Reformed Churchmen
We are Confessional Calvinists and a Prayer Book Church-people. In 2012, we remembered the 350th anniversary of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer; also, we remembered the 450th anniversary of John Jewel's sober, scholarly, and Reformed "An Apology of the Church of England." In 2013, we remembered the publication of the "Heidelberg Catechism" and the influence of Reformed theologians in England, including Heinrich Bullinger's Decades. For 2014: Tyndale's NT translation. For 2015, John Roger, Rowland Taylor and Bishop John Hooper's martyrdom, burned at the stakes. Books of the month. December 2014: Alan Jacob's "Book of Common Prayer" at: http://www.amazon.com/Book-Common-Prayer-Biography-Religious/dp/0691154813/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1417814005&sr=8-1&keywords=jacobs+book+of+common+prayer. January 2015: A.F. Pollard's "Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformation: 1489-1556" at: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Cranmer-English-Reformation-1489-1556/dp/1592448658/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420055574&sr=8-1&keywords=A.F.+Pollard+Cranmer. February 2015: Jaspar Ridley's "Thomas Cranmer" at: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Cranmer-Jasper-Ridley/dp/0198212879/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422892154&sr=8-1&keywords=jasper+ridley+cranmer&pebp=1422892151110&peasin=198212879
Sunday, October 28, 2012
(Photos) Christology, Nicene Churchmanship & Solomon's Temple
Friday, August 3, 2012
Anglican Mainstream: Press Release Urging UK Prime Minister to Correct Misrepresentation on SS-Marriage
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2012/07/26/prime-minister-urged-to-correct-serious-misrepresentation/
Prime Minister urged to correct serious misrepresentation
Prime Minister urged to correct serious misrepresentation
Following his speech at 10 Downing Street on Tuesday July 24th,
(http://www.number10.gov.uk/
July 25 2012
Dear Prime Minister
We write to ask you to correct a serious misconception in the speech you made to representatives of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Groups at Number 10, reported on your website on 25 July 2012.
In that speech you say that opponents of the redefinition of marriage within the church are “locking out people who are gay, or are bisexual or are transgender from being full members of that Church.” This is simply not the case. It is in fact the teaching of Christian churches that all people, including those self-identified as gay, bisexual or transgendered, are to be welcomed as members.
Your misconception suggests, first, that you are not adequately informed about the terms being used in the debates about same-sex attraction. For example, when you refer to ‘people who are gay, bisexual or transgender’, do you mean people who experience these attractions or people who engage in such experiences? For the churches, the distinction is critical: those who experience the attraction have always been fully welcomed. This is because ‘full membership’ of a Christian church comprises those who are baptised, i.e. those who have repented of their sins, and declared their faith and trust in Jesus Christ as their Saviour. Since we are all sinners, all people are welcome. You are perhaps familiar with the most famous verse in the Bible: God so loved the world that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal live. (John 3:16, emphasis added). That is why the gospel is such good news for everyone.
Second, your statement suggests that you have not understood what ‘full membership’ of a Christian church actually means. When we are baptised, we make a commitment to live no longer according to our own lights but according to the love of God as expressed in the teaching of Jesus and the scriptures. This teaching allows for physical sexual expression only within marriage of a man and a woman, and calls for repentance when we transgress. This applies, of course, just as much to hetero-sexual activity outside marriage as it does to homosexual activity.
We are sure that you will agree that, whatever people’s views about a public policy issue such as your Government’s proposal for same-sex marriage, the public debate about them should be conducted as far as possible on the basis of correct information. We make no progress if we misrepresent the views of those with whom we disagree. We therefore invite you, in the interest of promoting healthy and effective public debate, to correct the misconception contained in your statement of 25 July.
Please be assured that, notwithstanding our differences with you on this question, we as Christians will continue to pray for you and your colleagues in government in the heavy responsibilities you bear at this challenging time for our nation and a needy world.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Philip Giddings (Convenor)
Canon Dr Chris Sugden (Executive Secretary)
on behalf of Anglican Mainstream
Guardian: Andrew Brown on Gay Marriage
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown
The tainted case against gay marriage
It's possible to make a case against gay marriage that does not rely on fear or loathing of gay people. That's what was done when civil partnerships were brought in; and there is a surprisingly long tradition of Christians doing it. In 1996, for instance, Jim Thompson, then the bishop of Bath and Wells, published a book calling for what were in essence religiously sanctioned civil partnerships: "I am in favour of strengthening the social support for gay people to have sustained, faithful and loving relationships by legal agreement and by the prayerful support of the church."
He said then that: "One of the things that helps people towards fidelity in life is proper recognition by society. I don't believe that recognition can be marriage; but there ought to be a recognition of jointly held property in order that people will have things that bind them together."
I don't think it's breaking a confidence now to say that Thompson had told me privately a few years before that his policy was to ordain gay men only when they were in stable relationships.
Incidentally, in those days conservatives were defending marriage on the grounds that it was unnatural: the Rev David Holloway, one of the prime movers of the evangelical campaign against gay clergy, said then that, "Marriage as it has developed is not biologically natural – to keep a father in a committed relationship you need a whole lot of other constraints. The gay issue is the motor for the whole programme of destabilising the sexual culture, and the effects of that on children are disastrous."
This seems to me more honest than the present line, largely taken over from the Vatican, that marriage (understood as monogamous and heterosexual) is something that has been around since the beginning of humanity. But it's less politically persuasive. No one enjoys to be told they need protecting from their own worse instincts; and in a democracy the people get what they enjoy, so long as it doesn't matter.
Yet the argument for civil partnerships, as against gay marriage, seems now to be lost. It hasn't been won by the supporters of gay marriage. It has been lost by the nastiness of the opponents.
When Chris Sugden and Philip Giddings of Anglican Mainstream released their letter to the prime minister last week they cannot have understood just how foul-spirited and pharisaical it makes them appear. They have been taken seriously for so long within the power structures of the Church of England that they have quite lost touch with the sanity of the outside world. They founded their pressure group to oppose the appointment of a celibate gay man as a bishop. Yet they claim in their letter that "those who experience the attraction" – they won't talk about "love" – "have always been fully welcomed".
Condescending and pompous to the end – they finish with the assurance to the prime minister of their continued prayers – this letter discredits all opposition to gay marriage. It's obvious that what they really want is for gay people to feel ashamed and to exist on sufferance. The only thing tending to acquit them of a rather unpleasant prejudice is that their smug condescension isn't only directed at homosexuals. Evangelicals of that sort want everyone who's not like them to feel ashamed of their existence. "We are all sinners", they say, but they think they know they and their friends are saved.
Catholic bishops, too, suffer a terrible disconnect from the ordinary moral sense of the world outside. When Philip Tartaglia's claim that a Scots MP (and former Catholic priest) who died of pancreatitis at the age of 44 did so as a result of being gay surfaced to general outrage last week, few people noticed that he was speaking at a conference on religious freedom.
"I can say with a concerned and fearful realism that the loss of religious freedom is now arguably the most serious threat that the Catholic church and all people of faith in this country are facing," he had said. "Will the Catholic church – and other religious bodies and groups – have the space to adhere to, express and teach their beliefs in the public square? Or will these basic elements of religious freedom be denied, driving the Church and other religious bodies to the margins of society, if not actually underground?"
What's crazy about this "concerned and fearful realism" is that he gives every appearance of believing his own propaganda. He confuses losing an argument with losing the right to argue. There are actually genuine issues of religious freedom and toleration raised by some recent administrative decisions against opponents of gay marriage. But they have arisen because the argument about equality is already lost.
The argument about civil partnerships and fairness can't convincingly be put by people who have been unfair whenever they thought they could get away with it.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
American Church Watch: Ending Postmodern Sexual Compromises
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
Friday, July 27, 2012
Diana Butler Bass: "Can Christianity Be Saved? A Response to Ross Douthat
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diana-butler-bass/can-christianity-be-saved_1_b_1674807.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
by Diana Butler Bass
Can Christianity Be Saved? A Response to Ross Douthat
Many of the criticisms were mean-spirited or partisan, continuing a decade-long internal debate about the Episcopal Church's future. However, New York Times columnist Ross Douthat broadened the discussion, moving beyond inside-baseball ecclesial politics to ask a larger question: "Can Liberal Christianity be Saved?"
The question is a good one, for the liberal Christian tradition is an important part of American culture, from dazzling literary and intellectual achievements to great social reform movements. Mr. Douthat recognizes these contributions and rightly praises this aspect of liberal Christianity as "an immensely positive force in our national life."
Despite this history, however, Mr. Douthat insists that any denomination committed to contemporary liberalism will ultimately collapse. According to him, the Episcopal Church and its allegedly trendy faith, a faith that varies from a more worthy form of classical liberalism, is facing imminent death.
His argument, however, is neither particularly original nor true. It follows a thesis first set out in a 1972 book, Why Conservative Churches Are Growing by Dean Kelley. Drawing on Kelley's argument, Douthat believes that in the 1960s liberal Christianity overly accommodated to the culture and loosened its ties to tradition. This rendered the church irrelevant and led to a membership hemorrhage. Over the years, critics of liberal churches used numerical decline not only as a sign of churchgoer dissatisfaction but of divine displeasure. To those who subscribe to Kelley's analysis, liberal Christianity long ago lost its soul--and the state of Protestant denominations is a theological morality tale confirmed by dwindling attendance.
That was 1972. Forty years later, in 2012, liberal churches are not the only ones declining. It is true that progressive religious bodies started to decline in the 1960s. However, conservative denominations are now experiencing the same. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention, one of America's most conservative churches, has for a dozen years struggled with membership loss and overall erosion in programming, staffing, and budgets. Many smaller conservative denominations, such as the Missouri Synod Lutherans, are under pressure by loss. The Roman Catholic Church, a body that has moved in markedly conservative directions and of which Mr. Douthat is a member, is straining as members leave in droves. By 2008, one in ten Americans considered him- or herself a former Roman Catholic. On the surface, Catholic membership numbers seem steady. But this is a function of Catholic immigration from Latin America. If one factors out immigrants, American Catholicism matches the membership decline of any liberal Protestant denomination. Decline is not exclusive to the Episcopal Church, nor to liberal denominations--it is a reality facing the whole of American Christianity.
Douthat points out that the Episcopal Church has declined 23% in the last decade, identifying the loss as a sign of its theological infidelity. In the last decade, however, as conservative denominations lost members, their leaders have not equated the loss with unfaithfulness. Instead, they refer to declines as demographic "blips," waning evangelism, or the impact of secular culture. Membership decline has no inherent theological meaning for either liberals or conservatives. Decline only means, as Gallup pointed out in a just-released survey, that Americans have lost confidence in all forms of institutional religion.
The real question is not "Can liberal Christianity be saved?" The real question is: Can Christianity be saved?
Liberal Christians experienced this decline sooner than their conservative kin, thus giving them a longer, more sustained opportunity to explore what faith might mean to twenty-first century people. Introspective liberal churchgoers returned to the core of the Christian vision: Jesus' command to "Love God and love your neighbor as yourself." As a result, a sort of neo-liberal Christianity has quietly taken root across the old Protestant denominations--a form of faith that cares for one's neighbor, the common good, and fosters equality, but is, at the same time, a transformative personal faith that is warm, experiential, generous, and thoughtful. This new expression of Christianity maintains the historic liberal passion for serving others but embraces Jesus' injunction that a vibrant love for God is the basis for a meaningful life. These Christians link spirituality with social justice as a path of peace and biblical faith.
Unexpectedly, liberal Christianity is--in some congregations at least--undergoing renewal. A grass-roots affair to be sure, sputtering along in local churches, prompted by good pastors doing hard work and theologians mostly unknown to the larger culture. Some local congregations are growing, having seriously re-engaged practices of theological reflection, hospitality, prayer, worship, doing justice, and Christian formation. A recent study from Hartford Institute for Religion Research discovered that liberal congregations actually display higher levels of spiritual vitality than do conservative ones, noting that these findings were "counter-intuitive" to the usual narrative of American church life.
There is more than a little historical irony in this. A quiet renewal is occurring, but the denominational structures have yet to adjust their institutions to the recovery of practical wisdom that is remaking local congregations. And the media continues to fixate on big pastors and big churches with conservative followings as the center-point of American religion, ignoring the passion and goodness of the old liberal tradition that is once again finding its heart. Yet, the accepted story of conservative growth and liberal decline is a twentieth century tale, at odds with what the surveys, data, and best research says what is happening now. Indeed, I think that the better story of contemporary Christianity is that of an awakening of a more open, more inclusive, more spiritually vital faith is roiling and I argue for that in my recent book, Christianity After Religion.
So, Mr. Douthat asks, "Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?" But I wonder: Can Liberal Churches Save Christianity? The twenty-first century has yet to answer that, but I think we may be surprised.
Ross Douthat/Dianne Butler: Is Liberal Christianity Actually the Future
Is Liberal Christianity Actually The Future?
Forty years later, in 2012, liberal churches are not the only ones declining. It is true that progressive religious bodies started to decline in the 1960s. However, conservative denominations are now experiencing the same. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention, one of America’s most conservative churches, has for a dozen years struggled with membership loss and overall erosion in programming, staffing, and budgets. Many smaller conservative denominations, such as the Missouri Synod Lutherans, are under pressure by loss. The Roman Catholic Church, a body that has moved in markedly conservative directions and of which Mr. Douthat is a member, is straining as members leave in droves. By 2008, one in ten Americans considered him- or herself a former Roman Catholic. On the surface, Catholic membership numbers seem steady. But this is a function of Catholic immigration from Latin America. If one factors out immigrants, American Catholicism matches the membership decline of any liberal Protestant denomination. Decline is not exclusive to the Episcopal Church, nor to liberal denominations–it is a reality facing the whole of American Christianity.Or maybe they’re both real, and distinct, questions. Bass is right to see a broader ebbing of traditional Christian faith and a broader weakening of Christian institutions as the most important religious story of our times. She’s right that there’s no evidence that “infidelity” to Christian orthodoxy directly explains church decline: Many of the most successful preachers and religious bodies in the United States are offering messages that diverge in stark and significant ways (See Osteen, Joel, among many other figures) from the doctrines that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and many Protestants have traditionally held in common. And (as I said in the column), she’s right that there’s no reason for conservative Christians to feel remotely smug about the likely fate of bodies like the Episcopal Church. Overall, “can Christianity be saved?” is a question that American believers of every political and theological persuasion should be wrestling with today.
Douthat points out that the Episcopal Church has declined 23% in the last decade, identifying the loss as a sign of its theological infidelity. In the last decade, however, as conservative denominations lost members, their leaders have not equated the loss with unfaithfulness. Instead, they refer to declines as demographic “blips,” waning evangelism, or the impact of secular culture. Membership decline has no inherent theological meaning for either liberals or conservatives. Decline only means, as Gallup pointed out in a just-released survey, that Americans have lost confidence in all forms of institutional religion.
The real question is not “Can liberal Christianity be saved?” The real question is: Can Christianity be saved?
But with all of that said, the distinctiveness of the liberal churches’s decline —its depth, duration and seeming irreversibility — remains an incontrovertible fact. Yes, two generations after the Episcopalians and United Methodists and other bodies like them entered a long swoon, denominations like the Southern Baptists are experiencing some reversals, and the post-1970s evangelical revival seems to have hit a kind of demographic ceiling. But it would take literally decades of decline for conservative churches to come close to sharing liberal Protestantism’s current sickness-unto-death. Consider the following statistics (taken from Rodney Stark’s “The Churching of America”): In 1940, for every 1,000 churchgoers in the United States, 224 belonged to one of four major Mainline bodies (United Methodists, PCUSA Presbyterians, Episcopalians and Congregationalists), while 77 were Southern Baptists. By 2000, the Southern Baptist share of the churchgoing population equalled the share of those four more liberal churches combined — not because SBC growth was extraordinary (though it was significant), but because the liberal churches’ decline was so astonishingly steep. The fact that the SBC has struggled in the period since those numbers were published tells us something important about the challenges facing even conservative churches. But five years of declining membership is simply not the same thing as a multigenerational (and perhaps accelerating) collapse.
What’s more, Bass stacks the deck somewhat by comparing liberal and conservative denominations, since much of conservative evangelicalism’s post-1960s gains were concentrated in nondenominational churches rather than bodies like the SBC, and the growth of nondenominational congregations continues apace today. Some of these congregations, it’s true, are more theologically and politically liberal than the evangelical norm, in the style of “emergent church” figures like Brian McLaren and hip pastors like Rob Bell, and to the extent that liberal Christianity seems to have any kind of future at the moment it’s more likely to be found in the liberal wing of evangelicalism than in the faded Mainline. But overall, most of the vitality and growth in American Protestantism is still concentrated in congregations that are culturally and politically conservative, if not necessarily orthodox or theologically rigorous. And meanwhile, alongside the nondenominational category, the other fast-growing form of American Christianity is of course Mormonism — which obviously isn’t an orthodox form of the faith, but clearly isn’t anything like a self-consciously liberal or progressive form of Christianity either. (Per Stark’s numbers again: In 1940, there were roughly three Episcopalians for every Mormon; now it’s roughly the reverse.)
On the Catholic front, Bass is right that if you screen out Latino growth and only look at white mass attendance, Roman Catholicism has seen declines in churchgoing comparable to some Mainline denominations. But many leaders of the institutional Catholic Church in the United States went all-in for the liberal project in the 1960s and 1970s, and so at least some of Catholicism’s post-’60s decline is part of the same story of liberal Christian failure that’s visible in the Episcopal/Methodist/Presbyterian dégringolade. Again, this isn’t a case for conservative Catholic triumphalism, especially given the way the sex abuse scandal — the causes of which cut across the liberal/conservative divide within the church — seems to have killed off any hope for a real springtime of evangelization in the West for the foreseeable future. But such complicating factors notwithstanding, in both Protestantism and Catholicism the overall story continues to offer fewer consolations for liberal Christians than Bass’s analysis suggests.
Unless, of course, the very steepness of the liberal churches’ decline could prove to be a source of future strength, on the theory that it’s easier to rebuild (or at least see the landscape around you afresh) when you’ve been razed to your foundations. This is Bass’s provocative contention:
Liberal Christians experienced this decline sooner than their conservative kin, thus giving them a longer, more sustained opportunity to explore what faith might mean to twenty-first century people. Introspective liberal churchgoers returned to the core of the Christian vision: Jesus’ command to “Love God and love your neighbor as yourself.” As a result, a sort of neo-liberal Christianity has quietly taken root across the old Protestant denominations–a form of faith that cares for one’s neighbor, the common good, and fosters equality, but is, at the same time, a transformative personal faith that is warm, experiential, generous, and thoughtful. This new expression of Christianity maintains the historic liberal passion for serving others but embraces Jesus’ injunction that a vibrant love for God is the basis for a meaningful life. These Christians link spirituality with social justice as a path of peace and biblical faith.Provocative, but again not quite persuasive. The kind of “neo-liberal” vibrancy that Bass describes certainly exists in some precincts, and perhaps it has a brighter future than current trends suggest. But those trends, anecdotal counter-examples notwithstanding, are still eroding progressive-minded communities faster than they’re restoring or creating them. Overall, the kind of anti-dogmatic, anti-hierarchal spiritual searchers whose journeys Bass sees as a potential template for the Christian (and, indeed, Western religious) future are mostly doing their searching as individuals, rather than as members of the liberal churches and congregations that keep trying to roll out a welcome mat for them.
As I tried to argue in my own book, this individualism has consequences that liberal Christians as well more traditional believers should find more worrying than cheering: Consequences for local community (because it’s harder to care for your neighbor when you don’t have a congregation around you to provide resources and support), consequences for society as a whole (because the declining institutional churches leaves a void that our insolvent government is unlikely to effectively fill, no matter how many elections the Democratic Party wins), and consequences for private morality (because an individualistic faith is more likely to encourage solipsism and narcissism, in which the voice of the ego is mistaken for the voice of the divine). Like many religious progressives, Bass has great hopes for Christianity after organized religion, Christianity after the institutional church. But I feel like we already know what that Christianity looks like: It’s the self-satisfied, self-regarding, all-too-American faith that Christian Smith and others have encountered when they survey today’s teenagers and young adults, which conceives of God as part divine butler, part cosmic therapist, and which jettisons the more challenging aspects of Christianity that the traditional churches and denominations, for all their many sins and follies, at least tried to hand down to us intact.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Letter: NY TEC Bishops Authorizes Clerics to Perform LBGT-Marriages
http://www.anglicanink.com/article/new-york-bishops-authorize-clergy-perform-gay-weddings
New York bishops authorize clergy to perform gay weddings
Change in Policy Regarding Same-Sex Marriages
David Virtue, Global Internet Rips on TEC, and the Delusional GC 2012
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=16326
Dear Brothers and Sisters www.virtueonline.org
July 20, 2012
The Anglican/Episcopal drama is quite possibly the most riveting story in contemporary Christianity. The power of the Internet via websites, blogs and social media including, VIRTUEONLINE www.virtueonline.org, has brought this vividly to light, most recently at the Episcopal Church's 77th General Convention held in Indianapolis, Indiana.
Never in history has the little media guy had a chance to rise up and challenge the ecclesiastical powers and ask if the emperors (read bishops) have legitimate theological clothes. Never before has it been the place to challenge those in authority over us and to ask the hard tough questions. We at V OL won't settle for easy answers.
With the help of the Internet, Anglicans in African provinces can get the word instantly and spread the word that there is an alternative to the revisionist Episcopal Church. Although the ACNA and other Anglican bodies have their issues, that they exist at all in the strength they have–including old Episcopal congregations and dioceses, with or without the property–is a testament to the power of the Internet and our persistent voices.
At General Convention this past week in Indianapolis, I challenged the new incoming House of Deputies president, Gay Jennings who had raged on and on about how we need to get the youth back in the church and promote them. I stood up at a press conference and point blank asked her why the youth of the conservative Diocese of Dallas had not attended the last five years of national Episcopal Youth Events. They feel alienated, been publicly abused, called homophobic and other names because they are evangelicals and believe in the authority of Scripture. She almost strangled on the question and fobbed it off. Later, Bishop Leo Frade of Southeast Florida came up to me to say he was ashamed that was the case and that he would look into it.
When I asked Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori at another press conference why the national church headquarters might have to be sold off to pay the $37.5 million mortgage owing on it for legal fees, she replied that the building was worth substantially more than that. (815 2nd Avenue costs $8.7 million annually just to maintain.) Of course she didn't reply to the deeper question as to why endless lawsuits are being fought and litigated over property that most bishops can never hope to maintain even if they win them. Is it any wonder there is a huge disconnect between what goes on in parishes and what bishops and clergy pass at General Conventions?
Can anyone imagine 99% of Episcopal parishes deliberately hiring a transgendered priest? "Hi, I'm Laura, I used to be Lauren. I had a sex change operation two years ago and the Bishop of San Diego said I was fit to be a priest, so I want to be your priest. Let me in." You can't parody this stuff. Malcolm Muggeridge once told me that when he was editor of PUNCH magazine, they had a parody edition planned on the Soviet Union's collectivization being the Kingdom of God of Earth, when up jumped Dean Hewlett Johnson and actually said it was. They killed that edition.
The real hero of this General Convention was not the adoption of a long list of resolutions including asking the U.S. Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), rejecting the Covenant, voting for gay marriage, seriously reducing funding to the Anglican Communion Office, providing rites for pet funerals, the need for new structures owing to lower income into church coffers, the passage of the predictable provisional liturgies for same sex marriage or even the possibility that PA Bishop Charles E. Bennison will hire a trannie, as a priest of say, St. Clements, Philadelphia. The true face of courage came from one single bishop - Mark Lawrence of South Carolina who, in the face of the mostly revisionist House of Bishops and the 22 Communion Partner bishops stood up and said, "We here by repudiate, denounce and reject any action of The Episcopal Church which purports to bless what or Lord clearly does not bless. We declare any rite which purports to bless same-gender unions to be beyond the authority and jurisdiction of the General Convention of The Episcopal Church and without force or effect."
It was an unprecedented shot across the bows of Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori and her cohort of sycophantic bishops who would not oppose her even if the Holy Spirit hit them over the head with a 1928 Prayer Book.
All week long, Bishop Lawrence had been a voice crying in the wilderness. He and his colleague, Bishop William Love of Albany, were the only two Episcopal bishops who put up a scrap in the House of Bishops when their brother and sister bishops debated Resolution D002 which called for the inclusion all of persons to all ministry regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, thereby embracing transgenderedness. At one point, the newly anointed Bishop of Central Florida, Gregory O. Brewer rose to say that the passage of Rites for same sex marriage would impact Global South evangelistic efforts, perhaps even endangering lives. This had zero impact on the self-absorbed, narcissistic openly gay Bishop of New Hampshire, V. Gene Robinson who continually bewailed the endless homophobia of those who oppose his behavior.
The good bishop of South Carolina voiced his disapproval over similar Resolution D019 calling for the total inclusion of all persons regardless of the sexual orientation, gender identity or expression in the life, worship and governance of the church.
Bishop Lawrence's pleas fell on deaf ears and hardened hearts and "T" -- transgender -- was added to the list of The Episcopal Church's protected sexual deviations: LGBT.
Altogether the passage of Resolutions D002 and D016 along with the concurrence of A049, the Convention's spiritual decay became just too much for the sensibilities of the South Carolina delegation. On Tuesday night, the entire membership of the deputation, including Bishop Lawrence, walked out. He left behind just two members to say that his diocese had not left The Episcopal Church. He is now consulting with his diocese on how he will move forward.
As he has won in the courts over property issues and has offered a "quit claim" to parishes to decide their own future, would anybody really be surprised if he and the diocese upped and left TEC? Time will tell. For the moment, he says he has no intention of leaving The Episcopal Church.
Ironically, what emerged from this litany of evil resolutions has been the excoriation of TEC by the secular press of TEC's actions. That in itself is unprecedented.
Take for example what Ross Douthart wrote in the New York Times: "the leaders of the Episcopal Church and similar bodies often don't seem to be offering anything you can't already get from a purely secular liberalism, which suggests that perhaps they should pause, amid their frantic renovations, and consider not just what they would change about historic Christianity, but what they would defend and offer uncompromisingly to the world. Absent such a reconsideration, their fate is nearly certain: they will change, and change, and die."
Or consider what William Murchison of Creators Syndicate wrote: "The mistake of Christian bodies like the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Episcopalians, and even the Roman Catholics has been to woo the culture by pretending that Truth at bottom is just personal opinion; that religious viewpoint admits prejudice more often than heavenly light."
Jay Akasie of the Wall Street Journal wrote in an article, What Ails the Episcopalians. A sub head ran, "Its numbers and coffers shrinking, the church votes for pet funerals but offers little to the traditional faithful."
He ripped her a real one when he said, "Bishop (Jefferts) Schori is known for brazenly carrying a metropolitan cross during church processions. With its double horizontal bars, the metropolitan cross is a liturgical accouterment that's typically reserved for Old World bishops. And her reign as presiding bishop has been characterized by actions more akin to a potentate than a clergywoman watching over a flock.
"In recent years she's sued breakaway, traditionalist dioceses which find the mother church increasingly radical. Church legislators have asked publicly how much the legal crusades have cost, to no avail. In the week before this summer's convention, Bishop (Jefferts) Schori sent shock waves through the church by putting forth her own national budget without consulting the convention's budget committee-consisting partly of laymen-which until now has traditionally drafted the document." He had much more to say which you can read in today's digest.
This was the final straw for the newly anointed Gay Jennings, President of the House of Deputies who rushed out a piece for the Washington Post in which she opined that Episcopal churches are really short on politics, sexuality debates and long on Jesus. Such fictional writing defies everything that this and previous General Conventions are about. 99% of all resolutions passed never mention Jesus (except to use him to support whatever lunacy they have in mind) and will mercifully be forgotten except, of course, the sexuality ones that will continue to drill holes directly into the underwater hull of the SS TEC.
The deeper truth is that her piece shows that TEC leaders feel a need to respond to the sudden negative media attention. Elite Episcopal leaders like Jefferts Schori and V. Gene Robinson are accustomed to secular praise for their brave and "holy" stands. Ridicule from the likes of VOL is one thing, but public ridicule from outside the church is new territory for them. They don't like it one little bit. In the coming days, will we see an op-ed piece in the New York Times coming directly from Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori on the progressive stance of her church in the face of its orthodox despisers?
The one man who must surely be enjoying all this is, of course, the shadowy figure of David Booth Beers, Jefferts Schori's attorney who picks up millions of dollars in legal enough fees from every property lawsuit. Even if TEC sells the national headquarters, he will go on colleting his legal pound of flesh...in the name of (property) inclusivity of course.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
South Carolina TEC Diocese Bucks TEC Trends
By Joy Hunter
Diocese of South Carolina
July 18, 2012
"This growth brings glory to our Lord and witnesses to the faithful ministry of the priests, deacons and laity within this diocese as they share the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ," said the Rt. Rev. Mark J. Lawrence, Bishop of South Carolina, when presented with the figures.
Average Sunday attendance in the Diocese increased 10.8% from 11,086 to 12,286. In comparison, the average Sunday attendance in the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA) was projected to show a decline of slightly less than 12,000, or about -1.8%.
Total Plate and Pledge income in the Diocese increased from $25,679,383 in 2010 to $27,873,631 in 2011, an increase of 8.5%. Total Plate and Pledge income for the ECUSA was projected to increase .9% over the same period.
An indicator of diocesan or parish health, the total number of Communicants jumped 22.8% in 2011 from 21,966 in 2010 to 26,976.
Communicants are defined as all baptized members of the reporting congregation who have received Holy Communion at least three times during the preceding year and are faithful in corporate worship, unless for good cause prevented and in working, praying, and giving for the spread of the Kingdom of God.
Total baptized membership in the Diocese increased from 29,196 to 29,443, showing a modest .8% increase. During the same period total baptized membership in the Episcopal Church USA is expected to show a decline of 27,000 or -1.4%.
The one area that did not show an increase in the Diocese was Confirmations. There were 477 confirmations in 2010 and only 419 in 2011.
"Overall the trend is one for which we give thanks," said Diocesan Administrator, Nancy Armstrong, in presenting the numbers.
* Figures for the Episcopal Church USA are taken Kirk Hadaway Report, June 21, 2012, found on the Episcopal Church website.
NAACP's Divorce from Black Church
Did the NAACP Divorce the Black Church?--"Claiming that `marriage equality' is a civil right, the NAACP board voted 62-2 to back that policy. In doing so, the NAACP decisively cut itself off from its roots in the black church."
They posted this article.
(A 1966 graduate of Howard School and captain of the Hustlin’ Tigers football team his senior year, he went on to the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, where he graduated with a degree in electrical engineering. After working for IBM in Kentucky and Colorado, he is now the pastor of a church in Harrisburg, Pa.)















