A relatively new cultural phenomenon has appeared over the last generation which is stressing out some parents of young people and presenting implications for the shaping of society. Where once we had the transition stage between childhood and adulthood known as adolescence, there is now a futher transition stage appearing - advanced adolescence - which some call adulescence. These are the 18+ year olds who are resisting the acceptance of adult responsibility and want to continue their unhindered play right through to closer to 30 years of age.

The January 2005 edition of TIME magazine featured an article entitled “Meet the Twixters” and introduced the new trend of youngsters who are reluctant to grow up.

These “kidults” still live with their parents and hop around from job-to-job and relationship-to-relationship. They lack direction, commitment, financial independence, and personal responsibility. They are boomerang kids, adult teenagers, and they are much more than a generational hiccup or a temporary fad.

In fact, according to sociologists, psychologists, and demographers they are a permanent trend. So much so that many countries have already named them: they are called “Kippers” in England, “Nesthockers” in Germany, “Mammones” in France, and “Freeters” in Japan. In many countries they comprise over 20 percent of their age group, and the numbers are rising rapidly. In Italy, for instance, over 50% of young people over age 20 still live with their parents.

In America the percentage of 26-year-olds living with their parents has doubled since 1970, from 11% to 20%. That means one in five American 26-year-olds lacks the financial independence, personal responsibility, or courage to leave the shelter of their parent's roof.

It would seem that this is a product of affluent high-technology societies where youngsters have become accustomed to a comfortable standard of living without ever having to work for it themselves, plus a liking for “toys” with which they want to play for as long as they can. The toys are often those which isolate them from the real world, providing a substitute virtual world where they have the illusion of control and authority - again, without earning what their parents’ generation regard as a privilege based on the merit of achievement. They include computers and internet surfing, Game boys, flat-screen TV, video movies, iPods. With parents providing daily needs, any income earned is regarded discretionary and can be spent on these toys plus expensive cars, frequent eating out, designer clothes and numerous vacations. The emphasis is on “having fun” which is perceived as diametrically opposite to the idea of accepting responsibility and doing for others. What self-absorbed Twixter would want to give one thought to a house mortgage, a lawn to mow, a marriage commitment and children for whom to provide?

As usual, the blame tends to be put upon parents for providing too much for their offspring. It is customary to blame parents, and sometimes they do have a big part in the play - but not always. It is often forgotten that, in the normal course of ongoing psycho-social development, the peer group increasingly wields incredible influence and as well as that, there are other “outside influences” such as the education system, and the bombardment of media pushing current age social philosophies that includes consumerism and self-coddling materialism. You cannot wrap your children in cottonwool and keep them from being part of their generation, from exposure to the world, or from having a will and a mind of their own. And while we are busy blaming parents, we are perpetuating a large part of the problem - the denial of an individual’s self-responsibility. Indeed, taking responsibility for oneself is not a terribly fashionable attitude at present. After all, there is a reason for everything and so many ways by which to be let off the hook - my upbringing, my genes, the government, what someone else did or said, I didn’t know, I couldn’t help it, people shouldn’t behave that way to me, I have “rights” which were denied me, I am owed… and so forth. Many people (and definitely not only young folks) think more about what others can do for them than what they can do for others - and what their “rights” are more than their responsibilities. Maturity comes only when folk turn this the other way around, when they stop putting upon others, blaming others, or holding others responsible. Maturity comes when folk take responsibility for themselves - which is not what Twixters are very keen to do.

As a parent of a would-be Twixter, I am looking for ways to counter the phenomenon in my own youngster, and it is far from easy. It is quite the understatement, that being a good parent is one of the hardest jobs in the world. There is a tightrope to walk, and instead of a safety net below there is just a sea of pointing fingers and blaming mouths.

I have found something quite heartening just recently - the blog of teenager brothers, Brett and Alex, who are uncommonly perceptive and insightful youngsters willing to tackle this phenomenon from their Christian world view, appealing to their own generation to consider the consequences and take ownership of them. They offer some excellent ideas for doing just that, and the first in their series of six blog posts on the subject can be found here: Kidults (Part 1): Adolescence Is Permanent. Scroll down their right-hand sidebar and you will find links to the whole six blog posts they have written on this subject, plus other articles on related issues. You will also find that I have linked to their blog, The Rebelution, on my own left-hand sidebar under the heading “Other Worthy Blogs”. These youngsters are very good news.

As Alex and Brett write:

The kidult [twixter] mentality that uses Mom and Dad to subsidize an extravagant lifestyle is blatantly unbiblical. It directly violates the Fifth Commandment: “Honor your father and your mother.” Sometimes we need to be reminded that this commandment doesn’t expire at age 18. Kidults aren’t using their time at home to prepare for marriage or to serve others; they’re using it to stall and to serve themselves.

Parents are often held to ransom by their young adult children who would use them in such a way. No parent wants to see their child “living rough” out in the street, and turning out into such a situation that child whom you have nurtured and loved is an extremely difficult thing to do. But this is exactly the Tough Love that some parents are called upon to dispense, and the “how to”, “whether to” and “when to” is fraught with practical as well as emotional difficulties. Meanwhile, parents may suffer the frustration and despair of having their own lives impacted upon by another whose presence puts “in your face” the modern day sub-culture that espouses values often foreign to their own. The parental task of successfully launching their youngsters is delayed, not achieved, and may bring about a sense of bewilderment and failure with home becoming an inter-generational war zone rather than a place of peace and comfort for which they had hoped. Not all parents mind, of course. In some households there is mutual benefit in this situation. Perhaps it depends on the level of self-absorption and the degree of reciprocity that can make it work without too much tension. But in the overall scheme of things this still constitutes a delay in individual growth and development, the stalling of the inevitable, and a resultant reshaping of the nature of society. I’m not convinced that it is a good thing at all, but more a weakening of our moral character which will most likely bring about unfavourable repercussions in it’s wake.

I have just watched the DVD “Molokai - the story of Father Damien” on my computer and it is certainly a very moving and humbling experience. Have you ever seen the movie, or read of Father Damien? This is a true story about a young Belgian Roman Catholic priest who, in the late nineteenth century, saw his calling as living among the exiled lepers of the island of Molokai. His dedication to caring for others was wholehearted and unstinting, a story of unfaltering faith, obedience and sacrifice. Without wishing to create some kind of ranking scale here, I do think I will have to put him alongside Mother Theresa as one of those most inspiring Christians who lived according to their beliefs in ways that show the rest of us how well short of the mark we fall just coping with ordinary everyday matters.

Father Damien, before he set foot on the island of Molokai, was warned by his superiors absolutely NOT to touch the lepers. His superiors would seem to have his best interests at heart as touching would put Father Damien at risk of catching leprosy himself. From a worldly point of view, that would have been good advice at the time with someone’s best interests at heart. But from a spiritual point of view, this assessment becomes somewhat debatable.

Father Damien chose straight away to forgo the advice and put his life in the hands of God. When warned again by one of the outcast lepers, he replied that he trusted God to take care of those matters for him. And if you were watching the movie and listening to Father Damien’s response, you would have heard the rest of his words - for as long as He needed him to do His Will.

Father Damien reached out to the lepers and was not afraid to touch, holding them in his arms when they needed comfort, and showing the love of God without holding back from them. Could he have loved them quite the same if he was too scared to touch? My view is that it would have been more of an intellectual act, nothing quite as complete as the love which God asks us to give to others. More about this shortly. So did God protect him? From a worldly point of view, it would seem not. Father Damien became a leper himself and died from the disease. But the issue was not that God would keep him from getting leprosy, but would take care of those matters until he had completed what was God’s Will for him. During his time on Molokai, much was accomplished. From a spiritual point of view, God did indeed do so.

Were Father Damien’s superiors right to have advised him as they did? Had he followed their advice he may have saved himself from leprosy. I would say that they were right to have appraised him fully of the facts concerning leprosy, but clearly Father Damien knew whose disciple he was - and that he had another path to follow. Advice is one thing but to my mind, his superiors could not with spiritual legitimacy make the command - to touch or not to touch - either way. Christ may command of those who would be His disciples, but some decisions are just not for others to be making for us.

John 15: 12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command.

All this must seem like sheer madness to those who know it would be a death penalty to behave in such a way. To touch a leper’s wounds when there was no known cure had to be the most incredible foolishness. It was surely asking for one’s life to be cut short by a most hideous death. No wonder those who are devout in such a way are often seen as crazies - so silly to believe such nonsense, that God might give them protection, that God indeed wants more people to die besides those already dying. But there is a matter of perspective here, and this is a spiritual one where life is far more than what is known to exist on this planet in this earthly time - and such a love that is willingly generous, obedient and sacrificial yet warm and feeling, is something way beyond that which humans can normally generate and sustain themselves.

1 Corinthians 2 :14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

In order to counter the idea that love is just the warm feelings one may have for another but without the substance of loving deeds, there is another view commonly held these days that love is the loving deeds themselves, ones which may not necessarily come hand-in-hand with any congruent feelings. However, neither is the complete expression of love. Either one without the other is deficient.

An act of love must have the right motives, and from it comes the right feelings as well as being the right deeds. To give of oneself begrudgingly, with resentment or irritation, is not what is asked of us at all. The deed is marred by the attitude, motive and feeling behind it. What is asked of us is not merely the perfunctory performance of some duty, but the act of love where the deed is an outflowing from the joy of giving, the concern and true caring that matches the deed to the need.

Matthew 22: 37 Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

It was this complete expression of love that Father Damien showed to the people afflicted with leprosy on the island of Molokai. He gave his whole self, body and soul, in the expression of a love that fully matched the deed to the need. What is foolishness to some is recognized and understood by his brothers and sisters in Christ. If only we all might live such a life, dealing with those daily things that others ask of us - not even life-threatening like the risk of leprosy - by choosing to give unstintingly with generosity and joy, without irritation and resentment.

Four years ago now, which is still comparatively recent on many time scales, a leading organization in the field of national and international religious research and statistics was commissioned to conduct a survey on the beliefs of clergy of the Church of England.

Carried out during 2002 by Christian Research at the request of Cost of Conscience, an Anglican think-tank, the survey found that of the 1,700+ clergy (46% of those approached) who replied, many admitted to doubting some of the most fundamental articles of the Faith which they publicly profess to believe Sunday by Sunday.

One of the interesting things that has been noted in recent times is the hand-in-hand ordination of women to the priesthood, and ordination of practising homosexuals likewise. These are both very recent trends in the 2000 year history of the Christian church, something that is a feature only of the last decade or so. This occurrence coincides with the growth of liberal theologies, a move away from a traditional exegesis of Scripture by some who are more open to the influences of our postmodern secular age and the pressure to be “inclusive” of all. These influences include moral relativism, the political correctness of multiculturalism, and the reign of pragmatism and utopianism. A worldview that regards these ideas more highly than the truth claims of traditional Christianity will require the efforts of revisionism to provide an alternative interpretation of Scripture that better fits the philosophy of the age. Such revisionism has heralded both the ordination of women and of practising homosexuals, neither group previously considered appropriate as ordinands by Christians who adhere to a traditional exegesis of Scripture.

But back to the findings of the aforementioned survey and several interesting and disturbing outcomes arise. On every single item in the questionaire, confidence in the faith among female clergy is less than that of their male counterparts. When it comes to beliefs concerning the person of Jesus, the gaps between male and female clergy become highly significant.

Of those who could confidently assert that they believe that Jesus Christ died to take away the sins of the world, the numbers were as follows:
76% of male clergy
65% of female clergy

But even so, if the clergy are Christians, although given that we all may be subject to doubts occasionally, might one not expect something far closer to 100% ?

8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10 For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11 Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
Romans 5:8-11

For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
Hebrews 9:15

Of those who believe that Jesus Christ is the only way by which we can be saved, the figures were as follows:
53% of male clergy
39% of female clergy

Given that some folks may have never heard the Gospel and that God, being supremely just, will accommodate those accordingly - surely this belief requires a firm commitment as a founding truth claim?

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. ”
John 14:6

35 The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”
John 3:35-36

5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men - the testimony given in its proper time.
1 Timothy 2:5-6

Of those who confidently believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, the figures were as follows:
58% of male clergy
33% of women clergy

Again, this is a foundation belief of Christianity, so something far nearer 100% should surely be expected?

30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31 You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.”
34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.”
Luke 1:30-35

Of those who confidently believe that Jesus physically rose from the dead, the figures were as follows:
68% of male clergy
53% of female clergy

But if Jesus did not rise physically from the dead, as witnessed by over 500 people as reported in the New Testament, then the whole Christian faith is a sham. If God, Creator of all, is able to speak the universe into existence, then it is surely no problem for Him to raise His Son Jesus from the dead. Therefore a 100% belief rate among Christian clergy is surely in order?

1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”
4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’ ”
Mark 16:1-7

10 Then the disciples went back to their homes, 11 but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb 12 and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.
13They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?”
“They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.” 14 At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.
15″Woman,” he said, “why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?”
Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.”
16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.”
She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means Teacher).
17Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ”
18Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her.

19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
John 20:10-19

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
John 20:26-29

It would appear that the historic creeds are no longer believed by all clergy in the Church of England. Likewise, the 39 Articles of Religion that contain the foundation beliefs of the Anglican Communion. Those clergy who defined themselves as conservative evangelical came out as the strongest believers whereas of those who favoured more liberal views, less than 25% were confident believers in the Virgin Birth or the uniqueness of Christ in salvation.

Quoting from the report of the survey:

It has been clearly demonstrated that despite the much-vaunted diversity within the Church of England, such diversity is due to the existence of two churches with irreconcilable theological beliefs and moral values.
Their divergence has often been portrayed as being solely concerned with the issue of the ordination of women as priests and bishops - but this is no more that the presenting symptom of the many radically different attitudes to the authority of Scripture, the doctrines of Creation and Incarnation and, most critically, the person of Jesus Christ.
This survey reveals the divisions are far wider and go much deeper than any single presenting symptom.
Conservative evangelical and Catholics, for all their historic differences, hold in common both the faith and the traditional moral teachings of the undivided Catholic Church.
Liberals, by contrast, embrace a theology and moral methodology deriving from the prevailing views of the secular society in which they live. Conformist rather than prophetic, they appear to have little interest in transforming the world by the grace of a Saviour about whose claim upon their lives they are deeply uncertain if not dismissive.
Believe it or not!

Links to the Mind of Anglicans Survey reports:
Robbie Low’s Analysis
Further Conclusions Part II
Survey Analysis Part III

There is a fundamental understanding that exists in Christianity - that God is our Creator, and we are His creatures.
It is God who made us, and He made us in His image.

There is a fundamental quirk of human nature - that we are constantly attempting to turn that fundamental understanding on it’s head, trying to re-create God so that He is our creature made in our own image.

We want God to be as we want Him to be, to have Him obedient to our whims, and have no demand on us for loyalty to His cause but instead, to abide by whatever it is that we want for ourselves.
While God is to love us unconditionally, we say, we in turn consider ourselves able to choose to behave however we like and not fall out of favour with Him. He is to stay in favour with us while we get on with doing as we please.
God is to stay like some ornament on a shelf, there available and accessible but not interfering, performing whatever function when asked of Him, but put back on the shelf when no longer needed - until next time.

However, those who treat their Creator in this fashion are living on borrowed grace, benefitting from having a life to live but wasting it in a psychotic-like state of unreality.
God is our Creator and we are His creatures. It is not actually ourselves who make the rules. We may have some arrogant delusions about having such a right, but in fact reality is otherwise. The truth about God remains the truth about Him regardless.

It is very sad to see what is happening in His church at present. There are some who believe that they can call the shots, can tell God what is right from wrong, can tell Him how it will be done from now on, and can even decide to call Him some other name as His current ones don’t fit their version of Him anymore.

From the Los Angeles Times, an interesting news comment entitled Liberal Christianity is paying for its sins:

It is not entirely coincidental that at about the same time that Episcopalians, at their general convention in Columbus, Ohio, were thumbing their noses at a directive from the worldwide Anglican Communion that they “repent” of confirming the openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire three years ago, the Presbyterian Church USA, at its general assembly in Birmingham, Ala., was turning itself into the laughingstock of the blogosphere by tacitly approving alternative designations for the supposedly sexist Christian Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Among the suggested names were “Mother, Child and Womb” and “Rock, Redeemer and Friend.” Moved by the spirit of the Presbyterian revisionists, Beliefnet blogger Rod Dreher held a “Name That Trinity” contest. Entries included “Rock, Scissors and Paper” and “Larry, Curly and Moe.”

Following the Episcopalian lead, the Presbyterians also voted to give local congregations the freedom to ordain openly cohabiting gay and lesbian ministers and endorsed the legalization of medical marijuana. (The latter may be a good idea, but it is hard to see how it falls under the theological purview of a Christian denomination.)

The Presbyterian Church USA is famous for its 1993 conference, cosponsored with the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and other mainline churches, in which participants “reimagined” God as “Our Maker Sophia” and held a feminist-inspired “milk and honey” ritual designed to replace traditional bread-and-wine Communion.

As if to one-up the Presbyterians in jettisoning age-old elements of Christian belief, the Episcopalians at Columbus overwhelmingly refused even to consider a resolution affirming that Jesus Christ is Lord. When a Christian church cannot bring itself to endorse a bedrock Christian theological statement repeatedly found in the New Testament, it is not a serious Christian church. It’s a Church of What’s Happening Now, conferring a feel-good imprimatur on whatever the liberal elements of secular society deem permissible or politically correct.

You want to have gay sex? Be a female bishop? Change God’s name to Sophia? Go ahead. The just-elected Episcopal presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, is a one-woman combination of all these things, having voted for Robinson, blessed same-sex couples in her Nevada diocese, prayed to a female Jesus at the Columbus convention and invited former Newark, N.J., bishop John Shelby Spong, famous for denying Christ’s divinity, to address her priests.

After around 40 years of developing it’s own heyday, liberal theology is now seeing the results of blurred doctrine and discarded morality not just in terms of a demographic decline in church membership, but also in church disintegration such as that which is happening within the Episcopal Church in the USA. According to the writer of the article: When a church doesn’t take itself seriously, neither do its members. When your religion says “whatever” on doctrinal matters, regards Jesus as just another wise teacher, refuses on principle to evangelize and lets you do pretty much what you want, it’s a short step to deciding that one of the things you don’t want to do is get up on Sunday morning and go to church.

Jesus warned about what happens when we remove ourselves from our source of sustenance, using the metaphor of the vine and the fruit that is produced from it. Jesus, the Word of God, is the true vine and if we remain in Him then we will bear fruit, but apart from Him we cannot. What is more, the gardener - our Creator Father - will remove the dead vine that produces no fruit and discard it, throwing it into the fire to be burnt.

Back to the Los Angeles Times article again:

It is hard to believe that as recently as 1960, members of mainline churches — Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans and the like — accounted for 40% of all American Protestants. Today, it’s more like 12% (17 million out of 135 million). Some of the precipitous decline is due to lower birthrates among the generally blue-state mainliners, but it also is clear that millions of mainline adherents (and especially their children) have simply walked out of the pews never to return. According to the Hartford Institute for Religious Research, in 1965, there were 3.4 million Episcopalians; now, there are 2.3 million. The number of Presbyterians fell from 4.3 million in 1965 to 2.5 million today. Compare that with 16 million members reported by the Southern Baptists.

It doesn’t help matters that the mainline churches were pioneers in ordaining women to the clergy, to the point that 25% of all Episcopal priests these days are female, as are 29% of all Presbyterian pastors, according to the two churches. A causal connection between a critical mass of female clergy and a mass exodus from the churches, especially among men, would be difficult to establish, but is it entirely a coincidence? Sociologist Rodney Stark (”The Rise of Christianity”) and historian Philip Jenkins (”The Next Christendom”) contend that the more demands, ethical and doctrinal, that a faith places upon its adherents, the deeper the adherents’ commitment to that faith. Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, which preach biblical morality, have no trouble saying that Jesus is Lord, and they generally eschew women’s ordination. The churches are growing robustly, both in the United States and around the world.

Those churches where Biblical morality is not compromised, where the liberal revisionists have not been allowed to dilute Biblical Christianity with postmodern secular and politically correct notions, are the branches of the vine that are bearing fruit. Their teachings remain true to the Word of God, and their faith in Jesus as Lord and Saviour is strong and unshaken.

The arrogance in attempting to re-create the Creator is something I find quite galling. Who are we to tell God how things are to be done? Wo are we to tell Him what is sin and what is not? I am gobsmacked by the nerve people have to regard our Creator in such a way, and even more so, I am deeply saddened when I see how they would turn their backs on a close real relationship with the most magnificent, holy and wonderfully loveliest Being who desires only what is truly good for us - and instead, relate to something of their own creation, an idol of their own imagination. We do not deserve His love for us, but He gives it anyway, asking us only to enjoy Him to the fullest by our obedience to Him in order to be who we were created to be in Him. Those who are starving themselves of an honest and faithful relationship with Him through Jesus, our Lord and Saviour, are now withering and dying, the lesson Jesus taught that is recorded in chapter 15 of John’s Gospel.

An article well worth the read:
Awaiting an Episcopal Revolution - The Rise and Fall of a Church
by Allan Dobras 7/11/2006

The Episcopal Church in the USA has recently elected a new Presiding Bishop. This is the very top job, a position of considerable responsibility and one of considerable influence. This in itself is not an unusual thing. Presiding Bishops are elected every nine years and it was that time again. But what is unusual this time is that the new Presiding Bishop just happens to be a woman.

The election of Katharine Jefferts Schori to this position is a highly contentious move that has had a huge impact for the entire Anglican Communion world-wide. It is seen as an occasion of great sadness for all who care about the unity of Christians, and as the pathway to heresy by those who adhere to a conservative and traditional understanding of Holy Scripture.

In the mid-seventies the Episcopal Church unilaterally decided to ordain women to the priesthood, and since then the Church of England has followed suit. However, the more recent commotion in the global Anglican Communion was sparked by the ordination of Gene Robinson, a practicing gay priest, as bishop of New Hampshire, USA. From a conservative and traditional theological position, the ordination of women, and the ordination of practising homosexuals, is not supported by Scripture. Women have a different kind of ministry, not one of headship that is the perogative of men. When Mother Theresa was once asked for her view on the ordination of women priests, she was quite dismissive of the idea, saying simply “women have other things to do.” But this is a very unpopular position in today’s world where feminism has influenced our thinking considerably, and the Apostle Paul (by whose apostolic authority women were forbidden in such roles, a reflection of his understanding of God’s purpose in the wide-reaching Creation story) has become regarded as the penultimate misogynist worthy only of contempt for his obvious chauvinism. That is a secular and cultural view, but not a Biblical view. And when it comes to practising homosexuals, again the secular and cultural view reigns over the Word of God where homosexuality is clearly a sin, and to live in constant unrepentant defiance of His Word on this matter is contrary to pursuit of a holy lifestyle befitting of ordained clergy.

Some months ago the Lambeth Commission on Communion issued the Windsor Report which proposed that the Episcopal Church apologize to the Anglican Communion for difficulties caused by the election of Gene Robinson and that a moratorium be declared on ordaining gay bishops and blessing same-sex unions. Bishop Schori was highly critical of the Windsor Report, and her election is a decisive repudiation of its recommendations. She is an unequivocal supporter of Gene Robinson and of the blessing of same-sex unions. Bishop Schori is also reported to be a friend and strong supporter of the retired Bishop John Spong, perhaps the most leftist of all Episcopal bishops, and who has long agitated against core doctrines of historic Christianity such as the inspiration of Scripture and the divinity of Christ.

Following her election as the new Presiding Bishop, Dr Schori signalled her feminist credentials in a sermon that drew on the writings of the 14th-century Julian of Norwich. She said: “Mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation — and you and I are His children. If we’re going to keep on growing into Christ images for the world around us, we’re going to have to give up fear.” Her sermon was defended by Liberals in Britain and America as being in a long tradition of writings by women theologians that use the metaphor of Jesus as mother.

The transcript of Bishop Schori’s homily provides some context:

Colossians calls Jesus the firstborn of all creation, the firstborn from the dead. That sweaty, bloody, tear-stained labor of the cross bears new life. Our mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation — and you and I are His children. If we’re going to keep on growing into Christ-images for the world around us, we’re going to have to give up fear.

This idea of a “Mother Jesus” giving birth to creation is an example of gynecological theology. This is opposed by Biblical Christianity as definitely un-Scriptural. Creation is not birthed from some kind of divine womb. It is spoken into being by a divine Word. We are not the children of Jesus, not without even more laxity of interpretation, but children of God the Father whose Son is Jesus, our Lord and Saviour.

The likely direction that the Episcopal Church will be led by this new Presiding Bishop is well away from Biblical Christianity, and when the Biblical truths are revised and distorted, what we have is no longer Christianity but some other pseudo-Christian aberration instead. Those who are unhappy with this are also placed in the position of being accused increasingly of intolerance and bigotry. As the secular and cultural thought fashions redefine theology, fuelled by the various political activist “rights” movements, soon it will become “hate speech” and “unlawful discrimination” to repeat Biblical truths. Already those who believe God has called homosexuality a sin are being wrongfully described as “homophobic”. I wonder how much longer before it is insisted that we accept “as Gospel” only those Bible translations that have been made “gender neutral”… and whatever else that can be dreamed up to appeal to the politically correct postmodern liberal thinkers of this age.

By whose authority will these changes be declared valid? God has already spoken - His Word is already written. So often it seems to me that many have tipped everything totally upside down and need hear the reminder - God is the Creator, and we are His creatures. We have no authority to re-create God and make Him our creature, in our own likeness. To get this the wrong way around is nothing less than appallingly arrogant, and utterly foolish and sinful idolatry.

The following is part of a clear statement from a traditional Biblical perspective regarding homosexuality among members of the Christian Church, as expressed by the 114th Annual Meeting of the Baptist General Conference, June 27, 1992.
I believe it “hits the nail on the head” regarding the unsuitability of practising homosexuals in the ordained ministry of the Church.

Since beliefs about the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, like beliefs about the sinfulness of lying, stealing, murder, greed, etc., are an essential part of our commitment to the supreme authority of the Bible in all matters of faith and conduct,

and since a person who believes that lying, stealing, murder or greed are Biblically acceptable lifestyles would not and should not be deemed qualified to serve in the leadership of our Conference, or teach in its educational institutions, or serve as pastors of Baptist General Conference churches, or as principals or teachers of all church-sponsored schools, or as missionaries of the Baptist General Conference,

therefore we affirm that, in the same way, those who believe that homosexual behavior is a Biblically acceptable lifestyle are not qualified to serve in the leadership of the Conference, or to teach in its educational institutions, or to serve as pastors of Baptist General Conference Churches, or as principals or teachers of all church sponsored schools, or as missionaries of the Baptist General Conference.

To read the entire statement on this subject, click on Source

Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by John Piper and Wayne Grudem offers the most complete and extensive refutation of the egalitarian position. All of the authors in this book are well-established scholars, and each chapter provides a book's worth of insight. This on-line book can be downloaded in PDF version from the site you are taken to by clicking on the book title above.