If you want an interesting and sharp discussion among conservatives on how to deal with the apostasy of the Episcopal Church, I highly recommend this post with comments over at Pontifications.
I agree with the Pontificator’s post for the most part. I don’t yet think the ECUSA is at the point where a new orthodox bishop who opposes same-sex unions and actively gay bishops can’t be consecrated . . . yet. (Yes, I do think we are getting there though.)
On the comments, I most agree with Brother Q in comment 18.
Well, I have to leave what passes for civilization now.
Friday, July 30, 2004
Thursday, July 29, 2004
Hypocrite Bishop
This is too rich. The Episcopal bishop of Missouri decries polarizing political stands because they are so . . . so, so MEAN while he, of course, takes a polarizing political stand himself and all but accuses his opponents of hate.
I’m waiting for Americans United for Separation of Church and State to descend upon the Episcopal Diocese of Missouri and demand that its IRS tax exempt status be taken away.
I’m waiting . . .
This is too rich. The Episcopal bishop of Missouri decries polarizing political stands because they are so . . . so, so MEAN while he, of course, takes a polarizing political stand himself and all but accuses his opponents of hate.
I’m waiting for Americans United for Separation of Church and State to descend upon the Episcopal Diocese of Missouri and demand that its IRS tax exempt status be taken away.
I’m waiting . . .
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
spoiled
The Anglican book I’m reading now is English Reformations. I really like it (Thanks to the good professor who mailed it to me!) and will review it in due time.
For now, I want to focus on one passage I’ve read in it. Early in Elizabeth’s reign, there was quite a shortage of Protestant preachers.
Through the first half of Elizabeth’s reign the shortage of Protestant preachers was acute. A survey of the diocese of Peterborough in 1560 found only nine preachers among 166 clergy. . . . There were more preachers in some areas, and fewer in others . . . . But virtually everywhere preaching resources were inadequate and over-stretched.
. . . there had been no sermons in six years at Ellerker, none in seven at Skerne, none in ten at Wressle, and none in twenty at Thorp Arch.
Compare that with today, when we have a multitude of good teachers and Bibles and good books teaching from the Bible. Today, the problem in the church is that we are spoiled and lazy. We have a great wealth of God’s word and the teaching of it to feed on, but do we?
Too often, we are like the sluggard who is too lazy to eat the food right in front of him. (Prov. 19:24) Therefore “the soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing.� (Prov. 13:4)
The church in the West would do well to get some historic and spiritual perspective and realize that God has lavished his grace upon us by providing us so much of His word and good teaching of it -- a wealth unprecedented in the history of the church.
But instead we are all too often bored, spoiled, and lazy, not even reaching with our eyes and minds to feed upon His word. Or we reject God’s grace in His word altogether. Sad -- and contemptible.
The Anglican book I’m reading now is English Reformations. I really like it (Thanks to the good professor who mailed it to me!) and will review it in due time.
For now, I want to focus on one passage I’ve read in it. Early in Elizabeth’s reign, there was quite a shortage of Protestant preachers.
Through the first half of Elizabeth’s reign the shortage of Protestant preachers was acute. A survey of the diocese of Peterborough in 1560 found only nine preachers among 166 clergy. . . . There were more preachers in some areas, and fewer in others . . . . But virtually everywhere preaching resources were inadequate and over-stretched.
. . . there had been no sermons in six years at Ellerker, none in seven at Skerne, none in ten at Wressle, and none in twenty at Thorp Arch.
Compare that with today, when we have a multitude of good teachers and Bibles and good books teaching from the Bible. Today, the problem in the church is that we are spoiled and lazy. We have a great wealth of God’s word and the teaching of it to feed on, but do we?
Too often, we are like the sluggard who is too lazy to eat the food right in front of him. (Prov. 19:24) Therefore “the soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing.� (Prov. 13:4)
The church in the West would do well to get some historic and spiritual perspective and realize that God has lavished his grace upon us by providing us so much of His word and good teaching of it -- a wealth unprecedented in the history of the church.
But instead we are all too often bored, spoiled, and lazy, not even reaching with our eyes and minds to feed upon His word. Or we reject God’s grace in His word altogether. Sad -- and contemptible.
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail
Well, I finished Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail, which focuses on why many evangelicals are drawn toward Anglicanism. I’m glad I read it. It is one of the more well-known 20th Century books on Anglicanism and deservedly so. It’s not without its faults, but we’ll get into that later.
First, some of the many positives. The book is perceptive in going through a variety of reasons evangelicals might be drawn to a liturgical church. One reason is a longing for the experience of worship. Speaking of his own experience, the author, Dr. Robert Webber, writes, “Something within me was pushing me toward an experience of worship . . . that was different than the plate being served in the [evangelical] churches where I had been involved.� I can say the same thing.
He writes that evangelical worship is often too man-centered, especially too centered around the pastor and his sermon. And he’s correct.
Webber expresses his and many evangelicals’ yearning to be a part of the whole church. He criticizes the tendency toward division and excessive separation among some evangelical churches. He appreciates the diversity within unity in Anglicanism. (And I do, too . . . to a point, as you’ll see.) One reason he likes the Book of Common Prayer and the church calendar is it brings about not just individualistic or local worship, it brings about Christians worldwide worshiping together.
Going further, Webber expresses a desire to be connected with saints through the ages. For “our family tree begins not with the Reformation or the twentieth-century evangelical movement but with Jesus Christ, and it continues though the Apostles, the primitive Christian community, the Apostolic Fathers . . . and all who say ‘Jesus is Lord.’� I agree and desire that connection as well.
These are just some ways in which Webber very well captures, largely by discussing his own experience, why evangelicals might be attracted to Anglicanism. Much of the book is also given to the experiences of other evangelicals who have become Anglican.
But Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail at times reads like low-key recruitment to the Episcopal Church USA. (Webber writes mainly in the context of evangelicals attracted to the ECUSA.) And in so doing, it treads too lightly on very real problems most evangelicals would have in considering the Episcopal Church, especially its liberalism. Now I’m going to harp on this a little bit, but bear with me.
I freely grant that the book was written in 1985, when the liberalism of the Episcopal Church was not as obvious as today. Still, even I, who didn’t know much about the ECUSA back in the 80’s, knew enough to know that it was liberal to a large extent.
When Webber does address this issue, his view is unrealistically optimistic. This paragraph stands out:
In recent years many evangelicals have acknowledged that a significant shift away from a liberal theology toward apostolic Christianity has been occurring within the halls of the World Council of Churches and the National Council of Churches.
Huh? Now I did follow the World and National Council of Churches closely in the early 80’s (much to the consternation of some of my fellow Presbyterians). And I saw no such shift, nor read of any evangelical perceiving any such shift. That doesn’t mean there weren’t any such evangelicals, but if there were, they were surely engaging in wishful thinking. For these councils were too busy being useful idiots for the Communist cause and other leftisms to shift in any way toward orthodoxy.
Webber engages in additional wishful thinking himself when he writes:
In the Episcopal church I find a healthy sense of unity and diversity. In this tradition we recognize that that which holds the church together is more important than that which divides the church.
This is something ++Griswold could write. But to be fair, yes, unity and diversity is a hallmark of Anglicanism and is a Biblical and attractive trait for a church to have when it does not go beyond the bounds of orthodoxy. But for an Evangelical professor to write this about the ECUSA while it was at the very least well on its way to apostasy (which by its very nature is divisive) is missing the mark. Granted, orthodox Anglicanism has this healthy sense of unity and diversity. But the Episcopal Church USA?
Guessing why Webber’s book has this blind spot would be pure speculation on my part. Maybe Webber was so attracted to the Episcopal Church that deep inside he just didn’t want to see how badly its foundations had eroded – not unlike someone who so falls in love with a house that he doesn’t see that it’s falling apart. I can understand that. At this point, I find myself so attracted to Anglicanism that, if I couldn’t find a good Anglican church for me where I’m moving, I would be sorely let down.
But in 1985 even this casual observer saw there was a serious problem. Now most evangelicals see the same. To his credit, so does Dr. Webber. I contacted him and he has graciously swapped e-mails with me. Although he makes a point of not demeaning evangelicals who stay in the ECUSA, he feels there is now a new “litmus test� of being a good Episcopalian – affirmation of gay relationships. He feels that the Episcopal Church “will become an increasingly uncomfortable place for those who disagree . . . .�
If you cross out “Episcopal� in Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail and replace it with “orthodox Anglican,� then it is a helpful and perceptive book that captures well why there are evangelical WannabeAnglicans in the world. But not dealing adequately with the liberalism of the Episcopal Church USA and issues evangelicals might have with that liberalism, even back in the 80’s, is a significant shortcoming in any book on evangelical attitudes toward Episcopalianism.
Still, if one takes into account that shortcoming, Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail is a perceptive book I recommend if you want to get a good grip on the attractiveness of Anglicanism to evangelicals. It even helped me understand why I’m a WannabeAnglican.
Well, I finished Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail, which focuses on why many evangelicals are drawn toward Anglicanism. I’m glad I read it. It is one of the more well-known 20th Century books on Anglicanism and deservedly so. It’s not without its faults, but we’ll get into that later.
First, some of the many positives. The book is perceptive in going through a variety of reasons evangelicals might be drawn to a liturgical church. One reason is a longing for the experience of worship. Speaking of his own experience, the author, Dr. Robert Webber, writes, “Something within me was pushing me toward an experience of worship . . . that was different than the plate being served in the [evangelical] churches where I had been involved.� I can say the same thing.
He writes that evangelical worship is often too man-centered, especially too centered around the pastor and his sermon. And he’s correct.
Webber expresses his and many evangelicals’ yearning to be a part of the whole church. He criticizes the tendency toward division and excessive separation among some evangelical churches. He appreciates the diversity within unity in Anglicanism. (And I do, too . . . to a point, as you’ll see.) One reason he likes the Book of Common Prayer and the church calendar is it brings about not just individualistic or local worship, it brings about Christians worldwide worshiping together.
Going further, Webber expresses a desire to be connected with saints through the ages. For “our family tree begins not with the Reformation or the twentieth-century evangelical movement but with Jesus Christ, and it continues though the Apostles, the primitive Christian community, the Apostolic Fathers . . . and all who say ‘Jesus is Lord.’� I agree and desire that connection as well.
These are just some ways in which Webber very well captures, largely by discussing his own experience, why evangelicals might be attracted to Anglicanism. Much of the book is also given to the experiences of other evangelicals who have become Anglican.
But Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail at times reads like low-key recruitment to the Episcopal Church USA. (Webber writes mainly in the context of evangelicals attracted to the ECUSA.) And in so doing, it treads too lightly on very real problems most evangelicals would have in considering the Episcopal Church, especially its liberalism. Now I’m going to harp on this a little bit, but bear with me.
I freely grant that the book was written in 1985, when the liberalism of the Episcopal Church was not as obvious as today. Still, even I, who didn’t know much about the ECUSA back in the 80’s, knew enough to know that it was liberal to a large extent.
When Webber does address this issue, his view is unrealistically optimistic. This paragraph stands out:
In recent years many evangelicals have acknowledged that a significant shift away from a liberal theology toward apostolic Christianity has been occurring within the halls of the World Council of Churches and the National Council of Churches.
Huh? Now I did follow the World and National Council of Churches closely in the early 80’s (much to the consternation of some of my fellow Presbyterians). And I saw no such shift, nor read of any evangelical perceiving any such shift. That doesn’t mean there weren’t any such evangelicals, but if there were, they were surely engaging in wishful thinking. For these councils were too busy being useful idiots for the Communist cause and other leftisms to shift in any way toward orthodoxy.
Webber engages in additional wishful thinking himself when he writes:
In the Episcopal church I find a healthy sense of unity and diversity. In this tradition we recognize that that which holds the church together is more important than that which divides the church.
This is something ++Griswold could write. But to be fair, yes, unity and diversity is a hallmark of Anglicanism and is a Biblical and attractive trait for a church to have when it does not go beyond the bounds of orthodoxy. But for an Evangelical professor to write this about the ECUSA while it was at the very least well on its way to apostasy (which by its very nature is divisive) is missing the mark. Granted, orthodox Anglicanism has this healthy sense of unity and diversity. But the Episcopal Church USA?
Guessing why Webber’s book has this blind spot would be pure speculation on my part. Maybe Webber was so attracted to the Episcopal Church that deep inside he just didn’t want to see how badly its foundations had eroded – not unlike someone who so falls in love with a house that he doesn’t see that it’s falling apart. I can understand that. At this point, I find myself so attracted to Anglicanism that, if I couldn’t find a good Anglican church for me where I’m moving, I would be sorely let down.
But in 1985 even this casual observer saw there was a serious problem. Now most evangelicals see the same. To his credit, so does Dr. Webber. I contacted him and he has graciously swapped e-mails with me. Although he makes a point of not demeaning evangelicals who stay in the ECUSA, he feels there is now a new “litmus test� of being a good Episcopalian – affirmation of gay relationships. He feels that the Episcopal Church “will become an increasingly uncomfortable place for those who disagree . . . .�
If you cross out “Episcopal� in Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail and replace it with “orthodox Anglican,� then it is a helpful and perceptive book that captures well why there are evangelical WannabeAnglicans in the world. But not dealing adequately with the liberalism of the Episcopal Church USA and issues evangelicals might have with that liberalism, even back in the 80’s, is a significant shortcoming in any book on evangelical attitudes toward Episcopalianism.
Still, if one takes into account that shortcoming, Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail is a perceptive book I recommend if you want to get a good grip on the attractiveness of Anglicanism to evangelicals. It even helped me understand why I’m a WannabeAnglican.
Monday, July 26, 2004
Outrage and Truthtelling
Now that I’ve recovered somewhat from the news of ++Rowan’s planned trip to kiss the Islamic feet that run to persecute Christians -- on 9-11 no less -- it’s time for some truth telling.
First, Franklin Graham was right, if impolitic – Islam is an evil religion. It started as a Satanic counterfeit of Christianity and Judaism, twisting the Bible’s teachings and history into a religion of lies and murder. It spread by military conquest and once threatened to wipe out the Christian West. Persecution of Christians and other non-Muslims is today endemic in Muslim countries and is usually supported by Muslim governments.
And with the support of many millions of Muslims, Islam has produced one of the great evils in the world – Islamic terrorism. Yes, yes, most Muslims don’t support it, blah blah blah. Well the Islamic support of terrorism is much louder and whole-hearted than Islamic condemnation of it. And the evil doctrine of jihad is what gave birth to Islamic terrorism.
So yes, ++Rowan’s planned little trip and speech is an outrage. For me, it’s the last straw. If I were the Dread Sovereign of England, I would dismiss him and tell both him and Tony Blair to bug off from running the church. But that’s not going to happen, alas.
Which begs some more truth telling. The manner in which the Anglican Communion chooses its leader, however symbolic he may be, is no longer acceptable. No church has any business letting the Prime Minister of England or any politician, whoever he or she may be, pick its leader. Having the Sovereign or Prime Minister of England pick the Archbishop of Canterbury may have worked well enough in the past when there was more of an orthodox consensus. But it doesn’t work now.
If the Anglican Communion survives, its leader should be chosen by the Primates, not by a politician.
As it stands, my desire to be in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury just went down several notches.
Now that I’ve recovered somewhat from the news of ++Rowan’s planned trip to kiss the Islamic feet that run to persecute Christians -- on 9-11 no less -- it’s time for some truth telling.
First, Franklin Graham was right, if impolitic – Islam is an evil religion. It started as a Satanic counterfeit of Christianity and Judaism, twisting the Bible’s teachings and history into a religion of lies and murder. It spread by military conquest and once threatened to wipe out the Christian West. Persecution of Christians and other non-Muslims is today endemic in Muslim countries and is usually supported by Muslim governments.
And with the support of many millions of Muslims, Islam has produced one of the great evils in the world – Islamic terrorism. Yes, yes, most Muslims don’t support it, blah blah blah. Well the Islamic support of terrorism is much louder and whole-hearted than Islamic condemnation of it. And the evil doctrine of jihad is what gave birth to Islamic terrorism.
So yes, ++Rowan’s planned little trip and speech is an outrage. For me, it’s the last straw. If I were the Dread Sovereign of England, I would dismiss him and tell both him and Tony Blair to bug off from running the church. But that’s not going to happen, alas.
Which begs some more truth telling. The manner in which the Anglican Communion chooses its leader, however symbolic he may be, is no longer acceptable. No church has any business letting the Prime Minister of England or any politician, whoever he or she may be, pick its leader. Having the Sovereign or Prime Minister of England pick the Archbishop of Canterbury may have worked well enough in the past when there was more of an orthodox consensus. But it doesn’t work now.
If the Anglican Communion survives, its leader should be chosen by the Primates, not by a politician.
As it stands, my desire to be in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury just went down several notches.
Sunday, July 25, 2004
Outrage
I'm at a loss for words. I just found out that the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams plans to speak in praise of Islam at a Muslim university in Egypt. On 9-11 no less.
Maybe I don't want to be in communion with him.
(Hat tip to Chris at the Midwest Conservative Journal)
I'm at a loss for words. I just found out that the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams plans to speak in praise of Islam at a Muslim university in Egypt. On 9-11 no less.
Maybe I don't want to be in communion with him.
(Hat tip to Chris at the Midwest Conservative Journal)
Friday, July 23, 2004
More on open communion
Here’s some succinct comments on open communion from retired orthodox Episcopal bishop William Wantland.
He helpfully spells out what the ECUSA canons are on this question. And, yes, those liberals who want to open communion to everyone would be violating those canons. Oh, but I forgot . . . ECUSA canons are only for use against conservatives. Liberals are given a pass because they are so right.
Or as the good bishop notes, “It appears that too many in the Episcopal Church are either ignorant of the teaching of the Church, or simply don't care.� Since ECUSA liberals oft and suddenly become canonical fundamentalists when it suits their ends, I don’t think ignorance is the problem.
Here’s some succinct comments on open communion from retired orthodox Episcopal bishop William Wantland.
He helpfully spells out what the ECUSA canons are on this question. And, yes, those liberals who want to open communion to everyone would be violating those canons. Oh, but I forgot . . . ECUSA canons are only for use against conservatives. Liberals are given a pass because they are so right.
Or as the good bishop notes, “It appears that too many in the Episcopal Church are either ignorant of the teaching of the Church, or simply don't care.� Since ECUSA liberals oft and suddenly become canonical fundamentalists when it suits their ends, I don’t think ignorance is the problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)