Theodore Beza: Anabaptists' Great Error

H/T to Andy Underhile.

“The Anabaptists greatly err by opposing the baptism of infants…. Although they may not have faith with its effects such as those who are of age — they may, however, have the seed and germ of it; seeing that the Lord has sanctified them from the mother’s womb (First Corinthians 7:14)…. We presuppose in general that they are children of God — who are born of a believing father and mother, or when one of the two is a believer (Genesis 17:7). Further, as regards children born in the Church, one should presume the election of all of them, without limitation” Theodore Beza, The Christian Faith (1558),  [emphasis added].

American Church Watch: Ending Postmodern Sexual Compromises

Highlights below--in yellow--suggest our thoughts.  Evangelicalism is the new theological liberalism of yesteryear.  Give it 25 years.  Depth of theology does not occur with the Rick Warrens and Bill Hybels.  Or, with the TBN-enthusiasts or followers of Jimmy Swaggart.  Anecdotes and "it's all about me" stories abound.  Exegetes and systematicians are in short order and short demand.  Of course, the liberals in the mainline are falling like dominoes--TEC, PCUSA, UCC, etc.  There are no surprises there.  But, watching incompetent evangelicals, like Tim Keller and associates, or Joel Osteen and his enthusiasts, or Philip Yancey and Christianity Today, equivocate is an entirely new development.  Should we be surprised?  Not really.  For the evangelicals, essentially Anabaptistic and Holiness groups, they have no Confessional anchors.  They have no liturgical foundations or formation.  The public prayers are so devoid of dignity and depth..."Father God, we just wanna thank ya'..."  Never mind a discussion about the two sacraments.  They have no depth.  They embrace anti-intellectualism more often than not. Their music, the contemporary junk, is so thin, ya’ can't see it…and it’s always so loud that legitimate thinking can’t occur.  The modern or contemporary music scene is one avenue by which "dumbing down" occurs. The salt has lost its savour. We anticipate that new realignments will emerge in the next three decades.  While this is pessimistic, yet God will not be abandoning His people any time soon. Although the lights dim, confidence and trust in His Dread and Sovereign Majesty is present with Confessional Churchmen, burning in the dark.  Predestination and election provide such comfort for evangelism, missions, and disciple-making.  It ain't the first time most of the lights have gone out. Post tenebras, lux!

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=16350

ENDING POSTMODERN SEXUAL COMPROMISE OF THE GOSPEL

By Philip Rosenthal
http://emergingthreat.blogspot.com/2012/07/ending-postmodern-sexual-compromi se-of.html
July 27, 2012

Earlier this month, homosexual activists complained to the Advertising Standards Authority against a billboard by 'Light of the nations church', Pretoria which said that Jesus could set people free from a list of sins, which included homosexuality. The activists argued that Jesus cannot set people free from homosexuality in contradiction to the Bible (1 Corinthians 6:11) Tragically, without even trying to defend the gospel, the church responded by deleting the word 'homosexuality' from the billboard. http://www.asasa.org.za/ResultDetail.aspx?Ruling=6169

On their Facebook page, July 13 Pastor Deric Linley said the church's philosophy had not changed but the deletion had been to "a show of a non-judgmental spirit to the gay community. Because of this attitude, we have gay members in our church; and because our members already know our unchanged philosophy on this ... "Rather have homosexual people in a church with a good attitude, than heterosexual people with a bad attitude..." Actually, the ASASA has no juristiction over any church and is just bullying - it is a voluntary association. Sadly, a few years back on court instruction Moreleta Park church apologised to a homosexual music teacher they had fired for his immorality.

Is this an isolated incident? Sadly not. Evangelical pastors and churches from almost all theological and denominational camps are capitulating like dominoes to the homosexual agenda and other sexual compromise - some more publicly than others.

But lets move focus to some of the bigger names in evangelicalism: Tim Keller, Reformed scholar, mega-church pastor and one of the founder-leaders of the Gospel Coalition when asked whether homosexuality is a sin and whether homosexuals are going to hell replied "...it is very misleading to say, 'Homosexuality is a sin' But that's not what sends you to heaven or Hell...."We would say homosexuality is not the original design for sexuality. Therefore, it's not good for human flourishing." The homosexual interviewer cited the Bible, but Keller, under pressure of an interviewer, buckled and fudged the issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZFCB9sduxQ (The answer to that question is simple: Yes homosexuality is a sin;  Yes homosexuals are going to hell unless they repent of such sin. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Shockingly, this video is posted without criticism, correction or apology by the Veritas Forum, which purports to promote Biblical worldview.

In April this year, Andy Stanley, senior pastor of Northpoint mega-church in Atlanta preached a sermon with a case example about grace in his church. A man in his church left his wife for a homosexual relationship and the man and his new partner wanted to serve as volunteers in the church. Stanley told the man he needed to divorce his wife first, before he could do so. The story ends with the homosexual couple, the first man's ex-wife and their child, as well as her new boyfriend and his child from another relationship, all coming together to worship together church. http://global.christianpost.com/news/pastor-andy-stanley-responds-to-questio ns-over-homosexuality-stance-74262/#CGihldEQ4fcti11L.99

The implication is that homosexuality is okay, but adultery is not - and that divorce can legitimise marital unfaithfulness. Stanley has been strongly challenged but has not yet clarified his views. Stanley sends ministry teams to South Africa and his books are on sale here.

Many more similar examples could be given. Philip Yancey, Christianity Today editor and popular author gives a muddled view http://www.philipyancey.com/q-and-a-topics/homosexuality.  Why are his books still stocked and why is he an editor of this magazine?

Is this just about homosexuality? No. Is the issue about sexuality in general? No. The issue is bigger than that. What is at stake is the gospel itself: Jesus power to save. Our right to proclaim it. The definition of sin.

What is the message of the gospel? Subtly... step by step… the gospel is being eroded. And the gospel is an issue for which we must be prepared to suffer unpopularity and if necessary die. When Paul rebuked Peter in Galations 2:11 the issue that let him to write that blisteringly angry letter was not just circumcision or even Jewish-Gentile race relations. The issue was the gospel. Paul didn't get madly upset about the circumcision issue until people started linking it to a false gospel - and that is what we have here too - the argument that Jesus cannot save people from homosexuality. On that issue we must not flinch in the face of persecution.

THE PATH OF COMPROMISE

When challenged, such people will usually argue they still believe what the Bible says about homosexuality - but they are compromising on the installment plan - each year, such churches are sliding a little bit further. Lets look at the slippery slope of compromise (not necessarily in order):

* The use of homosexual language which carry their assumptions: For example: 'gay' instead of 'homosexual'. 'orientation' instead of 'sin'.

* Accepting the assumption that homosexuals are a discriminated group needing protection - so called 'gay rights'.

* Compromise 'fall-back' political positions rejecting the worst demands of the homosexual agenda, but accepting the old ones. For example, opposing 'same-sex marriage', but accepting 'civil unions'; accepting 'same-sex marriage' but opposing homosexual adoption; opposing civil unions, but accepting anti-discrimination legislation etc.

* Apologising to the homosexual community for the 'hurt' caused by the churches 'unloving' attitude - creating a false guilt and excuse for futher cowardice with the gospel.

* Accepting homosexuality as an 'identity/sexual orientation' rather than a sin - failing to distinguish between a temptation someone struggles with but fights and something people just live with like a disability.

* Talking about 'gay christians' and 'gay churches' - as if there was such a thing.

* Preaching half-truths with lies and loaded messages: - Preaching against 'all forms of discrimination & judgmentalism' while lumping homosexuality together with things people cannot change such as race and HIV status. Thus implying that homosexuality can't be changed as with these other things.

- Preaching trivialising sodomy and other sexual sin by putting it in the same category as much lesser sins - and then arguing we are all sin all the time so we should not make a big deal about sexual sin. (The Bible does categorise some sins as more serious than others, for example by the death penalty specified in the Old Covenant, the requirement of excommunication and the social effects of some sins can be seen as more destructive than others.)

- Preaching that homosexuals must just 'be celibate', while failing to preach that even celibate homosexual relationships and entertaining such lusts are also sinful.

- Being silent on the issue of homosexuality. - Avoiding the whole concept of sin and repentance for it, and applying psychological language of 'problems' and 'brokenness'.

* Affirming the pro-homosexual misinterpretaton of the Bible as 'clever' without correcting it.

* Relationships with homosexual activist 'christians', thus given them credibility:

- Accepting homosexual activists claiming to be homosexual Christians as brothers

- Eating with homosexual activists, while the scripture says we must not (1 Corinthians 5:11) as did Mega-church pastor Bill Hybels of Willow Creek (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-06-09/news/0806080226_1_gay-christi ans-willow-creek-community-church-rev-bill-hybels)

* Distancing, speaking against and even persecuting groups opposing homosexuality and presenting the true gospel to them - in order to get more acceptance from the homosexual community.

* The gospel message:

- Shifting from 'evangelising' homosexuals by challenging them to repent of sin with the gospel to 'dialoguing with them'.

- Shifting from trying to help people 'out of homosexuality' to trying help people to 'live with' the problem.

- Changing the message from holiness to treating people as 'victims of sexual brokeness' which ignores the whole concept of sin.

* Allowing homosexuals to be in the office of a pastor: - first, provided that they are celibate. - then, even if not celibate provided they are 'married' to their homosexual partner. - then into more senior church positions. - then with no constraints.

* Turning a blind eye to open homosexual couples attending church together, and failing to challenge their sin.

* Implying that our position on homosexuality is open to change in future but not right now - for example Emerging Church leader Brian McLaren (http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2011/01/open-letter-to-brian-mclaren.html)

* Arguing that one cannot speak against homosexuality unless one has first passed all sorts of requirements of close experience with homosexuals - for example Brian McLaren.

* Performing ungodly ceremonies: - Civil unions - Same-sex marriages

There is so much compromise on this issue that many people are unaware they are compromising or think they are doing well by not compromising as much as some other church or false-teacher.

While some more biblical christians may be shocked by the above and think they would never get into such confusion, they don't take into account two factors:

* OUTREACH RISKS: Those who get involved in any kind of outreach ministry to sinful people are under pressure to compromise to more easily reach them. If you are not doing such outreach you are not currently at such risk, but such outreach is dangerous. Yes, do the outreach, but a church or group should get into such outreach very cautiously and with determination not to compromise - bearing in mind how many people have got into compromise before them. The same is true of pro-life outreach (where some start affirming a pro-choice position to try save more babies), divorce outreach, scandal challenging, Muslim evangelism (compare the Insider movement).

* SOCIAL PRESSURE: If a whole community starts to compromise, the pressure mounts for you to compromise also to stay in with the group - only the only way to avoid compromise is to move. As this problem grows, more and more groups are buckling and if you are not careful you may too.

* NEW GENERATION CONFUSION: Older people grew up taking for granted biblical teaching on homosexuality, but many of our Christian youth have never properly heard it due to the cowardice and neglect of preachers. That have accepted by default many of the above views of the culture. If you don't teach your children and get them into a good church, they will probably be confused too.

DO YOU SEE THESE SIGNS IN YOUR CHURCH?

Not all backsliding churches and leaders are following these steps in the same order. If a pastor makes a mistake, lovingly point it out and give him a chance to correct it, but if he doesn't - and your church is showing several or repeated signs of compromise as listed above, be very concerned but not surprised. You need to challenge it from the scripture, pray for your church and pastor. Probably you also need to look for another church - painful as that may be to say goodbye to the community you love - but if the leadership want to go that way, then you will probably not be able to long resist backsliding yourself and with your family. Rather give your money, your time and your life to building up a healthy church.

If your own church is safe and healthy on this issue, thank God for this and keep praying for and encouraging your pastor. But this toxic compromise needs a wider response.

When Ezra returned to Jerusalem and heard about the sin and compromise of the returning exiles (Ezra 9), he lay on the floor and wept. It is not just the liberals who have sinned and compromised, but our own evangelical leadership. These men who have compromised include OUR evangelical leaders of OUR organisations. Let us pray for God to forgive the compromise of the Western evangelical church - otherwise God may reject and destroy us as he has judged other compromised churches in the past.

We are going to win this fight and Biblical Christianity will outlast this compromise but many currently seemingly thriving churches will go ICHABOD (1 Samuel 4) - God will abandon them because of their compromising.

Post comments at: http://emergingthreat.blogspot.com/2012/07/ending-postmodern-sexual-compromi se-of.html

Definition of Marriage: Church of England Wedding on 12 May 2012

Church of England Wedding, 12 May 2012

          Two things are posted. These two things pertain to “marriage.”

       First, we post a “wedding sermon” by the Rev. Mr. John Richardson, Church of England (somewhere near Chelmsford, we believe). He conducted the “wedding” today, Saturday, 12 May 2012. Inferably from the sermon, it sounds like the good parson used the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. This sermon is simple, accessible, appropriate, biblical and BCP-based, perhaps warranting inclusion with the “Homilies” of The Thirty-nine Articles.

       Second, after posting Rev. Richardson’s sermon, we are posting the wedding service from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. It is entitled “The Form of Solemnization of Matrimony.” For ease of review and meditation, we post the entire service. We are pressed to wonder: can this be improved significantly? It is solid, biblical and has been used to marry millions of Anglicans for over 350 years of use.

      For now, here is a brief from Rev. Richardson’s sermon. For the full version, see: http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2012/05/wedding-sermon-literally-for-today.html

A wedding sermon (literally) for today

Today I was privileged to conduct the wedding of two previous parishioners, Simon and Sophie. This is the sermon I preached on their chosen reading.

Reading: Ephesians 5:21-32

Sermon:
It is rather a long time since I have conducted a wedding — but not that long, a couple of years.

In that time, however, a revolution has threatened. The last time I conducted a wedding, everyone knew what marriage was. Today, it appears they don’t.

I feel rather like Rip Van Winkle, the character invented by the author of the Legend of Sleepy Hollow, except in my case rather than falling asleep for twenty years, I dozed off for twenty minutes only to wake up in a different world.

I can imagine in some circles if I said I was going off to conduct a marriage this afternoon, people saying, “Well it all depends what you mean by marriage.”And I know, looking at the numbers of you here this afternoon, that if I put the question to you, I’d get a variety of different answers unimagineable just a decade ago.

So let’s remind ourselves that, in the Church at least — or at least in the Church of England — we know what we mean by marriage. In the words I read at the start of this service, “Holy Matrimony ... is an honourable estate, instituted of God himself, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church.”

First, it is ‘an honourable estate’. Given that today the word estate is usually used about ‘estate agents’, it might be helpful to explain that the word ‘estate’ original included a position or condition in life.

For the rest of Rev. John Richardson’s sermon, see: http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2012/05/wedding-sermon-literally-for-today.html. 

Here is “The Form for the Solemnization of Marriage” and it is found at: http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/occasion/marriage.html. 

The Form of Solemnization of Matrimony

---

First the Banns of all that are to be married together must be published in the Church three several Sundays, during the time of Morning Service, or of Evening Service, (if there be no Morning Service,) immediately after the second Lesson; the Curate saying after the accustomed manner,I publish the Banns of Marriage between M. of ----- and N. of-----. If any of you know cause, or just impediment, why these two persons should not be joined together in holy Matrimony, ye are to declare it. This is the first [second, or third] time of asking.

And if the persons that are to be married dwell in divers Parishes, the Banns must be asked in both Parishes; and the Curate of the one Parish shall not solemnize Matrimony betwixt them, without a Certificate of the Banns being thrice asked, from the Curate of the other Parish.

At the day and time appointed for solemnization of Matrimony, the persons to be married shall come into the body of the Church with their friends and neighbours: and there standing together, the Man on the right hand, and the Woman on the left, the Priest shall say,


DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.


First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.

Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.

And also, speaking unto the persons that shall be married, he shall say,

I REQUIRE and charge you both, as ye will answer at the dreadful day of judgement when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed, that if either of you know any impediment, why ye may not be lawfully joined together in Matrimony, ye do now confess it. For be ye well assured, that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God's Word doth allow are not joined together by God; neither is their Matrimony lawful.

At which day of Marriage, if any man do allege and declare any impediment, why they may not be coupled together in Matrimony, by God's law, or the laws of this Realm; and will be bound, and sufficient sureties with him, to the parties; or else put in a caution (to the full value of such charges as the persons to be married do thereby sustain) to prove his allegation: then the solemnization must be deferred, until such time as the truth be tried.

If no impediment be alleged, then shall the Curate say unto the Man,

WILTthou have this woman to thy wedded wife, to live together after God's ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou love her, comfort her, honour, and keep her in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto her, so long as ye both shall live?

The Man shall answer, I will.

Then shall the Priest say unto the Woman,

WILTthou have this man to thy wedded husband, to live together after God's ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou obey him, and serve him, love, honour, and keep him in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto him, so long as ye both shall live?

The Woman shall answer, I will.

Then shall the Minister say,

Who giveth this woman to be married to this man?

Then shall they give their troth to each other in this manner.

The Minister, receiving the Woman at her father's or friend's hands, shall cause the Man with his right hand to take the Woman by her right hand, and to say after him as followeth.

N. take thee N. to my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I plight thee my troth.

Then shall they loose their hands; and the Woman, with her right hand taking the Man by his right hand, shall likewise say after the Minister,
N. take thee N. to my wedded husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I give thee my troth.

Then shall they again loose their hands; and the Man shall give unto the Woman a Ring, laying the same upon the book with the accustomed duty to the Priest and Clerk. And the Priest, taking the Ring, shall deliver it unto the Man, to put it upon the fourth finger of the Woman's left hand. And the Man holding the Ring there, and taught by the Priest, shall say,
WITH this ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
Then the Man leaving the Ring upon the fourth finger of the Woman's left hand, they shall both kneel down; and the Minister shall say,

Let us pray.

ETERNAL God, Creator and Preserver of all mankind, Giver of all spiritual grace, the Author of everlasting life: Send thy blessing upon these thy servants, this man and this woman, whom we bless in thy Name; that, as Isaac and Rebecca lived faithfully together, so these persons may surely perform and keep the vow and covenant betwixt them made, (whereof this Ring given and received is a token and pledge,) and may ever remain in perfect love and peace together, and live according to thy laws; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Then shall the Priest join their right hands together, and say,

Those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder.

Then shall the Minister speak unto the people.

FORASMUCH as N. and N. have consented together in holy wedlock, and have witnessed the same before God and this company, and thereto have given and pledged their troth either to other, and have declared the same by giving and receiving of a Ring, and by joining of hands; I pronounce that they be Man and Wife together, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

And the Minister shall add this Blessing.

GOD the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, bless, preserve, and keep you; the Lord mercifully with his favour look upon you; and so fill you with all spiritual benediction and grace, that ye may so live together in this life, that in the world to come ye may have life everlasting. Amen.

Then the Minister or Clerks, going to the Lord's Table, shall say or sing this Psalm following.

Beati omnes. Psalm 128.

BLESSED are all they that fear the Lord: and walk in his ways.
For thou shalt eat the labour of thine hands: O well is thee, and happy shalt thou be.
Thy wife shall be as the fruitful vine: upon the walls of thine house;
Thy children like the olive-branches: round about thy table.
Lo, thus shall the man be blessed: that feareth the Lord. The Lord from out of Sion shall so bless thee: that thou shalt see Jerusalem in prosperity all thy life long;
Yea, that thou shalt see thy children's children: and peace upon Israel.
Glory be to the Father, &c.
As it was in the beginning, &c.

Or this Psalm.

Deus misereatur. Psalm 67.

GOD be merciful unto us, and bless us: and shew us the light of his countenance, and be merciful unto us.
That thy way may be known upon earth: thy saving health among all nations.
Let the people praise thee, O God: yea, let all the people praise thee.
O let the nations rejoice and be glad: for thou shalt judge the folk righteously, and govern the nations upon earth.
Let the people praise thee, O God: yea, let all the people praise thee.
Then shall the earth bring forth her increase: and God, even our own God, shall give us his blessing.
God shall bless us: and all the ends of the world shall fear him.
Glory be to the Father, &c.
As it was in the beginning, &c.

The Psalm ended, and the Man and the Woman kneeling before the Lord's Table, the Priest standing at the Table, and turning his face towards them, shall say,
Lord, have mercy upon us.Answer. Christ, have mercy upon us.Minister. Lord, have mercy upon us.

OUR Father, which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation; But deliver us from evil. Amen.

Minister. O Lord, save thy servant, and thy handmaid;Answer. Who put their trust in thee.Minister. O Lord, send them help from thy holy place;Answer. And evermore defend them.Minister. Be unto them a tower of strength,Answer. From the face of their enemy.Minister. O Lord, hear our prayer.Answer. And let our cry come unto thee.

Minister.

GOD of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, bless these thy servants, and sow the seed of eternal life in their hearts; that whatsoever in thy holy Word they shall profitably learn, they may in deed fulfil the same. Look, O Lord, mercifully upon them from heaven, and bless them. And as thou didst send thy blessing upon Abraham and Sarah, to their great comfort, so vouchsafe to send thy blessing upon these thy servants; that they obeying thy Will, and alway being in safety under thy protection, may abide in thy love unto their lives' end; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

This Prayer next following shall be omitted, where the Woman is past child-bearing.

MERCIFUL Lord, and heavenly Father, by whose gracious gift mankind is increased: We beseech thee, assist with thy blessing these two persons, that they may both be fruitful in procreation of children, and also live together so long in godly love and honesty, that they may see their children Christianly and virtuously brought up, to thy praise and honour; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

O GOD, who by thy mighty power hast made all things of nothing; who also (after other things set in order) didst appoint, that out of man (created after thine own image and similitude) woman should take her beginning; and, knitting them together, didst teach that it should never be lawful to put asunder those whom thou by Matrimony hadst made one: O God, who hast consecrated the state of Matrimony to such an excellent mystery, that in it is signified and represented the spiritual marriage and unity betwixt Christ and his Church: Look mercifully upon these thy servants, that both this man may love his wife, according to thy Word, (as Christ did love his spouse the Church, who gave himself for it, loving and cherishing it even as his own flesh,) and also that this woman may be loving and amiable, faithful and obedient to her husband; and in all quietness, sobriety, and peace, be a follower of holy and godly matrons. O Lord, bless them both, and grant them to inherit thy everlasting kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Then shall the Priest say,

ALMIGHTY God, who at the beginning did create our first parents, Adam and Eve, and did sanctify and join them together in marriage; Pour upon you the riches of his grace, sanctify and bless you, that ye may please him both in body and soul, and live together in holy love unto your lives' end. Amen.

After which, if there be no Sermon detailing the duties of Man and Wife, the Minister shall read as followeth.

LLye that are married, or that intend to take the holy estate of Matrimony upon you, hear what the holy Scripture doth say as touching the duty of husbands towards their wives, and wives towards their husbands.

Saint Paul, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, the fifth Chapter, doth give this commandment to all married men; Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water, by the Word; that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself: for no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church: for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife; and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the Church. Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular so love his wife, even as himself.

Likewise the same Saint Paul, writing to the Colossians, speaketh thus to all men that are married; Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.
Hear also what Saint Peter, the Apostle of Christ, who was himself a married man, saith unto them that are married; Ye husbands, dwell with your wives according to knowledge; giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers be not hindered.

Hitherto ye have heard the duty of the husband toward the wife. Now likewise, ye wives, hear and learn your duties toward your husbands, even as it is plainly set forth in holy Scripture.

Saint Paul, in the aforenamed Epistle to the Ephesians, teacheth you thus; Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church: and he is the Saviour of the body. Therefore as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. And again he saith, Let the wife see that she reverence her husband.

And in his Epistle to the Colossians, Saint Paul giveth you this short lesson; Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

Saint Peter also doth instruct you very well, thus saying; Ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the Word, they also may without the Word be won by the conversation of the wives; while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning, let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible; even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands; even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord; whose daughters ye are as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

It is convenient that the new-married persons should receive the holy Communion at the time of their Marriage, or at the first opportunity after their Marriage. 

Mohler & Warren in Twitter-Clash: Warren Demands Apology from Mohler

          Big Al Mohler and Big Rick Warren, Revivalist Spartans, yeah, Mega-Apes fighting, are engaging in a twitter-fight over Big Al’s tweet yesterday about megachurches as the new platform for 19^th-20^th century liberalism.  Big Rick wants an apology from Big Al.  These two Anabaptist titans spar for visibility, influence, numbers and  market-shares.

          We covered Big Al’s note at:  http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2012/05/doctrinal-ignorance-megachurch-new.html.  We believe Big Al has registered an excellent and justified invasion into Big Rick's space.  Big Rick doesn't like the "trespass" onto his sacred territory.  He views the "invasion" as actionable.  Big Rick apprehends harm from Big Al's reproach. Yet, is “Big Rick” known for his advocacy of Biblical, doctrinal and historical literacy?  Perhaps personally, but not publicly.  In contrast, at least Big Al is known for advocacy of literacy.

          Big Rick has a notoriously thin skin when it comes to criticism or a trespass onto or into his fiefdom wherein he rules.  Big Rick is a Pastorpreneur at his Starbuck's mega-mall.  He gets sensitive when his child and grandchildren, that is, megachurchdom, dumb-it-down-doctrinal Pastors, Pastorpreneurs, numbers, visibility, and influence are put on report.  Big apes pound their chests in displays of territoriality. At least Bill Hybels had the decency to note that megachurchdom in his neck of the woods produced doctrinally illiterate people. 

          Authoritarianism with Warren and some of his followers has not always been afar off as some witnesses attest when installing the “church growth model.”  Challenge “Big Rick’s” model and be prepared to be cut down. Twitter-critics of Big Rick are routinely blocked. Tim Challies has born witness to the heavy-handed tactics of "church growthers" following Big Rick's model.  So have many others.

          Wait a minute, is it not disrespectful to call these Christian leaders “Big Al” and “Big Rick?”  No, we do not believe it is.  However, we will affirm the objection in part and deny the objection in part.  In the denial, it is justifiable satire and useful truths that service a recalibration, context and perspective.  Compared to church history, both are small.  Ergo, the satire is suitable.  Rick Warren compared to John Calvin?  Al Mohler compared to Thomas Aquinas or Augustine?  Or, compared to the martyrs who died for the faith?  Compared to Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, Rogers, Coverdale, Tyndale and others?  Since, use of the terms "Big Al" and "Big Rick" are objectionable to some, we will affirm the objection.  To satisfy the objection to the terms "Big Al" and "Big Rick," we will say affirmatively “Little Al” and “Little Rick.”  Hence, we affirm in part and deny in part.  These two, like all of us, are quite "small" as Isaiah reminds us (Isaiah 40) as well as quite exalted, or high, being seated with Christ in the heavenlies (Eph. 2.4ff). 

          Here is the update on the Twitter-Titans clashing, bashing, and mashing.   On this score, we must side with "Big Al" or "Little Al," as you deem best.  The megachurchers like "Big Rick" or "Little Rick" (as deemed best), we believe, are the new 19^th and 20^th centuries liberals.  We believe time will vindicate this prophecy.

          Here is the story from "Christian Post."

http://www.christianpost.com/news/warren-asks-mohler-to-apologize-for-megachurch-headline-74283/

Warren Asks Mohler to Apologize for Megachurch Headline

By Lillian Kwon , Christian Post Reporter

May 2, 2012|6:22 pm

A prominent evangelical's recent blog headline – "Is the Megachurch the New Liberalism?" – has irked Pastor Rick Warren, who is calling for an apology for the "sensational" title.

Warren, founder of Saddleback Church, sent a tweet to Dr. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, on Tuesday, saying: "A TITLE questioning 1000s of churches' orthodoxy due to size is unChristlike.U need to apologize to pastors Al."

In a blog post Tuesday, Mohler described the emergence and growth of the megachurch (which draw at least 2,000 in attendance) and acknowledged that they have "helped to anchor conservative Christianity" in the United States.

At the same time, he noted that some megachurches have adapted to the ever-changing American culture, abandoning certain biblical truths.

Mohler went on to express concerns over a recent message preached by Andy Stanley, pastor of North Point Community Church in Alpharetta, Ga. As he described the account of a gay couple, Stanley mentioned the sin of adultery (one partner was still married to his wife) but did not affirm the sinfulness of homosexuality.

"The inescapable impression left by the account was that the sin of concern was adultery, but not homosexuality," Mohler wrote, adding that he hopes Stanley will clarify his view on the issue.

"We must embrace the truth with the humility of a sinner saved only by grace, but we must embrace it fully," he added. "Once again, the megachurches are on the leading edge. We must pray that they will lead into faithfulness, and not into a new liberalism."

Taking issue with the title of the blog, Warren commented: "@albertmohler Would a sensational blog title 'Are THE Seminaries the New Liberals?' be fair if 1 seminary pres. messed up?"

In response, Mohler tweeted back: "@RickWarren Glad to hear from you, Rick. I would certainly not be offended by that title ... In fact, I might use it. Megathanks."

Notably, both Warren and Mohler are megachurch pastors and belong to the Southern Baptist Convention. They both affirm that homosexuality is a sin.

While some have responded to Warren's tweets saying there was no blanket accusation against megachurches in Mohler's blog, one researcher did agree that the headline was unfair.

"As Rick Warren tweeted, it is unfair to paint all mega pastors with the Stanley brush or for that matter, the Schuller, the Long or the Osteen brush," Scott Thumma, who specializes in research on megachurches, stated to The Christian Post.

"As a group, megachurches are a big target, but it doesn't help the Christian cause either to accuse indirectly 1,500 faithful pastors and 6-7 million attendees with the 'L' word on the basis of one pastor's issue."

In the midst of debate over blog headlines, however, one Shawnee, Okla., pastor said the issue of churches neglecting biblical truth should not be forgotten.

"Yes, there are many pastors of megachurches who are faithful to the Bible (as Mohler noted), but the reality is that there are many, not just one, who are not. The pressures of the culture are making doctrinal faithfulness too challenging for many. That was Mohler's point- and one that should be well received," Dr. Todd Fisher, pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church, wrote in a blog Wednesday.

Stanley delivered the account of the gay couple last month during his 8-part message series titled "Christian." He told CP that he may issue a statement on the matter but requested that people listen to the entire series, which concludes this weekend.

READ: IS JESUS CHRIST THE HERO IN THE YOUR MEGACHURCH?

WATCH VIDEO CLIP OF ANDY STANLEY'S SERMON IN QUESTION

Doctrinal Ignorance: Megachurch the New Liberalism & Anti-Intellectualism

http://www.christianpost.com/news/is-the-megachurch-the-new-liberalism-74152/

Is the Megachurch the New Liberalism?

By R. Albert Mohler, Jr. , Christian Post Guest Columnist

May 1, 2012|9:05 am

"I love being a doctrinal, historical,
and theological illiterate!"

The emergence of the megachurch as a model of metropolitan ministry is one of the defining marks of evangelical Christianity in the United States. Megachurches - huge congregations that attract thousands of worshipers - arrived on the scene in the 1970s and quickly became engines of ministry development and energy.

Over the last 40 years, the megachurch has made its presence known, often dominating the Christian landscape within the nation's metropolitan regions. The megachurch came into dominance at the same time that massive shopping malls became the landmarks of suburban consumer life. Sociologists can easily trace the rise of megachurches within the context of America's suburban explosion and the development of the technologies and transportation systems that made both the mall and the megachurch possible.

On the international scene, huge congregations can be found in many African nations and in nations such as Brazil, South Korea, and Australia. In London, where the megachurch can trace its roots back in the 19th century to massive urban congregations such as Charles Spurgeon's Metropolitan Tabernacle, a few modern megachurches can be found. For the most part, however, the suburban evangelical megachurch is an American phenomenon.

Theologically, most megachurches are conservative in orientation, at least in a general sense. In America, a large number of megachurches are associated with the charismatic movement and denominations such as the Assemblies of God. Many are independent, though often loosely associated with other churches. The largest number of megachurches within one denomination is found within the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest non-Catholic denomination.

The emergence of the megachurch was noted by sociologists and church researchers attempting to understand the massive shifts that were taking place in the last decades of the 20th century. Researchers such as Dean M. Kelley of the National Council of Churches traced the decline of the liberal denominations that once constituted the old Protestant "mainline." This decline was contrasted with remarkable growth among more conservative denominations and churches - a pattern traced in Kelley's 1973 landmark book, Why Conservative Churches Are Growing. Kelley argued that conservative churches were growing precisely because of their strict doctrine and moral teachings. The early megachurches were the leading edge of the growth among conservative churches, especially in metropolitan and suburban settings.

The megachurches were not without their critics. Theologian David Wells leveled a massive critique of the doctrinal minimalism, methodological pragmatism, and managerial culture of many megachurches. Os Guiness accused the megachurch movement of "flirting with modernity" to a degree that put the Christian identity of the massive congregations at risk.

On the other hand, there is evidence that the megachurches have also helped to anchor conservative Christianity within the social cauldron of the United States in recent decades. The evangelistic energies of most megachurches cannot be separated from a deep commitment to conversionist theology and conservative doctrinal affirmations. Within the Southern Baptist Convention, megachurches played an essential role in what became known as the Conservative Resurgence - the movement to return the Convention and its institutions to an affirmation of biblical inerrancy. The most intense years of this controversy (1979-1990) saw the Convention elect an unbroken stream of conservative megachurch pastors as SBC president. In the main, the megachurches provided the platform leadership for the movement, even as the churches themselves became symbols of denominational aspiration.

Sociologically, the megachurch model faces real challenges in the present and even greater challenges in the future. The vast suburban belts that fueled megachurch growth in the last few decades are no longer the population engines they once were. Furthermore, cultural changes, demographic realities, and technological innovations have led to the development of megachurch modifications such as churches with multiple locations and sermons by video transmission. From the beginning, the megachurches led in the embrace of new technologies, and these now include the full array of digital and social media.

What about theology? This question requires a look at the massive shifts in worldview now evident within American culture. Trends foreseen by researchers such as James Davison Hunter of the University of Virginia and others can now be seen in full flower. The larger culture has turned increasingly hostile to exclusivist truth claims such as the belief that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. One megachurch pastor in Florida recently told me that the megachurches in his area were abandoning concern for biblical gender roles on a wholesale basis. As one pastor told him, you cannot grow a church and teach biblical complementarianism. Even greater pressure is now exerted by the sexual revolution in general, and, more particularly, the question of homosexuality.

The homosexuality question was preceded by the challenge of divorce. By and large, the story of evangelical Christianity in the United States since the advent of legal no-fault divorce has been near total capitulation. This is certainly true of the megachurches, but it is unfair to single them out in this failure. The reality is that the "Old First Church" and smaller congregational models were fully complicit - and for the same basic reason. Holding to strict biblical teachings on divorce is extremely costly. For the megachurches, the threat was being called judgmental, and the perceived danger of failing to reach the burgeoning numbers of divorced persons inhabiting metropolitan areas. For smaller churches the issue was the same, though usually more intimate. Divorced persons were more likely to have family members and friends within the congregation who were reluctant to confront the issue openly. Church discipline disappeared and personal autonomy reigned triumphant.

Is the same pattern now threatening on the issue of homosexuality? No congregation will escape this question, but the megachurches are, once again, on the leading edge. The challenge is hauntingly similar to that posed by divorce. Some churches are openly considering how they can minister most faithfully, even as the public and private challenge of homosexuality and alternative sexual lifestyles has radically transformed the cultural landscape. Other churches, both large and small, are renegotiating their stance on the issue without drawing attention to the changes.

A shot now reverberating around the evangelical world was fired by Atlanta megachurch pastor Andy Stanley in recent days. Preaching at North Point Community Church, in a sermon series known as "Christian," Stanley preached a message titled "When Gracie Met Truthy" on April 15, 2012. With reference to John 1:14, Stanley described the challenge of affirming grace and truth in full measure. He spoke of grace and truth as a tension, warning that "if you resolve it, you give up something important."

The message was insightful and winsome, and Andy Stanley is a master communicator. Early in the message he spoke of homosexuals in attendance, mentioning that some had shared with him that they had come to North Point because they were tired of messages in gay-affirming churches that did nothing but affirm homosexuality.

Then, in the most intense part of his message, Stanley told the congregation an account meant to illustrate his message. He told of a couple with a young daughter who divorced when the wife discovered that the husband was in a sexual relationship with another man. The woman then insisted that her former husband and his gay partner move to another congregation. They did move, but to another North Point location, where they volunteered together as part of a "host team." The woman later told Andy Stanley that her former husband and his partner were now involved as volunteers in the other congregational location.

The story took a strange turn when Stanley then explained that he had learned that the former husband's gay partner was still married. Stanley then explained that the partner was actually committing adultery, and that the adultery was incompatible with his service on a host team. Stanley told the two men that they could not serve on the host team so long as the one man was still married. He later told of the former wife's decision not to live in bitterness, and of her initiative to bring the whole new family structure to a Christmas service. This included the woman, her daughter, her former husband, his gay partner, and his daughter. Stanley celebrated this new "modern family" as an expression of forgiveness.

He concluded by telling of Christ's death for sinners and told the congregation that Jesus does not condemn them, even if they cannot or do not leave their life of sin.

Declaring the death of Christ as atonement for sin is orthodox Christianity and this declaration is essential to the Gospel of Christ. The problem was that Stanley never mentioned faith or repentance - which are equally essential to the Gospel. There is indeed no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, but this defines those who have acted in repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21). As for those who are not in Christ, they stand condemned already (John 3:18).

The most puzzling and shocking part of the message was the illustration and the account of the homosexual couple, however. The inescapable impression left by the account was that the sin of concern was adultery, but not homosexuality. Stanley clearly and repeatedly stressed the sin of adultery, but then left the reality of the homosexual relationship between the two men unaddressed as sin. To the contrary, he seemed to normalize their relationship. They would be allowed to serve on the host team if both were divorced. The moral status of their relationship seemed to be questioned only in terms of adultery, with no moral judgment on their homosexuality.

Was this intended as a salvo of sorts? The story was so well told and the message so well constructed that there can be little doubt of its meaning. Does this signal the normalization of homosexuality at North Point Community Church? This hardly seems possible, but it appeared to be the implication of the message. Given the volatility of this issue, ambiguity will be replaced by clarity one way or the other, and likely sooner than later.

We can only hope that Andy Stanley and the church will clarify and affirm the biblical declaration of the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, even as he preaches the forgiveness of sin in any form through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. His affirmation of grace and truth in full measure is exactly right, but grace and truth are not actually in tension. The only tension is our finite ability to act in full faithfulness. The knowledge of our sin is, in truth, a gift of grace. And grace is only grace because of the truth of what God has done for us in Christ.

And yet, even as we know this is true, we also know that the Christian church has often failed miserably in demonstrating grace to those who struggle with same-sex attractions and those who are involved in homosexual behaviors. We have treated them as a special class of sinners and we have assured ourselves of our moral superiority. The Gospel of Jesus Christ destroys that pretension and calls for us to reach out to all sinners with the message of the Gospel, declaring the forgiveness of sins in Christ and calling them to faith and repentance.

The Gospel is robbed of its power if any sinner or any sin is declared outside it's saving power. But the Gospel is also robbed of its power if sin - any sin - is minimized to any degree.

What does Andy Stanley now believe about homosexuality and the church's witness? We must pray that he will clarify the issues so graphically raised in his message, and that he will do so in a way the unambiguously affirms the Bible's clear teachings - and that he will do so precisely because he loves sinners enough to tell them the truth - all the truth - about both our sin and God's provision in Christ. Biblical faithfulness simply does not allow for the normalization of homosexuality. We desperately want all persons to feel welcome to hear the Gospel and, responding in faith and repentance, to join with us in mutual obedience to Christ. But we cannot allow anyone, ourselves included, to come to Christ - or to church - on our own terms.

The current cultural context creates barriers to the Gospel even as it offers temptations. One of those temptations is to use the argument that our message has to change in order to reach people. This was the impetus of theological liberalism's origin. Liberals such as Harry Emerson Fosdick claimed that the Christian message would have to change or the church would lose all intellectual credibility in the modern world. Fosdick ended up denying the Gospel and transforming the message of the Cross into psychology. Norman Vincent Peale came along and made this transformation even more appealing to a mass audience. Fosdick and Peale have no shortage of modern heirs.

Theological liberalism did not set out to destroy Christianity, but to save it from itself. Is the same temptation now evident? The Great Commission, we must remind ourselves, is not a command merely to reach people, but to make disciples. And disciples are only made when the church teaches all that Christ has commanded, as the Great Commission makes clear.

The megachurches are once again on the leading edge of these questions, but they are not alone. The urgency to reach people with the Gospel can, if the church is not faithful and watchful, tempt us to subvert the Gospel by redefining its terms. We are not honest if we do not admit that the current cultural context raises the cost of declaring the Gospel on its own terms.

Given their size and influence, the megachurches have an outsize responsibility. I am a member and a teaching pastor in a megachurch, and I am thankful for its faithfulness. I know a host of faithful megachurch pastors who are prepared to pay whatever cost may come for the sake of the Gospel. I know that my own denomination was regained for biblical fidelity under the leadership of brave megachurch pastors, who used their pulpits to defend the truth. We desperately need these churches as both theological anchors and missiological laboratories.

The times now demand our most careful and biblical thinking, and our clearest conviction matched to a missiological drive to reach the world with the Gospel. We must embrace the truth with the humility of a sinner saved only by grace, but we must embrace it fully.

Once again, the megachurches are on the leading edge. We must pray that they will lead into faithfulness, and not into a new liberalism.