Debates Worth Reading

I have liked many of the things Christopher Hitchens has written over the past couple of years. He is articulate, witty, fearless and you know what you are reading is exactly what he thinks. His defense of the war in Iraq and scathing critique of Michael Moore are both a treat to read.

Now he has written God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. He seems to have taken on all religion, including Islamo-fascism and Christianity. Ordinarily I would be rather disappointed and leave it at that, but for the debate Christianity Today hooked up between Hitchens and Douglas Wilson, author of Letter from a Christian Citizen. What strikes me about this debate is how literate both participants are, how forthright, how much fun they seem to be having. Neither pulls any punches. They blast each other regularly, but with delightful prose. I think Wilson does a very good job of holding Hitchen's feet to the fire on the basic question of whether morality is even a legitimate term to use if there is no higher purpose in the universe.

Just read the whole thing. Part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4 and part 5.

And then, when that is all done, read the response to Hitchens' book by his brother Peter here. More great reading.

Frank Schaeffer - Over the Cliff...

Frank Schaeffer. What in the world happened to this man? The son of Francis Schaeffer, a voice that stirred a generation, seems to have completely cut all ties to his father.

There may be a few good reasons, at the risk of trying to psychoanalyze someone I don't know. He was raised in a home that had the influences of 1950s fundamentalist behavior codes, which is true of most anyone born in the 1950s. He was sent off to boarding school while his father's fame and influence took off. Francis is known to have had a temper.

On the other hand, the rigid fundamentalist tag seems a difficult one to make stick. No one, twenty to thirty years ago was more in favor of engaging the culture than Francis Schaeffer. Few were as critical of legalistic insistence on unbiblical absolutes, of being "absolutist about everything". Few were more supportive of Christian involvement in the arts, in simple citizenship, in the full spectrum of living a life as if all things were God given gifts. All the things Franky accuses fundamentalists of depriving him of, his father supported. Odd.

Maybe the Last Straw...

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.

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.

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!

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 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.