Scot McKnight, C4SO, and the Authority of Scripture

Right at the start I should say I completely understand there are faithful, scholarly people who have a robust view on the authority of Scripture but who do not think “inerrancy” is the best way to describe the authority of Scripture.  I respect such people although I hold to inerrancy myself.

With that out of the way, I was annoyed, then disturbed when I read Canon (in the Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others – C4SO) Scot McKnight’s post on inerrancy, really a smear of inerrancy.  His straw men and poor reasoning, such as conflating inerrancy with wooden literal interpretations of Scripture annoyed me.  Quibbling over inerrancy applying to the original texts also annoyed me.  He fusses about that, but nobody holds to the inerrancy of translators or of ancient copiers although we now know through the Dead Sea scrolls and more that we have remarkably reliable copies.  As for translations, I am only half-joking when I recommend NIV Bibles for doorstops.

Then he picked at some poor reasoning from the inerrancy camp.  To which I say, so what?  We hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, not the inerrancy of inerrancists. 

If the whole piece were only quibbling and straw men and the like, I would have just been annoyed, shook my head, then moved on.  As I said at the turn of the year, I have to be more selective in posting here.

But then came this:

I know some who think inerrant means Moses wrote the Pentateuch, theistic evolution is wrong, Isaiah wrote Isaiah, Jesus was denied by Peter six times (Lindsell), and that Paul wrote all the letters ascribed to him – and while we’re at it, so did Peter.

Back to authority. NT Wright said often that he believes not in the authority of Scripture but in the authority of God who speaks to us in Scripture (Surprised by Scripture). 

At this point, I got disturbed, agitated even.  I don’t care if St. N. T. Wright said that, that statement is the sort of swill I have heard from LibChurchers for years.  I still remember four decades ago a guest preacher at my evangelical Presbyterian Church, saying from the pulpit this or something very close: “We don’t believe the Bible but the Christ behind the Bible.” (Yes, I informed her after the service that we believe the Bible at that church.)  Such are old weasel words that claim to be faithful to the Lord while tossing his written word aside when it’s just too inconvenient. It’s a cowardly way of appearing to hold to the authority of Scripture without actually holding to the authority of Scripture.

Well, clergy cannot get away with that.  Or at least they shouldn’t get away with that.  If you believe God, you believe his word.  You don’t get to sit as a judge over his word; his word judges you.

Or was Jesus mistaken when he said:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.  Matt. 5:18

“Oh we believe Jesus, but we know so much more about Scripture than he did.”*

Yeah, try telling that to his face in the Judgement.

McKnight gives a big hint in how far gone he is in denying the authority of Scripture when comes right to the edge of denying “Isaiah wrote Isaiah, . . . Paul wrote all the letters ascribed to him – and while we’re at it, so did Peter.”  He even seems to ridicule those views by lumping them together with a strange interpretation that has Peter denying Christ six times.

Now if he has elsewhere clearly denied or questioned the authorship of Isaiah or of Peter's and Paul’s letters, I am not aware.  But if not, then his bishop should flat out ask him if he believes the Bible when it says “Isaiah wrote Isaiah, . . . Paul wrote all the letters ascribed to him – and while we’re at it, so did Peter.”  If McKnight cannot answer in the affirmative, he should be dismissed as Canon with further discipline under consideration.  After all, ACNA is supposed to be an orthodox Anglican church, not a liberal seminary.

Oh.  Right.  His bishop is Todd Hunter of the Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others. 

Yes, holding to the authority of Scripture may eventually call for discipline in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) beyond just dealing with Scot McKnight.

----

*No that is not a direct quote of any Libchurcher.  It’s a translation.

ACNA’s C4SO Brings Back Soong-Chan Rah

Remember Soong-Chan Rah?  I sure do.  Back in 2017, I noticed he was going to keynote a Matthew 25 Gathering in my Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).  Curious, I did a little research on him, and the rest is history. I exposed some of his background.  Others found more and protested, and eventually he was quietly removed from the program.  Here are my posts about the matter back then.

One would think that less than four years later, ACNA’s dioceses would exercise enough wisdom not to have him as a focus of any program.  Especially since he has continued his woke act, including lovely quotes like this:

“The United States of America does not hold a morally exceptional position greater than Nazi Germany. We are not more just. Our sense of equality is not any superior. Our nation has never been Christian. We have just won our wars. And therefore, for centuries, we wrote our own history. And that has proven to be incredibly dangerous.” (Unsettling Truths: The Ongoing, Dehumanizing Legacy of the Doctrine of Discovery)

Oh, that’s right.  One of the dioceses in ACNA is the Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others (C4SO), not exactly a font of wisdom.

C4SO not only has a congregation giving up Whiteness for Lent, one of the diocese’s programs is reading Rah for Lent with the apparent blessing of C4SO itself.

 

Now perhaps the diocese is so clueless about Rah, even after 2017, that this is only an honest mistake, a lapse of judgement.

But I doubt it.  And frankly I am so angry I do not trust myself to say more at the moment. 

ACNA Update: Increasing Identity Conflict and the “Dear Gay Anglicans” Letter

Conflict over Critical Theory and related identity issues is escalating in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).

On the one hand, the woke cabal in ACNA has gotten more bold.  One prominent example is the Anglican Multi-Ethnic Network (AMEN) naming Johana-Marie Williams as Interim Director.  She happens to be the Southern Gothic Womanist blogger.  The goal of her blog is two-fold:

1. To show how who Jesus is answers womanist, posthumanist, and afro-pessimist ontological concerns.

2. To show how a deeper commitment to Jesus Christ, the Bible, and the Church can (and should) legitimately lead to a deeper commitment to fighting the capitalist-imperialist-racist-hetero-patriarchy.

Got it.  Now it should be said it is unclear what relationship AMEN retains with ACNA.  I believe AMEN was once a provincial initiative, but that may no longer be the case.  Nonetheless, this appointment has gotten some attention in ACNA as Kevin and George note in their latest Anglican Unscripted (648, about 9 minutes in).

Not getting quite as much attention, but it should, is that The Table Indy, a C4SO (Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others) congregation of course, is giving up Whiteness for Lent.  Their “Lent focus on Racism and Repentance” began with an online Workshop on “Re-imagining Life Together Beyond Whiteness.”

The discussion at the Facebook announcement was interesting, including this:

Whiteness? Why does the color of my skin assume I have some supremacy or that I have wronged others. Sound like a rather blanket racist comment.

To which one of The Table’s Priests, Matt Tebbe, replied:

You misunderstand whiteness... It’s racist to refuse to acknowledge or learn about whiteness. 

You are free to learn by watching the workshop if you wish.

But by far the biggest battle lately is over “Gay Anglicans,” namely whether it is appropriate for Christians with same-sex desires or temptations to identify as Gay Christians.  And that battle sure got interesting the past two days (to the point where I had to rewrite this).

Earlier the ACNA College of Bishops put forth an excellent and sensitive pastoral statement even if it seems written by a college of bishops.  But it did not take long for there to be pushback.  Bishop Todd Hunter of C4SO, of course, issued guidance that some took as undermining the College of Bishops.  And then came a “Dear Gay Anglicans” open letter, which most definitely does undermine the College of Bishops’ statement. (Anglican Unscripted 648 also discusses this while the matter was still ongoing about 19 minutes in.)

The response was swift. I know of at least two ACNA bishops who told their clergy not to sign the DGA letter.  Stand Firm issued a good open letter in response. I was aware of more efforts in the works as well.

But swift actions by two bishops put a quick end to the DGA letter. Archbishop Foley Beach issued a remarkably frank letter:

While [the DGA letter] says they are not undermining our Pastoral Statement, they actually are. Replacing “gay Christian” with “gay Anglican” is pretty much in your face. My immediate reaction to the letter was that it was pretty benign and wasn’t going to change anything about what we teach. 

However, it has already had international ramifications. I have had to deal with two provinces already (actually now three as of a few minutes ago) — and this is just the first day…. 

In the province, the expected hard rhetoric is coming from both sides in reaction to this. I find our lack of charity in the province a serious blind spot we need to address. Many of our bishops, and rightly so, feel this is an attempt to undermine our roles as guardians of the Faith and teachers of the doctrine of the Church. Some individuals have expressed that we are now TEC 2.0. Some think this is going to break the ACNA apart — one quote I received tonight: “If I had to guess what might fracture the ACNA I would’ve said women’s ordination. I never would have thought it would be homosexuality. We gave up everything to take a clear stand on this. It is disheartening to have it being taken away.”  I could go on, but you get the point. 

This is serious enough, however, that I am writing this at 1:15 am.

I don’t think he was happy.  Do read the rest.

Then the Interim Bishop of Pittsburgh Martyn Minns asked the DGA ringleader Pieter Valk to take the Dear Gay Anglicans letter down, which he did.  A few are very unhappy about that.  But more, including me, rejoice that we in ACNA actually do have bishops who have spines and know how to use them. 

So this episode had a somewhat happy ending.  But it suffices to say that conflict over Critical Theory, identity, and related issues continues and is increasing in ACNA.  And frankly it needs to increase. The routine of the woke cabal pushing and pushing while the rest of us are “collegial” will no longer do.  That is a road to becoming The Episcopal Church.  As St. Paul wrote:

For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. (I Cor. 11: 18, 19)

We need our bishops and other leaders to come down every bit as hard on Critical Theory and its progeny as they just did on the “Dear Gay Anglicans Letter.”  But I may say more about that another time.

“Social Justice” Indoctrination of Youth in ACNA

Last time, I noted that Jemar Tisby wants churches to turn 1 Corinthians 2:2 on its head and “consistently address racial justice for months and years at a time.”  I then hinted that this policy may have infiltrated ACNA.

Aaron Buttery and the Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others (C4SO) has let the cat out of the bag.  It has infiltrated.

Issues of race, injustice and social unrest are not meant to be a one-time topical study or series. These crucial conversations are intended to take place over the course of our ministry so young people know that racism and injustice have no place in the kingdom or in the lives of those who follow Jesus.

Yes, all through a student’s stay in church, keep bombarding him/her about “racism and injustice” (which may be different than real racism and real injustice).  Besides what can possibly be more important for the church to be teaching youth?

·       In what ways are you catechizing your students about racism or injustice—not generically, but directly?

·       How often, through teaching or the prayers, are you shaping students to see racism and injustice through the lens of the Kingdom? For instance, in the prayers of the people?

Should the church really be catechizing about “racism and injustice?”  Is that what orthodox catechesis is about? Yes! And often!  Priorities!

·       Have you spoken with your Rector about equipping parents to discuss systemic racism at home?

Yes, pester the Rector to pester the parents about “systemic racism” so youth can be bombarded at home, too!  And if any youth and families get fed up with all that Woke Church stuff and flee the church, well, they were probably hellbound racists anyway.

In all seriousness, anyone with any contact with youth knows many youth are rebelling against wokeness.  If you do what Tisby and Buttery wants, the church is asking to lose these youth, not to mention families.  And any youth with any common sense know there are at the very least higher priorities for the church.  I can not blame them if they do flee such indoctrination on “racism and injustice.” 

·       How does your ministry communicate the difference and intersection between social justice and Kingdom justice?

Let me make it simple.  There is darn little intersection between “social justice” and Kingdom justice unless by “intersection” you mean a car crash.  

Besides that, Christ will bring in his Kingdom.  We will not bring in the Kingdom by our sociopolitical agendas whether they be woke or Trumpist or whatever.  The church should invite people to join the Kingdom by proclaiming the Gospel . . . the Gospel in the Bible, not some “social justice” gospel.  To think otherwise is pretentious as the Stand Firm podcast recently examined well.

Now before one thinks Buttery’s post is just one of those many goofball C4SO things, he has a position at the provincial level of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) as the Director of Student Ministry in Esau McCaulley’s Next Generation Leadership initiative.

I will leave it to ACNA readers how much they should put up with this.  I can think of some youth who would not put up with this at all.

Blaming the Holy Spirit in ACNA

So many things on which I could post and so little time!  But I am prepared enough for my lecture later this week that I can sneak in a post on the latest from Emily McGowin, Canon Theologian of the ACNA Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others (C4SO).

She writes vigorously in defense of women’s ordination.  I concede she argues well . . . until this near the end “on the subject of theological method”:

Does the apparent work of the Holy Spirit in setting apart and empowering women for priestly ministry today—not just in the West, but in regions all over the world—have something to contribute to the discussion? Certainly, experience alone cannot be normative within the Anglican tradition, but can it be permitted a seat at the theological “table”?

Ah, yes. Blaming the Holy Spirit for one’s pet innovations. The Holy Spirit has brought about women’s ordination.  Right.

I am amazed that McGowin would make this argument.  Does she not remember that making one’s innovations a work of the Holy Spirit is “the theological method” of apostate bodies, including The Episcopal Church from which The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) fled?  Does she not remember that this is the very method used by those who push any number of ungodly innovations and enormities in the organized church?

Or at least I thought we in ACNA fled from this LibChurch “theological method.”

Really, being as sloppy as apostates in theological reasoning and exalting that even is a more alarming problem in ACNA than women’s ordination.

But the two usually go hand in hand, do they not?

That Word “Justice”

Being a writer as well as a student of Anglicanism and history, I can be obsessed with words and bothered by the misuse of them.  So bear with me as I rant a bit about the use of the word “justice” in the Anglican Church in North America.

Note that I am leaving aside for now the use of the term “social justice.” Trust me that I have issues with that term! But at this time, the use of the word “justice” alone and unclarified in ACNA bothers and perplexes me more for reasons you shall see.

What prompts this complaint is a statement from a new bishop in ACNA (I won’t name him at this time because I want to give him a chance and because the problem is bigger than he.): 

I strongly desire to build and equip congregations of His Word and His Spirit, expressed in relational evangelism and justice, distinguished by generosity and compassion.

That sounds great, but what the hay does he mean by “justice” here? Does he mean that vergers will set upon the unjust? That would certainly make services more interesting!  Or has his diocese been licensed by the state to carry out justice through church courts and church prisons? (Don’t laugh.  Such existed in olden days.)

Perhaps he intends for his diocese to work for justice rather than to execute it.  Well, I sure would like to see more justice! So perhaps he intends to work for justice against illegals who break into our country and take advantage of our welfare system and social services that us citizens pay for.  Perhaps he intends to strive for justice against criminal illegals who endanger us all.  Or maybe he wants justice in another area dear to me – justice against those who through the IRS, through control of social media or through street violence ala Antifa have attacked our freedom of speech.  Yes, I want more justice like that!

But somehow I do not think that is what the bishop intended by “justice”.

Now I’ve heard another ACNA bishop use that term “justice” in similar fashion. Maybe that would give a clue.  Who was it?  Oh yes, Todd Hunter, Bishop of the Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others (C4SO).  In the first minute of the video “We Are C4SO” about three years ago, he states that C4SO seeks to “take Jesus and his announcement of the kingdom seriously” and to “demonstrate it in deeds of benevolence, justice, healing….”

Those who have followed ACNA for some time now know what “justice” means from Hunter. The C4SO diocese has been a hotbed of pushing a Left/Lib social justice agenda in ACNA.  It often seems that just about any push for “social justice” in ACNA has C4SO people involved.

Such use of the word “justice” without the qualifier “social” when the agenda really is “social justice” is profoundly dishonest. In this context, the already vague term “justice” conceals more than it reveals.  And such a use, an abuse really, is manipulative.  After all, who would be so awful as to oppose “justice”? Only bad mean people oppose justice, and you are not one of them, are you? 

Now is the aforementioned new bishop using/abusing “justice” in this manner?  I hope not and pray he demonstrates not and that he instead shepherds his diocese well. And, as I’ve already said, I don’t want to pick on him.  I wish him the best.

But let’s stop abusing this word in ACNA. To say a mission of the church is “justice” at the very least conceals more than it reveals, especially in today’s context.  If part of ACNA’s mission really is “social justice” then let’s just say it so that us mean bad people in ACNA can make a more informed decision about whether to stay or not. If only certain ACNA dioceses or entities have a supposed calling to “social justice” then they should clearly and without obfuscation let us know that, so us meanies can call them to repent or else.

As for me, I have already fled deceptively worded false gospels.  I have no intention of putting up with another.