his sole meeting with bin Ladin or a member of al Qaeda and he is not aware of any other individual following up on the initial contact.
"This is not true. Hijazi's best known contact with bin Laden came in December 1998, days after the Clinton administration's Operation Desert Fox concluded. We know the meeting happened because the worldwide media reported it. The meeting took place on December 21, 1998.
"There is a voluminous body of evidence surrounding this December 1998 meeting between Hijazi and bin Laden--yet there is not a single mention of it in the committee's report."
No president in history has been treated with the personalized contempt that G.W. Bush has. See this as just one example. Sorry Mr. Clinton. While I wish the film had attributed specific words or events to the right people, the idea that you and your staff are being treated unfairly rings a little hollow. I actually agree that docudrama's should be accurate, even if it means they are more "docu" than "drama". But the hypocritical and calculated moral outrage over this, under the circumstances, is rather sickening. The president famous for the line "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is." has no place complaining about a lack of truthfulness, even if he has a point about the details.
The AP report by David Bauder indicates:
"A cut of the film distributed to TV critics depicts a team poised in darkness outside bin Laden's cave fortress in Afghanistan, while an actor portraying Berger in Washington stalls on giving the final go-ahead to carry out the seizure. He confers via video phone to CIA chief George Tenet.
"'Look, George," Berger says, "if you feel confident, you can present your recommendation to the president yourself.'
"Tenet responds angrily, then Berger's screen goes blank. He has hung up."
Madeline Albright is also upset:
"Albright objected to a scene that reportedly shows her warning the Pakistani government before an airstrike on Afghanistan, which resulted in bin Laden's escape. She said the scene was false and defamatory.:"
And Richard Clarke:
"Another scene in the movie depicts counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke explaining to FBI agent John O'Neill that he doesn't believe Clinton will take chances to kill bin Laden at a time Republicans were pressing for impeachment."
So because the film takes liberties with the association of certain statements with specific people who weren't the ones who made them, Clinton's people and much of the Democratic party is crying for the film to be edited if not scrapped entirely (that is, censored, isn't it?). Sandy Berger, best known for stuffing secret documents in his pants in the defense of truth and justice claims: "You can't fix it, you gotta yank it."
On the one hand, I am uncomfortable with the "docudrama" genre. By its very nature, it is difficult to compress a mountain of "docu-" into even five hours worth of "-drama" in a way that is watchable. There were plenty of complaints about the liberties Peter Jackson had to take with The Lord of the Rings. Had he not conflated certain passages, the film would either have been unwatchable, or key elements would have been left out completely. Certainly writer/producer Cyrus Nowrasteh faced those sorts of decisions. Still, attributing specific words to individuals when they didn't say them, even though they said or did things consistent with the words is problematic. So I don't entirely blame Albright, for example.
But I have to say, there is considerable hypocrisy in the outrage.
How many Democrats were outraged by the inaccuracies and outright lies of Michael Moore, whom Christopher Hitchens', in his demolition of Farenheit 911, referred to as "beneath contempt".
Is anyone in the Democratic alternate universe upset about charges that President Bush let people die in New Orleans based on economic status or race?
The fact that we should even be wasting time having to debunk 9-11 myths is an indication of how useless the words "journalism" and "objectivity" have become, but nobody in Bill Clinton's party seems to be concerned about fairness there, much less serious about actually fighting the terrorists who were responsible. Frightening how willfully blind to the needs of the hour these people are.
And aside from "conflation" of events, the events that implicate the Clinton administration in failing to comprehend any sort of threat appear to be worthy of examination. Powerline documents the long string of Islamic extremist attacks during the Clinton years, attacks that were rarely, and completely unsuccessfully responded to.
And now, the Senate Intelligence Committee once again insists there was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, an unfortunate conclusion apparently in search of evidence from the start. There appears to be a fair amount of evidence in documents recoved in Iraq that would contradict such a conclusion, but presumably this evidence was dismissed. Thomas Joscelyn's article in the Weekly Standard notes at least a couple of pieces of evidence available to the general public that were apparently conveniently ignored in the report:
"One of Saddam's senior intelligence operatives, Faruq Hijazi, was questioned about his contacts with bin Laden and al Qaeda.
"Hijazi admitted to meeting bin Laden once in 1995, but claimed that "this was his sole meeting with bin Ladin or a member of al Qaeda and he is not aware of any other individual following up on the initial contact.
"This is not true. Hijazi's best known contact with bin Laden came in December 1998, days after the Clinton administration's Operation Desert Fox concluded. We know the meeting happened because the worldwide media reported it. The meeting took place on December 21, 1998.
"There is a voluminous body of evidence surrounding this December 1998 meeting between Hijazi and bin Laden--yet there is not a single mention of it in the committee's report."
No president in history has been treated with the personalized contempt that G.W. Bush has. See this as just one example. Sorry Mr. Clinton. While I wish the film had attributed specific words or events to the right people, the idea that you and your staff are being treated unfairly rings a little hollow. I actually agree that docudrama's should be accurate, even if it means they are more "docu" than "drama". But the hypocritical and calculated moral outrage over this, under the circumstances, is rather sickening. The president famous for the line "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is." has no place complaining about a lack of truthfulness, even if he has a point about the details.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
The Once and Future Anglicanism
A rather amazing document was published yesterday by David Virtue. It is a petition drafted by Bishop John Rucyahana, Anglican Bishop of Rwanda, representing and organization called SPREAD, or "The Society for the Propogation of Reformed Evangelical Anglican Doctrine, along with Rev. John H. Rodgers. It is 45 pages in length, but the long and short of it is this - Bishops Rucyahana and Rodgers suggests in no uncertain terms that remaining in fellowship with heretical factions of Anglicanism is no longer acceptable.
This is significant on one hand bacause of the turmoil that the Anglican world has been in since the recent convention of the Episcopal Church here in the United States, in which the TEC refuse to turn from the ordination of an openly homosexual bishop and elected a pro-gay female presiding bishop. It is also significant because Rucyahana leads the Anglican Mission in America, the first American Anglican group to declare itself out of communion with the Episcopal church and to ordain bishops under the authority of other Bishops outside of the Episcopal church's jurisdiction, crossing jurisdictional lines.
But the text of the petition is the real story. The stated goals of the petition are to:
1) affirm and encourage the preservation of the Anglican faith, which holds, as a major expression of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, that the Church is subordinate to Scripture's sovereign authority;
(2) protect the churches and individual members in the Communion which adhere thereto; and
(3) prevent millions of souls from being lost.
Then comes the real kicker:
The petition seeks to encourage the Primates of the Global South to continue to exercise leadership in the Anglican Communion by continuing to build on the groundwork laid at the Third Global Anglican South to South Encounter in Egypt in October 2005.
Conservative, orthodox bishops in the Global South, in short, have been taking the lead to encourage repentance from the Episcopal Church and appear primed to go further, assuming even greater leadership in coming days. Lest this be seen as a mere power struggle, one should note the meticulous detail of the reasoning, the actions already taken, and the documentation of the responses. First, the reasoning:
(1) Scripture is God's Word written and therefore true;
(2) the Church is subordinate to the sovereign authority of Scripture; and
(3) the Church and its members are obligated to obey the commandments and follow the teachings of Scripture.
While the media and revisionists have pushed the issue of same-sex blessings and ordinations as the primary conflict, conservatives insist that issue is a symptom of a larger problem, a refusal to submit to or even accept the authority of scripture. Repeatedly the document insists on the Reformation principle that the church is subordinate to scripture. It also insists that the proper role of a bishop includes to "with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God's Word"
This is significant on one hand bacause of the turmoil that the Anglican world has been in since the recent convention of the Episcopal Church here in the United States, in which the TEC refuse to turn from the ordination of an openly homosexual bishop and elected a pro-gay female presiding bishop. It is also significant because Rucyahana leads the Anglican Mission in America, the first American Anglican group to declare itself out of communion with the Episcopal church and to ordain bishops under the authority of other Bishops outside of the Episcopal church's jurisdiction, crossing jurisdictional lines.
But the text of the petition is the real story. The stated goals of the petition are to:
1) affirm and encourage the preservation of the Anglican faith, which holds, as a major expression of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, that the Church is subordinate to Scripture's sovereign authority;
(2) protect the churches and individual members in the Communion which adhere thereto; and
(3) prevent millions of souls from being lost.
Then comes the real kicker:
The petition seeks to encourage the Primates of the Global South to continue to exercise leadership in the Anglican Communion by continuing to build on the groundwork laid at the Third Global Anglican South to South Encounter in Egypt in October 2005.
Conservative, orthodox bishops in the Global South, in short, have been taking the lead to encourage repentance from the Episcopal Church and appear primed to go further, assuming even greater leadership in coming days. Lest this be seen as a mere power struggle, one should note the meticulous detail of the reasoning, the actions already taken, and the documentation of the responses. First, the reasoning:
(1) Scripture is God's Word written and therefore true;
(2) the Church is subordinate to the sovereign authority of Scripture; and
(3) the Church and its members are obligated to obey the commandments and follow the teachings of Scripture.
While the media and revisionists have pushed the issue of same-sex blessings and ordinations as the primary conflict, conservatives insist that issue is a symptom of a larger problem, a refusal to submit to or even accept the authority of scripture. Repeatedly the document insists on the Reformation principle that the church is subordinate to scripture. It also insists that the proper role of a bishop includes to "with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God's Word"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)