Revivalists, Pentecostalists, Baptists and Others: "The Anxious Bench" by John Williamson Nevin (1803-1866)

Professor John Williamson Nevin (1803-1866)

http://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&dq=john%20nevin%20anxious%20bench&ei=58PTTayuKcuB0QGO_bT0Cw&ct=result&id=33IWAAAAYAAJ&output=text&pg=PR2

"The Anxious Bench" by John Williamson Nevin (1803-1866).  A few notes about Nevin, prior to posting excerpts from his book.  Nevin was reared as a Presbyterian. He graduated from Union College (1821), studied theology at Princeton Theological Seminary (1823-1828).  He studied under the infamous and magnificent Charles Hodge (1826-1828).  Nevin was professor of Biblical literature at Western Theological Seminary (now Pittsburgh Theological Seminary) from 1830-1840.  In 1840, he resigned his chair and taught in the (German Reformed) Theological Seminary at Mercersburg, PA. "The Anxious Bench—A Tract for the Times" was written in 1843.  In it, he attack the excesses of revivalistic methods then gaining cross-denominational influence.  Dr. Nevin was also a co-labourer alongside one of America's premier historian, Dr. Philip Schaff (e.g. the three-volume Creeds of Christendom and the eight-volume History of the Christian Church, both "must reads"). 

Some excerpts from Dr. Nevin's "The Anxious Bench" in quotation marks, with emphasis added in italics, with sundry comments outside the quotation marks.

Truly, the Finneyite system and Anabaptification of American churches has curved in on itself, as source of their own embarrassment. 

"With the reproaches that have been showered upo/ me personally, in different quarters, I have not a I lowed myself to be much disturbed. I had looked foi it all beforehand ; knowing well the spirit of the system, with which I was called to deal. I knew o) course, that I should be calumniated as an enemy to revivals, and an opposer of vital godliness. But I felt satisfied at the same time, that the calumny would in due season correct itself, and recoil with disgrace on the heads of those from whom it might proceed. It has begun to do so already, and will continue to do so, no doubt, more and more."

Reformation Churches would oppose the anxious bench, altar calls like Billy Graham's, and the mechanistic gimmickry of Anabaptistic and Pentecostalist evangelicals, said to include, but not limited to:  Rick Warren, TBN, etc.

"It is with a very bad grace, that reference is made occasionally by some, to the idea of a foreign spirit in the tract, as related to the German Churches. It is in full sympathy with the true life of these Churches, as it stood in the beginning. The charge of seeking to force a foreign spirit on them, lies with clear right against the other side. The system of New Measures has no affinity whatever, with the life of the Reformation, as embodied in the Augsburgh Confession and the Heidelbergh Catechism. It could not have found any favor in the eyes of Zuingli or Calvin. Luther would have denounced it, in the most unmerciful terms. His soul was too large, too deep, too free, to hold communion with a style of religion so mechanical and shallow."

Almost prophetic, namely, that the Revivalist "Anxious Bench" proceeds where ignorance rules and is a fertile ground for the Anabaptification and Pentecostalification of the gullible. Our sense is that this prevailed more largely in the U.S. than in England.

"The general mind unhappily has not been furnished thus far with proper protection and guidance, in the way of full religious teaching ; and the result is that in these interesting circumstances it has become exposed more or less, at almost every point, to those wild fanatical influences, which in this country are sure to come in like a desolating flood wherever they can find room. Upstart sects have set themselves to take possession if possible of the entire field in this way, on the principle that the old organizations are corrupt and deserve to be destroyed. Their reliance of course in this work of reformation, is placed largely on New Measures! Thus a whole Babel of extravagance has been let loose upon the community, far and wide, in the name of religion, one sect vieing with another in the measure of its irregularities."

The enthusiasts, Methodo-Anabaptifiers and Pentecostaholics, on Nevin's view, predictably produce doctrinal falseness, shallowness and non-accountability.

"No account is made comparatively, of the danger of bringing both the truth and power of God into discredit, by countenancing pretensions to the name of a revival where the thing itself is not present. The danger itself is by no means imaginary. Spurious excitements are natural and common. Gross irregularity and extravagance, carried often to the point of downright profanity, are actually at work, in connection with such excitements, on all sides. The whole interest of revivals is endangered, by the assumption impudently put forward, that these revolting excesses belong to the system. False and ruinous views of religion, are widely disseminated."

Pentecostalism, one direct fruit of the gimmick-meisters of extravagance, rant, noise and disorder. "Justified by feeling" is a choice phrase below.

"If Finneyism and Winebrennerism, the anxious bench, revival machinery, solemn tricks for effect, decision displays at the bidding of the preacher, genuflections and prostrations in the aisle or around the altar, noise and disorder, extravagance and rant, mechanical conversions...justification by feeling rather than faith, and encouragement ministered to all fanatical impressions ; if these things, and things in the same line indefinitely, have no connection in fact with true serious religion and the cause of revivals, but tend only to bring them into discredit, let the fact be openly proclaimed."

I recently attended a Pentecostalist hothouse.  See:  http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2011/05/my-recent-experience-in-pentecostalist.html  Quite in keeping with that experience, Nevin rightly claims:

"It is a popish maxim, by which ignorance is made to be the mother of devotion."

Luther strongly resisted the Enthusiasts and wild Phrygian Montanists in Germany; Calvin did also. Cranmer also resisted them...so should we today.

Old snake-eyes himself, Charles Finney (1792-1875)

We say rather, Let there be light. The cause of the Reformation was more endangered by its own carricature, in the wild fanaticism of the Anabaptists, than by all the opposition of Rome. Luther saved it, not by truckling compromise, but by boldly facing and unmasking the false spirit, so that all the world might see, that Lutheran Christianity was one thing, and wild Phrygian Montanism, with its pretended inspiration, quite another. So in the present crisis, the salvation of the old German Churches in this country is to be accomplished, not by encouraging them to `believe every spirit,' but by engaging them, if possible, to `try the spirits, whether they be of God.' Let things that are wrong be called by their right names, and separated from things that are right."

Success is claimed for the "New Measures" (e.g. Gimmicks like the anxious bench, provocative speech and more).  Ultimately, the Word itself and Sacraments themselves are belittled and His Majesty's work through these "ordinary means of grace."  It sounds like Church-growth philosophies, e.g. Rick Warren.

"The patrons of the system, it is plain, make much account of its popularity, of the success with , which it seems to be attended, and of the power it is supposed to manifest on the part ot those who can use it with effect. But all who are at all acquainted with the world, know, that the worst things may thus run for a season and be glorified, in the popular mind. And especially is this the case, where they hold their existence in the element of excitement, and connect themselves with religion, the deepest and most universal of all human interests. No weight of fashion enlisted in favor of the Anxious Bench can deserve to be much respected, in such a trial of its merits as We are here called to make."

Word, Sacrament, and due diligence in discipline is in order.  When these factors prevail, the modern experiments in enthusiasm and excitement, including bongo-drumming enthusiasts, as efforts to reach the unchurched...these new measures fall and fail.  These gimmicks belittle the Word and Sacraments. 

"It is marvellous credulity, to take every excitement in the name of religion, for the work of God's Spirit. It is an enormous demand on our charity, when we are asked to accept in mass, as true and solid, the wholesale conversions that are made in this way. It will soon be made to appear, that there is the greatest reason for caution and distrust, with regard to this point."

An example from the fifth century.  God uses oddballs, quacks, as His Majesty pleases, but this is not the ordinary, prescribed, and biblical method of nurturance.   God uses oddballs, quacks, loons, windbags, gasbags, and others as His Majesty pleases, but this is not the ordinary, prescribed, and biblical method of nurturance. Nevin observes:

"Simeon, the Stylite, distinguished himself, in the fifth century, by taking his station on the top of a pillar, for the glory of God and the benefit of his own soul. This whimsical discipline he continued to observe for thirty seven years. Meanwhile he became an object of wide-spread veneration. Vast crowds came from a distance to gaze upon him, and hear him preach. The measure took with the people wonderfully. Thousands of heathen were converted, and baptized by his hand. Among these, it may be charitably trusted were some, whose conversion was inward and solid. God made use of Simeon's Pillar, to bring them to himself. The seal of his approbation might seem to have rested upon it, to an extraordinary extent. No wonder the device became popular. The quackery of the Pillar took possession of the Eastern world, and stood for centuries a monument of the folly that gave it birth. We laugh at it now ; and yet it seemed a good thing in its time, and carried with it a weight of popularity such as no New Measure can boast of in the present day."

Rome and Anglican ritualism claim the same, success in piety.  Let's introduce monkery and conventicles again.

"The Romish Church has always delighted in arrangements and services, animated with the same false spirit. In her penitential system, all pains have been taken to produce effect by means of outward postures and dress, till in the end, amid the solemn mummery, no room has been left for genuine penitence at all. Yet not a ceremony was ever introduced into the system, that did not seem to be recommended by some sound religious reason at the time."

Sounds quite modern, although Nevin is describing the "hothouse" American revivalists.  It sounds like Church-growth Anabaptists and Pentecostalists.

"Commonly indeed, those who deal in the anxious seat, rely far less upon the presentation of truth to the understanding, than they do upon other influences, to bring persons forward. Pains are taken rather to raise the imagination, and confound the judgment. Exciting appeals are made to the principle of fear. Advantage is taken in every way of the senses and nerves. Especially the mysterious force of sympathy is enlisted in support of the measure, and made to tell in many cases with immense effect."

How utterly modern are these comments by Nevin on the hot-bench enthusiast of his time, Charles Finney. 

"It shows no inward power whatever, to be able to move a congregation in this way. It can be done without eloquence, and calls for no particular earnestness or depth of thought. It is truly wonderful indeed, with how little qualification of intellect and soul a man may be fitted to carry all before him at certain times, and to show himself off to the eyes of a bewitched multitude as `the great power of God,' by having recourse to new measures. He may be vulgar, coarse and dull, and so pointless and sapless in his ordinary pulpit services, that it will be a weariness to hear him ; and yet you shall find him, from time to time, throwing a whole community into excitement, gathering around him crowded houses night after night, and exercising as it might seem, far the space of three or four weeks, an irresistible sway, in favor of religion. Such cases are by no means Uncommon. Some of the most successful practitioners in the art of the Anxious Bench show themselves lamentably defective in the power of serious godliness, as well as in mental cultivation generally. The general habit of their liyes is worldly and vain and their religion, apart from the occasional whirlwinds of excitement in which they are allowed to figure in their favorite way, may be said to be characteristically superficial and cold. Nay, the evidence. may be palpable, that religion has nothing at all to do with the system, in cases where it is employed with the greatest apparent effect. Nothing is more common, than for those even who glory in the power of the Anxious Bench, as employed within their own communion, to look with entire distrust on its results as exhibited in the practice of other sects."

Bill Hybels of Willow (Dried-up) Creek, a church-growth outfit, learned this the hard way. Billy learned that his spiritually hungry were most put off by the (Dried-up) Willow Creek services. In short, the services were unedifying, unhelpful and unsustaining.  They would have to become "self-feeders" outside of divine worship.  From Nevin:

"In the sphere of religion, as indeed in the world of life generally, the outward can have no value, except as it stands continually in the power of the inward. To estimate the force of appearances, we must try their moral constitution."

How very modern, that is, the church-growth, CCM, and Pentecostalist hype-jobs throughout the USA.  Quack-shops and quack-jobs.  At root, it is about foundational UNBELIEF IN THE WORD AND SACRAMENTS.

"It has been shown, that the successful Use of the Anxious Bench calls for no spiritual power. It is within the reach of fanaticism and error, to be employed in their service, with as much facility as it may be enlisted in the service of truth. It is no argument of strength, as is often imagined, that a preacher is able to use such an agency with effect. I now go a step farther and pronounce it an argument of spiritual weakness that he should find it either necessary or desirable to call in such help. There is a measure of quackery in the expedient, which always implies the want of strength, so far as it may be relied on at all, as being of material account, in carrying on the work ot God."

What is a "theological quack?"   Nevin wrote when medical quacks in the USA were unregulated. I think it was 1909 when standards were introduced to the USA to reduce medical quacks and quackdom. What about modern pulpits and quacks? Quack, quack, sounds like a dumb duck.

"The self-styled physician, who without any knowledge of the human frame, undertakes to cure diseases by a sovereign panacea, in the shape of fluid, powder, or pill, is a quack; and there is no doubt abundance of quackery in the medical profession, under more professional forms, where practice is conducted without any true professional insight and power. Such practice may at times seem eminently successful, and yet it is quackery notwithstanding."

Religious quackjobs. Nevin must have been thinking about the Western frontiermen in America where revivalist ignoramuses gained a foothold. Finney wasn't too well accepted in the educated and reading classes. Quack-jobs, USA.  From Nevin,

"Quack lawyers, quack statesmen, quack scholars, quack teachers, quack gentlemen, quacks in a word of every name and shape, meet us plentifully in every direction. We need not be surprised then to find the evil fully at home also in the sphere of religion."

Charles Finney, John Nevin, and Banner of Truth

The above photo is old snake-eyes himself, Charles Finney.

"This means that Nevin's book is paradoxically even more relevant today than ever it was in his own lifetime. So perhaps we can conclude by suggesting that if we want to know what Evangelicalism has largely become today, and what Evangelicalism ought to be according to its Reformation roots, we could do a lot worse than read Charles Finney's Lectures on Revivals of Religion, and then its antidote, John W. Nevin's The Anxious Bench."

For more of this commendable review of Charles Finney and John Nevin, see:
Banner of Truth Trust General Articles

The Church Mouse Blog: Is the Bible the best way to promote Christianity in Britain?

A brief, but important strategic point is made by "The Church Mouse."

The Church Mouse Blog: Is the Bible the best way to promote Christianity in Britain?

CRANMER'S CURATE: UNDER OUR CHRISTIAN QUEEN GOD'S GOSPEL IS FOR ANYWHERE IN THE UK

So, let's get hot and on it.

CRANMER'S CURATE: UNDER OUR CHRISTIAN QUEEN GOD'S GOSPEL IS FOR ANYWHERE IN THE UK

UNDER OUR CHRISTIAN QUEEN GOD'S GOSPEL IS FOR ANYWHERE IN THE UK
Under a Christian Sovereign, there should be no part of the United Kingdom where the biblical gospel of eternal salvation through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ could not be freely proclaimed both in a building and in the open air.

But one has to wonder what would happen to a Christian preacher who attempted to proclaim the true God's gospel on the streets of an urban area considered by a radical element of its residents to be Muslim.

In such an environment, would the herald of Christ be arrested for the public order offence or the Islamist militants who took physical action to disrupt the sermon? Recent precedents do not hold out much hope that the guilty would be punished and not the innocent.

Even more revealing, though, would be the attitude of the local churches in the area and particularly the Anglican clergy? Would they back Christ's messenger or dissociate themselves from him? Would some so-called Christians in the area even accuse him of tactlessness?

The Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Queen, pledged at her Coronation to defend the Protestant Christian Faith. What the Book of Common Prayer describes as the Sovereign's 'whole Council', namely Her Majesty's Government, has a constitutional duty to support her in fulfilling that oath.

Thus, if there are any no-go areas for the Christian gospel in the UK, then that is a serious breach of our country's constitution.

The Book of Common Prayer by Josiah Henry Benton

http://books.google.com/books?id=jjwvAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR5&dq=book+of+common+prayer&output=text#c_top

The Book of Common Prayer by Josiah Henry Benton.

Lest we forget.

A few excerpt in quotation marks. Emphasis added in italics.

Not a book for the slothful, but the thoughtful.

"The history of the Book of Common Prayer has been the study of the most acute and vigorous minds, not only of ecclesiastics, but of lawyers, statesmen and scholars. A body of literature has been created as to its sources, meaning and purposes which for learning, reasoning and style is unsurpassed. Those who know it best love it most, and the very earnestness of their discussions as to its origin and meaning attests their devotion to it. It has profoundly influenced not only the moral, but also the intellectual and political life of England and of the world."

A vast prune-job was requested by Cranmer of King Henry VIII.

On February 21, 1543, Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, informed the Convocation that it was the wish of his majesty that all service-books in the Church of England should be "newly examined, corrected, reformed, and castigated, from all manner of mention of the Bishop of Rome's name, from all apocryphas, feigned legends, superstitions, orations, collects, versicles, and responses; that the names and memories of all saints which be not mentioned in the Scripture or authentic doctors should be abolished, and put out of the same books and calendars, and that the service should be made out of the Scripture and other authentic doctors."

Background and leadup to the 1552 Reformed--it was that--Book of Common Prayer.  The italicized section applies quite equally to our own times, especially in American with sectarianism, individualism, revivalism, interiorized and relativist thinking.

"It referred to the first Book of Common Prayer `as a very Godly order set forth by authority of Parliament for Common Prayer and administration of the Sacraments to be used in the mother tongue within this Church of England agreeable to the Word of God, and the primitive Church, very comfortable to all good people,' and declared that the revision was `because there hath risen in the use and exercise of the aforesaid Common Service in the Church, heretofore set forth, divers doubts for the fashion and manner of the ministration of the same, rather by the curiosity of the Minister and mistakers, than of any other worthy cause.' Wherefore the act declared that Parliament "hath caused the aforesaid order of Common Service, entitled 'the Book Of Common Prayer,' to be faithfully and godly perused, explained, and made fully perfect.' The act then declared that if after November 1,1552, any person should `willingly and wittingly hear and be present at any other manner or form of Common Prayer, or Administration of the Sacraments, of making of Ministers in the Churches, or of any other rites contained in the book' he should for the first offence be imprisoned for six months, for the second for one year, and for the third offence for life. In this revision the Ordinal or form for making bishops, priests and deacons was first made part of the Prayer-Book. This was prepared and published early in 1550 as a companion to the Book of Common Prayer of 1549, and is therefore sometimes spoken of as the `Ordinal of 1549.' "

The old "black rubric."  Put into the 1552 BCP, pulled in 1559, but re-asserted in 1662.  The Lutheran Churchmen took a hit with the black rubric, then, like now--our august Lutheran cousins and Catholic brethren.

"But on October 27, only four days before the Book was required to be generally used, an order was passed by the King in Council requiring the rubric to be added to the Communion Office. It was printed in black, and, after a preamble stating the propriety of kneeling in the Communion, declared that `it is not meant thereby that any adoration is done or ought to be done either unto the sacramental bread and wine there bodily received, or unto any real and essential presence there being of Christ's natural flesh and blood. For as concerning the sacramental bread and wine, they remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; for that were idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians; and as concerning the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ, they are in heaven and not here; for it is against the truth of Christ's true natural body to be in more places than in one at one time.' This rubric was omitted from the Prayer-Book as established by the Act of Uniformity of Elizabeth in 1559, because it was no part of the Prayer-Book of 1552 as enacted by Parliament. It was included in the present Prayer-Book as established by the Act of 1662."

Thank God for old Queen Bess 1 and the English steadfastness at the Channel.  Imagine, had the Spanish Papists won and imposed the false Gospel upon our ancestors.  We might have been in Papist Churches in North America, doing rosaries and novenas.

"Later another bull of excommunication of like effect was issued against the Queen, and finally, when the great Armada was about to be sent by Spain to conquer England, a final bull of excommunication was issued. This recited the previous bulls, stated that the Pope had `used great diligence with divers princes and especially with the mighty and Catholic King of Spain, to use force, that that woman may be deje6ied from her degree and that the evil men and hurtful to mankind which adhere to her may be punished, and that kingdom be reduced to certain reformation and quietness.' Then the bull set forth at great length the wicked conduct of Elizabeth in abolishing the true Catholic religion and introducing heretical forms of worship, and again declared Elizabeth illegitimate and a true usurper of the kingdom of England, and absolved all her subjects from all duty of fidelity and obedience to her, and threatened them with excommunication if they continued to obey her."

Has the Vatican ever retracted these bulls?  This is an important question warranting media-analysis?  Is there a record of retraction?  We do not think there has been a retraction.

"Bull of damnation and excommunication, promulgated by Pope Pius V against Queen Elizabeth and her followers, dated at Rome, February 25, 1569 [i.e. 1570]. An English translation of this is to be found in Camden's History, vol. 2, part 4, p. 427 (London, 1706). Latin text published in Bullarium privilegiorum ac diplomatum Romanorum pontificum, torn. iv. pars 3, pp. 98, 99 (Romae, 1746). This bull was renewed by Pope Gregory XIII (1572-1585) in his general bull, In nomine santfac et individuae Trinitatis (In the name of the sacred and undivided Trinity), — a bull against heretics, dated Rome, March 19, 1572; and, again, in 1577. Pope Sixtus V renewed the same bull of excommunication in 1588. An English translation of this is to be found in Purchas His Pilgrimej, vol. iv. p. 1895 (London, 1625)."

The Book of Common Prayer: Three Hundred Fiftieth Anniversary

http://books.google.com/books?id=AzViQX8zTwcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=book+of+common+prayer&hl=en&ei=F7_STZnsBcyftgfj7fSPCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CGUQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false

The Book of Common Prayer: Three Hundred Fiftieth Anniversary by Samuel Hart, New Bible and Common Prayer Book Society (New York: James Pott & Co., 1899)

Lest we forget our august Anglican patrimony, our life story.

A few excerpts (emphasis added and in italics):

A meditation on the global impact of Anglicanism, including the US, where its influences were once strong, but are now diminishing.  Yet, the southern hemisphere continues to show these influences, notwithstanding the diminished influences in the West.

"Wherever Englishmen have gone...tens of millions in England and her colonies; each of these copies is a teacher, and many of them are missionaries; and the book has a strong influence for good on the character of every one who uses it. As it is with many other excellent things which we have and use, so it is with the Prayer Book: for the very reason that we use it and get good from it all the time..."

"So, even in the British Isles, the Gospel was largely preached in Latin, and the Bible was read or recited from versions made into that language. In course of time there was an Anglo-Saxon language, into which some parts of the Bible were put in verse or prose; and then, after the Norman Conquest, our modern English grew to be a real language, and Wycklif and others translated the Bible into it, though they did not, as we should say, publish their translations. But by this time Latin had come to be looked upon as a kind of sacred language, and its use had grown into a custom for religious purposes..."

"The services for the seven hours of the day, which were said only by the priests and monks, who knew Latin, became very complicated and hard to follow, while the amount of Scripture that was read in them became very small, and many stories were introduced which were not edifying or not true; while the most sacred service of the Holy Communion, at which the people were expected to attend, had become for many of them only a ceremony, and was surrounded by superstitions. What was needed in the case of the Bible was simply to translate it and give it to the people in English; but in the case of the services, in order that there might be a Book of Common Prayer, it was necessary not only to put them into English, but also to make them more simple and more true. And this making them more simple and more true could be done..."

Cranmer refused to toss centuries of thought, piety, depth, order, decorum, dignity, biblicality, catholicity, and significance.  Cranmer was not an enthusiast, bent upon re-inventing the wheel, like the enthusiasts in America.

"Archbishop Cranmer, and others who worked with him, knew the importance of all this; they were familiar with the old forms, and they knew how to make them of use for the English Church of their own day; and the Archbishop, besides, had remarkable skill in understanding the meaning of the Latin collects and other prayers and putting it into English words and phrases. The result was that there was almost nothing new in the Prayer Book of 1549. It had the old versicles and canticles and creeds and prayers, the old collects (most of them then already about a thousand years old) with their Epistles and Gospels; it had the Psalms so arranged as to be read through once a month; it had tables of daily lessons from the Bible, much longer than had been read for a great while, because the people were hungry, as was said, for the Word of God. And those things were corrected which had been wrong; new things which told of error were left out, and old things which were needed to express the truth were brought back."

Of note, the 1559 BCP was used until the 1662.  Even during the Great Rebellion of the Non-conformists, the 1559--a book for all Protestants--the Book was used.  The 1559 was used in English Cathedrals and parish churches.

"THE Prayer Book has been constantly used in the English Church for all the years since 1549. Twice its use has been forbidden by law: during the reign of Queen Mary, from 1553 to 1558, when cruel means were used against all attempts to reform the Church; and again at the end of the reign of Charles I. and during the Commonwealth, from 1645 to 1660..."

"Based upon services which had behind them fifteen hundred years of Christian thought, translated into deep and rich English with rare taste and delicacy, strengthened by the best products of contemporary learning, and brought into close dependence upon the authority of Holy Scripture, the Book of Common Prayer has slowly but surely won its way into the hearts and minds of Englishmen. It has become their manual of private devotion as well as their book of public worship. The religious and moral life of England for three centuries [and a half] has rested upon the Bible and the Prayer Book, and the national charafter would not be what it is, had either of them been banished from her history."

Imagine this, a return of Archbishop Cranmer, Queen Elizabeth, or Sir Walter Raleigh.  Or, the millions converted, nourished and raised on the BCP through decades.  Imagine Archbishop Cranmer in a modern American Pentecostalist hothouse.

"If Archbishop Cranmer, or Queen Elizabeth, or Sir Walter Raleigh were to come to-day into any English cathedral or parish church, or into any of our churches in the United States, the service would at once be recognized as the same in which the worshipper had often taken part years ago, the only difficulty being in the changes of pronunciation which the lapse of time has brought into the language."

VirtueOnline - Episcopal Seminaries Under Stress

Episcopal Seminaries Under Stress

By Elizabeth Redden
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/03/11/episcopal
March 11, 2008

VOL Note: Noticeably missing from this story is any mention of Trinity School for Ministry in Ambridge, PA or Nashotah House in Wisconsin both of which are thriving.

Of the 11 Episcopal seminaries in the United States, one recently announced it would end its main residential program, another is shutting down one of its campuses, and a third is selling a good portion of its campus. The changes reflect not only each institution's own financial or enrollment straits but also changes that are coming in Episcopal seminary education, which has historically played a key role in American theological life. Among them are an embrace of distance education and new, more flexible alternatives to the traditional residential seminary model thus far sustained for centuries, and ever-increasing numbers of collaborations involving other seminaries, Episcopal and non, and non-sectarian colleges, as tiny institutions struggle to survive.

Among the developments:

Episcopal Divinity School (EDS), in Cambridge, Mass., sold seven buildings on its eight-acre campus to Lesley University, a non-sectarian institution, for $33.5 million. Under the terms of the sale, announced Thursday, EDS will maintain ownership of 13 buildings. As part of the agreement, Lesley, which has already housed undergraduates on the seminary's campus under a leasing arrangement for about three years, will now own residence halls and a dining facility on EDS' grounds. The two institutions will share a library.

Bexley Hall Seminary, which in 1998 began a gradual move from Rochester to its native state of Ohio to affiliate with Trinity Lutheran Seminary, is completely closing its Rochester satellite, prompted by concerns about re-accreditation of a very small branch campus and limited prospects for future growth.

And, most dramatically, Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, in Evanston, Ill., recently said it would shut down its three-year residential master of divinity (M.Div.) program, the traditional backbone of a seminary's offerings. Seabury-Western has scaled back its course offerings significantly for the coming year -- suspending recruitment and admissions for all programs, pledging to help masters' and certificate students "find alternative arrangements for the completion of their programs" as needed, and negotiating the terms of a teach-out with a Methodist seminary located across the street. All those who graduate through 2009 will receive Seabury-Western degrees. Beyond that, officials say, details are still to be determined.

Seabury-Western insists, however, that it is not closing -- instead entering a period, as officials put it, of "discernment," or "transition" to a new model of theological education.

"We have come to the realization that we cannot continue to operate as we have in the past and that there is both loss and good news in that. We believe that the church does not need Seabury in its present form; there are a number of other schools who do what we have traditionally done as well as we do. But we also believe that the church very much needs a seminary animated by and organized around a new vision of theological education -- one that is centered in a vision of Baptism and its implications for the whole church, one which is flexible and adaptive and collaborative in nature," reads a statement from Seabury-Western's dean and Board of Trustees.

In each of the three cases, of course, the story is different. Seabury-Western, which is partly based on land on long-term lease from Northwestern University, had a projected budget shortfall of half a million for this fiscal year, $3 million in debt, and an $11 million endowment (seen as too small to support the costly residential program).

Bexley foresaw future problems with re-accreditation of its 13-student Rochester branch campus. "We were accredited by virtue of affiliation with the Colgate Rochester Divinity School. Incrementally that affiliation had really ceased to exist," Bexley's dean and president, The Very Rev. John R. Kevern, said in an interview. Told that their operation in Rochester was likely going to be "too skinny" for re-accreditation in 2012, Bexley opted to focus instead on continuing to build its Columbus, Ohio, campus, which has grown to about 25 students.

EDS, meanwhile, had identified the heavy costs of maintaining century-old (or more) buildings as a drain on its financial resources.

"Back in 2003," said Nancy Davidge, an EDS spokeswoman, "our trustees recognized that our current operating patterns and spending patterns were, if you're looking out 25, 50, 100 years, unsustainable. At that time, they made the decision to begin to actively look at what options were out there to help us firm up our financial foundation so that we would be able to continue to offer theological education for the next 25, 50, 100 years."

For more, see:
VirtueOnline - News - News - Episcopal Seminaries Under Stress

Another Mainline Implosion

VirtueOnline - News - As Eye See It - Another Mainline Implosion

Another Mainline Implosion

By Mark Tooley
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/267017/another-mainline-implosion-mark-tooley
May 11, 2011

The 2 million member Presbyterian Church (USA) has become the latest mainline Protestant denomination to implode on sexual standards. On May 10, Presbyterians in Minneapolis became the needed 87th local presbytery to vote for deleting the denomination's expectation for ministers and elders of "fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness."

These Presbyterians now join the United Church of Christ, Episcopal Church, and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America in adopting a liberalized policy of permitting clergy to be sexually active outside heterosexual marriage. Among the larger (and historically liberal) mainline Protestant denominations, only the United Methodist Church, with 7.7 million U.S. members, still officially prohibits clergy sexually active outside traditional marriage. Almost uniquely international in membership, with over 4 million members now in Africa, where Christianity is very conservative and fast growing, United Methodism almost certainly will retain its sexual standard.

But the rest of once preeminent mainline Protestantism in America is collapsing. The PCUSA was already losing about 60,000 members a year, a figure that surely will increase now, as it did for Episcopalians and Lutherans after their divisive votes to liberalize the sex teachings, in 2003 and 2009 respectively. Forty-five years ago, one in every five Americans belonged to the "seven sister" mainline Protestant denominations. Today, only one in 15 Americans still does. Although secular elites often portray a secularizing America, actual church attendance in America has remained remarkably constant across the last 75 years. But among non-Catholic Christians, attendance has shifted from mainline Protestant to more evangelical churches.

The implosion of U.S. mainline Protestantism almost certainly will continue indefinitely, a trend to which church elites are largely indifferent. Their nearly all white, mostly college-educated, upper-middle class middle memberships, helped by endowments from earlier generations, help to ensure that even empty churches can stay open. PCUSA members, spread across over 10,000 congregations, continue to give over $2 billion every year.

Although not unexpected, it's still a sad moment for traditional Presbyterians, who first ratified the "fidelity and chastity" expectation in the 1990s with hopes of staving off sexual liberalization. "This is a lonely day for Presbyterians who believe what the Bible and the Church have consistently taught," commented my colleague Alan Wisdom, a long time combatant in PCUSA politics. "Now we belong to a denomination that is no longer sure it believes that teaching."

And it's a sad day for America. The mainline denominations date to America's earliest days. They profoundly shaped our national ethos, mostly for the good. Can Catholics and evangelicals fill the void? Hopefully so. But all of us should mourn the decline of yet one more once-great church.

---Mark Tooley President of the Institute on Religion and Democracy.

CAPT Cliffford, CHC, USN (ret) Speaks of TEC Decline, USA

Captain George Clifford, CHC, USN (ret) summarizes his findings on TEC, USA.  George and I once had a stroll through Puerta della Maria, Spain years ago.  We discussed theology, ahem, or let me say there was a one-sided soliloquy about Protestant, Reformed, Calvinistic Anglicans; being handicapped, theologically, he did not do well.  All he could offer was some dismissive snickers.  George was a former Baptist who told a friend of mine, another Navy Chaplain, that he became an Episcopalian because there would be preferrments and better chances of promotion.  He switched while in the Navy.  Curiously, he lives in this neck of the woods of NC.  That's some background and more could be said.  Having said that, George offers some happy statistics about the TEC.  His findings were posted by VOL.
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=14366

To prove the point, George Clifford, a priest in the Diocese of North Carolina, drew attention to a recent report on Episcopal Congregations with findings from the 2010 Faith Communities Today Survey. The survey revealed that:

*The median age for Episcopalians is 57, and that of active clergy is 58

*30% of Episcopalians are age 65+, as compared to 13% of U.S. population

*Unless the median age falls or we live longer, half of us will have died by 2030

*While 52% of our churches are in communities of 50,000 or less and 8% are in rural areas, U.S. urbanization proceeds apace

*86.2% of our churches are mostly white, 5.6% multi-racial, 4.9% mostly Black

*The median congregation had 160 active members in 2009, down from 182 in 2003

*Median attendance in our some 7000 congregations is dropping at the rate of five attendees every three years and was 66 in 2009. At this rate, median attendance will be 31 in 15 years, and 6 in 30 years

*As median attendance drops, the percentage of a church's budget spent on property and personnel, in contrast to program and mission, rises, as do conflicts over money

*28% of parishes and missions reported that their finances were "excellent" or "good" in 2010, compared to 56% in 2000.

Clifford writes of The Episcopal Church, "Unless TEC reverses the decline; TEC will soon become a remnant numbering in the tens of thousands. When that happens, the media will not care, and few non-Episcopalians will even notice, what the Episcopal Church says or does. TEC will no longer be a vital incarnation of God's love in Christ. Instead, TEC will have gone from being the established church in several eighteen century American colonies and states to being a twenty-first century anachronism."

Gafcon throws down gauntlet to Dr. Williams: The Church of England Newspaper, May 11, 2011 « Conger

Gafcon throws down gauntlet to Dr. Williams: The Church of England Newspaper, May 11, 2011 « Conger

Gafcon throws down gauntlet to Dr. Williams: The Church of England Newspaper, May 11, 2011 May 11, 2011
Posted by geoconger in Anglican Ordinariate, Archbishop of Canterbury, Church of England Newspaper, GAFCON.
trackback
First published in The Church of England Newspaper.

The formation of the Anglican Ordinariate was a natural consequence of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s mismanagement of the crisis facing the Anglican Communion, the leaders of the Gafcon movement said in a statement released on May 10.

In a strongly worded communiqué summarizing the work of their April 25-28 meeting in Nairobi, the archbishops of the Gafcon movement, representing a majority of the church’s members, voiced their displeasure with the usurpation of authority by Dr. Williams and the staff of the Anglican Consultative Council and laid upon their door responsibility for the de facto schism within the communion.

While the 13-point communiqué touched on administrative issues for the Anglican reform movement, including the creation of a Nairobi and London offices, the appointment of Bishop Martyn Minns as Deputy Secretary, and the calling of a second Jerusalem conference in 2013, the heart of the letter came in a sustained attack on the actions taken by London-based instruments of the Anglican Communion.

While Pope Benedict XVI’s offer of an Anglican Ordinariate was “a gracious gift” to those Anglican clergy and congregations “alienated by recent actions in the Communion,” it should not have been necessary, the archbishops said.

“Our own Communion has failed to make adequate provision for those who hold to a traditional view of the faith. We remain convinced that from within the Provinces that we represent there are creative ways by which we can support those who have been alienated so that they can remain within the Anglican family,” they said.

The tone of the Nairobi statement from the Gafcon archbishops: Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda, Tanzania, West Africa, the Southern Cone, Rwanda, Sydney and Archbishop Robert Duncan of the ACNA, speaks to the mounting frustration the reform movement’s leaders feel with the course of events taken by the London-based instruments of the communion, one insider told The Church of England Newspaper.

Given the African church’s historic deference to the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and their cultural predisposition not to air their differences in public, the Nairobi letter was a remarkably frank document, CEN was told.

In their communiqué, the archbishops objected to the hijacking of the church’s agenda by Western interests in the face of natural disasters and political upheavals facing the world. They urged all Christians to join them in “prayer for our world and especially for those who are suffering because of natural disasters as well as those who struggle to live under violent and oppressive governments.”

“We are distressed that, in the face of these enormous challenges, we are still divided as a Communion,” they said, adding that until the issues that divide the church are addressed full on “we will remain weakened at a time when the needs before us are so great.”

The bishops were frustrated and “disappointed that those who organized the Primates meeting in Dublin not only failed to address these core concerns but decided instead to unilaterally reduce the status of the Primates’ Meeting.”

Such a move was taken in “complete disregard” of the organizing resolutions for the primates conference set down by Lambeth 1978 and 1988 that gave the primates an “enhanced role in ‘doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters’.”

Those who wrote the script for Dublin that gelded the primates “were seriously misled and their actions unacceptable,” the Gafcon archbishops said.

The modernist “promotion of a shadow gospel that appears to replace a traditional reading of Holy Scriptures and a robust theology of the church with an uncertain faith and a never ending listening process” was “troubling,” they said.

Such a “faith masquerades as a religion of tolerance and generosity and yet it is decidedly intolerant to those who hold to the ‘faith once and for all delivered to the saints’.”

The ecclesiological principle of concentrating authority into the hands of the Archbishop of Canterbury and an unaccountable bureaucracy were un-Anglican. The basic unit of the church in Anglicanism was not a London-based curia, but the local church. “We were mindful of the importance of letting scripture speak directly to the nature of the church and not simply let our current experience delimit our doctrine,” they said.

The Scriptural witness and the Anglican formularies held that the “local church is the fundamental expression of the one true church here on earth and is bound together with other local churches by ties of love, fellowship and truth.”

“From such networks have come denominations, national churches and global communions,” they said, adding that “we believe, however, that we are fully the church in our various settings, created and sustained by Word and Sacrament, and marked by obedience that results in faith, hope and love.”

The archbishops urged a return to the Scriptural and doctrinal principles enunciated in the 2008 Jerusalem Statement, and called for the renewal and reform of the church. “The Lord’s call to discipline demands from us a commitment to unity, holiness, apostolicity and catholicity. All of these are aspects of what it means to be church,” they said.

Back To The Center: PCUSA - Dancing in the Graveyard

Today the PCUSA became the latest mainline denomination to allow ordination of gay clergy. This just a matter of hours after Evangelical left leader Jim Wallis took a thrashing from his erstwhile comrades in arms for rejecting an ad that asked churches to be more affirming of gays. An example of the reaction can be found here.

For more in an interesting argument that is well-argued in terms of literacy, see:
Back To The Center: PCUSA - Dancing in the Graveyard

Triablogue: Where is Heidelblog?

Triablogue: Where is Heidelblog?

An unacceptable event, the Rev. Dr. Scott Clark, pulling Heidelblog down, allegedly, after some internecine conflict with his Reformed consistory. No explanation, nothing. It stinks. Additionally, it is most unappealing in terms of leadership. Marines, never, ever, ever, ever drop their 100-lb. packs on a 30-mile march. Whatever transpired, it is BAD LEADERSHIP, PERIOD.

UPDATE of approximately 13 May 2011: We lost, inexplicably, an update from last week. It disappeared. (??).  The rough date is 13 May 2011. Other blogs similarly complained of lost posts.  I guess I too may say that.  The sense of that lost post was to outline a restriction on the wider narrative with a narrowly-tailored objection. First, whatever transpired within the URC, OURC, WTS-CA was not at bar. With a sense of things, we have a sense of the Consistory's wisdom, especially as a Prayer Book Churchman. We understand the necessary difficulty and conflict that would obtain between an "Exclusive Singer of Only Canonical Texts" (which has our sympathy) and those allowing hymns beyond the canonical text.  While we understand the tension, it was not our place to comment.  This was not our issue. Second, Dr. Clark's desire to cease blogging was not at bar either. He's busy. He surely has other weighty matters at hand. Leaving the world of blogging is understandable.  So, that is a non-issue as well. So, what is the issue? This is the issue: tearing down the entire archive of thoughtful, useful, scholarly, moderate, helpful and strategic posts. This narrowly-tailored objection still obtains without an iota of mitigation, although we are moving on--hopefully, in peace and with best wishes for OURC and Dr. Clark.  While issuing this sustained protest, assuredly, we have not lost the big picture and perspective.  Nor does our continuing objection "eclipse" the big picture.  One "aw shucks" cannot and will not negate or mitigate the large thanksgiving for HB while it existed.  Our strongest support, interest, thanksgiving and prayers are with Dr. Clark and OURC. 

We took a bit of a drubbing from HB-supporters at a few places over our final disposition of this case.  We are not changing our standing review.  (1) Dr. Clark dropped the ball--big-time, while in war--by obliterating the blog.  (2) Our objection is narrowly tailored. (3)  We have not lost the big picture. 

UPDATE 16 May 2011:  Without retracting our narrowly-tailored, just, fair and right complaint, the finest comments we have found on this situation comes from an English Churchman, brother, and fellow reader of HB.  His blog and moniker is "Church Campanologist." Calm and deliberative remarks which are salutary and wise. After the initial shock followed by a narrowly-tailored and rigourous response by this scribe, Church Campanologist rightly gives the sense that ought prevail. Thanks CC, you've registered the exact sentiments well and wisely.  In moving on, this is the prevailing sentiment.  Here this scribe stands--there are no rebuttals to this thesis.  CC, while offering his own indpendent review to our's, precisely reflects our post-action views.   

http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/farewell-to-heidelblog-with-thanks/#comment-3489

Update 12:36 EST, 16 May 2011:  Wes Bredenhof Actually the above is rather limited. But Google has oodles of caches from the Heidelblog. Like this: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3AaQYkAFFBjZwJ%3Aheidelblog.wordpress.com%2F2007%2F12%2F15%2Fministers-all%2F+heidelblog.wordpress.com&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&source=www.google.com

Wes, thanks for this.

Update 19 May 2011.  The dust has settled.  Lest we were not clear above.  We love, respect, honour and pray for the well-being of OURC, Dr. Clark, their work, their committment to Confessional Churchmanship, and their national witness.  Of course, we are Prayer Book men, so we have some issues there.  Our narrowly tailored complaint stands, as originally issued, but the greater perspective prevails.

Why Conservative Churches Are Growing: David Brooks and the Limits of Sociology

A helpful analysis by David Brooks, covered at VOL.

VirtueOnline - News - As Eye See It - Why Conservative Churches Are Growing: David Brooks and the Limits of Sociology

By Albert Mohler
http://www.albertmohler.com/
April 25, 2011

By the late 1960s, liberal Protestants began asking a rather difficult question. Why were the conservative churches growing? In retrospect, one aspect of the liberal Protestant crisis was reflected in that very question. The mainline Protestant denominations would have been better served by asking why their own churches were declining.

Commissioned by the National Council of Churches, researcher Dean M. Kelley set out to find out why conservative churches were growing, even as the more liberal churches were declining. In his 1972 book, Why Conservative Churches are Growing: A Study in Sociology of Religion, Kelley argued that evangelical churches grow precisely because they do what the more liberal congregations and denominations intentionally reject - they make serious demands of believers in terms of doctrine and behavior.

"Amid the current neglect and hostility toward organized religion in general," Kelley noted, "the conservative churches, holding to seemingly outmoded theology and making strict demands on their members, have equalled or surpassed in growth the early percentage increases of the nation's population."

With amazing insight and candor, Kelley spoke for mainline Protestantism when he noted that it had been generally assumed that churches, "if they want to succeed, will be reasonable, rational, courteous, responsible, restrained, and receptive to outside criticism." These churches would be highly concerned with preserving "a good image in the world" - and that meant especially within the world of the cultural elites. These churches, intending to grow, would be "democratic and gentle in their internal affairs" - as the larger world defines those qualities. These churches will intend to be cooperative with other religious groups in order to meet common goals, and thus "will not let dogmatism, judgmental moralism, or obsessions with cultic purity stand in the way of such cooperation and service."

Then, Kelley dropped his bomb: "These expectations are a recipe for the failure of the religious enterprise, and arise from a mistaken view of what success in religion is and how it should be fostered and measured."

Kelley then presented his considerable wealth of research and reflection on the phenomenon of conservative growth and liberal decline. "Strong" religious movements make demands of their members in terms of both belief and behavior. These churches demand adherence to highly defined doctrines that are to be received, believed, and taught without compromise. They also understand themselves to be separate from the larger secular culture, and the requirements of membership in the church define a distance from secular beliefs and behaviors.

The liberal churches are, by their own decision, opposed to these very principles. The mainline Protestant churches desired to be taken seriously and respected by the intellectual elites. They wanted the benefits of cultural acceptance and esteem. They lowered doctrinal and behavioral requirements and made membership more a matter of personal preference than of theological conviction.

Kelley concluded: "To the person who is concerned about the future of the ecumenical churches, this theory can offer little encouragement. The mainline denominations will continue to exist on a diminishing scale for decades, perhaps for centuries, and will continue to supply some people with a dilute and undemanding form of meaning, which may be all they want."

In a recent column in The New York Times, David Brooks raised similar issues, this time in the context of a review of "The Book of Mormon," a popular production on Broadway. In Brooks' view, the show "ridicules Mormonism but not the Mormons, who are loopy but ultimately admirable."

In the course of his column, Brooks made this observation:

Many religious doctrines are rigid and out of touch. But religion itself can do enormous good as long as people take religious teaching metaphorically and not literally; as long as people understand that all religions ultimately preach love and service underneath their superficial particulars; as long as people practice their faiths open-mindedly and are tolerant of different beliefs.

Hang in there - David Brooks is headed somewhere with this argument. He noted that many Americans "have always admired the style of belief that is spiritual but not doctrinal, pluralistic and not exclusive, which offers tools for serving the greater good but is not marred by intolerant theological judgments."

And he is right, of course. This is an eloquent description of the religious disposition so well documented by Dean Kelley almost 40 years ago. This describes the mainline Protestant aspiration - to be seen as serving the public good without the taint of theological judgment.

But then Brooks dropped a bombshell of his own:

The only problem with "The Book of Mormon" (you realize when thinking about it later) is that its theme is not quite true. Vague, uplifting, nondoctrinal religiosity doesn't actually last. The religions that grow, succor and motivate people to perform heroic acts of service are usually theologically rigorous, arduous in practice and definite in their convictions about what is True and False.

Further: "The religions that thrive have exactly what "The Book of Mormon" ridicules: communal theologies, doctrines and codes of conduct rooted in claims of absolute truth."

Note that Brooks defined the "strong" profile of belief with terms such as "rigorous," "arduous," and "definite." With considerable insight, Brooks informed his readers that rigorous theology "provides believers with a map of reality," "allows believers to examine the world intellectually as well as emotionally," "helps people avoid mindless conformity," and "delves into mysteries in ways that are beyond most of us."

Meanwhile, arduous codes of behavior and conduct "allow people to build their character." Brooks explains that "regular acts of discipline can lay the foundation for extraordinary acts of self-control when it counts the most."

Brooks concludes with a look at Africa, where conservative Protestantism is thriving. The Broadway show portrays the Africans accepting the liberal form of belief that would comfort the cultured antagonists of religion. Brooks knows that it is not so:

I was once in an AIDS-ravaged village in southern Africa. The vague humanism of the outside do-gooders didn't do much to get people to alter their risky behavior. The blunt theological talk of the church ladies - right and wrong, salvation and damnation - seemed to have a better effect.

In the span of just a few paragraphs, David Brooks made the same argument that Dean M. Kelley made in his book-length report on research nearly four decades ago.

There is a wealth of insight in both analyses. In the present context, evangelical Christians face many of the same questions asked by the liberal Protestant denominations in the 1960s and beyond. The main question is always deeply theological: Do we really believe that the message of the Gospel is the only message that offers salvation?

At this point, the limits of sociological research become clear. A sociological analysis can distinguish between stronger and weaker forms of faith and belief and can measure qualities such as rigor, ardor, and definiteness. Sociology can trace developments and offer research-based predictions about the future.

What sociology cannot do is deal with the most important question of all - the truth question. That is where Mormons and evangelical Christians part company. Orthodox Jews, Jesuits, and Jehovah's Witnesses all fall on the "strong" side of the sociological divide in their own way, but each has a completely distinct worldview based upon very different understandings of the truth. Mormons and Methodists have very different theologies, to say the least, but it takes a theologically informed Mormon and Methodist to know the difference.

Dean M. Kelley and David Brooks, each writing for a very different audience, have much to say to evangelical Christians. But, in the end, sociology can get us only so far and no further. The rigor, ardor, and energies of evangelical churches must not be held merely in a desire to hold to a form of religion that will grow, but in a biblical commitment to hold fast to the truth of the Gospel and to share that saving truth with the whole world.

We are left with what David Brooks described as the "blunt theological talk of the church ladies" in that African village - "right and wrong, salvation and damnation." Such is the Kingdom.

---Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., serves as president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary - the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world. Read more

Evening Prayer--Second Second after the Resurrection

http://www.evoca.com/api/users/cradleofprayer/recordings/CradleofPrayer-CradleofPrayer-Easter%202%20Saturday%20Evening%20Prayer.mp3?structure=hyphenated&code=243506

Sacra Doctrina: Bucer's Baptismal Theology

A tremendous post at:

sacra doctrina: bucer's baptismal theology

bucer's baptismal theology
One of the interesting things about Martin Bucer is to trace the development of his baptismal theology over the course of his teaching as a Reformer.

In the earliest part of his career, during the 1520's, he directed his teaching against what he perceived to be Roman Catholic extremes regarding the ex opera operato functioning of the sacraments, particularly as that was explained by nominalist theologians. Thus he makes a sharp distinction between the "baptism of water [by which] we are received into the outward church of God" and the "baptism of the Spirit" which the elect alone experience (cf. particularly his commentary on John). Thus, with regard to infant baptism, Bucer asserts, "if they were chosen of God before the foundations of the world were laid, the Lord will grant them the Spirit and faith when he sees fit, but our washing them with water will not for one moment grant them faith or God's Spirit" (from his 1527 Ephesians commentary).

By the mid-1520's, however, the Reformer Carlstadt had rejected the practice of infant baptism, paving the way for the radical reformation of the Anabaptists. At first Bucer was not particularly concerned since, after all, "baptism is just an external" (as he once told Luther). Nevertheless, over time Bucer grew less and less sanguine about the Anabaptists and, in his reply to them, found himself returning to an emphasis on the efficacy of baptism and the true instrumentality of the rite by the power of the Spirit.

Thus, by the late 1530's, the rupture between "inward" and "outward" was overcome in the context of a rapidly developing Reformed sacramental and covenantal theology. This same trend and trajectory can be found throughout this period in the thought of many other Reformed Protestants: Calvin, Capito, Oecolampadius, Farel, even Zwingli (see Hughes Oliphant Old's The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the Sixteenth Century, Eerdmans 1992, especially Chapters 4-6).

And by the time of his 1536 commentary on Romans, Bucer is able to state, "Christ commended baptism as the means whereby participation in himself and heavenly regeneration should be imparted and presented through the church's ministry." And in his 1548 Brief Summary of the Christian Doctrine and Religion Taught as Strasbourg he writes,

We confess and teach that holy baptism, when given and received according to the Lord's command, is in the case of adults and little children truly a baptism of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, whereby those who are baptized have all their sins washed away, are buried into the death of our Lord Jesus Christ, are incorporated into him and put him on for the death of their sins, for a new and godly life and the blessed resurrection, and through him become children and heirs of God.
A similar progression can be found in Calvin's writings proceeding from the 1536 Institutes and his early commentaries, to the later Catechism of 1545, the 1556 reply to Westphal, and the final additions to the 1559 edition of the Institutes.

A lot of historical research still needs to be done on this and similar topics, research that would no doubt benefit those churches which trace their heritage to these Reformers.

Ascensiontide--June 2011

‎2 Jun 2011, Ascension Day this year? Methinks so, without checking the Book of Common Prayer. In the realm of privatized, interiorized, revivalized, and subjectivized American religion, these objective benchmarks of Scripture, Confessions, liturgies and our great hymns remind us well of the dysfunctions. He is risen. We shall remember HM's ascension shortly.

Acts 1.11 (ESV): "...and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."

As a friend, Charles, said: "So ascended, Christ intercedes for His Church as High Priest, and also functions as Archliturgist before the Divine Majesty. Hence, we plead His mercy in addressing the Father, through His Cross/Passion and present mediation."

Indeed: the objective, central, and governing realities as our High Priest, Sovereign King, and Prophet...who leads worship as the Liturgist-in-Chief. See, the Conqueror mounts in triumph and King in royal state, riding on clouds and exercising perfect command.

The Ascension-Day.
The Collect.

GRANT, we beseech thee, Almighty God, that like as we do believe thy only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ to have ascended into the heavens; so we may also in heart and mind thither ascend, and with him continually dwell, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end. Amen.

VERMONT: Feasibility Study Reveals Diocese of Vermont in Serious Trouble

VirtueOnline - News - Exclusives - VERMONT: Feasibility Study Reveals Diocese of Vermont in Serious Trouble

A telling and witty comment was offered at VOL, to wit:

"How could Vermont or any other diocese be in trouble?

"Why, we changed our prayer book so it would be `more understandable'; we changed our music so it would be "more contemporary"; we changed our beliefs about divorce, remarriage, and fornication so we'd be "more relevant"; and we changed our focus from the worship of God to the Social Justice Gospel.

"I just don't understand it! People should be flocking to our churches!

"For goodness sake - don't we hop about the nave hugging perfect strangers now? Don't we wave our hands and talk in tongues now? What more could they want? We even have fishing poles with streamers attached so the acolytes can wave them in the air whilst coming down the aisle...now that's showmanship!

"After all, back when we were America's most admired denomination - back when we had the most beautiful worship services in Western Christendom; back when we had more trust funds than required to run several medium-sized countries; back when we had an educated, literate, witty, and erudite clergy - why, back then we were building churches!

"Would one of you draft-dodgers from the 1960s who is now a bishop please explain to me just what the problem is?"

The Message Hated by Protestant Liberals and Evangelicals

"Even the cross was a judgment seat. For the Judge was set up in the middle with the thief who believed and was pardoned on the one side and the thief who mocked and was damned on the other. Already then he signified what he would do with the living and the dead: some he will place on his right hand, others on his left." - St. Augustine (Tractates on the Gospel) "For as the Son was judged as a man, he shall also judge in human form." - St. Augustine (City of God, 20.30)

The message that is hated by Protestant liberals and American evangelicals.

Lessons from history | Cultural thinking | Sydneyanglicans.net

Lessons from history
Paul Barnett
May 9th, 2011

Andrew Robinson’s helpful article 'Liturgy Schmiturgy' in the April edition of Southern Cross prompts the following reflection about a lesson to be learned from early Christian history about the survival and propagation of the Christian faith. I am thinking of the decades before and after the close of the apostolic age in circa AD 100. The great apostolic leaders had passed on, there was considerable theological confusion due to Gnosticism and other deviant views and, furthermore, the Lord had not returned.

One interesting element in apostolic and early post-apostolic Christianity was a willingness to learn from Jewish practices. Initially, the first Christians were Jews and the Jewish influence in the churches continued throughout the first century, although diminishingly. So Christianity grew out of the soil of Judaism, a Judaism that in previous centuries had survived the fires of persecution on the one hand and the subtle syncretistic seduction of Greek beliefs and practices on the other.

For more, see:

Lessons from history Cultural thinking Sydneyanglicans.net


A helpful reminder on the role of catechisms, liturgy and the church calendar.

Montanism and Pentecostalism

The enemy of God’s Church, who is emphatically a hater of good and a lover of evil ... was again active in causing strange heresies to spring up against the Church. For some persons, like venomous reptiles, crawled over Asia & Phrygia, boasting that Montanus was the Paraclete, & that the women that followed him, Priscilla and Maximilla, were prophetesses of Montanus. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 5.15

Prelim Review: Mike Horton's "Christless Christianity," 9-28.

Preliminary Review of Michael Horton’s “Christless Christianity” (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2009), pp. 9-27

The Rev. Dr. Mike Horton raises provocative, expansive, and important questions about American, if not English and Western, Christianity across seven short, fast and readable chapters. We ponder Mike’s opening salvo in Chapter 1. Mike has been thinking a long time on this proposition.  In light of God's Being, Word, our Confessions and liturgies, what shall think?

We ponder chapter 1, pp. 9-27, Mike’s introduction and opening salvo. Chapter 1, “Christless Christianity,” is so entitled like the book itself, "Christless Christianity." As a Reformed and Calvinistic Anglican of an older sort than most readers, the questions Mike raises resonate but invokes wider questions. (As a Senior Churchman, this scribe comfortably calls him “Mike” rather than Dr., Professor, Rev’d, or the like. I easily call Bishops by their first names. I also call USMC Generals and USN Admirals by their first names. Never mind the Colonels and Captains. Mike won't get a pass, like other Profs.) Where is Mike going in chapter 1, his setting and setup for the remaining six chapters? Is his claim too expansive?

Mike’s theme is that America, across the theological divide, Protestant liberal or evangelical, is fast becoming “Christless.” Mike says, “In fact, my sense urgency...is pervasive, crossing the conservative-liberal spectrum and all denomination lines” (Horton, 27). That is the grand thesis, the widespread drift towards Christlessness.

If the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church, the church’s assimilation to the world—according to Mike—is the silencing of the biblical message. In short, here is Mike’s thinking: God and His redemptive story versus the narcissistic, American, co-hortative and trumping story of God as our life coach (supporting “our story”). Mike says:

Jesus has been dressed up as a corporate CEO, life coach, culture-warrior, political revolutionary, political revolutionary, philosopher, copilot, cosufferer, moral example, and partner in fulfilling our personal and social regimes. But in all of these ways, are we reducing the central character in the drama of redemption to a prop for our own play? (Horton, 25, emphasis added)

(The answer is preliminarily obvious.) This is an important question, the co-opting of the biblical message with redefinitions to suit modern predilections—ourselves and our own narcissistic narrative.  Mike’s thesis is that these self-aggrandizing redefinitions define the grand, national, and trans-denominational narrative. Implicit is the sub-text that Americans are falling prey to the redefinitions, not due to lack of zeal, although that—itself—warrants examination. Can Mike sustain the enquiry and cross-examination? Mike’s thesis and cross-examination warrant inquiry.

Mike limits his thematic liabilities to four large caveats—caveats that are as wide as his fears and his singular claim. The defenses, or caveats, are quite large.

The caveats are as follows.  First, Mike tells us, there are many faithful Pastors, congregations and Churchmen who are exempt from the claim. This single caveat appears to be as wide as the claim itself, to wit and in summary (and essence): “Let me, Mike, indict the entire nation, all publishing enterprises, all media centers of advertisement, all churches, all seminaries, all writings, all Professors, and all pulpits while excluding all those to whom the massive indictment might be imputed.” Big stuff! Mike’s claim cannot get much wider, but he makes it. Obviously, one shall require a wide set of sociological data to get at this…that awaits us. Second, the endpoint of “Christlessness” is not here, Mike avers, but “we are well on our way." Clear specifics are needed: definitions and specific dates, names, and quotes and needed. We are reminded of B.B. Warfield’s similar prognostications about Protestantism in the late 19th-century. How and where will Mike extricate himself, if at all? Third, the issue of zeal is not at bar, but rather: deeds rather than creeds. Aside from Mike, one thinks of Rick Warren’s infamous, famous, fatuous, anti-intellectual, non-confessional, anti-historic, anti-liturgical and gross, if not most highly stupid, claim to this effect…deeds not creeds. It is hard to believe that a pulpiteer would make this stupid claim, but Warren has and did: Deeds rather than creeds.  Halfwits will approve, not careful and thoughtful Churchmen or Churchwomen.  This ignorant claim finds roots in Protestant liberalism in the late 19th-early 20th century. Fourth, larger inquiries on the matter are referred by Mike to his three other books: Made in America, Power Religion, and Beyond Culture Wars. A brief summary by Mike would have been helpful here…even a paragraph. Ergo, Mike’s expansive claim needs those contexts for fairness. Clearly, Mike has been thinking about this thesis for years. Due to that alone, Mike warrants a careful ear. Is this book simply an update and rehash of the earlier ones? We’ll see. Mike’s concern is that evangelicalism is not just like theological liberalism, but is becoming theologically vacuous (Horton, 23). That is hardly novel.  He quotes the evangelical Anglican, John Stott, to wit, “growth without depth.” That is hardly new. Mike’s four caveats in Chapter 1 are self-limiting propositions that insulate him from counter-objections and wider liabilities and rebuttals.  Mike, that is convenient and unhelpful.

Having said that, Mike’s inquiry and proposition warrants additional scrutiny. Confessional Lutherans will, if catechetized, feel the force of Mike’s proposition. To the extent that a Presbyterian has ingested his Westminster standards, he or she shall feel the force of the inquest. Ditto, for Reformed Anglicans reared in the Reformed faith and the old Prayer Book. Baptacostals, we suppose, Mike's target audience, will not feel the force of the question, given their backgrounds.  In fact, Mike seems to incessantly be arguing with his own non-confessional, non-liturgical, and broadly evangelical background--with American revivalists, Anabaptists, dispensationalists, and other non-confessional evangelicals.  While that is not our background, it is Mike's and he is working it. Whatever the background, Mike's proposition MUST BE ENGAGED.  Mike's question hangs in the air melodramatically, earnestly, liturgically, confessionally, biblically and with concern. 

Rightly or wrongly, Mike's question and asseveration--notwithstanding his caveats--must be engaged and answered.  Catholic Christians of the Reformation need to engage and answer Mike's challenges.  To him, Mike, we are thankful.  Thank you, Michael.

Yet, is it simply a re-baked thesis in search of publication?  To wit, is it Baker or Horton simply seeking a rehatch of an old idea?  As to Baker Books, we have little doubt that a $$-growth-narrative is involved.  If a Baker-rehatch of an old idea from Mike's older books, this one from e.g. 2009, Mike had been working on a far more important project--The Christian Faith (1000 pages).  While we distrust publishers in Grand Rapids, MI, Mike's concerns are not doubted, assuredly.  We know his concerns from earlier years. More to follow.

The Second Sunday in Advent.
The Collect.
O BLESSED Lord, who hast caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning; Grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, that by patience and comfort of thy holy Word, we may embrace, and ever hold fast, the blessed hope of everlasting life, which thou hast given us in our Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.

"Christ, the Lord, is Risen Today" Easter Hymn John Hong Organ Improvisa...

My recent experience in a Pentecostalist Hothouse

Rivers of Life (ROF) or Rolling on the Floor,  Jacksonville, North Carolina

In partial fulfillment of the course requirements for REL 211, students were required to attend a local congregation other than their own and submit a reflection-narrative-paper vis a vis Acts 2.42-47 (cf. appendix). This is not a historico-exegetical, theological or historical paper, but is a narrative reflection—a personal narrative—on a service at Rivers of Life (ROL), 1940 Gum Branch, Jacksonville, NC. The church appears to have several pastors, although a Mr. and Mrs. Chris and Miriam Phillips are the “Senior Pastors.” According to a service bulletin, they draw 1200 per Sunday over three services: 8, 10 and 12 A.M. Rivers of Life warrants close analysis, this Pentecostalist hothouse.

Context

Some contextual observations are made. Upon arrival, the parking lot was packed. Security personnel directed incoming and outgoing traffic. The security personnel appeared to have communication devices associated with Secret Service and law enforcement agents, that is, circular-corded ear-pieces while speaking into devices on/around the wrists. The building is rectangular with a beige-stucco-exterior. A light-green “Dove” is affixed to façade. The sanctuary has dark-grey walls to match the carpet. A movie-type darkness obtains with minimal lighting on the walls and ceiling. A rough estimate suggests 200 feet by 100 feet, or, about 20,000 square feet. Greeters glad-hand attendees with words of welcome. In the pre-theatre period (before the service), everyone—in one combination or another—stands, talks, laughs, backslaps and mingles about. It is chatty and chummy. By assumption, this may be what they probably call “fellowship,” or, κοινωνίᾳ. A few older folks, like myself, take a seat. This scribe sat in the middle towards the rear, just in front of the elevated DJ-stage, occupied by sound and light technicians. Oddly, the man next to me had his security device as he spoke quietly to his wrist. The man to my right, as I would learn after the service, was a 1st LT, USMC, a battalion adjutant. The service was 106 minutes long. As a service, it lacked all the difficulties, challenges, austerity, and demands (e.g. thinking) associated with my background in Confessional Presbyterianism and Prayer Book Anglicanism—those generations of demure and rational types. ROF was a stark contrast.

A Brief Look at Acts 2.42

Acts 2.42: “ἦσαν δὲ προσκαρτεροῦντες τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ, τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου καὶ ταῖς προσευχαῖς.” Or, in English, “And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” The English translation (ESV) correctly gives the reflexive sense and middle voice with “they devoted themselves.” Although not technically accurate, an active voice works suitably in translation for reading purposes, e.g. “They were constant,” “they were devoted,” or “they were steadfast.” The use of the participle, προσκαρτεροῦντες, suggests the active and continuing nature of the action, namely, the early church’s dedication and steadfastness. Four datives as spheres of governance and interest are specified by the text: apostolic teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread and prayers.” The question at bar: Did this service, or does ROF, reflect “devotedness” and “steadfastness” in these four areas of apostolic doctrine (teaching), fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers. In short, “apostolic doctrine” would not describe the service. As to “prayers” (plural), there was one. As to the Lord’s supper, that was promised in the few weeks to follow. As to koinonia, that was impossible to assess.

The Worship Service Itself

Although conditioned to quiet prayer (with kneeling), quiet preparation and reflection prior to worship (as taught), there was none of that here. The contrast between austere and disciplined preparation for worship with reverence and 400 people milling about, chatting, laughing, backslapping, and talking was stark and vivid. This scribe arrived early—20 minutes before showtime—and observed the (my) tension with the ethos as well as the inattention, the indiscipline, the noise, and giddy socializing. Also, it would be false to think the crowd was discussing apostolic doctrine (theological inquiry) or praying.

While the chatty crowd continued, a group of 19 singers filed to the stage—never mind the concept of a preparatory prayers, a pipe organ prelude from the classics of sacred musical literature, a nave, chancel, choir stalls, quire, reading desk, LORD’s Table, or pulpit. There was no pulpit—until later. When the Pastor arrived later, they place a plexiglass-looking pulpit on the stage. The acting stage was raised perhaps 5 feet above the floor level. Each of the 19 singers had a microphone. That is correct; each singer had one microphone…19 microphones. There was no opening prayer, no invocation or call to worship, and no biblical citation thereto by a Pastor or Rector. Among hundreds of invocatory texts, one might think of Psalm 95.6-7 (ESV):

Oh come, let us worship and bow down; let us kneel before the LORD, our Maker! For he is our God, and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand.
Rather than use the Bible, the 19 singers started the show—showtime—by singing as the chatty crowd sought out seats.

The 19 performers started the show. The first of five songs lasted 11 minutes. The song-time was 46 minutes in length. “Let us jump for joy” was the first line of the first song. The second line is now forgotten, but it was equal in length and on the same vocabulary level. The vocabulary depth for all five songs was probably seven words, all monosyllabic. They sang this two-line song repetitively—again repetitively—for 11 very long minutes. From the standpoint of crowd control, it was enough to get the crowd seated and—within minutes—the enthusiasts were literally jumping around like an aerobics class. Levity and non-doctrinal-depth is a fair characterization.
But, in fairness, one rebuttal might be registered. This song allowed ease of memorization. Every six or seven year old could read the lines projected onto the dominant wall screen. It might be argued that worship, literacy, and vocabulary parameters should be geared to an elementary school level; poly-syllabic words are not allowed. While this might not satisfy Shakespeare or a Professor, simplicity prevailed. Thus, any objection that the Christian message is incomprehensible will not stand. Furthermore, the simple message was ratified by jumping, loud singing, mind-numbing repetition, loud accompaniment and periodic shouts of “Glory!” and “Hallelujah!” However, as a rejoinder to the rebuttal, “apostolic doctrine” as a body of faith, well-digested thought and competent literacy hardly characterized the songs—not to mention the hand-waving atmospherics. I had one reaction: “Eegads!”
As noted, the folks (about 1/3 of the congregation) began jumping up and down and around repeating the mantra. In addition to these 19 microphone-eating and hip-swinging singers, there were 9 musicians to the right—an electronic piano, a drum kit, a bongo drummer, a bass guitarist, and a few others. Fortissimo was the only musical dynamic on offer. The extremely loud beat was at a pace of about a normal heartbeat—normally about 60-80 beats per minute. It was 46-minutes of loud noise with small literary achievements for these revivalistic enthusiasts—enthusiasts, a term employed by Cranmer, or Schwarmerei, Luther’s favourite. It was a hothouse atmosphere.

As noted, the first song was 11 minutes long followed by four more song of the same literary depth, quality, and significance—or lack thereof. Liturgically, the service was simple. 46 minutes of music, a 50-minute sermon, followed by a 10-minute pitch for money. Thus, it was 106 minutes long. This scribe remembers the fifth song.
The fifth song, another two-liner, was “Nothing is broken, nothing is missing!” While they repetitiously sang this for 9-10 minutes, yes, 9-10 minutes, difficulty was entertained. Everyone stood during the song-show. At the 40-minute point of 46 minutes, I experienced some light-headedness—I then realized that there may well have been substantial de-oxygenation throughout the room (it couldn’t be called a sanctuary) with the significant exhalation of carbon dioxide and the inhalation of the remaining oxygen---this was a serious consideration during the service and afterwards. With all the hype and hoopla, this scribe wondered if scientific metrics might explain the personal light-headedness. While most were waving their hands and complying with the revivalist ecstasies, if not Dionysianism with a “few” allegedly Christian themes, this scribe’s mind developed rebuttals. Onwards they sang with gusto: “Nothing is broken, nothing is missing!” However, what about Bob’s Salvage Yard” on Highway 258 and Highway 17, full of cars after car accidents? What about Dad’s death last year? Or, what about the Onslow Sheriffs, Fire Department, and hospital personnel who attend to accident scenes and the ill? Or, my own scarred war memories? Or, our “Wounded Warriors” at Camp Lejeune Hospital? While they continued the repetitious mantra, my mind was objecting. Or, what about Al Quaeda, the nation’s fiscal crisis, or the range of uprisings in the Middle East? As long as they sang, my mind ran averse to the lyrical mantra (as usual, all Fortissimo), “Nothing is broken, nothing is missing!” Or even biblically, what about the Wilderness wanderings (Exodus-Numbers), Judges (used during Lent for Confessional Anglicans for the OT lections), David’s conflicts with Saul, Job’s sufferings, Jeremiah conflictions with the leaders, Christ’s Cross, St. Paul’s imprisonments, or the Imperial persecutions under Domitian or Decius? Or, closer to my tradition, what about the English Reformation martyrs put to fire under Queen Mary 1? What about that august Oxfordian, William Tyndale, in 1537, strangled and burned at the stake in Vilvroode, Belgium? What about Hebrews 10.32ff., a catalogue of suffering but faithful saints? Or, what about St. Paul’s list of imprisonments, shipwrecks, lashings, beatings and sorrows suffered during ministry (2 Cor.11)? How could they sing, “Nothing is broken, nothing is missing”? Tell that to a combat veteran without a leg, I thought. The divagation or distracted thoughts, however, was promptly corrected by more repetition. The troubling thought re-arose later, “Leave the brains at the doorstep of the church.” In fact, that thought fairly characterizes this scribe’s view of the doctrinal, intellectual and moral content of the songs—ignorance in the music as well as the sermon to follow.
As to the 46-minute musical dance and drama, the question of “apostolic doctrine, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers” was not an issue. Who needs doctrine, prayer and the Lord’s Supper? Just turn up the volume, sing five songs (10 lines total with perhaps a 30- word vocabulary depth ) for 46 minutes, hype the crowd, toss the brains out and EMOTE.

The Sermon and Acts 2.42: Anti-intellectualism

Following the interruptive (my personal) objections to the fifth song, “Nothing is broken, nothing is missing,” Mr. Chris Phillips ambled to the stage, suavely dressed in a grey-suit. I thought he might have had grey-suade shoes. On cue, the 19 singers filed offstage. Thus far, there were no prayers. Phillips delivered a 40-minute sermon followed by a 10-minute “alter call.” He had three points: healing, a rant about anti-doctrine, and the new building (about to be built). After the 40-minute sermon and the 10-minute altar call, a 10-minute pitch for money followed. 
Mr. Phillips sauntered centre-stage and played off the theme of the fifth song, “Nothing is broken, nothing is missing!” The general theme in his first sermon-point was that the Christian Church “prayed for healings” but that—throughout history, his term, “throughout history”—was inadequate. Phillips wanted a “move of power” beyond these insufficient prayers. He mentioned Benny Hinn of TBN-infamy. For this scribe, things had already gone south earlier, but this was a deeper nadir. Phillips wanted to see miracles. One point resonated, to wit, “Let us unleash the power of God.” Phillips spent about ten minutes on this point, “unleashing God.” “Apostolic doctrine”—a biblical doctrine of God—did not come to mind as he exhorted the enthusiasts to “unleash God.” God’s absolute sovereignty was put on the human leash, much like a dog. On Phillips’s defamatory view, His Majesty is a lapdog on our leash; unless His Majesty. My reaction? Has this man ever read any books about God? 
The second and third points appeared to be the centre of the sermon: (2) proud and arrogant doctrine and (3) the architecture of their new building. He appeared to spend about 15 minutes on each point.
As the second point was developed, he read quickly a portion from Acts 17 and the early verses of Acts 18. Sub-points were developed. First, St. Paul engaged the “proud Greek philosophers”—the Epicureans and Stoics on Mars Hill, geographically, about 1000 feet downwards at the foot of the Parthenon in Athens. As a result of their “proud philosophy,” Paul left Athens. However, given Phillips’s view that God could “be unleashed,” St. Paul must have failed to unleash God on these Greek philosophers. Phillips pointed out that doctrine was problematic. Doctrinal Christians were “dead Christians.” At this point, it became noticeable—in terms of a repetition of the word “power encounter”—that this was a formative concept. I did not notice that until about half-way through this odd soliloquy—“power encounter.” Phillips suggested the mind is dangerous to a “power encounter.” This invoked consideration of a debated concept, to wit, cultism that disabuses one of one’s rationality and orients one to the authoritarianism of the cult-leader. But that was an aside as this scribe attempted to follow Phillips. Second, St. Paul moved onwards from Athens to Corinth because of obstructionist pride in these Greeks. Suffused throughout this was the rant about “indoctrinated Christians” being problematic. One wondered if he was arguing with himself or with some recent interlocutor. Phillips was working it. The theme was clear: thoughtful, informed, well-read, well-considered doctrine and teaching results in “proud Christians” who are not—in fact—Christians. So much for “apostolic doctrine” as a matter of reason, thinking, words, phrases, paragraphs, summaries, and discussion. It was Phillips’s “Doctrine about Anti-doctrine,” a smooth and suave rant. Phillips tanked here.
Personally, after this second point, it was hoped that Phillips would be self-consistent and end the sermon by concluding, “Words, reason and doctrine does not matter, including my own, so, like the London philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein, who stopped writing, lecturing and talking, let us end this service without a further word, without further ado, without further reading, without a further thought of any kind, and without anything else. Words and reason are worthless, so I hereby end point two in this sermon about `doctrine.’ Again, leave your brains at the door. Good bye.” However, with a great contradiction, Mr. Phillips pressed on to his third point. No one appeared to be the wiser in this raucous crowd.
The third sermonic point was a description of architectural concerns that Phillips had for their proposed new building. A building project begins in Sept 2011; ground will be broken in Sept 2011. They have raised $174,000 for the $8 million dollar project. Phillips wants the money to be in hand and to proceed without a mortgage. (Why doesn’t Phillips just “unleash God, but that is a justifiable aside.) Then he reported about his trip—that very week—to Chicago to talk with an architectural firm dealing with churches, called “Church Solutions.” One architectural pattern was presented to Phillips by the firm. The new church was to have a main sanctuary with a mezzanine-level above, replete with tables, chairs, waiters and waitresses, like a restaurant, where worshippers can order popcorn, sodas, pizzas and other things. Without making much sense at all, Phillips disliked the proposal since it argued against a “power relationship with Jesus.” Yes, it is estimated that Phillips used the term, if not fifty times, then at least thirty times about a “power relationship”—a real “power tripper.” This third point was not developed much further than this disapproval of this architectural plan.
Following this inane 40-minute sermon of three points, Phillips offered an 10-minute altar call. He directed attendees to bow their heads while he made a pitch for those seeking salvation to raise their hands. I refused the direction, kept the eyes open, and assayed the obedient crowd with lowered heads. Six ambled to the front during the pitch. With mike in hand, he publicly interviewed each of the six. He asked each one, “Are you coming to be re-saved?” Each answered yes. So much for “apostolic doctrine” concerning God, predestination, providence, the fall, covenant, Christ’s atonement, justification, adoption, sanctification, perseverance of the saints, and assurance of salvation, salutary rubrics for exposition amongst thinking Churchmen in the Confessional tradition. Rather, such teaching as Phillips—as Luther rightly observed about the Schwarmerei and Wiedtauffer of his time—at heart they remain Romanist in doctrine. Following this Charles Finneyite event, the six were directed offstage to counselors. This raised the very legitimate question of Phillips’s understanding of St. Paul’s verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, participles, sentences, paragraphs and arguments—“apostolic doctrine”—in his Epistle to the Romans. Again, there were no prayers here either; we had a brief 2-3 liner at the beginning of the sermon. In fact, “prayerlessness” of the entire service might be a fair characterization. Following this 50-minute ordeal, the money pitch followed.
Following this, another man—with the last name of Phillips—came to the front. Whether this Phillips had any relationship to the Mr. Chris Phillips is unknown. This exhorter had the same last name. He conducted a ten-minute call for money, including a handout of envelopes and a collection. At the end of these 10 minutes, quite abruptly, the man said, “That’s it. Have a great week.” Again, no prayer.

Conclusion

Charitably put, there was little “apostolic doctrine” in the songs or sermon vis a vis Acts 2.42ff or other texts. Fairly put, it was a prayer-less and irreverent service. In terms of the breaking of bread, the service bulletin indicated that His Majesty’s Table, the Lord’s Supper, would be held on Easter Day. As to koinonia, fellowship, that would be impossible to assess on one Sunday. Recommendations: (1) I will never return to that hothouse and hotbed of anti-intellectualism, ignorance, enthusiasm, and revivalism. (2) Put out an advisorial to friends about this place. (3) Perhaps write a book to vitiate and void this embarrassment to apostolic doctrine, prayers, and the Eucharist. Who can have “fellowship” with these types? Not this scribe, not now, nor ever, world without end.