Sophia worshippers still harbored by Presbyterians.
Why is the Presbyterian Church STILL harboring Sophia worshippers?
If you think I’m off my rocker, go to the layman.org and check out the June 30th entry titled “Staying Alive: Re-Imagining god group gathers at General Assembly� (Sorry I haven’t figured out how to give a direct link on that site.) Note that the new moderator is supporting this. What a good start for him.
Just from a practical standpoint, it amazes me that the Presbyterian Church is still giving harbor to these idolaters after the damage the denomination inflicted upon itself from the 1993 Re-imagining God conference and the Sophia worship there.
Wow, you can’t make up stuff this nuts. What did I say about insanity as judgment a while back?
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Can a vote be sin?
While we’re talking about church discipline . . . most of you have surely heard about all the controversy about a few Catholic bishops saying they would refuse communion to John Kerry and that those who vote for pro-abortion candidates shouldn’t receive communion, either. That’s been all over the place, so I won’t rehash it.
The controversy raises a broader question, however: can a vote or other political act ever be a sin?
There are people that get all indignant at the suggestion of that. But I say, Heck yes, it can be a sin!
I understand that a lot of political choices are not clear cut and are ethically complex. We’ve all felt compelled to choose “the lesser of two evils� when we vote. If I were a bishop, I’d cut people some slack in those cases.
But let’s say you have a Barbara Boxer, who is flat out evil. There I said it. Burn me at the stake. But, I’m sorry, she is an evil person who willfully commits grave political evil almost every chance she gets. She practically hunts the unborn among other outrages. To vote for her when her opponent doesn’t have horns is a serious sin.
Should the church do anything about such sin? Bishops or priests shouldn’t interview parishioners on how they voted before they are allowed to take communion. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that. But should they teach that abortion on demand and support of abortion is a grave sin? Yes. Should they teach that one is asking for judgment if they take communion while willfully committing grave sin and refusing to repent of it? Yes. If they see Barbara Boxer or John Kerry or someone they know is campaigning for such coming to the communion rail, should they refuse communion to them?
Yes.
And if someone gets indignant at that stand, ask them, “Do you think an unrepentant neonazi should be allowed to take communion?� Then watch them get all flustered (and perhaps even more indignant) at having their double standard exposed.
Or maybe they hesitantly answer yes, in which case their weak view of communion is exposed.
There is sin in the realm of politics just like any other realm of human behavior. And the church isn’t going to make you do anything. You can rob, lie, commit adultery, abuse your family, and vote for evil people and evil causes.
But don’t willfully do those things, refuse to repent, and then expect the church to pretend everything is all right on Sunday. Yes, churches all too often play that vile little game. Shame on them if they do.
And good for those bishops and churches who do not.
While we’re talking about church discipline . . . most of you have surely heard about all the controversy about a few Catholic bishops saying they would refuse communion to John Kerry and that those who vote for pro-abortion candidates shouldn’t receive communion, either. That’s been all over the place, so I won’t rehash it.
The controversy raises a broader question, however: can a vote or other political act ever be a sin?
There are people that get all indignant at the suggestion of that. But I say, Heck yes, it can be a sin!
I understand that a lot of political choices are not clear cut and are ethically complex. We’ve all felt compelled to choose “the lesser of two evils� when we vote. If I were a bishop, I’d cut people some slack in those cases.
But let’s say you have a Barbara Boxer, who is flat out evil. There I said it. Burn me at the stake. But, I’m sorry, she is an evil person who willfully commits grave political evil almost every chance she gets. She practically hunts the unborn among other outrages. To vote for her when her opponent doesn’t have horns is a serious sin.
Should the church do anything about such sin? Bishops or priests shouldn’t interview parishioners on how they voted before they are allowed to take communion. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that. But should they teach that abortion on demand and support of abortion is a grave sin? Yes. Should they teach that one is asking for judgment if they take communion while willfully committing grave sin and refusing to repent of it? Yes. If they see Barbara Boxer or John Kerry or someone they know is campaigning for such coming to the communion rail, should they refuse communion to them?
Yes.
And if someone gets indignant at that stand, ask them, “Do you think an unrepentant neonazi should be allowed to take communion?� Then watch them get all flustered (and perhaps even more indignant) at having their double standard exposed.
Or maybe they hesitantly answer yes, in which case their weak view of communion is exposed.
There is sin in the realm of politics just like any other realm of human behavior. And the church isn’t going to make you do anything. You can rob, lie, commit adultery, abuse your family, and vote for evil people and evil causes.
But don’t willfully do those things, refuse to repent, and then expect the church to pretend everything is all right on Sunday. Yes, churches all too often play that vile little game. Shame on them if they do.
And good for those bishops and churches who do not.
Monday, June 28, 2004
Church discipline
As you can probably tell already, church discipline is important to me in choosing a church. And, as you’ll see, I am not easy to please in this area.
That’s because I’ve been provoked through the years by the misapplication (and nonapplication) of church discipline. That’s a big reason I left the Presbyterian Church. I was fed up with no action being taken against heterodoxy and heteropraxy while at the same time some presbyteries oppressed and even kicked out orthodox congregations.
But I’ve seen that liberals aren’t the only ones who can flunk church discipline. I’ve seen conservative controlling church leaders oppress people, often for things that are good!
Why do I get provoked over such things? Orthodoxy and Christian freedom are both very important to me, as well as Christian unity. On orthodoxy, if a church isn’t committed enough to the faith to remove heretics and apostates from positions of leadership, then why should I be committed to that church? On Christian freedom, it is for freedom that Christ has set me free. So I will not subject myself to a controlling yoke of slavery. (Galatians 5:1) On unity, I want Christians who differ on peripheral matters to be treated as full brothers and sisters. Church discipline is just not appropriate over matters such as, say, baptismal regeneration – a question that resulted in church discipline in the Episcopal Church in the 19th century. This misapplication of discipline helped fragment Christian unity and helped push some evangelical Episcopalians to split off and form the Reformed Episcopal Church.
And, yes, I want to be treated as a full brother when I differ on peripheral issues.
Church discipline is one reason I’m attracted to orthodox Anglicanism. Historically in Anglicanism, there has been room for a variety of orthodox from evangelical Bible-thumpers (Hey, I’m one.) to Anglo-Catholic incense addicts. I want to be in a church with such variety. I disagree with, say, Anglo-Catholics on some things, but I like them and want to be in the same church with them. At the same time, orthodoxy is taken seriously enough among traditional Anglicans to apply discipline against apostasy, as the Primates seem poised to do against the ECUSA.
As far as overly controlling discipline, one of the ironies of North American Anglicanism today is that most of the control freak behavior is coming from the liberals such as +Ingham and +Bennison. If anything, historically the orthodox haven’t been controlling enough, putting up with Spong and the like.
So I am hard to please when it comes to church discipline. But when I look at how orthodox Anglicans apply it, I like most of what I see.
As you can probably tell already, church discipline is important to me in choosing a church. And, as you’ll see, I am not easy to please in this area.
That’s because I’ve been provoked through the years by the misapplication (and nonapplication) of church discipline. That’s a big reason I left the Presbyterian Church. I was fed up with no action being taken against heterodoxy and heteropraxy while at the same time some presbyteries oppressed and even kicked out orthodox congregations.
But I’ve seen that liberals aren’t the only ones who can flunk church discipline. I’ve seen conservative controlling church leaders oppress people, often for things that are good!
Why do I get provoked over such things? Orthodoxy and Christian freedom are both very important to me, as well as Christian unity. On orthodoxy, if a church isn’t committed enough to the faith to remove heretics and apostates from positions of leadership, then why should I be committed to that church? On Christian freedom, it is for freedom that Christ has set me free. So I will not subject myself to a controlling yoke of slavery. (Galatians 5:1) On unity, I want Christians who differ on peripheral matters to be treated as full brothers and sisters. Church discipline is just not appropriate over matters such as, say, baptismal regeneration – a question that resulted in church discipline in the Episcopal Church in the 19th century. This misapplication of discipline helped fragment Christian unity and helped push some evangelical Episcopalians to split off and form the Reformed Episcopal Church.
And, yes, I want to be treated as a full brother when I differ on peripheral issues.
Church discipline is one reason I’m attracted to orthodox Anglicanism. Historically in Anglicanism, there has been room for a variety of orthodox from evangelical Bible-thumpers (Hey, I’m one.) to Anglo-Catholic incense addicts. I want to be in a church with such variety. I disagree with, say, Anglo-Catholics on some things, but I like them and want to be in the same church with them. At the same time, orthodoxy is taken seriously enough among traditional Anglicans to apply discipline against apostasy, as the Primates seem poised to do against the ECUSA.
As far as overly controlling discipline, one of the ironies of North American Anglicanism today is that most of the control freak behavior is coming from the liberals such as +Ingham and +Bennison. If anything, historically the orthodox haven’t been controlling enough, putting up with Spong and the like.
So I am hard to please when it comes to church discipline. But when I look at how orthodox Anglicans apply it, I like most of what I see.
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Primates’ statements – lots of them
I recommend this page of Primates’ statements to you at Ekklesia’s site. There you will find numerous statements from various Primates concerning the recent unpleasantness in the Episcopal Church, U.S.A.
The first thing that comes to mind when skimming these is the obvious (or what should be obvious): there has been no lack of warnings of the serious consequences of the actions of the last ECUSA General Convention.
I find this statement particularly notable. Before the convention, seven primates among many others warned that confirming Robinson as bishop would “separate [the Episcopal Church] from historic Christian faith and teaching,� and
“alienate it from the fellowship and accountability of the worldwide Anglican family.� This from a meeting at Truro Church in July 2003 that you don’t hear much about anymore.
That a majority of the Episcopal bishops went ahead and confirmed Robinson in spite of these warnings is the height of arrogance. It and actions since then send the message that Episcopal leaders just don’t care about the rest of the Anglican Communion.
You know, when you have a grown child who just doesn’t care about the family, but is a divisive burden on it, not respecting family standards, yet somehow remaining a member of the household, there’s sometimes one thing to do:
Kick. him. out. of. the. house.
Hopefully, he’ll learn from his eviction and eventually repent. But if not, you will not allow him to drag down the whole family.
I recommend this page of Primates’ statements to you at Ekklesia’s site. There you will find numerous statements from various Primates concerning the recent unpleasantness in the Episcopal Church, U.S.A.
The first thing that comes to mind when skimming these is the obvious (or what should be obvious): there has been no lack of warnings of the serious consequences of the actions of the last ECUSA General Convention.
I find this statement particularly notable. Before the convention, seven primates among many others warned that confirming Robinson as bishop would “separate [the Episcopal Church] from historic Christian faith and teaching,� and
“alienate it from the fellowship and accountability of the worldwide Anglican family.� This from a meeting at Truro Church in July 2003 that you don’t hear much about anymore.
That a majority of the Episcopal bishops went ahead and confirmed Robinson in spite of these warnings is the height of arrogance. It and actions since then send the message that Episcopal leaders just don’t care about the rest of the Anglican Communion.
You know, when you have a grown child who just doesn’t care about the family, but is a divisive burden on it, not respecting family standards, yet somehow remaining a member of the household, there’s sometimes one thing to do:
Kick. him. out. of. the. house.
Hopefully, he’ll learn from his eviction and eventually repent. But if not, you will not allow him to drag down the whole family.
Friday, June 25, 2004
About that Leftist scumbag Micheal Moore
Most of you probably already know that Michael Moore deserves no respect as a source on anything. But in case you don’t, read this eye opening entry. Note that Christopher Hitchens is quite left of center. He’s no fan of George Bush.
Also note that Moore is accepting help from the terrorist group Hezbollah.
I could say more, but I don't know how printable it would be. I do have a respectable Anglican readership, you know.
Most of you probably already know that Michael Moore deserves no respect as a source on anything. But in case you don’t, read this eye opening entry. Note that Christopher Hitchens is quite left of center. He’s no fan of George Bush.
Also note that Moore is accepting help from the terrorist group Hezbollah.
I could say more, but I don't know how printable it would be. I do have a respectable Anglican readership, you know.
Guess That Denomination!
It’s time for Guess That Denomination! :^D
cheesy game show music and canned applause
Contestants, can you guess the denomination?! Here are your hints:
clock ticking
1. Their highest administrative officer refuses to enforce their constitution, but uses strong arm tactics to keep those contributions coming in!
canned laughter
2. African church leaders recently severed ties with Washington, D.C. area churches over gay ordination.
3. A U.S. denomination leader then called for “dialogue.�
more canned laughter
4. Another U.S. leader in this denomination then made condescending remarks about the African leaders.
5. Scattered conservative churches are leaving this denomination.
Think you know it yet? It might not be what you think! O.K., one last hint:
6. They are about to have one humdinger of a meeting.
O.K., time’s up!
If you think you know the answer (or if you give up) and want to know more, go here.
And thanks for playing Guess That Denomination!
cheesy game show ending music and wild canned applause
It’s time for Guess That Denomination! :^D
cheesy game show music and canned applause
Contestants, can you guess the denomination?! Here are your hints:
clock ticking
1. Their highest administrative officer refuses to enforce their constitution, but uses strong arm tactics to keep those contributions coming in!
canned laughter
2. African church leaders recently severed ties with Washington, D.C. area churches over gay ordination.
3. A U.S. denomination leader then called for “dialogue.�
more canned laughter
4. Another U.S. leader in this denomination then made condescending remarks about the African leaders.
5. Scattered conservative churches are leaving this denomination.
Think you know it yet? It might not be what you think! O.K., one last hint:
6. They are about to have one humdinger of a meeting.
O.K., time’s up!
If you think you know the answer (or if you give up) and want to know more, go here.
And thanks for playing Guess That Denomination!
cheesy game show ending music and wild canned applause
Thursday, June 24, 2004
I am not a loony.
In case you think I went off the deep end yesterday in describing the actions of Bishop Chane and other Episcoliberals as “one finger blessings� to the Anglican Communion, read this.
I’m glad to see I’m far from alone in seeing their actions as sending a message to the Anglican Communion: we’re going to do our liberal pansexual thing no matter what, so deal with it.
Again, such conduct probably won’t exactly win friends and influence people, namely the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lambeth Commission. Not to mention the Primates, but the ECUSA has already blown it with most of them.
Aren’t there some verses somewhere about evil men falling into holes they themselves have dug?
In case you think I went off the deep end yesterday in describing the actions of Bishop Chane and other Episcoliberals as “one finger blessings� to the Anglican Communion, read this.
I’m glad to see I’m far from alone in seeing their actions as sending a message to the Anglican Communion: we’re going to do our liberal pansexual thing no matter what, so deal with it.
Again, such conduct probably won’t exactly win friends and influence people, namely the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lambeth Commission. Not to mention the Primates, but the ECUSA has already blown it with most of them.
Aren’t there some verses somewhere about evil men falling into holes they themselves have dug?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)