Don't tell me... I know... my cap's on crooked! I like it that way.
|
This cartoon was drawn by Dave (of The Cartoon Blog) who has allowed it to be published in other places - like here. |
We may not have everything, but perhaps the difference between what we have and “everything” is not what really matters anyway.
|
After a little bit of reshuffling, the page for Book Reviews has now disappeared to be replaced by a new Category for Book Reviews instead. See the navigation bar to the left of where you are reading now, or click here.
Three new book reviews, ones I had written and published elsewhere during November 2005, have now been added to this category. They are three books by Lee Strobel, namely his “The Case for a Creator“, “The Case for Faith“, and “The Case for Christ“. Taken together, you might like to think of them as Christian Apologia 101. They are great basic entry level introductions to Christian Apologetics, the field of knowledge involved in producing a rational and intelligent case for the truth claims of Christianity.
Lee Strobel, a former atheist and now devout Christian, has a Master of Studies in Law degree from Yale Law School and was the award winning legal editor of the Chicago Tribune. He has brought his skills as a legal investigative journalist to the examination of evidence in support of the Christian faith, asking wellknown Christian Biblical scholars for their answers to some of the toughest questions asked of Christianity.
These books are well worth reading to sure up one’s own faith and deal with any little niggling doubts, to help you provide answers to the searching questions of others, and to recommend as worthwhile non-technical (and not too heavy) reading material to anyone interested in these subjects. It is definitely the case that one does not need to drop 30+ IQ points in order to become a Christian. It is not at all a matter of faith filling in the gaps where mankind lacks knowledge. A belief in the truth claims of Christianity is a very rational and intelligent decision, and for those with doubts about that, a read of these books may well dispell them. So read them if you dare!
|
 |
|
The world often takes this passage of the Bible (out of its context) and uses it to accuse Christians of being “judgmental” when they speak of sin. The context of this passage from Matthew is revealed in verse 5 - the Christian is not to judge hypocritically or self-righteously.
Scripture repeatedly exhorts believers to evaluate carefully (John 7:24) and to choose between good and bad people and things:
~ sexually immorality (1 Corinthians 5:9)
~ those who masquerade as angels of light (2 Corinthians 11:14)
~ dogs, those who are evil (Philippians 3:2)
~ false prophets (1 John 4:1)
The Christian is to “test everything” (1 Thessalonians 5:21).
However, while Jesus is telling His disciples not to judge one another hypocritically, He also says…
“Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”
Thus, if a man steals, lies, commits adultery or murder, etc., the Christian can make a (righteous) moral judgment and say that the actions were morally wrong, and that these sins will have eternal consequences. This is stating (teaching, repeating) the Moral Law already revealed by God - God’s own judgement of what is right or wrong.
To say of oneself in relation to Christians, in a manner of accusing them of being judgemental for stating God’s moral laws, something like “I will not judge but will leave it up to God to judge what is right and wrong” simply ignores what Jesus has told Christians to do, and what God has already revealed.
1 Corinthians 2: 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 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. 15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment.
As explained by Visiblesoul*…
The spiritual man judges all things but he does not judge them by his own understanding or “human wisdom”; he judges all things by the revealed knowledge of God. He is not subject to any man's judgment because the natural man cannot comprehend why the spiritual man thinks and acts the way he does. But the spiritual man does understand the natural man because the spiritual man once lived in the same natural mindset. As a wise man once said —
The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn,
shining ever brighter till the full light of day.But the way of the wicked is like deep darkness;
they do not know what makes them stumble.
(Proverbs 4:18-19 NIV)
*(see a previous post to Judah’s Journal on this subject: Judgement - and please don't shoot the messenger!)
For a more detailed treatment of this subject, read:
“Who Are You to Judge Others?” - In Defense of Making Moral Judgments by Paul Copan
It's been said that the most frequently quoted Bible verse is no longer John 3:16 but Matthew 7:1: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” We cannot glibly quote this, though, without understanding what Jesus meant. When Jesus condemned judging, he wasn't at all implying we should never make judgments about anyone. After all, a few verses later, Jesus himself calls certain people “pigs” and “dogs” (Matt. 7:6) and “wolves in sheep's clothing” (7:15)! Any act of church discipline (1 Cor. 5:5) and rebuking false prophets (1 John 4:1) requires judgment. What Jesus condemns is a critical and judgmental spirit, an unholy sense of moral superiority. Jesus commanded us to examine ourselves first for the problems we so easily see in others. Only then can we help remove the speck in another's eye—which, incidentally, assumes that a problem exists and must be confronted.
Check out what John (Omnipotent Grace) has to add in his post here.
As John goes on to explain concerning the misuse of Matthew 7:1 …
Of course, closer examination of the passage and the verse demonstrate that to use it in such a manner is quite ridiculous. We are all to be judged one day on the basis of our life on earth.
But if we have to believe those who so love to quote this verse and use it as ammunition for whatever heresy they are defending, then it is quite simple:
If we don't judge, then we won't be judged, and therefore, if we are not judged, we won't have to account for our sins. And if we are not called to account for our sins, we have no need for a Savior, and we are assured of our safe entry into the presence of God. And that, dear friend, is heresy of the highest order.
So quite simply, taking the argument to its logical conclusion, not judging people is replacing Christ.
It has come up again - the idea that we must not single out the laws mentioned in Leviticus and apply some today and not others.
I want to address that issue in this post so that I can refer back to the teachings concerning these laws without needing to rewrite it all over and over again. In doing so I will draw heavily on the writings of someone I simply know as “farstrider”, now a Church of England theological student planning to enter the ordained ministry very soon, but an experienced and learned student of the Bible with a considerable knowledge of traditional Scriptural exegesis, and sound understanding of Biblical Hebrew and Greek. Should “farstrider” ever get to read this, I would like him to accept my heartfelt thanks for his teaching and hope he doesn’t mind too much my reproducing much of it here (mostly in his own words) for others to read too.
There are many ways that people have used to try to get out of obeying the Biblical commands. Revisionists often attempt to denigrate the Old Testament’s moral laws (particularly those touching upon homosexuality in Leviticus) by pointing out that we now eat shellfish, wear garments of mixed fibres, and don’t execute Sabbath-breakers, etc. If we have “abandoned” the latter laws, they ask, why do we hold onto the former laws as absolutes? Surely we are being inconsistent, picking and choosing, rejecting some and applying others?
The answer is No, we are not being inconsistent and making arbitary whimsical decisions about which to apply and which to ignore. Far from it. Instead, we are applying scholarly knowledge concerning the different categories of those laws and the intentions for which each category was given. To lump them all together without further consideration is to show ignorance of their different purposes.
The Christian faith teaches that God’s over-arching purpose has always been to restore mankind to Himself. We are told that all of us, each one of us, has sinned (done wrong things) and fallen short of His glory - messed up in relation to Himself who alone is holy and righteous.
In the Old Testament we read how God had a plan to bring about this reconciliation and restoration, and began to unfold this plan by calling out a man from Ur of the Chaldees - Abram. God then made a covenant with Abram, promising to make him a nation and bless him so that he could be a blessing to all nations (all of humanity is in focus here). Israel would be a light to the nations and would ultimately produce the Messiah who would restore all of humanity - and indeed all of creation - to God.
Israel was given a unique place in God's grand scheme, although while honourable, was temporary. At the right time God would draw all nations to himself through an “ideal Israel” as found in her rightful King (Jesus) and would create a new people not distinguished by language or ethnicity. So how does this touch upon the laws written in Leviticus?
The Law:
God used the law to transform a rabble of ex-slaves into a holy nation that would reflect his glory to the nations. It acted as a kind of constitution for Israel, defining the rights and responsibilities that they shared in their covenant with God. It had to tell them what was right and wrong (moral), and it had to tell them what kind of nation they would be (national).
1. Moral
The moral components deal with what is right and wrong - it is right to love the Lord your God and your neighbours, to care for the needy, to shelter orphans etc. It is wrong to commit murder, to steal, to have sexual relations with animals, near relations, members of the same sex, and so on. These morals find their origin in the unchanging holiness of God, and are in themselves unchanging. It is worth noting that one finds them echoed in the New Testament as well as the Old. These laws remain absolutes - it is wrong to murder, steal, commit adultery and so on whenever and wherever you live. They are universal laws.
2. National
The first category:
The national components cover everything from administrative, criminal, and civil laws to ritual laws.
The first category describes how God wants Israel to function - and it is comprehensive. They are told where to put toilets in relation to the camp, how kings should reign, how to deal with refugees, how to punish crimes and resolve disputes and more. Food laws (shellfish would be unsafe to eat in that climate, there being no refrigeration!) and food hygiene (prevention of illness) was spelled out. While we can learn lots from it (it reveals God's heart and is full of wisdom), it remains their constitution and not ours.
The second category (ritual) operates on at two levels:
a) It deals with how one relates to God (issues of sin, atonement through the shedding of blood and the releasing of the scape-goat, remembrance of God’s acts in the Passover and other festivals, and so on). These served as “types” (pictures) foreshadowing what Christ would accomplish through his life, death and resurrection. They were fulfilled in him, and so they no longer apply.
b) It also explains how Israel, as a nation, is to keep itself holy, separate from its pagan neighbours. That included instructions on how to cut ones beard, and what kind of clothes to wear, which are examples of this level. Again, Israel's place at centre stage was temporary. Now, through Christ, there is no longer any distinction between Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female - all peoples have been made clean through Christ's acts. The laws of separation no longer apply.
Therefore, in summation:
Basically moral laws are to be distinguished from ritual and other laws.
Having had seminary educations the revisionists shouldn’t have so much trouble with these categories, but maybe that’s not the real point for them.
There is an over-arching narrative within (and surrounding) the books of Scripture.
Genesis 1-11 serves as an introduction - God creates all things; creation is good; something goes badly wrong; God makes a promise to fallen humanity (Genesis 3:15). Humanity continues to go from bad to worse.
The rest of the Old Testament deals with how God begins to unfold his promise to Adam and Eve.
Firstly, he sets apart a nation to serve as a show-case of the kingdom. This nation has to be distinct, for they were to be a light to the nations. This nation (a la Exodus) is refined in the fires of Egypt and then the Sinai, but when they come out of the wilderness they are a people, united by the law, (but, alas, without a land).
Then they supplanted the peoples of Canaan, who had been given almost 500 years to repent before their sin had reached its full measure, thus leaving God no choice but to judge them (Genesis 15:16), but Israel herself proved to be unfaithful.
Throughout Israel’s history the promise of God, first given in Genesis 3:15, became more and more precise. The “seed of the woman” would be a descendant of Abraham; he would be from the tribe of Judah; he would be a son of David; he would be born in Bethlehem; he would be both a king and a suffering servant.
The coming of Jesus, the promised seed, marks the end of one age and the beginning of another - and the putting aside of one covenant for another (the New Covenant which had been prophesied in advance by Jeremiah, Ezekiel and others).
The question for the early Christians, and for Christians today, is this: what is the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament?
As explained above, we see the main difference. The Mosaic Covenant was given to a particular people at a particular time for a particular purpose. Yet that covenant describes for us the difference between good and evil (the moral component), and this moral aspect is anchored in the very nature of the God who is Holy. Paul, in Romans notes that this moral law, revealed most clearly in the Torah, is nonetheless separate from the Torah. The Gentiles, who did not have Moses, still understood the basics of right and wrong (Romans 2:14). This is what theologians have refer to as “Natural Law” - it is most clearly evidenced in the human conscience. The moral aspects of the Torah are still in effect because they are in accordance with the nature of God and in accordance with the moral laws that are woven into creation itself.
Not so the ritual laws. Hebrews is very careful to point out that these were merely shadows pointing to Christ.
Not so the racial laws. Paul, in Galatians (and most of his Epistles) demonstrates that these laws have fulfilled their purpose. They set Israel apart until the time when Messiah would make an end to racial divisions, creating a new people of God which encompasses every nation (in accord with God’s first promise to Adam and Eve).
Revelation serves as a conclusion to the Biblical narrative (although we are still living within that narrative). There, in Rev 5 and 7 we see the redeemed from every nation gathered around the throne worshiping the Lamb. In Rev 21 and 22 we see the earth itself remade and joined together with heaven.
Some of the following may be nothing more than a re-telling of the original post, but it is important to see the basic “breakdown” of Scripture.
Introduction - A good Creation gone wrong, and a promise
Israel - the people of promise
Christ and the people of Christ - the promise fulfilled/being fulfilled
Conclusion - the consummation of the Promise
This big picture helps us see where the pieces fit, and helps to makes sense of them.
Postscript (added 30 December, 2006): An excellent outline and explanation of these different categories of Old Testament laws can be found here on the Covenant Theology blog, written by contributor August.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
It is commonly claimed that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, and from there an argument is made that He did not consider it a sin. But Jesus does speak of sexual immorality. In those Biblical times there was no such word as “homosexual” as the concept of such was not understood then as it is today. A wide range of sexual behaviours outlined in the Torah (as written in Leviticus) were considered abhorrent to God, considered to be a sin, a transgression against God’s holy and righteous character. These behaviours included incest, paedophilia, bestiality, sodomy, adultery, etc. The Jews understood that lust for another, of either gender by either gender, and sexual behaviour that followed on from that outside of marriage was sin covered by the term “sexual immorality”. This was their knowledge and understanding, and that this umbrella term included the full range of forbidden behaviours. Jesus does not single out incest and bestiality either, but it would be utterly foolish to assert the argument that, by not naming the actual behaviour, He did not regard bestiality and incest as sin either.
The following are the words of Jesus.
Matthew 15: 16 “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’ 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what make a man ‘unclean’; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him ‘unclean.’ “
So Jesus is indeed recorded as having made mention of sexual immorality (the full range of sexual sins written in the Torah - in Leviticus) despite what revisionists would have us believe. He was being asked by some Pharisees why His disciples break the tradition of the elders and don’t wash their hands before they eat. Jesus taught the distinction between the Moral Law and the Mosaic Covenant (national law) and that sin arises from within our own hearts and minds.
Yes, that is I. No, I am definitely not up there with the greats! I was a high school student when that photo was taken - coloured sepia by me to age it suitably! The violin was given to me by my father, he having been given it by an Australian passenger on board ship en route from Southampton (England) to Melbourne. The Australian owner had taken it to Europe to have it valued, the maker’s name being Giovanni Paolo Maggini (1580 - 1630), but was told it was not an original - instead, just an excellant copy. He was so disillusioned that he wanted to give it away to someone who could play one. My father happened to be in the right place at the right time, and being with him on board, so was I.
My musical dabblings began as a very small child when I went to the piano and picked out the tune my mother was singing as she was doing her housework. It happened to be “The Happy Wanderer“. I found the right notes with my right hand, then as I experimented, found some pleasant sounding other notes that went with them with my left hand. I put them together and my father was delighted. He also played the piano “by ear” and we entered on a journey together where we often played duo - two pianos, one each - all the old favourites that my Dad loved. We played together for hours on end, often forgetting the time. The fun was to challenge each other by changing key, slowly working our way up the octave, one semitone at a time, one leading and the other quickly following, both with different styles but the one same shared love. Before long I was packed off to music lessons and discovered how to read a manuscript. The violin came a few years later, after my mother suggested that my father take me, instead of her reluctant self, to an NZSO concert with the visiting virtuoso violinist Alfredo Campoli (1906 - 1991). I must have been about 10 years old, and I was rapt.
A number of years later Signor Campoli, on another concert tour to NZ, decided he would like to play a little competitive Bridge one evening. It was on this occasion that my mother, herself a very good Bridge player, happened to meet him when they played at the same table. She told him about the young girl whose love of classical music, especially the great concerti of the Romantic Period, was awakened by one of his earlier visits. I have always been quite chuffed that through my mother he sent me his personal best wishes.
These days I am a listener, a staunch attender of the NZSO concerts, rather than a player. Besides the Maggini copy, I have my father’s piano and still amuse myself on that a little, but it is being transported to Elsewhere by the beauty and exhilaration of the sound of real talent that does far more for me now. Is there really an Elsewhere? My experience says that there is - a place where there is perfection, wonder, majesty, awe, beauty, and a savouring of all that resonates with the depths of our being. I hear it in this kind of music. I hear and see it again in Nature with the evening birdsong, the rainbow after the sudden downpour, the flowers in my garden glistening with dew, the majesty of my Southern Alps… and I touch it in prayer when I reach out to my Heavenly Father. This Elsewhere is His place where the wisdom of His righteousness has allowed no evil. We have a reflection of it in this life, a taste of that for which my soul yearns as He draws me ever closer to Him.
Yehudi Menuhin (1916 - 1999) said of him: “Simply the best, the most perfect violinist I have ever heard.” Having heard him as well over two recent weekends, I can see what Sir Yehudi meant.
The young Russian violinist, Vadim Repin, was accompanied by the NZSO in concert playing the Sibelius Concerto D minor, op. 47, and the Beethoven Concerto D major, op. 61. And yes, he was brilliant.
The conductor as well deserves a mention. Susanna Mälkki, originally a Finnish-born cellist, has very quickly become a much sought after artist on the international conducting circuit. For some reason conducting seems to be a male-dominated career, so it was quite a novelty to have a woman doing the honours - and doing it so enthusiastically well. And as always, our national symphony orchestra lived up to its excellent international reputation and played quite superbly under her baton.
An interesting thing that relates these two concerti to each other is that both were unpopular when premièred - the Sibelius in 1903, and the Beethoven almost a century earlier in 1806.
For the former, the première was disastrous largely because Sibelius, apparently in desperate need of some ready cash, brought it forward a month. The substitute soloist just wasn't up to it and Sibelius hastily withdrew the score. It was not until the 1930s when renowned violinist Jascha Heifetz (1900 - 1987) dusted it off and showed the world what it had been missing. The rest, as it is said, is history. Anything Sibelius has me thinking of the scenery of Finland, and this was no exception, there being a profound extent of Nature's influence in all his compositions and to which Sibelius made countless references: “Nature is coming to life: that life which I so love, . . . whose essence shall pervade everything I compose.” It was played with such skill and beauty that it seemed I had gone far further than a visit to the Town Hall.
Although the Beethoven Concerto was written in haste back in 1806 and unenthusiastic reviews called the thematic material commonplace, confused, wearisome and too repetitious, an evolutionary process was applied through the subsequent addition of cadenzas written by Joachim, David, Kreisler and many other celebrated violinists. Its first performance was by Franz Clement for whom it was written, but Clement was something of a clown and performed the Concerto by sight-reading (though there is some dispute about this) with an unrehearsed orchestra, dividing up the work to insert a sonata of his own after the first movement, playing his sonata with the violin up-side-down, and on only one string.
Somewhat more conventional with its rendition, the recent performance by Vadim Repin of Beethoven’s work had a packed auditorium giving the longest and loudest applause, including a lapse in restraint following the incredible Kreisler Cadenza towards the end of the first movement. The clapping was acknowledged by a slight nod of the head as Vadim Repin paused only momentarily before continuing with the rest of the piece. It was breath-taking, spell-binding and exhilarating.
Certainly Vadim Repin has been compared with his illustrous predecessors like Menuhin, Stern and Oistrach. But his incredible technique, infallible exactness and his tone that seems to come from nowhere do distinguish him indisputable. Sensibility, elegance and subtlety, as well as profundity, generosity and tenderness: there aren’t enough adjectives to describe this grand master of the violin. He’s now playing on the famous ‘Ruby’, the magnificent Stradivarius of Sarasate, who has played Lalo’s ‘Symphonie Espagnol’ on it. ‘I have it on loan from the Stradivarius Society in Chicago. It’s brilliant and many-coloured in the upper register, sonorous and generous in the lower. It’s a wonderful compromise between the natural brilliance of a Strad and the sensual power of a Guarneri!’
Source
So this is a violinist I have on my little list of “must go to hear” whenever I find his name appearing as guest of some orchestra. He and my other favourite, the Taiwanese-American virtuosa, Cho-Liang Lin (Jimmy). They are both quite amazing.
Today is a sad day for the Anglican Communion ~ 4th November, 2006.
On the same day that Mrs Katharine Jefferts Schori was ordained Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church in America, bringing with her non-orthodox doctrine and schism within the church, the Bishop of Dunedin went ahead despite protest and ordained a practising homosexual man as deacon within the Church of England in New Zealand. This too flies in the face of orthodox doctrine and further cements schism within the church.
During the ceremony, the Bishop of Dunedin (the Right Rev George Connor) asked the congregation whether the deacons should be ordained. Three people - Rev Malcolm Falloon, Rev Wally Behan and John Bryant, all of Christchurch - said they should not, and when the response of three objectors went unheeded, they left quietly.
The Rev Falloon rightfully claims that the ordination is not consistent with the rules of the church, which had from its first days insisted on marriage or celibacy for its ordained ministers. To proceed with the ordination was also to dismiss calls for a moratorium on the ordination of gay clergy from Anglican leaders worldwide. Most people ordained as deacons are subsequently ordained as priests after a short time. However, the Dunedin diocese has a liberal track record, having in the past welcomed a gay priest to be dean of St Paul’s Cathedral and installing a woman, the Rt Rev Penny Jamieson, as its bishop. The Anglican Church internationally is divided on the ordination of gay clergy, and New Zealand churches are generally regarded as being at the liberal end of the Anglican spectrum.
Statement of Protest at Dunedin Ordination
The following is the letter that the Rev Falloon, member of the Latimer Fellowship, wrote the day before to the Bishop of Dunedin as a last entreaty to stop the ordination going ahead.
November 3, 2006
Dear Bishop George,
I urgently ask you to reconsider your actions in the light of the Statement of your own Diocesan Council. For they plainly state that they are aware of divergent views about same-sex ordinations, yet say they are satisfied that this ordination is consistent with the rules of our church.
Forgive me for being blunt, but since when does a Diocesan Council make decision for the the whole church? Especially when they themselves admit that there are differing views in our Church. Even if you take one particular view on what is permitted, you must wait until proper constitutional process has taken place. To not uphold the discipline and due process as given in our constitution places you in breach of the very canons you are claiming as the basis of proceeding with the ordination.
If it is so clear that same-sex relationships can be blessed and that persons in such relationships can be ordained, why has our General Synod not passed a resolution declaring this to be the case? Why has so much distressed been caused in our church over something that is meant to be plain? The facts are that, at the very least, this has not been tested against our canons and therefore all such ordinations must wait until that process has taken place. In this regard, it is a simple matter of justice for those who disagree with you.
For it places our Archbishops and the house of Bishops in a extremely difficult position. Do they share your view concerning same-sex blessings? If so, why are they unable to say so publicly? If they take different views on the matter (as appears to be the case), then you must postpone the ordination until there is agreement as to what our constitution does and does not permit. Due process is just as much a part of our constitution as the rules themselves.
It also places me and others who share my views in a difficult position. For under Title D we are required to exercise a duty of collaboration with their colleagues in this Church. Since our church has not yet finished its process of discernment on this matter, how can we in good conscience maintain such a duty?
The same paragraph (Canon 1, Part A, paragraph 3) also requires that all ordained ministers have a public duty of ensuring the regulations and Canons of this Church are complied with. Therefore, for this ordination to proceed, it will not only disregard the views of a large section of our church but will also precipitate a constitutional crisis for which there has been no precedence (as claimed by your Diocesan Council).
Ordinations are for the whole church and so it is wrong for the particular opinion of any one Bishop and Diocesan Council to circumvent a process that should involve us all.
Yours sincerely
Malcolm Falloon
(Latimer Warden)
When the Church Loses its Way” - echoes of Bishop Latimer’s 16th century call for reformation.
The liberal faction keeps insisting that we all “listen” to each other, and that this listening process goes on and on and on for an interminable length of time. I am not sure anymore what we are to “listen” to. Is it each other? Or for a change of God’s mind on matters? For centuries now the church has been quite clear about what is God’s mind on matters of sexual immorality and false doctrine, but now it is being claimed that He might have changed His mind - we must listen to hear Him say so - just as our culture changes according to new ideas of mankind. This is not a case of “picking on” homosexuality, but it is a case of a mounted political attack by the gay lobby who has pushed their agenda on all of us. Equally unsuitable for a leadership role in the church would be someone in a committed relationship involving extra-marital affairs, or incest, or paediaphilia, or bestiality, or drug addiction, or burglary, or fraud. We are being pressured to believe that homosexuality is a legitimate lifestyle, not a lifestyle of deliberate sin that the Bible says that it is. And so we must keep listening for God to catch up with the times, to acknowledge that He had got it wrong. Do read Homosexuality and the Great Commandment by The Very Rev. Dr. Peter C. Moore. Well, it is no wonder we are having to listen a long time. But what is this? While listening and listening, the liberals are going ahead regardless? Unable to wait for God, or for conservative Christians to catch up, they are taking the Church down this heterodoxical path away from the narrow gate we are told to go through. By making such choices they are losing the Way.
And a statement from Bishop George Connor, Anglican Bishop of Dunedin, and the Diocesan Council of the Diocese of Dunedin…
The Bishop and the Diocesan Council are satisfied that this ordination [of someone in a committed same sex relationship] is consistent with the rules of our church and with the past practice of this diocese.
They are aware that divergent views are held in the church about such ordinations, and that people of good will and deeply reasoned faith stand on both sides of the argument.
It is in the nature of our sexuality that it evokes deep responses, linked to our sense of identity, and those responses can be polarising: Issues of human sexuality are currently a matter of debate in the world wide Anglican Communion and in this country and diocese.
Bishop Connor and the Dunedin Diocesan Council rejoice at the beginning of these new ministries and pray that the new deacons be supported in their ministry.
They also acknowledge the pain of those who cannot agree with this decision and commit themselves to listening and dialogue and further exploration of the issues.
I am left shaking my head. So much for all this ridiculous “listening” when they take no notice of anything but themselves.
This is the eve of the ordination of three new deacons to the Church of England diocese of Dunedin, New Zealand.
One of those to be ordained is a practising homosexual, and his ordination is threatening to split the Church in New Zealand and the Anglican Communion. The Latimer Fellowship (a 60-year-old society of Evangelical Christians within the Anglican Church who seek to maintain the authority of the Bible in the church's life) and Anglican Mainstream NZ have written a letter to the three Archbishops of the New Zealand Church appealing to them to stop or postpone the ordination of a man who is understood to be in an 18-year same-sex relationship. The Bishop of Dunedin, the Rt Revd George Connor, has announced his intention to ordain him in Dunedin on Saturday 4th November. The view expressed in the letter was that, if this ordination proceeds, it would not only breach the Constitution and Canons of the Church but fly in the face of the calls for restraint on this issue from the wider Communion and the Archbishop of Canterbury. In a separate letter the Vicars of New Zealand’s 10 largest Anglican Churches have also expressed their own protest at the proposed ordination.
The ordination of practising gay clergy is only a part of the story. In case this is seen as “homophobia” and “gay bashing”, the situation would be exactly the same should the Bishop of Dunedin agree to ordain a man who is living with his mistress, or who is having an affair. Such a person is no more suitable for his practise of sex outside marriage either, hetero or homo making little difference.
The whole of the story has to do with the capitulation of Biblical Christianity to current elements of this postmodern culture. This includes a disregard for Biblical morality, Biblical authority, and a move towards a politically correct inclusiveness that smacks of universalism in religion. As an example of where this revisionist cultural agenda can take us, the recently elected Presiding Bishop to the Episcopal Church in America, Katherine Jefferts Schori, stated in an interview with Robin Young on “Here and Now”, October 18, 2006, the following:
“Christians understand that Jesus is the route to God. That is not to say that Muslim’s or Sikhs or Jains come to God in a radically different way. They come to God through human experience — through human experience of the divine. Christians talk about that in terms of Jesus.”
The following is an address given by The Rev. Dr. Bob Robinson to the Pre-synod Conference of the Diocese of Christchurch, 31 August 2006.
It states exactly how “Anglican Mainstream” (those doctrinally orthodox believers) view the current situation in the Church of England.
I present it here as I believe it speaks the minds of those of us who are feeling badly betrayed by our Church, often going unheard while being pressured into endless “listening to” of the liberal arguments as though to wear us down into tired agreement. This is Biblical Christianity that, should it become “revised”, will no longer be Biblical Christianity - or Christianity at all. Despite the spin given it by Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori, Jesus Himself said “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6
What Mainstreamers Really Think But Have (Mostly) Been Too Afraid To Say It
“Mainstream Anglicans see this disunity in our Church as the result of a defection from the Gospel of Christ and a capitulation to western culture. Because this is the central issue, endless talking about Anglican identity, unity and distinctiveness misses the point, mostly wastes our time and ignores the real reason for our unhappiness as a denomination.”
WHO ARE WE AS ANGLICANS?
Pre-Synod Conference, 31 August 2006
Kia ora tatou. I'm standing here as some kind of voice for so-called ‘mainstream' Anglicans —
‘mainstream' being the imperfect shorthand for those evangelical, charismatic and other orthodox Anglicans who seem generally to agree with what I'm saying (and using ‘orthodox' doctrinally).
So, to the initial question ‘Who are we as Anglicans?' Mainstreamers give a fairly ho-hum answer to this question of Anglican identity. If they are like me they simply say: Anglicanism arose as the vernacular English way of being Christian. In terms of traditional labels a denomination emerged that was and is Protestant, Catholic and Reformed. In one way our identity is as simple as that. This is a contextual and instrumental understanding of Anglicanism as a vehicle for expressing the Gospel of Christ and implementing the mission of that Gospel in a given cultural setting. That's why mainstreamers see themselves as Christian before Anglican and culturally popularist rather than culturally elitist. They want to be the church of the people; they usually succeed, which is why mainstream churches tend to be well-attended and attract 20 and 30 year olds in ways that other Anglicans others don't.
The reason why we mainstreamers like being Anglican is overwhelmingly a Christian reason: being Anglican enables us to be Gospel- and Christ-centred people in NZ. Anglicanism enables us to be Bible-focussed, community-minded, culturally adaptable, and world-facing. The central defining point is the Gospel — the Kingdom of God message that centres on Christ, that is contained in the Bible and that confronts us and our world with the call to turn to the living God by believing in Christ and to serve Christ in church and world.
Notice that I haven't mentioned those voluntary and secondary commitments that Anglicans also embrace — eg episcopacy and the structural and accountability dimensions as seen in the ‘instruments of unity,' three Tikanga structure etc. These can and sometimes do (though not always) help the good order of the Church. But the essence of the church is defined by its faithfulness to the God-given Gospel of Christ. There is nothing unique about Anglicanism. It is but one of many geographically-derived and authentic ways of being Christian. Our primary identity as Anglicans comes from Scripture and the Gospel of Christ — those divinely given aspects of identity. Note the order: Christian before Anglican.
And this raises another issue: why are we even asking this question about Anglican identity? It is because of the divisions in our Anglican Church — both local and global. These divisions do or should worry all of us and I want to make clear what especially worries mainstream Anglicans. Whether it's the haemorrhaging of an increasing number of members and parishes and (most recently) five dioceses since the American Episcopal General Convention (that was June); or two gay UK Anglican priests (one of them a Dean) getting married (that was last month); or British liberal Anglicans threatening to split from Canterbury (that's this month) we may be facing a civil war that could destroy Anglicanism as we know it.
Mainstream Anglicans see this disunity in our Church as the result of a defection from the Gospel of Christ and a capitulation to western culture. Because this is the central issue, endless talking about Anglican identity, unity and distinctiveness misses the point, mostly wastes our time and ignores the real reason for our unhappiness as a denomination.
The implication of the preliminary papers sent is that if we can somehow muddle through to a better understanding of our identity our wounds will somehow be healed. But for mainstreamers the central issue is not Anglican identity. The central issue has to do with Christian identity and threats to that identity caused by the cultural captivity of parts of the First World Anglican Church.
Where does this revisionist agenda come from? One helpful analysis of recent theology is that of Professor David Ford of Cambridge University whoseThe Modern Theologians1 maps the five ways the recent century church related its message to Western culture:
*———————–*————————*————————*————————*
Repetition Engagement Correlation Accommodation Capitulation
Anglicanism has traditionally assumed one of the three positions on the left. But this map reveals other options seen when our church chooses to accommodate and even capitulate to doctrinal relativism (eg, the Cathedral Altar cloth issue), to moral relativism (as seen in acquiescence to the gay agenda), and to pluralist muddle (thinking that incompatible understandings of the church can and even should coexist — eg at our recent General Synod).
Doctrinal relativism.
The Cathedral altar cloth with its Hindu prayer has upset mainstreamers. Why? [Email me for a detailed and nuanced discussion because the cenral issues are theological and not to do, in the first instance, with artistic freedom of tolerance.] Let me ask two questions:
If we know Christ, why would we even want to pray such an agnostic prayer?
If we believe that Christ is the world's redeemer (and that is his claim at the Last Supper) why would we want to display such a prayer in a Eucharistic setting? This Hindu prayer might suit an altar ‘to an unknown God' — but not at the Eucharist where Jesus so clearly state that He is the new covenant between God and humanity.
The only explanation known to me is a diminished view of Christ and the Eucharist. One of the virtues of Anglicanism is that it has chosen to be doctrinally modest — but this is no excuse for being doctrinally loose, or implicitly denying the uniqueness and finality of Christ.
Moral relativism.
The greatest threats to Anglican identity come from the erosion of our Christian distinctiveness by cultural accommodation. To apply that to the issue of ‘gay rights' in the church: the agenda of Anglican revisionists comes not from the discovery of new Gospel or Biblical values but from a desire to accommodate to culture (in this case, to capitulate to it) with gay-partnered clergy and even one gay-partnered Bishop. To say this is not to be homophobic; almost every mainstream congregation has gay members.
Pluralist muddle and General Synod.
There is not much point in the Episcopal church in the US offering what it calls its “sincerest apology” when it does nothing to undo the damage and pain it has caused in the Anglican world. It is shameful, in the opinion of most mainstreamers, that our General Synod recently passed a motion that, in effect, offers encouragement and latent support for the American Church. Our General Synod needed to rebuke North American Anglicanism's disrespect for the pain and sense of betrayal caused by it behaving simply as it wishes — in a maverick way that signals a smug American cultural superiority. Liberal revisionism is not only deeply troubling to mainstreamers here in NZ and elsewhere. It is deeply offensive to nearly all African, Asian and Latin American Anglicans too. We cannot proudly extol a worldwide Anglican communion and ignore what most of its members believe. There is a future only if Western Anglicanism heeds the words of judgment being spoken against it by the poor and non-white members of our communion. It is disgraceful that General Synod wants us as a church to ignore that by offering tacit support to the American church.
Here in New Zealand we have Bishops with similar revisionist urges to use episcopal office as a ‘prophetic' lever to pry people loose from the incrusted positions of the past — for example in the ordaining of gay-partnered clergy. Most of them seem willing to resist these urges. But when our leaders do such things it's our (mainstream) churches people leave; we suffer. (And discussion should also mention the disastrous ecumenical consequences as well.)
The accommodating liberal agenda doesn't work. Bishop Spong did, of course, diminish his Diocese of Newark by 43% during his time as Bishop there. Did I hear the other day that the Dunedin Diocese has shrunk to 13 stipendiary clergy and that if you withdrew the mainstream parishes (that have ignored or rejected the liberal agenda) that Diocese would implode? Jim Veitch at the national Anglican conference in the early 1990s: “It's liberals who have ruined the church in NZ.” I do realise that my analysis is hurtful because it seems to cast doubts on the Christian profession of some Anglicans. Of course liberals have not completely abandoned the faith; I can see that some of their actions have some continuity with orthodoxy. But to say that the liberal agenda doesn't actually build the church seems visibly and painfully true.
In sum, what we see is the subversion and transformation of Christian belief and practice by the logic of autonomous individualism. The best analysis I have seen is provided by Philip Turner, the former Dean of the Berkeley Divinity School at Yale.2 He's writing about ECUSA — the former name of the American Episcopal Church - but what he says applies to us also.
“As the English theologian PT Forsythe once wrote, “If within us we have nothing above us we soon succumb to what is around us.” The — internal life of ECUSA may well lack a transcendent point of reference—one that can serve as a counter-balance to the social forces that play upon it. A certain emptiness at the center is suggested also by an analysis of the theology that currently dominates ECUSA's pulpits. The standard sermon in outline runs something like this: “God is love; God's love is inclusive; God acts in justice to see that everyone is included; we therefore ought to be co-actors and co-creators with God to make the world over in accordance with inclusivity.”3
“Here is the theological projection of a society built upon preference — .. ECUSA's God has become the image of this society. Gone is the notion of divine judgment (save upon those who may wish to exclude someone), gone is the notion of radical conversion, gone is the notion of a way of life that requires dying to self and rising to newness of life in conformity with God's will. In place of the complex God revealed in Christ Jesus, a God of both judgment and mercy, a God whose law is meant to govern human life, we now have a God who is love and inclusion without remainder. The projected God of the liberal tradition is, in the end, no more than an affirmer of preferences.
“Jews have always held that idolatry is the greatest of all sins. In the end, the actions of ECUSA must be traced to idolatry, to the creation of a God made in our own image. — Contrary to the assertions of many liberal Episcopal clergy and bishops, the concern of the bishops from the global South does not stem from the fact that they have not as yet lived through the Enlightenment. It stems rather from a perception that a form of idolatry has infected ECUSA and that this infection has led to forms of gross disobedience that compromise not only Anglican but Christian identity.”
Is there a way forward?
Archbishop David Moxon is calling for a lengthy period of prayerful, careful, respectful re-visiting of the Bible and “with Christ present in the room.” It sounds promising — except for two things.
(1) Mainstreamers have sat through decades of these calls to revisit the issues. But no new Biblical or Gospel facts emerge; it simply seems to be another attempt by liberals to push their revisionist agenda onto the rest of us. The real issue is accommodation to the culture — and decades of trying to justify this from the Bible simply won't work; it's intellectually dishonest. How do I put this politely? Our church is divided. It's not the evangelical, charismatic and other orthodox Anglicans who have caused the division! We're tired of being put under pressure to revise the Gospel — and that's what it feels like to us.
(2) What about doing the investigation “with Christ present in the room”? That too will also meet with a guarded response from mainstreamers given the way in which every recent defection from the Great Tradition tries to coopt Christ. When the Bishop of Los Angeles presided over the union and blessing of two of his gay clergy he began by stating ‘Christ is present here with us.' The same kind of promiscuous ‘Christ-talk' was heard at Gene Robinson's consecration. But the only Christ we actually know is the Christ of Scripture — all the rest is speculation and every attempt to domesticate Christ to serve unbiblical and revisionist agendas collapses for precisely that reason.
And that brings me back to my main point. Anglican identity is primarily Christian identity. Why are we Anglicans? Simply because Anglicanism is one of many good ways of being Christian. The primary identity comes from Scripture and the Gospel of Christ — those divinely given aspects of identity that make us an orthodox church. So, to quote Professor John Webster, “An orthodox church is not just one kind of church — ; it is just the church. — ‘Heterodoxy' is not another way of being the church, any more than a lie is another way of telling the truth.”4 Unless we can find practical ways of safeguarding and extending a vision of dynamic orthodoxy, faithful to Scripture and the great tradition of Christianity, our identity will remain compromised and our future bleak.
That's the blunt summary of what mainstreamers think about Anglican identity. We estimate that these mainstream Anglicans make up between 40 - 60% of practicing Anglican adults in NZ. Let's call them half of our Church. And because they are the younger part this percentage will grow. Of course the mainstream part of the church is not perfect. There are temptations to triumphalism, individualism and ungraciousness. Not all mainstreamers think and act alike; there is quite a diverse range of opinion and ways of doing things. And, as an academic I know that every issue is complex and multi-layered. But in forty years of watching Anglicans in NZ I have never seen these mainstreamers so strong numerically and so well-equipped theologically - and I have never seen them so determined to resist the revisionism that is the root cause of our disunity.
One last point. New Zealand doesn't actually need Anglicanism — quite apart from the fact that New Zealanders don't seem very interested anyway. But what NZ does need is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Let me reassure you of the mobility of Kiwi Christians under the age of 40 who will gravitate to — or leave — Anglicanism in direct proportion to the presence of (a) excellent preaching; (b) doctrinal orthodoxy; (c) the quality of relationships and pastoral care. The future of Anglicanism depends upon those priorities — not upon further analysis and dialogue.
Who are we as Anglicans? We are a church called to be Gospel-centred, Christ-centred, biblically-based and doctrinally orthodox. Our future is strong and assured if — and only if — we remain true to that foundation and resist the suicidal urge to build on any other. Because, of course, “There is no other foundation than the one already laid: that foundation is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 3.11).
Bob Robinson bobr@netaccess.co.nz
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
May I also commend to you a helpful website: www.latimer.org.nz where recent discussions include: The Implosion of ECUSA; General Synod; Uniting Church Divisions; Hindu Altar Cloth.
1 David F Ford, ‘Introduction to Modern Christian Theology' in The Modern Theologians, edited by David F Ford, second edition (Oxford: Blackwells, 1997), 1-3.
2 From his article, ‘The Episcopal Preference,' First Things, 137 (November 2003), 32f; and also, in expanded and revised form, as: ‘ECUSA's God and the Idols of Liberal Protestantism,' in Ephraim Radner and Philip Turner,The Fate of Communion: The Agony of Anglicanism and the Future of a Global Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006), 243-51. An earlier but equally devastating critique is: RR Reno, In the Ruins of the Church: Sustaining Faith in an Age of Diminished Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2002).
3 Given the habit of some NZ Deans and Bishops of posting sermons on the web, this analysis is not without significant parallels here as well.
4 At ‘The Future of Anglicanism' Conference, Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, 30 June — 5 July 2002.
