Interesting little post at the Anglican site Virtue Online about the filioque clause in the Nicene Creed. For those unfamiliar, the filioque controversy surrounds a single phrase in the Nicene Creed. In the original version of the Creed, the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father". But at the council of Toledo in 589, the phrase was added that in English is translated "...and the Son", meaning that in some sense the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
The issues are two: Does the Holy Spirit originate from the Son? Is the existence of the Holy Spirit contingent on the Son? (I'm not sure most who use the latter version of the Creed would assert that).
Showing posts with label Anglicanism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anglicanism. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Saturday, October 18, 2008
What Went Wrong...
My last post, some weeks ago, lamented the end of a journey. I have been able to give some thought to that journey and have reached a few conclusions.
Several years ago, I started down a path inspired by Tom Oden's "Rebirth of Orthodoxy". I may have misunderstood a bit of what he was saying in that book, but here is what I thought was the central thesis:
The "God-breathed" scriptures are alone the final authority by virtue of their inspiration, but the history of orthodoxy is the history of exegesis, and as such is a path toward greater Christian unity.
As I understood Oden, tradition has great value as a guide to the interpretation of scripture, but scripture remains the objective source of Christian truth. Whatever authority is given to tradition is secondary and derivitive and must be rooted in the Biblical text.
I saw in the Anglican doctrinal statement, the 39 Articles of Religion, a beautiful balance of absolute commitment to scripture as the final authority with respect for the history of how the church has understood scripture. Traditon, if one reads the articles in a normative fashion, is never allowed to assert as "necessary for salvation" anything that is outside the limiting boundaries of the Biblical text. This is why I chose one particular path and rejected others. I was never quite willing to reconsider Rome or follow other evangelicals to Eastern Orthodoxy because my evangelical commitment to the authority of scripture would not allow it, no matter how much I respected aspects of the early church that seemed compatible with either. For both Catholics and Orthodox, tradition plays a role that in some way subordinates the written Biblical text. The 39 Articles clearly insisted that whatever role the creeds, the liturgy and tradition may play, the source and limit is always the writte Word.
But the Anglo-Catholic influences, present in Anglicanism since the Reformation and increasingly prevalent since the days of the Tractarian movement, seems to have introduced an understanding of the role of tradition that goes "beyond what is written". Nineteenth century polemicists like J.C. Ryle were harshly critical of the "ritualism" introduced by Pusey, Newman and others, practices which had a place in the history of Christianity, but did not have a clear warrant in the text of scripture. The use of vestments, candles, incense, particular arrangement of church furniture all came under scrutiny as the excesses of the "traditions of men".
Several years ago, I started down a path inspired by Tom Oden's "Rebirth of Orthodoxy". I may have misunderstood a bit of what he was saying in that book, but here is what I thought was the central thesis:
The "God-breathed" scriptures are alone the final authority by virtue of their inspiration, but the history of orthodoxy is the history of exegesis, and as such is a path toward greater Christian unity.
As I understood Oden, tradition has great value as a guide to the interpretation of scripture, but scripture remains the objective source of Christian truth. Whatever authority is given to tradition is secondary and derivitive and must be rooted in the Biblical text.
I saw in the Anglican doctrinal statement, the 39 Articles of Religion, a beautiful balance of absolute commitment to scripture as the final authority with respect for the history of how the church has understood scripture. Traditon, if one reads the articles in a normative fashion, is never allowed to assert as "necessary for salvation" anything that is outside the limiting boundaries of the Biblical text. This is why I chose one particular path and rejected others. I was never quite willing to reconsider Rome or follow other evangelicals to Eastern Orthodoxy because my evangelical commitment to the authority of scripture would not allow it, no matter how much I respected aspects of the early church that seemed compatible with either. For both Catholics and Orthodox, tradition plays a role that in some way subordinates the written Biblical text. The 39 Articles clearly insisted that whatever role the creeds, the liturgy and tradition may play, the source and limit is always the writte Word.
But the Anglo-Catholic influences, present in Anglicanism since the Reformation and increasingly prevalent since the days of the Tractarian movement, seems to have introduced an understanding of the role of tradition that goes "beyond what is written". Nineteenth century polemicists like J.C. Ryle were harshly critical of the "ritualism" introduced by Pusey, Newman and others, practices which had a place in the history of Christianity, but did not have a clear warrant in the text of scripture. The use of vestments, candles, incense, particular arrangement of church furniture all came under scrutiny as the excesses of the "traditions of men".
Saturday, March 08, 2008
The Three Faces of Anglicanism - The Revisionists
I have been trying my darndest to figure out what best describes the essentials of Anglicanism. I fear, from time to time, that what defines Anglicanism is the notion of "peace at all costs". Unity at the expense of truth. As a result there appear to me to be three almost entirely incompatable belief systems in the Church of England and its daughter organizations that somehow coexist organically, but present a confusing picture to the world.
I have written before about the "revisionist" wing of the Anglican Communion. I won't rehearse it all here, instead, just a few notes on the historical development, with a bit more focus on the 39 Articles.
JI Packer speaks of the 39 Articles in these terms. They come to the Anglican church:
"... as prior judgements, time-honoured judgements, on specific issues relating to the faith of Christ, as set forth in the Scriptures. They come to us as corporate decisions first made by the Church centuries ago, and now confirmed and commended to us by the corroborative testimony of all later generations that have accepted them, down to our time.... It is a prime obligation for Anglicans to take full account of the expository formulations to which our Church has bound itself; and to ignore them, as if we were certain that the Spirit of God had no hand in them, is no more warrantable than to treat them as divinely inspired and infallible."
This is the balance that ought to be applied to all doctrinal statements - not infallible, but not malleable. But in our pluralistic culture, where modernism and postmodernism have both managed to undercut all confidence in the existence of fixed truths and of a language that can communicate such truths, the Articles of Religion, like most other statements of religious belief, become quite flexible.
I have written before about the "revisionist" wing of the Anglican Communion. I won't rehearse it all here, instead, just a few notes on the historical development, with a bit more focus on the 39 Articles.
JI Packer speaks of the 39 Articles in these terms. They come to the Anglican church:
"... as prior judgements, time-honoured judgements, on specific issues relating to the faith of Christ, as set forth in the Scriptures. They come to us as corporate decisions first made by the Church centuries ago, and now confirmed and commended to us by the corroborative testimony of all later generations that have accepted them, down to our time.... It is a prime obligation for Anglicans to take full account of the expository formulations to which our Church has bound itself; and to ignore them, as if we were certain that the Spirit of God had no hand in them, is no more warrantable than to treat them as divinely inspired and infallible."
This is the balance that ought to be applied to all doctrinal statements - not infallible, but not malleable. But in our pluralistic culture, where modernism and postmodernism have both managed to undercut all confidence in the existence of fixed truths and of a language that can communicate such truths, the Articles of Religion, like most other statements of religious belief, become quite flexible.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
The Three Faces of Anglicanism - The Anglo-Catholics
I was raised Catholic. I spent most of my life in free-church congregational churches. Two years ago I cautiously waded into Anglican waters. It made sense to find a "middle ground", one that respected the history of the church and the history of Biblical interpretation for all of 20 centuries. It did not make sense to me to cross the Tiber to Rome, or to embrace the eastern church, simply because the Great Tradition seemed to me to add external things to the Biblical testimony and seemed to force interpretations on the text that could not be supported except through appeal to some mystical inside knowledge and unique revelatory authority granted to the church hierarchy.
As a layman, one who was seeking connection with the early church and who after months of thinking, praying and research into doctrine, I settled on the 39 Articles as a worthy balance between Biblical, Evangelical faith and historic worship and polity. I was fully aware of the liberal slant of the Episcopal church, but was also heartened to find a few Anglican groups who claimed to combine history, biblical authority and the power of the spirit into one Biblical and Evangelical movement. Anglo-Catholicism was not part of my research, but I assumed that the 39 Articles held sway even in those circles. So I must admit a certain degree of shock upon reading the following from the Anglican Missal
"I confess to God Almighty, to Blessed Mary Ever-Virgin, to blessed Michael the Archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, to all the Saints, and to thee, Father, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word and deed, by my fault, by my own fault, by my own most grievous fault. Wherefore I beg blessed Mary Ever-Virgin, blessed Michael the Archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, all the Saints, and thee, father, to pray for me to the Lord our God."
How did a prayer to Michael the Archangel, Mary and apostolic saints appear in a worship liturgy if the 39 Articles specifically proscribed prayers to saints?
As a layman, one who was seeking connection with the early church and who after months of thinking, praying and research into doctrine, I settled on the 39 Articles as a worthy balance between Biblical, Evangelical faith and historic worship and polity. I was fully aware of the liberal slant of the Episcopal church, but was also heartened to find a few Anglican groups who claimed to combine history, biblical authority and the power of the spirit into one Biblical and Evangelical movement. Anglo-Catholicism was not part of my research, but I assumed that the 39 Articles held sway even in those circles. So I must admit a certain degree of shock upon reading the following from the Anglican Missal
"I confess to God Almighty, to Blessed Mary Ever-Virgin, to blessed Michael the Archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, to all the Saints, and to thee, Father, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word and deed, by my fault, by my own fault, by my own most grievous fault. Wherefore I beg blessed Mary Ever-Virgin, blessed Michael the Archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, all the Saints, and thee, father, to pray for me to the Lord our God."
How did a prayer to Michael the Archangel, Mary and apostolic saints appear in a worship liturgy if the 39 Articles specifically proscribed prayers to saints?
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
The Three Faces of Anglicanism - The Evangelicals
To understand the “evangelical face” of Anglicanism, one first needs a bit of history of the Anglican church to put things in context.
It is commonly believed that Henry VIII broke from the Roman church over a marriage, but the issue was a bit deeper than that. Henry’s main issue was whether the Pope should have power over the needs of the English State, particularly his own need of an heir to the Royal throne. In the 16th century, both Popes and Kings held secular and sacred authority. Henry's intent was to free the English Church from Papal rule. He sought out bishops who would side with him to annul a barren marriage and declared, in essence, that the English Church was simply put, English.
But Henry’s doctrine remained decidedly Catholic. In his “Six Articles”, he fully affirmed such Catholic doctrines as Transubstantiation, Communion in one kind, clerical celibacy, and auricular confession.
The cleric who Henry chose to lead his English church was Thomas Cranmer. Cranmer became quite familiar with the Reformation in Europe and his doctrine was very much influenced by the Reformers. Cranmer proceeded to create a liturgy and a prayer book for England, in the native tongue. To do so, he borrowed from what he felt were the best liturgies of previous centuries, but he took pains to remove, over time, many of the elements of those liturgies that echoed the concerns of the Reformers. Eventually, a few central points of doctrine were summarized in what is now known as the 39 Articles of Religion.
It is commonly believed that Henry VIII broke from the Roman church over a marriage, but the issue was a bit deeper than that. Henry’s main issue was whether the Pope should have power over the needs of the English State, particularly his own need of an heir to the Royal throne. In the 16th century, both Popes and Kings held secular and sacred authority. Henry's intent was to free the English Church from Papal rule. He sought out bishops who would side with him to annul a barren marriage and declared, in essence, that the English Church was simply put, English.
But Henry’s doctrine remained decidedly Catholic. In his “Six Articles”, he fully affirmed such Catholic doctrines as Transubstantiation, Communion in one kind, clerical celibacy, and auricular confession.
The cleric who Henry chose to lead his English church was Thomas Cranmer. Cranmer became quite familiar with the Reformation in Europe and his doctrine was very much influenced by the Reformers. Cranmer proceeded to create a liturgy and a prayer book for England, in the native tongue. To do so, he borrowed from what he felt were the best liturgies of previous centuries, but he took pains to remove, over time, many of the elements of those liturgies that echoed the concerns of the Reformers. Eventually, a few central points of doctrine were summarized in what is now known as the 39 Articles of Religion.
The Three Faces of Anglicanism
I have been swimming in Anglican waters for approximately two and a half years. In the course of that time I have been keenly aware of the divide that exists between the conservative and orthodox as opposed to the progressive and liberal wing. This divide is vividly being played out as conservative Anglicans leave the Episcopal church in the United States and seek refuge from conservative bishops in the global south.
But what I was not fully aware of is a divide that lurks beneath the surface, hidden by the more pressing matter of essential orthodoxy and moral heresy. I am coming to understand that Anglicanism consists of three distinct groupings, and I will do my best to describe them here.
But what I was not fully aware of is a divide that lurks beneath the surface, hidden by the more pressing matter of essential orthodoxy and moral heresy. I am coming to understand that Anglicanism consists of three distinct groupings, and I will do my best to describe them here.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Peter Akinola at Wheaton
I had the unusual privelege of hearing Archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, speaking to a group of Orthodox Anglicans at Wheaton College. This meeting was in the news for a couple of reasons. For one, the meeting stands in contrast to the meetings held in New Orleans, during which the Episcopal Church has once again failed to even adequately address the call of the majority of the Anglican Communion to repent of the blessing of same sex unions and the consecration of an openly gay Bishop.
Akinola heads the largest province in all of Anglicanism, and is an outspoken opponent of the agenda of the Episcopal church on this issue. That has made him an enemy of many and there were a handful of picketers, as promised, outside Edman Chapel on campus.
But like most of the Orthodox Anglicans, his focus is not on the symptom but the cause. A brief summary of his key points will follow.
This meeting was about unity, as representatives from many different churches in Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana and Minnesota were present. Africans, midwestern Americans and Spanish speaking churches were present. Those churches represented different groups whose leadership, at present, comes from places like Nigeria and Rwanda, groups which critics say could further fragment the communion if they do not come together after the dust settles from the September 30 deadline for the Episcopal church to comply with the demands of the rest of the communion. The fear is that if the TEC fails to repent, which is almost certain, that various Anglican groups will split into many different directions, with various Global South leaders setting up different missionary structures in the US that will end up in competition.
To that end, Akinola said things like this:
Akinola heads the largest province in all of Anglicanism, and is an outspoken opponent of the agenda of the Episcopal church on this issue. That has made him an enemy of many and there were a handful of picketers, as promised, outside Edman Chapel on campus.
But like most of the Orthodox Anglicans, his focus is not on the symptom but the cause. A brief summary of his key points will follow.
This meeting was about unity, as representatives from many different churches in Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana and Minnesota were present. Africans, midwestern Americans and Spanish speaking churches were present. Those churches represented different groups whose leadership, at present, comes from places like Nigeria and Rwanda, groups which critics say could further fragment the communion if they do not come together after the dust settles from the September 30 deadline for the Episcopal church to comply with the demands of the rest of the communion. The fear is that if the TEC fails to repent, which is almost certain, that various Anglican groups will split into many different directions, with various Global South leaders setting up different missionary structures in the US that will end up in competition.
To that end, Akinola said things like this:
Monday, July 16, 2007
What is an Anglican?
Anglican Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi has written an excellent article published in FirstThings about the meaning of Anglicanism. It should be read in its entiretly, but a couple of highlights...
For the Ugandan church to compromise God’s call of obedience to the Scriptures would be the undoing of more than 125 years of Christianity through which African life and society have been transformed. Traditional African society was solely an oral culture, which limited its ability to share ideas beyond the family level. We couldn’t write our language, and there was nothing to read in our language. The first converts in Uganda were called “readers” because they could read the Bible, the first book available in our own languages. Because of the Bible, our languages have been enriched and recorded. For the first time, we heard God in our own languages. To this day, our people bring their Bibles to church and follow along with the readings.
He then gives several examples of that transformation, from bringing peace to warring tribes to bringing respect and dignity to women to virtually making a unified Ugandan society possible. This is not a "spiritual" transformation, if by "spiritual" we mean of the mind or heart. This is real transformation of living breathing human beings in a society. And it is based on a fairly straightforward reading of the text of the Bible.
For the Ugandan church to compromise God’s call of obedience to the Scriptures would be the undoing of more than 125 years of Christianity through which African life and society have been transformed. Traditional African society was solely an oral culture, which limited its ability to share ideas beyond the family level. We couldn’t write our language, and there was nothing to read in our language. The first converts in Uganda were called “readers” because they could read the Bible, the first book available in our own languages. Because of the Bible, our languages have been enriched and recorded. For the first time, we heard God in our own languages. To this day, our people bring their Bibles to church and follow along with the readings.
He then gives several examples of that transformation, from bringing peace to warring tribes to bringing respect and dignity to women to virtually making a unified Ugandan society possible. This is not a "spiritual" transformation, if by "spiritual" we mean of the mind or heart. This is real transformation of living breathing human beings in a society. And it is based on a fairly straightforward reading of the text of the Bible.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Monday, March 26, 2007
The Continuing Anglican Crisis and the Escalation of the Evangelical Crisis
Hard to know what will be the future of Anglicanism. I follow the news from time to time on VirtueOnline and Global South Anglican websites.
For those who don't know the history, in 2004 the Windsor Report was released in London, the result of ongoing issues related to the Episcopal Church's ordination of openly gay bishop V. Gene Robinson and the resulting "alternate oversight" orthodox bishops in the global south were giving to orthodox Anglicans who wished to not be associated with what they believed to be the last straw in a long history of heresy. The Windsor report recommended three small things. It suggeted there be a moratorium on consecrating new gay bishops, a moratorium on the blessing of same gender unions, and it also chastised bishops who crossed ecclesiastical boundaries and established parallel provinces. In practical effect, it solved nothing and extended the anguish.
But just a few weeks ago in Tanzania, the Episcopal Church was given something of an ultimatum, one which surprised many. In Dar Es Salaam, the Global Anglican communion embraced three key propositions with which the TEC must comply at risk of unspecified consequences. It put the focus on the radical novelties of the TEC and actually suggested that the alternate oversight provided by Global South Bishops was understandable, and should be halted only after some other alternative oversight was put in place on an interim basis. Tanzania insisted on:
For those who don't know the history, in 2004 the Windsor Report was released in London, the result of ongoing issues related to the Episcopal Church's ordination of openly gay bishop V. Gene Robinson and the resulting "alternate oversight" orthodox bishops in the global south were giving to orthodox Anglicans who wished to not be associated with what they believed to be the last straw in a long history of heresy. The Windsor report recommended three small things. It suggeted there be a moratorium on consecrating new gay bishops, a moratorium on the blessing of same gender unions, and it also chastised bishops who crossed ecclesiastical boundaries and established parallel provinces. In practical effect, it solved nothing and extended the anguish.
But just a few weeks ago in Tanzania, the Episcopal Church was given something of an ultimatum, one which surprised many. In Dar Es Salaam, the Global Anglican communion embraced three key propositions with which the TEC must comply at risk of unspecified consequences. It put the focus on the radical novelties of the TEC and actually suggested that the alternate oversight provided by Global South Bishops was understandable, and should be halted only after some other alternative oversight was put in place on an interim basis. Tanzania insisted on:
Thursday, February 22, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, February 19, 2007
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,
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,
Saturday, February 17, 2007
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?
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?
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"
Friday, June 30, 2006
Over the Edge
In all honesty, I have had a hard time knowing exactly what to think after the whirlwind events of the last couple of weeks in both the PCUSA and ECUSA conventions. I had expected the revisionists in the ECUSA to hold their ground. I did not expect them to stake out new territory. (Much reporting on the convention can be found at David Virtue's news site here.)
In the ECUSA, now simply “The Episcopal Church” or TEC for short, delegates were somewhat stunned at the election of Katharine Jefferts Schori, 52, bishop of Nevada, to the post of Presiding Bishop. Since most Anglican provinces do not ordain women as deacons or priests, much less bishops, this was hardly a conciliatory move to engender trust from other provinces – this was a defiant act of autonomy. On top of this, Schiori is on record as supportive of the consecration of Gene Robinson, the openly Gay Bishop of New Hampshire.
Incredibly, in the Episcopal convention, the House of Deputies voted down a resolution that affirmed Jesus Christ as the "only name by which any person may be saved” by a vote of 675 to 242. Apparently such exclusive language was politically incorrect.
In the ECUSA, now simply “The Episcopal Church” or TEC for short, delegates were somewhat stunned at the election of Katharine Jefferts Schori, 52, bishop of Nevada, to the post of Presiding Bishop. Since most Anglican provinces do not ordain women as deacons or priests, much less bishops, this was hardly a conciliatory move to engender trust from other provinces – this was a defiant act of autonomy. On top of this, Schiori is on record as supportive of the consecration of Gene Robinson, the openly Gay Bishop of New Hampshire.
Incredibly, in the Episcopal convention, the House of Deputies voted down a resolution that affirmed Jesus Christ as the "only name by which any person may be saved” by a vote of 675 to 242. Apparently such exclusive language was politically incorrect.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Tutu on Islam and Christianity
Two different sources on my regular morning reading list picked up on speeches by Anglican Archbishop and Nobel Prize winner Desmond Tutu at a UN conference in Qatar and a World Council of Churches conference in Brazil. One focused on Tutu’s “willful ignorance” in matters relating to the cartoon jihad over images of Mohammed printed in Denmark. The other focused more on the theological content of the address.
John Hinderaker at Powerline referred to Tuto as “the appalling Bishop Tutu” for taking a line of moral equivalence between the occasional vocalizations of Christians and Jews toward media types who hurl insults and the random killing and rioting in multiple countries over a handful of cartooons, killing of individuals who had nothing to do with those cartoons. He seems to think the Danish government had more to apologize for than murderous mobs. Tutu is quoted:
''Had relationships been different, one, the cartoons might not have happened, or if they had, they probably would have been handled differently...'Imagine if the subject had been the Holocaust and it had been treated in a way that the Jews had deemed offensive and the reaction of the Danish government and international community had been as it is now."
The writer correctly sees a horrifying foolishness in the very question:
"'Imagine'? 'Imagine'? Does Bishop Tutu really not know that this happens all the time? Is he unaware that Iran is, in fact, sponsoring a Holocaust cartoon contest, the reaction to which has been a big yawn? This is willful ignorance.
Tutu blundered further into historical silliness…
"He lamented the negative stereotyping of Muslims and wondered why North Ireland's Protestants and Catholics, the Oklahoma City bombers or even the Nazis had never been labeled ''Christian terrorists.'''
This brought the inevitable response from Hinderaker...
"Well, let me see if I can think of a few reasons. One, the Nazi leaders were atheists or pagans, not Christians. Two, none of the individuals cited purported to kill in the name of Christ or Christianity…Three, no Christian priests or ministers advocate murdering those of other faiths. That's "none," as in zero. Same with Jewish rabbis."
Tutu wants peace and "justice" at the expense of truth and reason…and that carries over from truth about the basic facts of what is happening in the news of the day to what is happening in the spiritual realm.
Parker Williamson reported on Tutu's speech to the WCC at Virtue Online
"The Rev. Desmond Tutu, archbishop and primate of Southern Africa, has weighed in with World Council of Churches leaders who seek to have the council transcend Christian boundaries. 'After all,' said Tutu, 'God is not a Christian.'"
One wonders what Tutu means. Do the words of Christ “No one comes to the Father but by me” have any objective meaning at all? Tutu goes on to embrace universalism further and more explicitly.
"Jesus, it appears, was quite serious when he said that God was our father and that we belonged all to one family, because in this family all, not some, are insiders. None is an outsider - black and white, yellow and red, rich and poor, educated and not educated, beautiful and not so beautiful, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, all belong, all are held in a divine embrace that will not let us go - all, for God has no enemies."
Is this the Jesus who cast the moneychangers out of the temple? Is this the Jesus who said it is better to be cast into the sea with a millstone around the neck than to lead a child astray?
More came at a later press conference…
"I have said that God is not a Christian," said Tutu. "Some people chewed me up for saying that, but I believe it. Some like to think that we Christians have the duty of protecting God. But I wish these people could meet the Dalai Lama. He is a holy person, incredible. We are the ones who keep trying to put limits on God, but God gives the incredible gift of grace."
Hey, the Dalai Lama may be a nice guy, but does that mean that the basics of Christian faith can be simply discarded?
"God is the God of all...We are too prone to excommunicate. God welcomes all of us. Today we Christians have moved a long way toward understanding that we don't have a corner on the God market. Once we said that all who are not Christians are pagans . We must do away with social apartheid in the world. Religion is like a knife. You can use it for cutting a sandwich or to kill."
I had always thought that the role of a “bishop” was to guard the deposit of faith as proclaimed by the apostles and documented in the scriptures. As I read the early church documents, it seems the role of the bishop is supposed to be essential to the church. It is easy to see why evangelicals are so skeptical of Episcopal structures when those in such lofty positions holding the title of "Bishop" can so easily and visibly proclaim a completely new vision of the world and the faith with impunity.
It was Tertullian, I believe who asked "Do we prove the faith by the man or the man by the faith?" This was a massive failure.
John Hinderaker at Powerline referred to Tuto as “the appalling Bishop Tutu” for taking a line of moral equivalence between the occasional vocalizations of Christians and Jews toward media types who hurl insults and the random killing and rioting in multiple countries over a handful of cartooons, killing of individuals who had nothing to do with those cartoons. He seems to think the Danish government had more to apologize for than murderous mobs. Tutu is quoted:
''Had relationships been different, one, the cartoons might not have happened, or if they had, they probably would have been handled differently...'Imagine if the subject had been the Holocaust and it had been treated in a way that the Jews had deemed offensive and the reaction of the Danish government and international community had been as it is now."
The writer correctly sees a horrifying foolishness in the very question:
"'Imagine'? 'Imagine'? Does Bishop Tutu really not know that this happens all the time? Is he unaware that Iran is, in fact, sponsoring a Holocaust cartoon contest, the reaction to which has been a big yawn? This is willful ignorance.
Tutu blundered further into historical silliness…
"He lamented the negative stereotyping of Muslims and wondered why North Ireland's Protestants and Catholics, the Oklahoma City bombers or even the Nazis had never been labeled ''Christian terrorists.'''
This brought the inevitable response from Hinderaker...
"Well, let me see if I can think of a few reasons. One, the Nazi leaders were atheists or pagans, not Christians. Two, none of the individuals cited purported to kill in the name of Christ or Christianity…Three, no Christian priests or ministers advocate murdering those of other faiths. That's "none," as in zero. Same with Jewish rabbis."
Tutu wants peace and "justice" at the expense of truth and reason…and that carries over from truth about the basic facts of what is happening in the news of the day to what is happening in the spiritual realm.
Parker Williamson reported on Tutu's speech to the WCC at Virtue Online
"The Rev. Desmond Tutu, archbishop and primate of Southern Africa, has weighed in with World Council of Churches leaders who seek to have the council transcend Christian boundaries. 'After all,' said Tutu, 'God is not a Christian.'"
One wonders what Tutu means. Do the words of Christ “No one comes to the Father but by me” have any objective meaning at all? Tutu goes on to embrace universalism further and more explicitly.
"Jesus, it appears, was quite serious when he said that God was our father and that we belonged all to one family, because in this family all, not some, are insiders. None is an outsider - black and white, yellow and red, rich and poor, educated and not educated, beautiful and not so beautiful, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, all belong, all are held in a divine embrace that will not let us go - all, for God has no enemies."
Is this the Jesus who cast the moneychangers out of the temple? Is this the Jesus who said it is better to be cast into the sea with a millstone around the neck than to lead a child astray?
More came at a later press conference…
"I have said that God is not a Christian," said Tutu. "Some people chewed me up for saying that, but I believe it. Some like to think that we Christians have the duty of protecting God. But I wish these people could meet the Dalai Lama. He is a holy person, incredible. We are the ones who keep trying to put limits on God, but God gives the incredible gift of grace."
Hey, the Dalai Lama may be a nice guy, but does that mean that the basics of Christian faith can be simply discarded?
"God is the God of all...We are too prone to excommunicate. God welcomes all of us. Today we Christians have moved a long way toward understanding that we don't have a corner on the God market. Once we said that all who are not Christians are pagans . We must do away with social apartheid in the world. Religion is like a knife. You can use it for cutting a sandwich or to kill."
I had always thought that the role of a “bishop” was to guard the deposit of faith as proclaimed by the apostles and documented in the scriptures. As I read the early church documents, it seems the role of the bishop is supposed to be essential to the church. It is easy to see why evangelicals are so skeptical of Episcopal structures when those in such lofty positions holding the title of "Bishop" can so easily and visibly proclaim a completely new vision of the world and the faith with impunity.
It was Tertullian, I believe who asked "Do we prove the faith by the man or the man by the faith?" This was a massive failure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)