Charismatic Lexicon - Part One

H/T to Team Pyro

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2012/08/charismatic-lexicon-part-one.html

Charismatic lexicon - Part One

by Dan Phillips

In the interests of communication and instruction, and because I'm here to help, I offer this lexicon. I'm calling it Part One because (A) I'm sure there'll be more, because (B) I'm pretty sure readers will supply some great stuff that (C) I will steal, publish here, and claim as my own.

First, then: the term as used by a Biblically-oriented Christian (BibC); then the Leaky Canon Charismatic equivalent (LC²). I paint, as I must, with a broad brush... but not that broad.

BibC: Culmination of millennia of revelation in a completed, wholly sufficient and closed Canon
LC²: Whatever. (Alternate: And then that happened...)

BibC: Feeling.
LC²: The Holy Spirit.

BibC: Hunch.
LC²: The Holy Spirit.

BibC: Silly passing thought.
LC²: The Holy Spirit.

BibC: Impulse, best to be rejected after a bit of wise and critical reflection.
LC: The Holy Spirit.

BibC: Testing by Scripture and rational examination.
LC²: Unbelief.

BibC: Walking in gracious, faith-driven obedience, which definitionally and consciously rests on the written Word alone.
LC²: Deism.


BibC: Living impulsively and irresponsibly, eschewing Biblical analysis and responsible decision-making, and blaming the whole mess on God.
LC²: Moving in the Spirit.


BibC: Undocumented anecdote allegedly done in a corner thousands of miles away and transmitted through the world's longest game of "telephone."
LC²: Proof that "the gifts" continue.

BibC: The undeniable absence of substantiated and globally-accepted claims to revelatory/attesting gifts among the Biblically orthodox from the first century until 1906.
LC²: "The man behind the curtain." (Alternate: "Look! A comet!")

BibC: The undeniable fact that modern instances of substantiated and globally-accepted claims to revelatory/attesting gifts among the Biblically orthodox depends on drastic reinterpretation of Scripture and playing fast and loose with the laws of evidence.
LC: (See above)

BibC: Prophecy is an explicitly Biblically-defined phenomenon in which God gives inerrant, binding, direct revelation to someone and assures that it is communicated as such. It is objectively verifiable.
LC²: Whatever you say it is. Except not verifiable or falsifiable.

BibC: Insisting on redefining the Biblical teaching about and descriptions of revelatory and attesting gifts so as to smuggle pale imitations into a time-frame some twenty centuries after their disappearance.
LC²: Non-negotiable essentials.

BibC: Affirming the all-over-the-Bible teaching of the sovereignty of God in salvation.
LC²: Totally negotiable, relatively minor.

...and one reverse:

LC²: A divine healing that undeniably proves all charismatic claims.
BibC: Answered prayer, God healing -- which all Christians have always confirmed and distinguished from the gift of healing.

Episcopal Watch: TEC Goes Where the Faithful Cannot

Man-Baby TEC Clerics

Another dreary story about theological liberals, yeah apostates, in the TEC.  Take-way for youths:  steer clear, read the Bible regularly, get a few good systematicians around you, and have recourse to the Reformed Confessions.  We can make book recomendations for inquirers.  The last three generations need to repent and apologize to the current generation. 

The liberal Dumb Asses, with leaders and their secularist herd, bray on. The braying is insufferable to the ears.  They are honking donkeys and can't hear their own cacophany.

Or, to switch the metaphor from Dumb Asses to Man-Babies.  Keep the baby bottles and diapers on hands for these retrograde whiners and opponents of classical Christendom.  If they were honourable, they'd surrender their collars and go off into la-la land to celebrate their un-Christian beliefs with whatever rituals they desire.  But, they choose to steal the name, "Christian."  They want to be lawless squatters claiming land that is not their own.  They are trespassers and interlopers.

A solid 12-step program is needed for theological liberals.  Principle 1 of the 12 steps:  "I am a forlorn, hopeless, stupid, blind, and ignorant theological liberal.  I am beyond help apart from God.  I've been in denial for decades having following too much the desires of my own depraved mind and heart..."  You get the idea. 

Attorney A.S. Haley offers his review.  The apostates go where the faithful cannot.  Haley gets it. Indeed. 

For Confessionalist reviewers, you get it.  We are sorry for the continuuing reports on the braying donkeys, honking donkeys, braying asses, but resistance and reportage is the order of the day. For the young, there are resources for learning, thinking, resolution, confirmation and affirmation of the faith. 

http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2012/07/ecusa-walks-apart-where-faithful-cannot.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AnglicanCurmudgeon+%28Anglican+Curmudgeon%29  

ECUSA Walks Apart, Where the Faithful Cannot Follow

In 2003, the Episcopal Church (USA) said to the majority of the Anglican Communion: "Goodbye -- it's been nice knowing you." The bishop whom ECUSA chose to confirm and consecrate, over the uniform objection of all the Anglican primates at the time, could not be admitted to the 2008 Lambeth Conference, or be licensed to preside at the eucharist in ECUSA's parent church, the Church of England. Likewise, he still cannot be welcomed as a bishop in twenty-two of the thirty-four provinces in the Anglican Communion (not counting the extra-provincial and united churches).

In 2006, the Episcopal Church (USA) said to the rest of the Anglican Communion: "We will urge our bishops and standing committees to 'exercise restraint' in confirming bishops who might upset you, but we cannot do any more than that. Nor can we be sorry if you were offended by our actions -- that is your problem." Some of the dioceses in ECUSA still were very piqued, and announced they would not elect or confirm any more bishops, straight or gay, until the voluntary "moratorium" requested of them by the Lambeth Commission was declared to be at an end.

By 2009, the Episcopal Church (USA) had abandoned any vestiges of its so-called "moratorium." Two more clergy in same-sex partnerships were elected as bishops, and despite a personal plea from the Archbishop of Canterbury, General Convention approved them for consecration. They, too, may not officiate in the Church of England, or in any of twenty-one other provinces of the Anglican Communion.

At the same time, ECUSA in 2009 decided (without advertising the fact in the least) to change the rules, and to make, starting in 2011, its diocesan bishops subject to the pastoral supervision and authority of the Presiding Bishop. When they learned what the new disciplinary canons purported to do, a number of dioceses, starting with the Diocese of South Carolina, refused to recognize General Convention's authority to change the rules without going through a formal amendment to the Church's Constitution.

In 2012, the Episcopal Church said to the Diocese of South Carolina: "Goodbye -- it's been nice knowing you." They adopted more changes to the rules, which they already knew that the Diocese of South Carolina could not, and would not, accept. Most of that Diocese's deputation to General Convention walked out of the gathering in Indianapolis, and its bishop, the Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence, informed the House of Bishops that he could not, in good conscience, remain in their company any longer.

The problem with ECUSA's actions over the past nine years is that it refuses to regard what it has done as in any way disruptive to the one, true, holy, catholic and apostolic church of Christ. It has asserted its power to annul and set aside the holy orders of bishops, priests and deacons who were each ordained, not into ECUSA particularly, but into that one catholic and apostolic church. And as if in retaliation for the fact that its gay and lesbian partnered bishops cannot be recognized by most of the other churches in the Communion, or invited to the Lambeth Conference, ECUSA has refused to allow clergy from other provinces to serve in its dioceses without their first renouncing their allegiance to the churches which licensed them, and then swearing a new oath of obedience solely to the "doctrine, discipline and worship" of the Episcopal Church (USA).

In sum, ECUSA has acted as though it was not in any shared relationships with the other provinces of the Anglican Communion. And recently, as pointed out above, it has begun to act as though it is no longer in any kind of shared relationship with its own member dioceses (except for those who agree with what it is doing internationally and domestically).

But to listen to those in ECUSA, it is the ones who reject its actions as unscriptural who have "departed from tradition," and certainly not ECUSA itself. Here is a dissident within Bishop Lawrence's Diocese of South Carolina who publicly puts the blame on him for the separation that has happened (my emphasis):

There are some who feel that the Episcopal Church has “left” the traditional church doctrines and polity. I am of the opinion that the leadership of this diocese over the past few decades has moved away from mainstream, traditional Episcopal doctrine and discipline.

For an Episcopalian to maintain such utter nonsense is to show plainly how far removed from reality are those who are in charge of the Church, as well as all those who support the leadership's non-scriptural agenda. Oh, to be sure, they go through the motions of claiming that they are the only ones who are properly interpreting scripture, according to today's understanding of God's holy words, and they deck out their contentions with pseudo-scholarship and citations to pseudo-authority. But in the final analysis, all of what they are pleased to call "theology" comes down to this: "We know better than the rest of the church catholic. We understand the Holy Scriptures far better than those antiquated and hidebound church fathers ever did, or could have -- and the Holy Spirit is guiding us, not you."

Whatever could motivate a churchgoing and God-fearing Christian to jettison two thousand five hundred years of theology and orthodoxy in such an obstinate way baffles me. Their attitude leaves the rest of us with no choice: if we play along with them, we compromise our faith irretrievably; therefore, we must refuse to recognize what they do. They are fully engaged in writing their own judgment-book, and the rest of us can have nothing to do with it.

This is the dilemma currently facing Bishop Lawrence, and no doubt a good many (but alas, not all) of the clergy who serve under him, as well. As the chosen leader of his flock, Bishop Lawrence has the heaviest responsibility -- but the responsibilities of priests for their parishes are, though not as all-compassing as the bishop's, nevertheless still every bit as solemn, and severe. As a lay person, I do not envy them the burdens imposed upon them by ECUSA's perverse and poisonous obtuseness.

Man is a fallen creature, and ECUSA -- just like any other branch of the church catholic -- is a fallen church. One cannot find perfection on this earth, no matter which church one joins, but perfection, as such, is not the standard. Rather, faithfulness to Scripture and tradition is. And by that measure, ECUSA falls far short of the mark. It is led by the false teachers of whom first Jesus Christ, and later his apostles, warned their first disciples, who then handed down those warnings to us.

Where can Bishop Lawrence go from here? Where can the Diocese of South Carolina go from here?
ECUSA has purposefully and heedlessly left them both with very limited choices. ECUSA simply does not care what it is doing to them. (It has far more important things to concern itself about -- things such as these.)

First, Bishop Lawrence could simply resign (but not without first obtaining, paradoxically, the consent of the apostate bishops who are driving him out of their fellowship). I do not believe he will do this.

Why not? Because it would leave his Diocese -- his flock, whom he has sworn to guide and protect -- at the mercy of ECUSA, who will seize any such opportunity to install someone much more to their liking. (Perhaps, just to rub it in, they would push forward one or more of their transgendered clergy from other dioceses, who so rejoiced at the remarkable contradiction which they maneuvered General Convention into making: "Every creature of God is good; hence partnered gays and lesbians make good bishops; but when it comes to transgendered persons, God somehow erred, and they know better than He does what they should have been.")

Well, what will Bishop Lawrence do, then? Although the responsibility for the spiritual welfare of his diocese lies heavily on his shoulders, the one thing Bishop Lawrence cannot do is to reach a decision on his own about the next steps for it to take.

He has to involve his clergy and his faithful parishioners in that process. (Those adversaries, like Melinda Lucka quoted above, will refuse to view things from his perspective. Instead, they will continue, ad nauseam, to play the victim to the willing ears of the national Church.) Any decision for the Diocese as a whole can be taken only by the whole Diocese, and that will require time for reflection, deliberation, and careful listening.

The decision has to be the Diocese's as a body, but Bishop Lawrence has the responsibility to guide it into the right decision. They elected him as their bishop, and he must consequently advise and lead them. No doubt that is why he has first taken some time off to ponder the options in prayer and solitude. He must be firm and steadfast in his own resolve before he can inspire others.

There are of course many faithful leaders in his Diocese who will make themselves available when he is ready to hear and meet with them. And my hope is that some of his fellow bishops who voted against the unscriptural measures approved by General Convention will extend their hands to him, as well. Indeed, it would be far better if some other dioceses expressed their solidarity with South Carolina, and if they together faced down ECUSA's apostasy as a determined group, rather than just one of them by itself.

The days ahead will be momentous for the Diocese of South Carolina -- and for any other dioceses that undertake to find their way along the same path. All of us who can perceive the dilemma into which the activism of General Convention has put them must be ready and willing to help in any way we can, as well.

For my part, I pledge to use my legal abilities, and understanding of Church law and history, to assist anyone caught in this dilemma to gain a better understanding of its parameters, and of the options available for consideration. In the weeks and months to come, I will devote more and more of this blog to that endeavor (while not omitting, of course, to blog about and comment on the equally momentous choice facing the entire Nation this November).

There is much work to do. Let not your hearts be troubled -- for we know, if we work together in the abiding faith of Our Savior, Jesus Christ, that God's will shall be done.

A Word from a Canadian: "The Collapse of Liberal Churches"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/the-collapse-of-the-liberal-church/article4443228/

The Collapse of the Liberal Church

Margaret Wente

The Globe and Mail

Published Saturday, Jul. 28 2012, 2:00 AM EDT

Two weeks from now, the United Church of Canada will assemble in Ottawa for its 41st General Council, where it will debate church policy and elect a new moderator. The top item on its agenda is a resolution calling for a boycott of products from Israeli settlements. Fortunately, nobody cares what the United Church thinks about Israeli settlements, or anything else for that matter, because the United Church doesn’t matter any more.

For many years, the United Church was a pillar of Canadian society. Its leaders were respected public figures. It was – and remains – the biggest Protestant denomination in a country that, outside Quebec, has been largely shaped by centuries of Protestant tradition.

But today, the church is literally dying. The average age of its members is 65. They believe in many things, but they do not necessarily believe in God. Some congregations proudly describe themselves as “post-theistic,” which is a good thing because, as one church elder said, it shows the church is not “stuck in the past.” Besides, who needs God when you’ve got Israel to kick around?

The United Church is not alone. All the secular liberal churches are collapsing. The Episcopalians – the American equivalent of the United Church – have lost a quarter of their membership in the past decade. They’re at their lowest point since the 1930s. Not coincidentally, they spent their recent general meeting affirming the right of the transgendered to become priests. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. But it doesn’t top most people’s lists of pressing spiritual or even social issues.

Back in the 1960s, the liberal churches bet their future on becoming more open, more inclusive, more egalitarian and more progressive. They figured that was the way to reach out to a new generation of worshippers. It was a colossal flop.

“I’ve spent all my ministry in declining congregations,” says David Ewart, a recently retired United Church minister who lives in British Columbia. He is deeply discouraged about the future of his faith. “In my experience, when you put your primary focus on the world, there is a lessening of the importance of worship and turning to God.”

The United Church’s high-water mark was 1965, when membership reached nearly 1.1 million. Since then it has shrunk nearly 60 per cent. Congregations have shrunk too – but not the church’s infrastructure or the money needed to maintain it. Today, the church has too many buildings and too few people to pay for their upkeep. Yet its leadership seems remarkably unperturbed. “It’s considered wrong to be concerned about the numbers – too crass, materialistic and business-oriented,” says Mr. Ewart. The church’s leaders are like the last of the Marxist-Leninists: still convinced they’re right despite the fact that the rest of the world has moved on.

Clearly, changes in society have had an enormous impact on church attendance. Volunteerism and other civic institutions are also in decline. Busy two-career families have less discretionary time for everything, including church. Sundays are for chores and shopping now. As for Sunday school, parents would rather take the kids to sports.

But something else began changing in the 1960s, too. The liberal churches decided that traditional notions of worship were out of date, even embarrassing. They preferred to emphasize intellect, rationality and understanding. “When I went to seminary, we never talked about prayer,” says Mr. Ewart. “I had an intellectual relationship with Jesus. But love Jesus? Not so much.”

As the United Church found common cause with auto workers, it became widely known as the NDP at prayer. Social justice was its gospel. Spiritual fulfilment would be achieved through boycotts and recycling. Instead of Youth for Christ, it has a group called Youth for Eco-Justice. Mardi Tindal, the current moderator, recently undertook a spiritual outreach tour across Canada to urge “the healing of soul, community and creation” by reducing our carbon footprint. Which raises the obvious question: If you really, really care about the environment, why not just join Greenpeace?

According to opinion polls, people’s overall belief in God hasn’t declined. What’s declined is people’s participation in religion. With so little spiritual nourishment to offer, it’s no wonder the liberal churches have collapsed.

It’s possible that organized religion in the developed world has had its day. After all, even conservative evangelicals like the Southern Baptists are in decline. Yet not all faiths have succumbed to Mammon. Mosques are popping up all over, and in Canada there are probably more kids in Islamic class than Sunday school. In the United States, Mormonism – which requires obligatory missionary service and a hefty tithe – is going strong, despite widespread ridicule from the mainstream press. Thanks to immigrants, the U.S. Roman Catholic Church also remains vibrant. Most Jews I know still belong to synagogues, send their kids to Hebrew school and have them bar mitzvahed.

Should anybody miss the church? Yes, says Mr. Ewart. The church gave families a way to participate together in a community larger than themselves, for a purpose greater than themselves. Most of us don’t have a way to do that any more. Our kids won’t even have it in their memory bank.

In the past few years, Mr. Ewart has spent time hanging out with evangelicals – people who actually talk about loving Jesus. He admires their personal, emotional connection to God. Lately, he has even started praying. Perhaps he could pray for the church in which he spent his life to stop its self-immolation. But it’s probably too late.

Anglican Journalist David Virtue Rips, Blasts, Owns & Schools Bishop Gene Robinson (TEC)

A salute and hat tip to David Virtue.

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=16294

Bishop Robinson, You are reaping what you have sown
Why the Bishop of New Hampshire is wrong

NEWS ANALYSIS

By David W. Virtue in Indianapolis www.virtueonline.org
July 110, 2012
When the openly gay bishop of New Hampshire, Gene Robinson took a private communication one of my staff sent him and made its contents public inside the House of Bishops this week, he opened a can of worms that he has only himself to blame for. No one asked him to do that; he did it on his own recognizance. He did not ask my permission.

The communication was about rumors swirling around that he and his partner, Mark Andrew, whom he had married, were having "relationship problems and were entertaining divorce." The rumor was that they had separate bedrooms here in Indianapolis. In his blast at VOL, in front of 167 bishops, he complained about the "public scrutiny" of his life, but did not deny the rumors about what was happening in his personal life. Robinson publicized his relationship during the election process for Bishop of New Hampshire by his public appearances with Andrew. When he was consecrated, he publicly embraced and kissed Mark to the roar of approval from some 4000 sympathetic observers. I know. I was there.

The obvious contradiction in this puzzling situation is that Bishop Robinson stated that he would like questions directly asked to him, yet when a professional journalist asked him a question, he complained at length about it in the House of Bishops, without answering the question.

He screamed, "I have had just about all I can take."

Really. What about all the incredible damage he has caused by his consecration nearly a decade ago? As a result of his lifestyle, the Anglican Communion has de fact split, tens of thousands of Episcopalians have left the Episcopal Church, hundreds of churches have left TEC, many have lost properties, and rectors lives have been ruined by revisionist bishops that support Robinson's position including the screwball former bishop of Newark, John Shelby Spong. One bishop, Bob Duncan, was literally thrown out of the Episcopal Church without a trial so he formed a new Anglican Church in North America...all as a result of Robinson's unequivocal need for his behavior and "marriage" to another man be accepted into and by the church.

All Bishop Robinson did in his rant was demonstrate a level of self-pity that was pathetic to watch, but clearly enamored his fellow bishops who rose to give him a standing ovation.

Robinson's constant whine for public acceptance of his sexual preferences, his infernal narcissism and self-absorption, his videos and movie Love Free or Die, his worldwide travels in the Anglican Communion promoting pansexuality has caused Anglican Christians to be killed in Nigeria by angry fundamentalist Islamist mobs, invited the wrath and scorn of Imams and Mullahs, truncated evangelism in the Global South, forced Global South archbishops to disassociate themselves from him and The Episcopal Church, and indirectly forced an Archbishop of Canterbury to retire early because of the stress of the job and his failure to resolve the unresolvable. On top of all this, the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have declared TEC anathema.

Robinson vociferously responded to the VOL e-mail saying, "It is nobody's damn business. For nine years I have borne a level of scrutiny beyond what should have been and there is a limit to what one person could bear."

Well, Bishop, it IS our "damn business" because you have made it our business by spending the last nine years pushing your behavior onto the global Anglican stage. If your life is falling apart, that is just as much a part of the Robinson story as your promotion of sodomy. You can't have it both ways. You went public and therefore your life from then on was open to public scrutiny. The old saying is true, "If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen." You have been roasting orthodox Anglicans over an open fire calling them all manner of names from "fundamentalist" to "homophobic". Now when someone questions your miserable life, you get all uppity and hurt and utter, "Why don't they leave me alone and mind their own business?" Oh, my God, please spare us.

In your rip you complained, "You can question my motives for saying this. I don't know what my motives are."

Really Bishop. Well, I think everyone knows what your motives are. They are manifestly clear to everybody with half a brain: you want the Episcopal Church, in fact every church (judging by your appearance at Presbyterian Church assemblies) to accept your lifestyle as good and right in the eyes of God. You want to influence the Global South by manipulating orthodox Anglicans in Uganda and wherever else you can to fall down and worship your pansexual god, the god of mayhem and confusion. You have seduced the Anglican Communion Office and, indirectly, jump-started a ludicrously named "Listening Process" to broker pansexuality into the whole Anglican Communion.

Robinson pleaded, "Let's not talk about reconciliation. Let's attempt it." He begged again, "Can we try together? Please."

No, Bishop, we can't, that ship has sailed. You have done too much damage to this church and to the Anglican Communion for any reconciliation ever to take place. Nigerian Anglicans, the largest body of Anglicans in the world, will no more entertain having you in their churches than they would Jefferts Schori. She is tarred with the same brush. You are history. Get used to it. When you retire from TEC, you will quickly be forgotten, but your legacy will live on in Mary Glasspool and the SS TEC will continue to slowly sink beneath the ecclesiastical waves under the weight of its own bad theology and even worse morals.

The truth, as you and we know, is that all clergy and bishops in the Episcopal Church realize that spouses, partners, and children become public figures after the ordination of one person in the family. This is discussed in seminary and formally and informally at many clergy gatherings. Any relationship (dating, partnered, or marriage) becomes a public reality in congregations and dioceses.

So allow me, Bishop, to quote you some Scripture, even as you misquoted Scripture in the HOB.

St. Paul in II Cor. 12 writes that he will boast but only in his weakness (v.5) Then Paul says this: "...a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. 8 Three times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; 9 but he said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.' I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me."

So how about it, Gene? Why did you not turn your same sex attractions as a sign of your weakness over to God that the power of Christ may rest upon YOU?

St. Paul again: v.10 "For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for when I am weak, then I am strong."

Why did you not turn your sexual weaknesses, insults, hardships, etc. into an evangelistic moment to demonstrate that in your weakness God's power is revealed and you are made perfect in Him?

As one commentator put it, "The strength and power of God more perfectly shines forth in our weakness and infirmity; as the more weak we are of ourselves, the more illustrious is his grace in supporting us, and giving us the victory under all trials and conflicts when I am weak. The more I suffer for Christ, the more I perceive the effects of his all-powerful grace, which sustains, enlightens, and strengthens me: the more also the glory and power of God appeareth in me."

v.11 "I have been a fool." writes St. Paul.

So why couldn't you be a fool for Christ, Bishop Robinson, rejoicing in your infirmity and allowing the God of all grace to minister to you and to work through you to heal others "in your infirmity and weakness"? The whole AA movement (of which I gather you a member) is built on people declaring their utter weakness and helplessness in the face of alcohol and asking God for help. In their weakness, they turn to a "higher power" and draw strength, not to say they are cured, but that they are being made perfect in their weakness.

But these are to be borne with submission to the will of God, for his power is more evident in supporting man under the greatest trials, than in freeing him from the attacks. --- Power is made perfect.

St. Paul concludes the chapter with these words: v. 21 "I fear that when I come again my God may humble me before you, and I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned before and have not repented of the impurity, immorality, and licentiousness which they have practiced."

Paul knew his own weaknesses, his "thorn in the flesh" whatever it was kept him humble, just as your sexual desires should keep you humble knowing how easy it is to fail. The truth is, Bishop Robinson, we are to glory in our weakness, we are to suffer "for the name". Your only "suffering" is the constant whine for acceptance, something the Great Apostle would have renounced. The list of sins mentioned here undoubtedly encompasses immorality, your own included.

The tragic truth is that you have become an enemy of the gospel. You have turned the truth of the gospel into a lie and souls are being lost. Episcopalians are being swept into a Christless eternity because of what you are pushing and pandering. One day you will have to be held accountable for that loss. May God help you.

END

Pickins' from the Leftward Loon-Vines: Theological & Political

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/29167

On God’s Truth, and Man’s Hypocrisy

The hypocrisy of those on the left has ceased to amaze me. It is not that they do not care about how it makes them look; it is that they are incapable of seeing how it makes them look.
Want some recent examples? Here are just a tiny fraction of the ones that have come out just this past week:


House Democrats are backing a bill to require presidential candidates (read: “Mitt Romney”) to release ten years of tax returns, while Senator Harry Reid, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, and DNC chairwoman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz have all said they will not make their returns public, thank you.


President Obama touts himself as the president who is actually cutting back on spending, while he and Michelle have taken more vacations in three years than any prior president, at a cost to taxpayers ranging from a $4.2 million one in Hawaii, to Michelle’s $83,000 to ski for just one weekend in Aspen.


In running for re-election, President Obama keeps making the same promises he did four years ago, but calculates that no one will notice how he has broken most of them already.


Over in the Episcopal Church (USA), we have one and the same General Convention positively embracing a huge contradiction:

1. It adopted blessings for same-sex couples. God made them that way, and what He made must be good.
2. Simultaneously, it removed any obstacles to positions in the Church for transgendered people. In this case, what God made them was not right or good, and they should not be penalized for His mistake.

Not only does the Episcoleft want to adopt contrary views of God’s creation, depending on whose orientation they are trying to promote, but for the most part they contend that their views are no longer open to discussion. That’s right—after years and years of pleading for “dialogue” with fellow Episcopalians on the other side, they now say the dialogue is over. And why? Well, not just because they have won what they wanted. That’s just for starters. Listen to one of their spokespersons, the Rev. Candace Chellew-Hodge, writing “Why Gays and Lesbians Should Never Argue Scripture”:

The most important reason, however, that gays and lesbians should never, ever argue about scripture is because the Bible has nothing much to say about homosexuality. We have to remember that this is an ancient book. It was written at a time when people believed the world was flat and that the earth was in the middle of a three-tiered world with heaven above and hell below. It was written at a time when people believed that the whole of human reproduction was held in the sperm of a man and a woman was merely an incubator. Speaking of women, this was a time when they were seen as chattel—property to be passed along from father to husband, from husband to brother and so on. It was written at a time when slavery was seen as God-ordained and animal sacrifice was the way to cleanse sins.

In short, we cannot extract modern ideas from an ancient book. The writers of the Bible no more understood homosexuality than they understood that a spherical Earth orbited the sun. At most, we have a commentary on same-sex sexual behavior involving lust and abuse, but nothing—pro or con—about the modern concept of sexual orientation. We don’t take the Bible’s word for it that the earth is flat and women only incubate babies and contribute nothing else to the process. Why on earth would we take it as an authority on sexual orientation?

Excuse me, ma’am? Because the Bible was written by people who lived thousands of years ago is no reason to heed what it says on topics as to which you and your ilk “know better”? In other words, your God speaks more clearly to you than their God did to them? That sounds like a winning recipe for today’s theology: God is someone who changes His message to suit His audience.

Not only does such a thesis try to put man’s / woman’s judgment above God’s, but to preach it to professing Christians seems like a foolhardy thing to do—if Jesus is to be taken at his word:

17:1 Jesus said to his disciples, “Stumbling blocks are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come! 17:2 It would be better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck and be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.

Moreover, notice how the Rev. Chellew-Hodge sets up a bunch of straw men for her then to knock down. (Even the Greeks, who invented logic, had no trouble spotting this fallacy, which in Latin was called ignoratio elenchi —or in our terms, “a red herring.”) The Bible and slavery? Slavery was a fact of life in the ancient world, and so the Bible, as a contemporary text, mirrors its culture in depicting it, but does it endorse it? Show me the text where God commends putting people into slavery. All of its great stories are about people escaping slavery.

The Bible and women? Same fallacious argument: show me the text in the Bible where God orders men to treat women like slaves. God made Eve as Adam’s companion, or help-meet, i.e., “one suited to help man in his tasks,” in the language of King James.¹ All other feminist-based views of the Bible are a denial of that simple truth. Feminists don’t want to meet men halfway, or to be seen as a help to them—they want to do whatever they do on their own terms, thank you.

And her final straw man, the conceit of “sexual orientation”? Please: the Bible nowhere speaks to how people believe they are attracted to others, but only to how they express that attraction. It expressly forbids fornication, or sex while unmarried; it forbids adultery, or sex with a person married to another; it forbids incest, or sex with a sibling; and it forbids sex between males and other males, and between women and other women. (See this post for details on the former, and see Romans 1:26 for the latter.)


The left cocoons itself, is finished talking or debating about other views, and thus cannot see its own hypocrisy, or its fallacies. We on the right, on the other hand, can sometimes be equally blind to our own faults, but we are never in doubt that we are susceptible to fault, because we know for a certainty that man is a broken, fallen creature—who needs God’s grace if we are to walk in His truth and ways.


That is the single most important difference between left and right: the left doesn’t require God’s help, thank you very much, because God is love, and (to quote the Rev. Chellew-Hodge once more) “Anything that does not promote love is not of God.” God loves us just as we are, with no need for change or correction on our part.
Just as, in politics, Obama needs no help from private business to create jobs or to grow the economy: That is government’s job, which he (as the only government that matters) can do just fine on his own, thank you very much.


Answering all such arrogance without sounding arrogant oneself is quite difficult—I hope that what I have written above does not come across in that way. The truth in man’s hands can sound arrogant, because man is just man, after all. That is why I try always to refer what I say back to God’s words.


But in politics, the best answer to the arrogance of President Obama is the humble working man himself, who has worked hard, without asking for any help, to build his own business over generations:


Thus if anyone from the left has troubled to read this far, this is the message I pray you would take away with you—not my message, but God’s words, from Romans ch. 8:

8:31 What then shall we say about these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 8:32 Indeed, he who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all – how will he not also, along with him, freely give us all things? 8:33 Who will bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 8:34 Who is the one who will condemn? Christ is the one who died (and more than that, he was raised), who is at the right hand of God, and who also is interceding for us. 8:35 Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will trouble, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? 8:36 As it is written, “For your sake we encounter death all day long; we were considered as sheep to be slaughtered.” 8:37 No, in all these things we have complete victory through him who loved us! 8:38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor heavenly rulers, nor things that are present, nor things to come, nor powers, 8:39 nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

_____________________
1 Genesis 2:18. The original Hebrew word translated into English as “a help” or “helper” is ‘ezer, a word of which the scholars associated with the New English Translation say (at n. 56):

The English word “helper,” because it can connote so many different ideas, does not accurately convey the connotation of the Hebrew word עֵזֶר (’ezer). Usage of the Hebrew term does not suggest a subordinate role, a connotation which English “helper” can have. In the Bible God is frequently described as the “helper,” the one who does for us what we cannot do for ourselves, the one who meets our needs. In this context the word seems to express the idea of an “indispensable companion.” The woman would supply what the man was lacking in the design of creation and logically it would follow that the man would supply what she was lacking, although that is not stated here. See further M. L. Rosenzweig, “A Helper Equal to Him,” Jud 139 (1986): 277-80.

Meet and Greet: Third Personal Encounter with Theological Liberals

Meet and Greet: Third Personal Encounter with Theological Liberals

Again, we are developing a series of posts on “Meet and Greet:  Personal Encounters with Theological Liberals.”  Again, we are aware of the technical and historical definition of 19^th-20^th century “theological liberalism.”   For my children reading this, “theological liberalism” is a long story.  The Veitchs emerged from  “theological liberalism”  in Canada. Let’s “Meet and Greet” another liberal.  We reflect on the consequences of it:  theological indifference, relativism, incompetence and ineffectiveness.  Here’s a practical consequence of a theological liberal (half-wit), “Hey, I don’t care much about Biblical doctrine and theology, so why should you or the congregation or the children?  We've advanced beyond the quest for doctrinal depth.”  The series was prompted by several posts (see at end).  So let’s meet another one.

Background.  I had an occasion to fly, compliments of the military, from Naples, Italy, to London, UK, for further air transfer to Rota, Spain.  There were several Chaplains slated to attend an annual “Chaplaincy Training,” a five day affair.  En route, I travelled and sat with one Chaplain, a graduate of Princeton Seminary and PCUSA Chaplain.  I did this for both flights.  We chatted.

I was a graduate of Westminster Seminary (Confessional Presbyterian) and he was trained and ordained through the “theologically liberal” Princeton (non-Confessional Presbyterian).  What happened?

Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia

Before further comment, years before this air flight and conversation. I had taken some Th.M. courses at WTS with the Rev. Dr. Philip Edcumbe Hughes, a scholar, gentleman and Church of England man.  In Dr. Hughes’s NT course, we had a Princeton student, a student on exchange for a few semesters.   I specifically recall him grousing and observing that Princeton students had half the workload of the Westminster students.  It struck me as odd at the time;  old Princeton had a reputation for scholarship;  what was the new Princeton like (post-1930s)?  Dad often—at the dinner table—spoke very highly about those “old Princetonians,” that “careful and scholarly breed.”  But, as a youth, what did I know?

Fast forward from WTS to the air flight and conversation with a PTS graduate.

Princeton Seminary

Occasioning incident.  Here I was, travelling with a PTS graduate.  I asked him several questions.  The answers surprised me.  Based upon that conversation, if what he was saying was true, I was not impressed with the PTS program.  This sloppy fellow lived up to what I’d later conclude more widely:  doctrinal indifference and incompetence.

Here’s the upshot of the conversation “in the air.”

I asked him what language requirements existed, e.g. Greek and Hebrew.  Those were always demanding.  The PTS man said, “I took a few of them, although it was not required.”   Huh? That was a bit stunning.  “Just a few courses in the old languages” I mused.  Of course, I grew up with a Dad who studied the Greek, Hebrew and Latin texts weekly through 4 decades of ministry.  I’d started Greek lessons at age 18 and took 2-years in undergraduate studies.  What was this, I pondered.  I asked him about systematic theology.  He said, “I may have had a year and a half of systematic theology.”  He really was not sure about his answer either.  “What?”  I thought, it can’t be true.  Dad handed me Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology and Charles Hodge’s 3-volume Systematic Theology upon graduation from high school and entrance to university.  Dad said, “No matter what you major in, read 10 pages from the systematicians and 10 chapters of the OT and 10 chapters of the NT per day.”  Indeed, I did that too, long before attending seminary.  What was this PTS-man and PCUSA Chaplain saying?  A year and a half of systematics?  Say it ain’t so!  I asked him about church history.  “Oh yes, I had a few of those also.”  The dismissive and casual answers were distinctive.  I asked, “That’s it?  What else did you take?”  He said, “Courses on counseling, sociology, psychology and practical theology.”  I was a bit shocked.  These tallies or demands did not compare to Westminster Seminary or The Reformed Episcopal Seminary that I had attended.  PTS sounded like a cake walk.

Here’s the 2010-2011 catalogue for Princeton.  You can draw your own conclusions. 78 graduate hours for the M.Div. (Not 90?  Like WTS and RES?)  12 hours in Bible.  That’s it?  4 courses on the Bible?  12 hours in History, 4 courses covering early, medieval, early modern and modern history?  That’s it?  12 hours in Theology, that is, 4 courses in systematics?  Say it ain’t so.  14 hours in Practical Theology?  Huh?  And the rest in electives. This is very, very poor.  See:   https://our.ptsem.edu/UploadedFiles/catalogue10-11REVatblue.pdf .  The results were evident in my friend, his conversation, and casual indifference to his own specialty.

Post incident reflections.

(1)  I had read the old 19^th-20^th Princetonian theologians per my Dad (long before seminary it must be said), as well as the history of Princeton and Westminster, an old scholarly tradition of top drawer thinkers.  How had Princeton fallen?

(2)  I did not attend Princeton and this was really the first conversation with a modern Princetonian.  Again, I heard the grousing of a Princetonian in Dr. Hughes’s course at WTS.  It would take years of connecting dots here and there.

(3)  The stunning impression was this:  the casual, indifferent, and ignorant review of  theological education.  (I suspect the Ph.D. program would be different, but am discussing the M.Div. program). 

(4)  Beyond his casual answers, on a personal level, he was overweight, a bit sloppy, and drank heavily during the week of Chaplaincy training.

(5)  Was this man interested or qualified for ministry?

(6)  The fruit of theological liberalism was theological indifference, clear Confessional and catechetical ignorance, Biblical incompetence, language-incompetence, historical incompetence, and doctrinal incompetence.  It would appear that PTS lost some of the energy and scholarship of the old days.  WTS had not lost that.

Objections.

(1)  Objection. Are you imputing theological ignorance and/or indifference to Princetonian alums?  Isn’t that an overstated claim?  Rebuttal.  We affirm in part and deny in part.  We do not impute that to all PTS M.Divvers.  For example, the Rev. Dr. James Montgomery Boice, our Pastor for a few years, was a PTS alum.  (Jim could have done better, by the way.) However, we emphatically impute exactly that—ignorance and indifference—to this graduate and several other Presbyterians.  Indeed, we do that here.  However, granting your objection on a wider arc, we say this.  Having met other PTS alums, the question, curiosity and questions stand.  PCUSA Chaplains, in my experience, graduates of  liberal schools, were not substantively-oriented or theologically-driven people.  That infects and affects listeners and followers.

(2)  To revise and extend on the rebuttal, we expect that the Th.M. and Ph.D. programs have well trained Professors.  But again, we are not impressed with the M.Div. program.  Nor have we been impressed with those we met. 

Conclusions.

(1)  Confessionally incompetent. 

(2)  Absence of doctrinal rigour and, hence, an absence of a compelling vision and faith-system, resulting in communication of that horrific disease to others.

(3)  At the time, more questions were raised in my mind.  Self to self:  “You’ve read about theological liberalism for years.  Is this what they are really like?”

(4)  We continue our “Meet and Greet” tour.  This was one liberal Presbyterian amongst others with whom I had dealings.   There will be more.

 (5)  Connect the dots across the mainline denominations.  There will be other connections.

(6)  I’ll have another post about another Presbyterian Dumb Ass, Tom, a Senior Chaplain.  A Dumb Ass?  Indeed.

Related Blogs on this subject.

Detwiler, SGM, Mahaney, TEC, Sandusky/Penn State & Leadership Corruptions

http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2012/07/detwiler-sgm-mahaney-tec-sanduskypenn.html

A Personal Encounter with a Theological Liberal

http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2012/07/personal-encounter-with-theological.html

A Second Personal Encounter with Theological Liberals

http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2012/07/second-personal-encounter-with.html

Dr. Timothy George: 3 Lesson from Mainline Crisis and Decline

http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2012/07/dr-timothy-george-3-lesson-from.html

The following tags are applied. Mainline Decline, Mainline Protestants, Theological Liberalism, Liberal Chaplains, Theological Education, Uneducated Ministers, Dumb Asses.

A Personal Encounter with a Theological Liberal

One Personal Engagement with a Theological Liberal

It’s not weighty, profound or singular, but it is “an” evening musing on “one” (of many) interactions with theological liberals.  Let me quickly give you a quick sense of it.

Background. Years ago, while studying at the Navy War College, Newport, RI, an opportunity to attend area churches was present.  (Through years of service and worldwide travels, this happened often.) One Sunday, three to four of us attended the historic First Congregational Church, Newport, RI (now with a different name).  The church had a 300-year history.  It had been the church where the famed Rev. Samuel Hopkins had been a pastor.  Although not the best reference, a few quick notes are offered at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Congregational_Church_(Newport,_Rhode_Island).  Also, as an aside, Newport had some distinctive names (e.g. Jacqueline Kennedy's halcyon homestead) and mansions on the coastline, as well as some distinctive relationships to the American Rebellion (or War for Independence), the Un-Civil War, as well Edwardseanism’s “New Haven Theology,” a development of Edward’s thought.  On this Sunday, we attended the morning service at this historic church in a famed Rhode Island city.

The Service. The service was demure, dignified, sedate, non-liturgical (in the Anglican sense of the old Book of Common Prayer), and was well attended.  I suppose that many attendees were well-heeled and well-educated.  The exterior is per the picture.  The interior, as memory serves, was dark with mahogany pews and other church furnishings.  It was rather dark in the interior.  The sermon was—well—rather unremarkable, irrelevant, un-theological, and un-impressive.  As a Westminster Confessionalist who had read rather widely, I took the Reverend for a theological liberal, rightly or wrongly.  Following the service, the Reverend invited us to attend their post-service get-together at the yacht club.  We went. It was a dignified affair in an outside setting near the piers at tables with umbrellas with light refreshments and a few glasses of wine.  "Charming, Ridgely." (Go ahead and laugh, but my classmate and shipmate's last name was "Ridgely," a fellow Westminster man and Confessionalist (PCA) who was reared as an Episcopalian, a delightful friend.)

After the Service.  During the course of a charming and dignified affair at the yacht club, the Reverend and I chatted.  Rather sedately and as an aside, I said, “Well, theological liberals and Confessional Churchmen have a different vision and version of the Divine Being.”  Holy moly! The Reverend was highly offended. He proceeded to chastise me in gentlemanly tones, but, unmistakably, with high dudgeon.  Although this was stated by me as a matter of fact rather than an averment of contention or rebuke, he took offense.  I quietly took my chastisement without further ado or rebuttal.  (By the way, the rebuttal was unremarkable, untheological, and, frankly, a bit churlish.)  So, the conversation was steered to less stormy waters for the sake of the poor Reverend's blood pressure.  The Reverend apparently was not used to heavy seas. Rather, we were there to enjoy and learn about and from these people…and we did too.  So what?

The Points.  Here are the points.

(1)  I’m beginning to reflect on varied interactions with theological liberals through the years.  This was just one interaction and I’ve had many.  

(2)  I’m beginning to reflect on leadership failures and corruptions.  The Penn State matter last week prompted the musings.

(3)  Beneath the well-polished, urbane, and dignified veneer, theological liberals are hostile to Reformed and Confessional Churchmen.  Read the "comments," for example, by many theological liberals on blogs and news sites following the Episcopal GC 2012.  Venom, hostility and more. 

(4)  Don’t be fooled, that’s how liberalism developed and advanced their views.  They weren’t nice about things.  I suppose Isaiah or Jeremiah might not be nice to theological liberals.  Now that's a point worth evaluating.