Christians in Politics - Assisted Suicide as the Norm

Lest my last post on the responsibility of Christian conservatives to resist the trend to eschew politics, be quickly forgotten, First Things takes note today of a California law that would potentially force Catholic Nursing Homes to allow assisted suicide. It is never enough for the "progressive" and "liberal" forces to seek freedom for their own amoral and immoral views of how society should operate. It is always, it seems, necessary for them to force everyone else to accept their viewpoints as well.

Those Evil Christian Conservatives...

I've commented before about the rash of books, some by Christians, to insist that the faith has been "politicized" by the religious right. I mentioned Randall Ballmer in this regard, who has said: "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."

And I have commented about Scot Mcknight, a generally likeable and irenic blogger, scholar and author who nonetheless laments: I think the Religious Right doesn't see what it is doing. Other titles include "Why the Relgious Right is Wrong", "Blinded by Might" and "The Myth of a Christian Nation". The list could go on and on.

Today I find on Worldnetdaily.com a classic example of why I think this sort of whining about the alleged unbalanced politicking of the "religious right" is completely oblivious to reality. In Massachusetts, Estabrook Elementary School has been teaching "homosexuality" and "transgenderism" to 6-year-olds. There was apparently a state law requiring notification of parents of such topics were to be taught. A parent, David Parker, requested that he be notified and complained to the school, which refused. It was Parker who wound up in jail.

The school then "presented the book 'King and King,' about homosexual romances and marriage, to second-graders and again refused to provide notification." The WorldNetDaily article continues

"Parker and other parents followed with the federal civil rights lawsuit, alleging school officials were refusing to follow state law. David Parker's son brought home the book 'Who's in a Family?' in school's 'Diversity Book Bag' (Image: Article 8 Alliance)

Just days later, David Parker's son, Jacob, was beaten up at Estabrook Elementary, officials said. MassResistance said a group of 8-10 kids surrounded him and took him out of sight of "patrolling aides," then pummeled and beat him."

U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf dismissed the lawsuit. Dismissed. The school refused to comply with the laws on the books, the parent brings the suit and the judge dismisses it. Why?

"In the ruling, Wolf makes the absurd claim that normalizing homosexuality to young children is 'reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy.' According to Wolf, this means teaching 'diversity' which includes 'differences in sexual orientation.' "

This is the reality Christians face in this country. There is a steady march toward the legitimization of things we find morally wrong, things that most every civilized society in history has also found morally wrong. That legitimization is put forth as a quest for "freedom" or "equal protection", but generally leads to the marginalization of the traditional views. So now, instead of a homosexual merely being "free" to be a homosexual, Christian parents are in essence forced to acquiesce to the homoerotic view of morality. Of course the judge said the Parkers and other parents could send their kids to a private school, but we all know what the next lawsuit will be - to force the private school to protect the "rights" of homesexuals.

Critics of Christian conservatives need to open their eyes to the realities here. Christian conservatives have been political from a posture of self defense, not a quest for power. A steady, continual pressure has been underway for at least thirty years - I trace it to Roe v Wade, to use the courts to advance a naturalistic and relativist social agenda, one often fueled by radical leftist ideology, one that makes it increasingly difficult for Christians who value life and sexual purity to simply live as citizens. Pro-life nurses and doctors have risked loss of employment for not participating in abortions. Teachers, corporate employees and others are subjected to "sensitivity training" for simply believing that sex is a sacred trust between a married man and woman and for stating those beliefs. Christian pastors are subjected to hate-crimes lawsuits for reading Romans 1 from the bible.

Somehow we are supposedly the ones who are "ugly" and "punitive". Really? Type in "Religious Right" on google and see how many websites equate conservative Christians with fascists, hate-mongers, theocrats, and use a variety of other less printable labels.

And to this, this path toward outright persecution which conservatives are merely attempting to resist, popular Christian authors respond by saying it is all the fault of the religious right? What then would they have us do? Turn the other cheek?

I have no problem turning the other cheek when I alone am the one threatened, but should I turn the cheek of a six-year old and allow that child to be morally pummeled by views I believe will destroy that child's soul? Shall I allow small school children to be the lab rats in a vast social experiment which no one really knows the outcome to? Shall I as a citizen simply be silent and allow evil to flourish? Would these critics say the same thing if the issue were slavery? That getting involved in politics "hijacks" the gospel?

Look all I am arguing for is that conservative Christians vote for what they believe in on matters that affect all of society. All I want is for conservative Christians to have the same right to lobby for causes they believe in. If that makes us fascists in the eyes of gays or pro-choice feminists, fine. But if it makes us "ugly", "punitive", "zealots" to other Christians, if they really see parents trying to protect their kids as "blinded by might" I have to wonder who it is who has been blinded, and by what.

Anglicans in Tanzania - A Second Opinion

I posted last about my pessimistic appraisal of the Communique coming out of the meeting of Anglicans in Tanzania. It seems more informed persons than I would offer a different view.

One lengthy article was penned by David Virtue, who as always has a significant amount of information on his news site. He opened with this:

A new day has dawned," said Rwanda Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini to VOL over breakfast at the White Sands Hotel as he reflected on a newly minted communiqué. "You see, it will come out all right," he said with a huge irrepressible smile. "

But is there discipline in the document," I argued back. "It's there, you have to look for it, but it is there," he said, smiling broadly."

We came very close to separation," said Southern Cone Archbishop Gregory Venables of this weekend's meeting of global Anglican leaders, "but Biblical doctrine and behavior have been affirmed as the norms in the Anglican Church," he told First Things magazine.

Anglicans in Tanzania - Nearing the End

As the Anglican Communion worldwide reaches the end of its meetings in Tanzania, it the collective wisdom of the Primates of the communion has been released in a communique. Conservatives who hoped that the Episcopal Church in the United States would face some sort of discipline for the blatant disregard of biblical and Anglican standards in the ordination of an openly homosexual bishop and the election of a pro-gay and revisionist female presiding Bishop, no such action seems to be coming.

The communique did make some key points that at least acknowledge the issues in a cursory way. The Windsor Report, an official document of the church which was supposed to have prevented the ordination of gays to the ministry was ingored by the Episcopal church. This is acknowledged.

"the standard of teaching which is presupposed in the Windsor Report and from which the primates have worked. This restates the traditional teaching of the Christian Church that 'in view of the teaching of Scripture, [the Conference] upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage'”

So it would appear to the casual reader that the Primates are acknowledging a universal standard. But later,

Anglicans in Tanzania

The Anglican Church worldwide is meeting in Tanzania. While not much has been said in most secular news outlets yet, religious news sources are waiting for potentially significant events to unfold. After three days, little has leaked out, except for the news that seven global south church leaders refused to share communion with ECUSA presiding Bishop Kathryn Jefforts Schiorri, over her continuation of her predecessor's endorsement of the ordination of openly homosexual bishop Gene Robinson.

Some Anglicans see this lack of overt fireworks thus far as a sign that nothing will come of this meeting. Perhaps the Orthodox numbers are too small to effect a disciplinary stance toward ECUSA. But the Global South Bishops are led by men who have faced longer odds and more significant pressures. Peter Akinola of Nigeria has dealt with violence and church burnings by Muslim radicals. Emmanuel Kolini has faced genocide in Rwanda. His colleague, John Rucyahana has as well.

Rucyahana has co-written a lengthy petition for retaining orthodoxy as part of the organization SPREAD, the "Society for the Propogation of Reformed Evangelical Anglican Doctrine". The petiton can be found here. It includes a clear statement about Biblical authority.

The claim that Scripture can be “legitimately” interpreted to permit the Church’s approval of same gender sexual relations requires the dismissal of said moral commandment and all the large, consistent and un-contradicted support therefore elsewhere in both the New and Old Testaments. Such dismissal is accomplished by a methodology that exaggerates and perverts the Scriptural doctrine of grace to “correct” whatever the interpreter regards as “repressive,” “immoral,” “legalistic” or “judgmental” in Scripture. The users of this methodology: (1) place Scripture against itself; (2) make God the author of error; and (3) elevate themselves above Scripture. This manner of interpretation must be dismissed out of hand for being in direct contradiction to: (1) the teaching of Jesus (Matthew 3:17-20); (2) the nature of Scripture as “God’s Word written;” and (3) the explicit teaching of the Articles of Religion (Articles VII, XX).

It is made very clear that the issue of homosexuality is the symptom, not the disease. Rather, the rejection of the authority of the text of scripture is what threatens Anglicanism. The petition divides the Anglican movement into three camps, the revisionists which it associates with Frank Griswold and Rowan Williams, the pragmatists, who don't explicitly approve of gay ordination but use unity arguments in a way that thwarts dealing with the issue, and the orthodox Anglicans, led by Akinola.

The revisionist wing tends to stall and encourage endless discussion to keep firm judgments at bay. The Spread Document quotes former Episcopal Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, who favors gay ordinations:

I think ... no action of General Convention and no action of the House of Bishops, is going to bring in the new age with respect to sexuality. The fact is that we are going to live the question, live the difference for the foreseeable future. And then the question is, as I said earlier: Do we do that in peace? Do we do that with respectfulness toward one another recognizing that there is integrity in a number of positions? No one has the corner on the truth in this area.”(Id.).

Note the tactic. Make no decision - live with indecision because.. no one knows the truth. The Spread petition comments:

Griswold thus states that the only way the (orthodox) Anglican group can remain in communion with the revisionist and traditionalist/pragmatist groups is for the Anglican group to give up the belief that Scripture has a monopoly on the truth in matters of faith and practice.

And to further the point that gay unions and ordinations are the tip of the iceberg, the petition itemizes the ways in which a weakened view of scripture has polluted Anglicanism in the west with other unChristian viewpoints:

Having disposed of Scripture in order to open the way for their churches’ approval of same gender sexual relations, the proponents thereof have also opened the way for the denial of every tenet of the Anglican Faith and every imaginable kind of teaching in place thereof.
Primates, bishops, priests, and seminary professors of Western churches variously: (a) deny, inter alia, the need for faith in Christ for salvation, the resurrection of Christ, and the Atonement; (b) describe the Trinity as a “homophilial/homoerotic image of relations
between males;” (c) use revised creeds; (d) rewrite the Lord’s Prayer; (e) pray to “Sophia God;” (f) approve of non-Christian paths for salvation; (g) promote a new world religion in place of Christianity; and (h) telecast a “New Image of God” around the world. Gnosticism is embraced. Druid, new age, pagan, Hindu and Buddhist gods and goddesses are worshipped. What is happening is what Cranmer prophetically feared when he said “if there were any word of God beside the Scripture, we could never be certain of God’s Word; and if we be uncertain of God’s Word, the devil might bring in among us a new word, a new doctrine, a new faith, a new Church, a new god, yea himself to be a god.”

So on the eve of the Tanzania gathering, SPREAD quietly published a more comprehensive view of things. At issue in particular, with Global South conservatives, is the trustworthiness of Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, in supporting the cause of biblical orthodoxy. Williams has long been known to be sympathetic to the gay cause, but recently has made statements that might indicate a more conservative leaning. Thus a 150 page document "Rowan Williams and Scripture: A Review of the Archbishop ofCanterbury Rowan Williams’s Teachings and Use of His PowersConcerning the Authority of Scripture" seeks to clearly publish three decades of Williams unequivocal support for revisionist teaching.

For example, in 'Open to Judgement" a 1994 publication of his sermons and musings,
"Williams dismisses Scripture as a reliable source for discerning “the mind of God.” Williams contends therein that we should not read Scripture with “a kind of blind and thoughtless obedience to every word of scripture as if it simply represented the mind of God.” Williams then asserts that the reason we should not do so is that the “writers of scripture” were “caught up in the blazing fire of God’s gift yet struggled with it, misapprehend[ed] it, and misread it.” In short, Williams says we cannot rely on Scripture because the writers thereof did not correctly discern “the mind of God.”

There is far too much to summarize regarding Williams open support of revisionist readings of scripture and endorsement of gay causes. The document cites numerous pro-gay books for which Williams wrote "laudatory reviews, forwards, or endorsements", such as:

Just Good Friends: Towards a Lesbian and Gay Theology of Relationships (1996); ‘The Other Way’? Anglican Gay and Lesbian Journeys (1998); Seeking the Truth in Love: The Church and Homosexuality (2000); Faith Beyond Resentment: Fragments Catholic and Gay (2001); Theology and Sexuality: Classic and Contemporary Readings (2002); and Good As New: A Radical Retelling of the Scriptures (2004, 2005).

To be more specific, the last entry, Good As New:

was written by John C. Henson, whose website states that he is “A member of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement from its early days” and “for many years he assisted the movement as the contact person for the South Wales group and as counsellor.” Williams’s endorsement of the book appears on its cover as: “‘A presentation of extraordinary power’ Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury.” In his forward to the book, Williams in effect urges the 77 million members of the Anglican Communion to read the book when he says that it should “spread in epidemic profusion,” as follows: [Henson’s] work is for a large part of the ‘religious’ reading public a well-kept secret; I hope that this book will help the secret to be shared and to spread in epidemic profusion to religious and irreligious alike.

In Good As New, Henson, among other things: (a) includes the “Gospel of Thomas;” (b) omits Revelation and seven other books of the New Testament; (c) eliminates the masculinity of God the Father and God the Son and makes the Holy Spirit feminine; (d) treats the temptation of Christ as a solely human event without any mention of Satan; (e) eliminates the existence of demons; (f) asserts Jesus said we should not search for the narrow way any more than we should look for sawdust in the eyes of others; (g) rewrites passages of the book of Romans concerning same gender sexual relations to make no mention thereof, and says in a footnote that the standard versions of “these verses have been shamefully used as a basis for the discomforting of those with a same-sex orientation;” (h) describes the conditions for appropriate committed same-sex relationships or partnerships; (i) says that Paul rejects celibacy and instead advocates to not “go long without sex;” and (j) cites Paul as saying “my advice is for everyone to have a regular partner…if you know you have strong needs, get yourself a partner. Better than being frustrated.”

Williams' view of orthodoxy is made clear:

Orthodoxy is not a goal, a pattern of conformity to the mind of God revealed in the Scriptures. Rather, it is a tool, a process of breaking and remaking. Like the Bible, it is about method, not content. Certain and sure theological knowledge is for the fundamentalist who lacks critical self-awareness.


What will happen in Tanzania is not clear. That Bishop Rucyahana, with Bishop Charles Murphy have courageously published this well documented statement about Williams long held beliefs and writings is encouraging. I do not believe the Global South Bishops will back down from their orthodox and biblical principles. But whether they will have the numbers to force discipline on the western revisionists is another question. I suspect there will be a separation, a "walking apart" of some sort. The African bishops will not remain in communion with false and anti-Christian beliefs. This meeting should lead to some definitive drawing of lines.

I only hope that evangelicals in this country are watching. I see the same slow and subtle loss of scriptural authority through new and novel hermeneutics overtaking the thinkers and influential leaders of the larger evangelical movement. While the advocates of the new and novel insist they are not the same as old Liberals in the mainline, the epistemological commitment is similar and the approach to scripture is similar as well. Can the end result really be significantly different?

Scot McKnight on the Emerging Church - Part 3

Life is a bit hectic of late. But I feel compelled to make one more comment regarding Scot McKnight's Christianity Today article on the Emerging Church. Once again, I don't dislike what I know of McKnight and I am mildly sympathetic to the complaint that Emerging devotees should not all be painted as disciples of Brian McLaren.

But I am a little animated about what McKnight describes as the political leanings of those in the emerging trend, because it seems a misrepresentation of conservative evangelicals.

McKnight admits that the EC movement leans left, mostly out of reaction against the so-called religious right. He, in fact says that one of the five marks of the EC is that it is a political movement. I find this curious. My understanding is that one of the things EC folk hate about the direction of my generation's evangelicalism is that the religious right has “politicized” the faith. Why then is it OK for EC, which he says leans left, to be political, but not for the traditional evangelicals who lean right to be political? But to be specific, Scot writes:

Tony Jones is regularly told that the emerging movement is a latte-drinking, backpack-lugging, Birkenstock-wearing group of 21st-century, left-wing, hippie wannabes. Put directly, they are Democrats.

Scot McKnight on the Emerging Church - Part 2

I've had more than a week to think through Scot McKnight's CT article on the Emerging Church. I don't wish to overreact, so some time is good. Nevertheless, I can't help but feel he is fairly comfortable with key elements of EC I find fairly troubling.

Scot McKnight calls the EC movement “one of the most controversial and misunderstood movements today.” This is a common complaint from Emerging Church (EC) folk – that they are misrepresented and misunderstood.

I have a problem with that. Because EC leaders are so reluctant to say what they unequivocally believe in, it is inevitable that EC will be misunderstood. As Scot McKnight said in the article, “the emerging movement loves ideas and theology. It just doesn't have an airtight system or statement of faith”.

Not having an airtight system is one thing. No one does. Not having a statement of faith is another. It sends a signal that nothing is settled, it arouses fears that all doctrines, even essential ones, are open for “discussion” and possibly redefinition. There is not a chance such a position will avoid criticism. Particularly when key leaders of the movement make highly controversial statements.