The Washington Times today reports that openly gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson wants to be one of the first in New Hampshire to marry his gay partner. So after the consensus of Global Anglican bishops was that the Episcopal Church should toe the orthodox line on gay issues, this is yet another outrageous and defiant slap in the face to orthodoxy. Meanwhile the NY Times reports that presiding bishopress Katherine Jefforts Schiori is upset that Othodox Nigerian Bishop Peter Akinola is about to consecrate Martin Minns as a bishop here, crossing "boundary" lines. Predictably she considers crossing territorial lines more divisive than biblical morality. She protects her turf, but not the truth.
Musings about Mere Christianity and its place in culture, with a hope to advance what has been believed "always, everywhere and by all".
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Like a Spong...
Jason Lee Steorts has a nice review of retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spongs latest book, Jesus for the Non-Religious. The main thesis of the review is that Spong's religion fails to answer the basic question of whether it is a religion that is good for anything at all. Spong does the usual song and dance about the "story" of Jesus being a major embellishment based on Jewish folklore, that none of the supernatural events in scripture actually occurred, but somehow in this Jesus who is misrepresented in the biblical texts, we can encounter something like a god.
"'As a Christian,' Spong explains, 'I live inside a faith system which, at its core, asserts that in the life of this Jesus, that which we call God has been met, encountered and engaged.'”
This has always been curious to me. If the gospels are so full of legend and embellishment, how do we know enough about Jesus to "encounter" or "engage" him. Doesn't seem to worry Bishop Spong. Why? Because not only is Jesus unintelligible, God is beyond understanding as well.
"'As a Christian,' Spong explains, 'I live inside a faith system which, at its core, asserts that in the life of this Jesus, that which we call God has been met, encountered and engaged.'”
This has always been curious to me. If the gospels are so full of legend and embellishment, how do we know enough about Jesus to "encounter" or "engage" him. Doesn't seem to worry Bishop Spong. Why? Because not only is Jesus unintelligible, God is beyond understanding as well.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Partial Birth Abortion Reactions - Predictably Strident
So the Supreme Court today upheld a ban on partial birth abortions. This is a bit of good news for pro-life folks. Republican Presidential candidates were quick to comment in a positive way.
Mitt Romney: “Today, our nation’s highest court reaffirmed the value of life in America by upholding a ban on a practice that offends basic human decency...This decision represents a step forward in protecting the weakest and most innocent among us.”
Rudy Guliani: “The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion...I agree with it.”
John McCain: "I'm very happy about the decision given my position on abortion. Partial birth is one of the most odious aspects of abortion."
Compelling was the concurring opinion by Clarence Thomas, short and to the point.
"I join the Court's opinion because it accurately applies current jurisprudence, including Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992). I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court's abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution." At least someone on the bench has a firm grasp of the obvious!
Mitt Romney: “Today, our nation’s highest court reaffirmed the value of life in America by upholding a ban on a practice that offends basic human decency...This decision represents a step forward in protecting the weakest and most innocent among us.”
Rudy Guliani: “The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion...I agree with it.”
John McCain: "I'm very happy about the decision given my position on abortion. Partial birth is one of the most odious aspects of abortion."
Compelling was the concurring opinion by Clarence Thomas, short and to the point.
"I join the Court's opinion because it accurately applies current jurisprudence, including Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992). I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court's abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution." At least someone on the bench has a firm grasp of the obvious!
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
What is a Pastor?
Here's an ecclesiological question. There is only one reference that I know of in scripture to pastors. I'm sure there may be other references that use a form of the word, but the only real solid one is Ephesians 4:11: And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers. It could be argued that this is a list of gifts, not a list of offices, but one could argue the opposite as well.
The role of "pastor" is never defined in scripture. There is no list of qualifications. Yet the term "Pastor" in evangelical circles has become synonymous with the focus of leadership in the local church. The "pastor" is the "shepherd" in a real sense, but evangelicals have laid the major burden of church leadership on a title that is used once, is largely undefined and which includes no explicit spiritual qualifications. Why?
The role of "pastor" is never defined in scripture. There is no list of qualifications. Yet the term "Pastor" in evangelical circles has become synonymous with the focus of leadership in the local church. The "pastor" is the "shepherd" in a real sense, but evangelicals have laid the major burden of church leadership on a title that is used once, is largely undefined and which includes no explicit spiritual qualifications. Why?
Saturday, April 14, 2007
The Trojan Horse from Tanzania
Two weeks ago, I witnessed the commissioning of Anglican "catechists", an office used extensively in Africa to further the work of the church in places where the number of pastor/priests is insufficient for the number of believers. The vow the catechists were required to take included the responsibility to drive away all false doctrine.
In fact, the Ordination vow from the 1662 Anglican tradition explcitly says that church leaders must "with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God's Word; and both privately and openly to call upon others to do the same." Anglicanism was once wholly committed to biblical doctrine and orthodox protestant could fully affirm.
I posted recently about the conference in Tanzania, here, here, here, and here, where the global Anglican church seemingly held the feet of the Episcopal Church to the fire, the church that has replaced the Gospel with UN Goals and openly ordained the first openly gay bishop. Many hailed this event as the beginning of the end for the TEC, and a path to victory for orthodoxy in the Anglican church.
Now VOL reports that The Society for the Propagation of Reformed Evangelical Anglican Doctrine (SPREAD) suggests that the Tanzania event, upon a careful analysis of the language, is in fact a path to further erosion of the orthodox faith within Anglicanism.
In fact, the Ordination vow from the 1662 Anglican tradition explcitly says that church leaders must "with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God's Word; and both privately and openly to call upon others to do the same." Anglicanism was once wholly committed to biblical doctrine and orthodox protestant could fully affirm.
I posted recently about the conference in Tanzania, here, here, here, and here, where the global Anglican church seemingly held the feet of the Episcopal Church to the fire, the church that has replaced the Gospel with UN Goals and openly ordained the first openly gay bishop. Many hailed this event as the beginning of the end for the TEC, and a path to victory for orthodoxy in the Anglican church.
Now VOL reports that The Society for the Propagation of Reformed Evangelical Anglican Doctrine (SPREAD) suggests that the Tanzania event, upon a careful analysis of the language, is in fact a path to further erosion of the orthodox faith within Anglicanism.
A Closing Comment Regarding Calvinism
Blogging can be therapeutic. Over a period of several months I have had a chance to jot down thoughts on why Calvinism was first of all something nobody bothered to tell me about in my younger days as an evangelical, like an iceberg with just a bit of shape above the water and a massive edifice below the surface. I described how a fuller understanding of absolute sovereignty became a rude awakening in my short seminary stint, one that nearly crushed my spirit and faith, as if I had just discovered that Darth Vader was my father. I described some philosophical reasons why arguments in favor of absolute sovereignty seemed contrived and dealt with a couple of key Biblical passages that seem to support it. In all, it felt good.
But the time has come to take a step back. For all my frustrations with the way Calvinists understand sovereignty and free will, no universal church council has condemned them. Sure the Council of Orange says some Calvinist sounding things, stopping just short of the all out victory of predestination over free will. The Roman Catholic Council of Trent was not particularly kind to Luther and Calvin's views on sovereignty and grace, but only Catholics would find that council to be binding.
In short, the debate over how free will fits with God's sovereign hand in the past, present and future is a family squabble. As much as some Calvinists have insisted that Arminians and Catholics are "semi-pelagian" heretics, most have been unable to completely cut defenders of free-will theism out of the family picture. And as strongly as Arminians argue against a sovereignty that redefines or excludes free-will, most readily admit Calvinists are otherwise orthodox.
But the time has come to take a step back. For all my frustrations with the way Calvinists understand sovereignty and free will, no universal church council has condemned them. Sure the Council of Orange says some Calvinist sounding things, stopping just short of the all out victory of predestination over free will. The Roman Catholic Council of Trent was not particularly kind to Luther and Calvin's views on sovereignty and grace, but only Catholics would find that council to be binding.
In short, the debate over how free will fits with God's sovereign hand in the past, present and future is a family squabble. As much as some Calvinists have insisted that Arminians and Catholics are "semi-pelagian" heretics, most have been unable to completely cut defenders of free-will theism out of the family picture. And as strongly as Arminians argue against a sovereignty that redefines or excludes free-will, most readily admit Calvinists are otherwise orthodox.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Why I am Not a Calvinist - Part 9
This will be my last argument on this topic. Then I'd acually like to say something nice about Calvinists...but for now, here goes...
When the debate over free-will and sovereignty is framed, as it usually is, in terms of the debate between Medieval Catholic emphasis on the priesthood, the sacrament, the miracle of transubstantiation and the power of the church against the Protestant emphasis on the grace of God, the Grace of God and the Grace of God, it is not hard to see why many protestants lean toward Calvin.
But what struck me as I started looking into the history of the early church, was how many early church fathers would seemingly have been very comfortable with the views of Arminius. The debate between Augustine and Pelagius again will find most humble readers of scripture side with Augustine. But Augustine was fighting that battle in the 4th century. Much history and theology existed prior to that skirmish.
For this, my next to last venture into this question, I mainly want to quote a number of voices of the early church.
When the debate over free-will and sovereignty is framed, as it usually is, in terms of the debate between Medieval Catholic emphasis on the priesthood, the sacrament, the miracle of transubstantiation and the power of the church against the Protestant emphasis on the grace of God, the Grace of God and the Grace of God, it is not hard to see why many protestants lean toward Calvin.
But what struck me as I started looking into the history of the early church, was how many early church fathers would seemingly have been very comfortable with the views of Arminius. The debate between Augustine and Pelagius again will find most humble readers of scripture side with Augustine. But Augustine was fighting that battle in the 4th century. Much history and theology existed prior to that skirmish.
For this, my next to last venture into this question, I mainly want to quote a number of voices of the early church.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)