Friday, October 2, 2009

Episcopal Church Descends Into a Parody of Christianity

From Virtue Online comes a report on the official surrender of The Episcopal Church Diocese of Los Angeles to paganism. The bishop has utterly renounced the Great Commission, world missions, evangelism and salvation through Christ alone. How anyone can retain any affiliation with an organization that disgraces the name of Jesus like this is a mystery to me.
The ultra liberal Episcopal Bishop of Los Angeles J. Jon Bruno offered a
formal apology to Hindus for centuries-old acts of religious discrimination
including attempts by Christians to convert them.

He then authorized a joint Hindu-Anglican service at St John's Cathedral in
Los Angeles permitting Hindu devotees to receive the consecrated elements.

According to a statement read on his behalf by suffragan Bishop Chester
Talton, he vowed not to proselytize non-Christians. "I believe that the world
cannot afford for us to repeat the errors of our past, in which we sought to
dominate rather than to serve, in this spirit, and in order to take another step
in building trust between our two great religious traditions, I offer a sincere
apology to the Hindu religious community," said the bishop's statement reported
by the Los Angeles Times. . . .

A Hare Krishna provided music along with the St John's cathedral choirs.
When the Eucharist was celebrated Hindus were invited to receive the consecrated
elements. Some Hindus who abstain from alcohol received only the host, the Los
Angeles Times reported.
The rare joint service included chants from the Temple Bhajan
Band of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness and a moving
rendition of "Bless the Lord, O My Soul" sung by the St. John's choir."

This was a once-in-a-lifetime experience in worship service," said Bob
Bland, a member of St. Patrick's Episcopal Church of Thousand Oaks, who was
among the 260 attendees. "There was something so holy -- so much symbolism
and so many opportunities for meditation." "I believe that the world cannot
afford for us to repeat the errors of our past, in which we sought to
dominate rather than to serve," Bruno said in a statement read by the Rt.
Rev. Chester Talton at the service. "In this spirit, and in order to take
another step in building trust between our two great religious traditions, I
offer a sincere apology to the Hindu religious community." The bishop also
said he was committed to renouncing "proselytizing" of Hindus.

"Bishop" Bruno apologizes to Hindus for Christian who carried out the Great Commission. Who is he to do so? Does he actually think he speaks for the Christian Church? Think about the implications of this renunciation of the Great Commission.

1. The apostle Paul was wrong to try to take the Gospel to the world. The whole mission to the Gentiles was a mistake. There ought, by this logic, to be no Church in the West and no Episcopal Church in the US. So, apparently, by Bruno's logic, the only thing for the Episcopal Church to do is to go out of business and cease to exist.

2. William Carey, father of the modern missionary movement and missionary to India, did something wrong in trying to bring the hope of the Gospel to India.

3. Lesslie Newbigen, one of the great missionaries of the 20th century, who spent decades evangelizing, baptizing, catechizing in the Church of South India, was misguided and some sort of agent of imperialism.

4. Former Hindus who converted to Christianity should do what? Convert back? Stop trying to convert their family and friends?

5. All of those sincere and dedicated Christian missionaries who have left family and home to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ are an embarassment to Bruno and are doing something wrong.

"Bishop" Bruno is a syncretist, an idolater and a compromiser with paganism. He is not a Christian pastor and no one should be allowed to labor under the illusion that he and his friends in the Episcopal Church are speaking for any form of historic Christianity, any other denominations or anyone except themselves. A Church that cannot discipline such blatant heresy is a Church that has ceased to be a Church. The organization undoubtedly contains some real Christians, but that is likely true of cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormans too. But such Christians are not able to determine the official teaching or policy of the Church.

Bruno has been at the forefront of the movement to alter Christian sexual morality and embrace all sorts of deviations, including no-fault divorce, sex before marriage and homosexuality, in the Episcopal Church. Anybody who thinks, at this late date, that homosexual marriage is the only issue or even the main issue in the Anglican re-alignment now going on is simply naive. Homosexuality is only the tip of the iceberg. While it may be the presenting issue, the root issue is a loss of the Gospel itself.


NathanColquhoun said...

There is still something beautiful in it and I think its encapsulated in this phrase

"I believe that the world
cannot afford for us to repeat the errors of our past, in which we sought to dominate rather than to serve"

Sounds very Jesus-like to me.

Craig Carter said...

There is nothing beautiful about disobedience to Jesus. What Bruno means by "dominate" is to preach the Gospel to every person, make disciples, baptize and teach them to obey all things Jesus told us. Jesus commanded us to do these things and there is nothing Jesus-like about taking the command of Jesus and throwing it back in his face.

Bruno is too "enlightened" to obey the commands Jesus gave us.
On the Day of Judgment, Jesus will look at Bruno and ask: "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things I command?"

Kevin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kevin said...


This is actually slightly old news (I remember reading this story some time ago) but it retains its disturbing nature.

Nathan: As a member of a church who's property is threatened by Bruno himself trying to use his ecclesiastic authority to bully us into his liberal worldview, I can assure you that his words have nothing to do with Christ. What Bruno has done is to usurp and mouth the ideas of Christ without any of the content or any faithfulness to His ministry (taking the Lord's name in vain in other words). And a joint service praising both Christ and other gods is blatant synchritism and would have enraged Christ and Paul

Anonymous said...

But the church in Europe was part of a system that DID try to dominate. If we cannot see any daylight between colonial subjugation, forced conversions, and cultural genocide on one hand and true preaching of the gospel on the other, then we are in grave danger. I think the church can repent though without giving away the shop as it were.

Kevin said...


I would say that I absolutely agree with you, I even agree with the clipped out statement of Bruno's "I believe that the world cannot afford for us to repeat the errors of our past, in which we sought to dominate rather than serve." The problem is that this isn't what Bruno is doing. His actions in regards to the churches that separated themselves from his diocese shows that what he's doing is trying to dominate with a certain "liberal" worldview.

What upsets me, and I believe Craig Carter as well, is the actions taken in relation to this statement. A combined worship service is not an act of service, it's an act of idolatry, and it shows no belief in the actual truth of Christianity, but rather a belief in a kind of ideological synchretism based on a twisted interpretation of the word "tolerance" that is coated with Christian imagery.

Craig Carter said...

To All:
Bruno apologizes, according to this story, which I assume to be accurate, for attempts to convert Hindus. No Christian can apologize for that.

Apologize for specific injustices relating to colonialism - sure, no problem. But we cannot deny the Great Commission. This strikes to the very heart of the Gospel - it rips the heart out of the Gospel.

Nothing he could have said regarding homosexuality or abortion or divorce or socialism or any kind of social issue could come even close to being as offensive and heretical as what he said on this topic. Some would like to portray the Anglican Communion split as being only about homosexuality, but that is almost to trivialize the real issues at stake, even though homosexual acts are clearly seriously sinful.

Kevin said...

Indeed. Agree with you there.