A Glimpse into the Future of the Episcopal Church

For over 40 years Episcopalian Bishop John Spong has been on the cutting edge of the development of theological thought in the Anglican Communion. He has always been a controversial figure simply because he is always out in front proclaiming the heresies that will be taken as conventional wisdom a decade later by the mainstream of the Episcopal Church. He has been on a journey in which the boundaries of what is tolerated within the Church are ever expanded outward in a never-ending movement toward paganism.

Of course, it is taxing to find enough outrageous things to state so that one can stay ahead of the wild and whacky world of Anglican thought and practice. But to give the man credit, he has never been confronted with an envelope he could not push. Creativity is his strength and he never seems to run out of ways to upset even the most left-leaning mainstream leaders of his church.

So if you want to see what the Episcopal Church (and whatever is left of the Anglican Communion) will be saying in 10 or 20 years, you should listen to John Spong today. Several decades ago he was denying the authority of Bible and Creeds when it was not taken for granted in liberal circles. And three decades ago he was pushing homosexuality when it was still controversial among liberals. And he was unitarian before unitarianism was cool. So it pays to note where "the cutting edge of progressivism" is going in the future.

Bryan Owen has a report on a recent lecture by Spong over at Virtue Online:

I see from the Episcopal Divinity School Fall 2011 newsletter that Bishop Spong gave a lecture in St. John's Memorial Chapel back on October 21 entitled, "Shifting the Paradigm - From Rescue to Expanded Life." Here's some of what the newsletter article reports: In his address, Spong declared Christianity's "old symbols increasingly are bankrupt ... [and] the new symbols have not yet fully arisen so that they are recognized." He compared the present day with that of Augustine, Aquinas, or the 16th-century Reformers - a moment of "paradigm shift" that "calls for the death of what has been and the birth of what is to be - and that is never a comfortable time." In particular, he said, the titles "savior," "redeemer," and "rescuer" applied to Jesus in liturgies, hymns, and sermons have "become bankrupt, useless, and even distorted ... I think all of them have got to go."

"What is the problem with these titles?" Spong asked. "They all imply a particular definition of human life, which I think is false. ... [W]e are constantly insulting our humanity out of a particular theological frame of reference. We are beggars approaching God. We are telling God how unworthy we are." Such a theological construct, said Spong, is "simply not true. ... It is therefore bad anthropology, and no one can build good theology on bad anthropology."

"Our problem is not a fall into sin," maintained Spong. "It is that we have not yet achieved our full humanity."

The source of acts of evil, said Spong, is found in humanity's survival instinct, "the evolutionary baggage that every one of us carries." Because it is part of human nature, "our only hope is that we are lifted beyond it. We have to be called, we have to be merged into a humanity that somehow finally escapes survival as our driving force."

Words like savior and redeemer and rescuer "simply lock us into the old paradigm," Spong argued. Instead, telling the story of Jesus "as the source of love calling us to love beyond every boundary, to love wastefully, to give it away, to never stop and count the cost: that's a new image of what it means to be human."

Spong is always good for a laugh: "no one can build good theology on bad anthropology." Why is he still interested in theology again?

But he has a point about "redeemer" and "saviour" language. Why liberal Protestants would hang on to that sort of language is hard to understand. If they are going to be consistent, they need to join the Humanist Association and wind up the whole church things altogether. But that would be too big a step to take all at once. First, deny the authority of Scripture. Second, deny miracles. Third, deny the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity. Fourth, focus on the social gospel and dismiss the soul, heaven and hell as "out-dated." Fifth, start turning Christian morality upside down and affirm everything Christianity says is sinful and condemn everything Christianity says is good. [This is where liberal Protestantism is now.] Clearly, the future is to eliminate every trace of a religion of redemption from sin by the grace of God in Christ. Then Pelagius can become a saint, Augustine a heretic and the Bible-burning can commence.

Don't try dismissing Spong as a crank or an extremist. That used to work back in the days when nobody thought an actual church accepting the goodness of homosexuality was even worth talking about as a possibility. Now he must be regarded as a barometer of liberal Protestantism. He is not crazy; he can just see over the next hill.

The only fresh horizon he won't share with you is the one consisting of a vast lake of fire which burns eternally but never burns out. He will keep that one to himself until it is too late for you to turn back.

Rowan Williams and the Radicalization of the Church of England

Archbishop Rowan Williams is a politician. This is not necessarily a negative criticism; it is just a fact. You don't get to be Archbishop of Canterbury without being good at bobbing and weaving your way through the political minefields of contemporary politics.

So the following story about what he said recently about homosexual "weddings" in C of E churches should be read as the statement of a politician and interpreted in light of his overall objectives and certainly not taken at face value.

From Virtue Online comes this story: "Gay weddings will never take place in church buildings, vows Dr. Williams:"

The Archbishop of Canterbury has vowed he will never allow Church of England buildings to be used for gay weddings.

Dr Rowan Williams told MPs that he would not bow to pressure to enable his churches to be used for same-sex unions.

His intervention comes as the Coalition consults on plans to allow civil partnerships between gays and lesbians to take place in religious settings for the first time.

No church, mosque or synagogue will be forced to host the ceremonies - but some religious people are worried they could be open to discrimination suits if they do not open their doors to gay unions.

Some within the CofE have been calling on the Archbishop to move with the times and allow his churches to host gay weddings - pointing out that polls have shown that some two thirds of the British public would be in support.

But now Dr Williams, who was seen as a liberal when he took up his post, has indicated that on this issue he will ally himself with conservatives in the Church.

He told MPs that the CofE believed marriage could only be a union between a man and a woman - and that he would not be changing course.

Read it all here. Let's note some context.

First, Williams has been a pro-homosexuality campaigner for over two decades. By campaigner I mean he has written in support of normalizing homosexual activity and has been involved in founding lobby groups within the C of E to promote sodomy as good.

Second, Williams has refused to discipline the Episcopal Church for going against the Anglican Communion on the matter of glorifying homosexuality as good and right even to the extreme of ordaining unrepentant homosexuals as bishops.

Third, Williams has not opposed the normalization of homosexuality within the C of E one small step at a time except in a handful of situations such as the case of Jeffrey Johns in which he was forced to beat a tactical retreat so as to live to fight another day.

There is, so far as I can see, no reason to view this "tough talk" as anything other than meaningless grandstanding designed to appear to be somehow "neutral" or "moderate" so as to create space in which to push the overall homosexual agenda further and deeper into Anglican institutions. When homosexuality is celebrated as a sacrament of the Church, do you really think Williams will actually resist at the cost of his comfy position in the hierarchy and his reputation with the liberals?

This is a common tactic in the "long march through the institutions" by 60s radicals. Whenever you come to a highly visible, public, symbolic moment you must think carefully whether the time is right to push the door open or whether doing so would provoke too great a public backlash at this time. If too great a backlash is created, then it sets back the radical agenda by decades. Homosexual activists are very close to taking over the C of E once and for all. Most of the necessary conditions are in place. But it would be safer to wait until conditions are right. I'm sure, for example, that the radicals never thought this step would be pushed by a Conservative government!

Nevertheless, it all moves forward one step at a time and the time is coming, without doubt when the C of E will be completely taken over. When that time comes, the radicals will celebrate the pragmatic, diplomatic work of Rowan Williams as having been just as important to their cause as the noisy, pushy methods of the more radical types.

Baptism without Christ

This article from Virtue Online, UK: Anglican church offers 'baptism lite' to attract non-worshippers, by Steve Doughty fits into the "you either have to laugh or cry" category. It requires a good fisking. [My comments in red and square brackets.]

Church of England baptism services may be re-written to remove some references to Christianity. [What hath Athens to do with Jerusalem? What hath Christianity to do with the good old C of E?]

The plan for a new 'baptism lite' service designed to make christenings more interesting to non-churchgoers will be considered next month by the Church's parliament, the General Synod. ["Baptism lite"? What next? 8 minute sermons, 35 minute services, 7 Commandments (your choice), the Silver Rule?]

Supporters say the baptism service should be 'expressed in culturally appropriate and accessible language' that is readily understood by 'non-theologically versed Britons'. But traditionalist clergy said the idea amounted to 'dumbing down'. [There is a pretty big difference between saying the same thing in other words and de-Christianizing an act of worship. Otherwise bowing down to Jupiter and to the Holy Trinity would be the same thing.]

The plan for a new ¿baptism lite¿ service designed to make christenings more interesting to non-churchgoers will be considered next month by the Church¿s parliament. [More interesting? Will they feature go-go dancers and performing seals too? Just asking.]

The plan for a new 'baptism lite' service which uses 'accessible language' and makes christenings more interesting to non-churchgoers will be considered next month by the Church's parliament.

The new service would be used at 150,000 christenings each year. If the plan is accepted, it will be the third full re-write of the baptism ceremony in around 30 years - the version in the Church's Book of Common Prayer went virtually unaltered for more than 400 years until 1980. [Three re-writes in 30 years? This is just a joke. Will they use focus groups? Polling? Maybe they could hold a contest to suggest new names for the ritual. Or maybe they let the parents write their own services - wait don't anyone suggest that!]

Complaints centre on three sections of the baptism service from the Church's latest prayer book, Common Worship, authorised for use in 1997. [They actually got complaints?]

In one, parents, godparents or an adult being baptised are asked to 'reject the devil and all rebellion against God' and to renounce 'the deceit and corruption of evil'. They are asked to 'submit to Christ as Lord'. [I suppose renouncing the devil is a lot to ask of modern people; it could be considered 'exclusionary.' And as for submitting to Christ, how can that be expected of non-Christians? But wait, if they are non-Christians, why are they wanting baptism for their children?]

The Reverend Dr Tim Stratford, from Liverpool, who is putting the plans before the synod, said in a paper that 'there remains some unhappiness about the language not being earthed enough'. [What on does 'earth enough' mean? Is it some obscure British expression? Or is it some sort of pagan criterion? Sometimes you can't understand a word these liberal say.]

He added: 'The concern is one of the language not making strong enough connections to life choices in such a way that it can be heard.' [Hmm . . . what life choices could he mean? And what would the language have to do to make connection with those life choices? Is it just me or is this a case of trying to say something without actually saying it because it would sound utterly appalling and ridiculous if one just came out and said it plainly?]

Dr Stratford and his supporters have also called for a new version of prayers that refer to the symbolic role of water in baptism.

He said that among clergy from poor and inner city parishes 'there was a strong plea for a shorter prayer in direct but poetic language that allows the Gospel to resonate better with people's experience of life'. [Here we see straightforward liberal Protestant thelogical method in action: we discover truth is human experience rather than in Scripture.]

He added: 'This was not a plea for a prayer in Scouse, but for a prayer that the majority of non-theologically versed Britons would understand.' A third part of the service was condemned as too long and not 'direct'. [Wouldn't it be a better idea for the Church to try to teach some theology to these folks instead of pandering to their ignorance? That is what the people who evangelized England in the first place did and it seemed to work rather well.]

Stephen Parkinson, of the Anglo-Catholic Forward in Faith organisation, said there were problems with the 1997 service, but added: 'Simply dumbing it down is not the answer.' [Well, that much is incontrovertable.]

Bishops indicated yesterday that if the Synod accepts the argument a committee will be instructed to begin writing a new baptism service, but they warned that such re-writing would raise arguments over faith and doctrine. [Dastardly inconvenient stuff, all that faith and doctrine. Maybe the Church would be better off ditching it; might boost attendance, especially if they bring in the trained seals.]

William Fittall, secretary general of the synod, said that bishops are 'clear that now is not the time to embark on the long and complex process involved in such a revision or replacement'. [If not now, when? If not the CofE bishops, who?]

They haven't actually done this yet, of course. The fact that they could even seriously consider it is revealing, hilarious, sad and scandalous all at the same time. In honor of those proposing this idea, I give you my nominee for the C of E Baptism Rewriting Committee: Standford Nutting.

Africa to Evangelize Heathen Europe and North America: It's About Time!

Bravo for Henry Orombi, the head of the Anglican Church of Uganda, who recently called for African Christianity to take the Gospel back to the part of the world that originally brought it to Africa but has now lost its way.

Eschewing homosexuality, the leader of Uganda's Anglican Church of 10.2 million Anglicans says African Anglican leaders are poised to take the gospel back to Europe and North America.

Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi told 400 African Anglicans bishops in the presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams and Uganda's Prime Minister that there is a hunger for the Word of God in England where he recently spoke to 17,000 people. "I called back home to send missionaries to America and Europe to take back the gospel from these sending nations. It is an ailing church in need of guidance."

Addressing delegates to the All Africa Bishops conference sponsored by CAPA - the Council of Anglican provinces of Africa, Orombi said, "We must be free to go to Europe and to the Mother Church [CofE] desperate for the gospel."

At a later press conference Orombi elaborated on this theme saying that the faith from whence it came [Europe] is now so corrupt, that the African church has a responsibility to go to the outside world with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Isn't it exciting the way he gives us a post-colonialist, view from underneath to challenge our Euro-centric preoccupation with sexual hedonism. But the news is his forthright words about the corrupt West. Obviously, when Western missionaries took the Gospel to Africa they unleashed a force that quickly evolved out of their control.

If Africa were embracing the same old, tired, worn-out cultural conformism as the Western liberal Protestants are then we it would still be a colonial project under the direct control of the West. Instead, however, African Christianity is finding freedom in the wide river of historic orthodoxy while Western liberal Christianity trudges up a narrow side creek where it will eventually peter out and die.

Intolerant Liberals Take Over the Church of England

David Virtue surveys the wreckage following the recent Church of England synod where the promise made in 1992 when women were ordained that no one would be forced to go against his or her conscience by having the ministry of women forced upon him or her was decisively and shamelessly broken. His article, "Church of England Faces Biggest Exodus Since Reformation," looks at how the anglo-Catholic Forward in Faith movement and the conservative Evangelicals, led by the Reform movement, are likely to respond to the vote that women bishops will be imposed on the whole Church regardless of theological conviction.

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York jointly proposed an amendment that would have created breathing space for dissenters but it was defeated. Interestingly, it passed both the House of Bishops and the House of the Laity but failed in the House of the Clergy by a mere five votes. Thus, the women clergy were able to make the difference in preventing compromise and maintaining unity in the Church, choosing instead to ram the liberal agenda down the throats of the Evangelicals and Catholics.

I remember back in the late 1970s when the issue of woman's ordination was being debated in our Baptist denomination in the Atlantic Provinces that it was said that it was woman's ordination today and homosexual ordination tomorrow. It seemed absurd and most of us laughed off any connection. I am not laughing any more.

In denominations in which many women were ordained it appears that, although a minority are orthodox and Evangelical, the majority are liberal in theology. Thus the overall effect has been to make the denomination more liberal. Accompanying the ordination of women is the ideology that there must be equal gender representation on all committees, which means that the smaller, more liberal pool of females is over-represented. Those wondering how confessional denominations could shift to wild-eyed heresy in such a short period of time need look no further than this political reality for an explanation.

It now seems to me that the Church of England, having basically invited the Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics to submit or get lost, is absolutely certain to go the way of the Episcopal Church in the US. Homosexual ordination and homosexual bishops are on the way now and it is only a matter of time. A weak, vacillating and theologically vague Archbishop of Canterbury cannot stem the tide or rally the faithful. Everything is politics and compromise for him; nothing is theologically non-negotiable. His most important doctrine is institutional unity above all - even theological truth.

Virtue sums up the future of the Church of England in a sad but probably accurate paragraph near the end of his article:

Likely scenario in 20 years' time
The Church of England will be very largely a homogeneous liberal body, like the Church of Sweden. It will have about 250,000 active members. The hierarchy will still be intact, but at the local level there will be many closed churches, and many more struggling to remain open. There will be no significant growth points, once Evangelicals and Catholics are gone. Former Anglo-Catholics will by now have been fully absorbed into the Roman Catholic Church with little trace remaining. There will be a number of large Evangelical churches around the country, but no longer in communion with the Church of England - congregational churches in all but name, with occasional visits from overseas prelates, in the tiny rump of the Anglican Communion that will have survived by 2030 - all those provinces which currently ordain women will have gone the same way as the Church of England.

The Church of England will have lost its identity. Church properties will be sold off just to pay the bills with disestablishment a real possibility. Prince Charles, now King, will be the "Defender of Faiths." He has already said he wants to be crowned King in a multi-faith coronation.

At that point, Global South leaders who represent more than 80% of the Anglican Communion might well ask themselves if the historical attachment to Canterbury is worth the paper it is printed on.

Read the whole article here.

Once the Anglican Communion represented a via media between Roe and Protestantism and seemed to have an historic mission as a bridge to ecumenical unity. That mission now lies in taters because of intolerant, politicized, theological liberalism and it determination to accommodate the Church to the world instead of standing firm for the Gospel. This is unspeakably sad, but thankfully we know that the true Church cannot be destroyed by anything that happens on earth and that Jesus Christ reigns forever.

Jeffrey John's Theology: A Scandal for the Church of England

I blogged about the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury allowed Dr. Jeffrey John's name to be on a shortlist for the open bishop of Southwark position. Well, it seems that now Jonathan Wynne-Jones is reporting that John did not get the position. (Thanks be to God!)

It appears that Wynne-Jones has an inside contact in the search committee and, as usual, liberal churchmen and liberal reporters are working together to further the liberal agenda in the Church. The story he ran the other day was transparently designed to put pressure on Williams to push John's case on the committee. (The Archbishop of Canterbury is one of 14 members of the committee.) Wynne-Jones is obviously livid that John didn't get the job and is taking it out on the hapless Archbishop of Canterbury, who comes out of this looking like his only goal is to make nobody happy and ensure that the breakup of the Communion happens slowly.

However, John's homosexuality is not the only problem with his fitness to be a bishop of Christ's Church. David Virtue reports that his theology of the cross, which is surely the center of Christian faith, is heretical as well.

Friends of Southwark wannabe bishop Jeffrey John, including the Archbishop of Canterbury and Canon Giles Fraser who tout him as a fine theologian, well trained and with all the right credentials for the job, should think twice, perhaps three times before recommending him for the job. It is not just his homosexuality they should worry about; it's his theology.

In 2007 at an Easter service, he delivered the view that Christ did not die for our sins. He went on to say that the Church's traditional teaching of Christ's crucifixion is "repulsive" and "insane".

The Very Rev. Jeffrey John, who had to withdraw before taking up an appointment as bishop of Reading in 2003 after it emerged he was in a long-term homosexual relationship, said clergy who preach at Easter that Christ was sent to earth to die in atonement for all the sins of mankind are "making God sound like a psychopath".

John went on to urge a revision of the traditional explanation, known as "penal substitution".

Christian theology has taught that because humans have sinned, God sent Christ as a substitute to suffer and die in our place.

"In other words, Jesus took the rap and we got forgiven as long as we said we believed in him," said John. "This is repulsive as well as nonsensical. It makes God sound like a psychopath. If a human behaved like this, we'd say that they were a monster." The Dean went on to offer an alternative interpretation, suggesting that Christ was crucified so he could "share in the worst of grief and suffering that life can throw at us".

The Rt. Rev. Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham, accused John of attacking the fundamental message of the Gospel. Other church figures have also expressed dismay at his comments, which they have condemned as a "deliberate perversion of the Bible". http://tinyurl.com/2eelm7c

"He is denying the way in which we understand Christ's sacrifice. It is right to stress that He is a God of love, but he is ignoring that this means He must also be angry at everything that distorts human life," Wright said.

Bishop Wright criticized the BBC for allowing such a prominent slot to be given to such a provocative argument. "I'm fed up with the BBC for choosing to give privilege to these unfortunate views in Holy Week," he said. Wright went on to say that John caricatured the cross. http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5787

And this is the man who is on a short list of candidates to become the next Bishop of Southwark, an ultra liberal diocese not unlike the Episcopal dioceses of Los Angeles, CA or Newark, NJ in the United States.

Read the whole story to get further insight into the character of this man. The real scandal here is that a man who teaches that the Bible is wrong and outdated on serious issues like sexual ethics and the atonement would even be considered, let alone shortlisted, for a post as chief teacher and guardian of orthodoxy of a diocese. The Church of England is in bad shape when this sort of travesty takes place. We expect this sort of nonsense from the post-Christian Episcopal Church; is this a sign of how far the Church of England has fallen?

The Hypocrisy of Rowan Williams and the Crisis of the Anglican Communion

As the Synod of the Church of England prepares to open this month, the issue of woman bishops looms over it like a doom. When women were ordained priests just under 20 years ago the traditionalists were promised protection for their consciences. This protection is about to be withdrawn now that most people are supposedly used to the fact of woman's ordination. So the liberals, who are pushing for the complete apostasy of the church and for whom woman's ordination is just the beginning, have been exposed for all the world to see as liars and schemers whose word cannot be trusted. The plan is now obvious: to rid the Church of England of all orthodox, believing Christians in the long run.

As one battle is won, the next front is opened. Dr. Jeffrey John is now on the short list for Bishop of Southwark. John is an open homosexual who teaches that biblical and orthodox sexual morality is wrong. He lives with another man in a "registered partnership" and has, apparently, signed a pledge to be celibate. But since nobody is going to go check out his bedroom, no one knows if he is celibate or not. If a heterosexual man claimed to be celibate but claimed that sexual activity is good and moral, taught that the church teaching that required him to be celibate was wrong, and lived openly with his wife, who would believe he was really celibate? If your daughter decided that there was nothing wrong with premarital sex, moved in with her boyfriend and yet claimed to be celibate, would you believe it without question? But in the end, it doesn't actually matter whether he is or isn't celibate; he is not living a lifestyle that is a sufficiently upright witness for a bishop, who according to Scripture is supposed to be "above reproach." And even if he were not living with another man, the very fact that a bishop's main job is teaching doctrine and he denies basic Christian doctrine should disqualify him regardless of his sexual orientation.

But according to Jonathan Wynn-Jones, writing in the Daily Telegraph, Archbishop Rowan Williams has signed off on having his name on the short list for Bishop of Southwark. If this is true, then Williams' criticism of the Episcopal Church USA for its ignoring of the will of the Anglican Communion and bulling ahead with the ordination of a second openly homosexual bishop is simply incredible. I don't pretend to be an expert on the byzantine world of Anglican politics, but if Wynn-Jones (a usually credible and well-informed religion reporter) is correct, then Williams is in the process of self-destruction. He will lose all credibility if he tries to get on his horse and ride of in two directions at once.

A sidebar to this story is the interference by Prime Minister David Cameron in the process. He has openly urged the Church of England to change its doctrine and accommodate itself to the political correctness of late modernity in order to win votes from homosexuals and their sympathizers, who would normally be expected to vote Labor. If a conservative PM were to interfere in this way, there would be screams from the liberals, but when a liberal PM does it then it is just fine. More blatant hypocrisy.

It does seem that the schism in the Anglican Communion is becoming permanent and deep. If woman bishops are imposed on the Church of England with all conscience protection removed and a homosexual bishop is appointed, then it seems likely that we will see the equivalent of an ACNA develop in England and the Church of England will be fatally weakened by the loss of perhaps one third of its worshipers, much of its revenue and many of its clergy. The next in line to the throne appears not to be a Christian believer, so the process of dechristianization of the state religion may accelerate. The official state church may become a kind of multi-faith religious expression of multiculturalism. Disestablishment is a real possibility and the reversion of England to the paganism out of which she was converted is also possible. The only alternative to paganism, besides the Evangelicalism that will have been rejected, will be Islam, which will be only too happy to fill the void.

A Letter That Reveals the Heretical Theology of the Liberal Protestant Sects That Used to Be Anglican

The following is the text of a pastoral letter to The Episcopal Church issued by Katherine Jefferts Schori on Pentecost. My comments are in [red and square brackets].

Pentecost continues!

Pentecost is most fundamentally a continuing gift of the Spirit, rather than a limitation or quenching of that Spirit. [This assertion is central to her theology. It means that new truth is delivered in contradiction to the Scriptures by the Spirit.]

The recent statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury about the struggles within the Anglican Communion seems to equate Pentecost with a single understanding of gospel realities. [A single understanding: as in one Gospel rooted in one Lord Jesus Christ. That is unacceptable to the sectarians.] Those who received the gift of the Spirit on that day all heard good news. The crowd reported, "in our own languages we hear them speaking about God's deeds of power" (Acts 2:11).

The Spirit does seem to be saying to many within The Episcopal Church that gay and lesbian persons are God's good creation, that an aspect of good creation is the possibility of lifelong, faithful partnership, and that such persons may indeed be good and healthy exemplars of gifted leadership within the Church, as baptized leaders and ordained ones. [The question is: "Which spirit is saying this, the Spirit of Jesus Christ or the spirit of Antichrist (I John 4:1-3)? We must test the Spirits with reference to Jesus Christ and His apostles.] The Spirit also seems to be saying the same thing in other parts of the Anglican Communion, and among some of our Christian partners, including Lutheran churches in North America and Europe, the Old Catholic churches of Europe, and a number of others. [But only in liberal circles, not in orthodox ones. What does this tell us?]

That growing awareness does not deny the reality that many Anglicans and not a few Episcopalians still fervently hold traditional views about human sexuality. [So does this mean they are wrong, Schori and co. are wrong or that the Spirit talks out of both sides of his mouth like a lying Spirit? Or is Schori and co. listening the the Spirit of Antichrist?] This Episcopal Church is a broad and inclusive enough tent to hold that variety. [But the Christian Church as defined in the NT is not.] The willingness to live in tension is a hallmark of Anglicanism, beginning from its roots in Celtic Christianity pushing up against Roman Christianity in the centuries of the first millennium. That diversity in community was solidified in the Elizabethan Settlement, which really marks the beginning of Anglican Christianity as a distinct movement. Above all, it recognizes that the Spirit may be speaking to all of us, in ways that do not at present seem to cohere or agree. It also recognizes what Jesus says about the Spirit to his followers, "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come" (John 16:12-13). [Again, she elaborates on what her view of Pentecost means; she holds that the truth the Spirit is foretold as declaring is not the apostolic witness to Jesus Christ recorded in the inspired New Testament writings, but rather, new teachings known by experience that contradict the NT.]

The Episcopal Church has spent nearly 50 years listening to and for the Spirit in these matters. [Again, which spirit?] While it is clear that not all within this Church have heard the same message, the current developments do represent a widening understanding. [Ah, the old faith in progress - an implication that everyone will eventually swing around to our way of thinking: a touching bit of naivete.] Our canons reflected this shift as long ago as 1985, when sexual orientation was first protected from discrimination in access to the ordination process. At the request of other bodies in the Anglican Communion, this Church held an effective moratorium on the election and consecration of a partnered gay or lesbian priest as bishop from 2003 to 2010. When a diocese elected such a person in late 2009, the ensuing consent process indicated that a majority of the laity, clergy, and bishops responsible for validating that election agreed that there was no substantive bar to the consecration. [Note the narrative - this is a never ending story. Anyone who thinks it ends with approving of homosexuality is dreaming. There is no end, ever.]

The Episcopal Church recognizes that these decisions are problematic to a number of other Anglicans. We have not made these decisions lightly. We recognize that the Spirit has not been widely heard in the same way in other parts of the Communion. In all humility, we recognize that we may be wrong, yet we have proceeded in the belief that the Spirit permeates our decisions. [Let the sheer audacity of this passive-aggressive statement sink in for a moment. It is one thing to fall into temptation and sin. It is quite spectacularly different to sin and approve of sin while calling this the work of the Holy Spirit. This is as bad as the Jewish religious leaders observing the healing miracles of the Lord Jesus and calling it the work of Beelzebub, which is described as the unforgivable sin in Mark 3:29-30]

We also recognize that the attempts to impose a singular understanding in such matters represent the same kind of cultural excesses practiced by many of our colonial forebears in their missionizing activity. [Here she equates a sin expressly condemned in Scripture repeatedly and obviously wrong from natural law to cultural practices that are morally neutral and not addressed in Scripture.] Native Hawaiians were forced to abandon their traditional dress in favor of missionaries' standards of modesty. Native Americans were forced to abandon many of their cultural practices, even though they were fully congruent with orthodox Christianity, because the missionaries did not understand or consider those practices exemplary of the Spirit. The uniformity imposed at the Synod of Whitby did similar violence to a developing, contextual Christianity in the British Isles. In their search for uniformity, our forebears in the faith have repeatedly done much spiritual violence in the name of Christianity.

We do not seek to impose our understanding on others. [This is about as dishonest a statement as I have heard in a long time. Of course, they are trying to do that. For example, they want to teach schoolchildren that homosexuality is right even if their parents believe the opposite. For them "tolerance" means "Believe our way or suffer the consequences."] We do earnestly hope for continued dialogue with those who disagree, for we believe that the Spirit is always calling us to greater understanding. [Endless dialogue about whether sin is sin is a sign of a weak and spiritually bankrupt Church.]

We live in great concern that colonial attitudes continue, particularly in attempts to impose a single understanding across widely varying contexts and cultures. We note that the cultural contexts in which The Episcopal Church's decisions have generated the greatest objection and reaction are also often the same contexts where women are barred from full ordained leadership, including the Church of England. [It sounds unintentionally humorous for a rich American Church to be complaining of "colonialism" at the hands of British Anglican institutions they have basically bought and paid for!]

As Episcopalians, we note the troubling push toward centralized authority exemplified in many of the statements of the recent Pentecost letter. [This is hypocritical. She is in favor of centralized authority as long as it is centralized in her office.] Anglicanism as a body began in the repudiation of the control of the Bishop of Rome within an otherwise sovereign nation. [Is she saying that nation states are higher authorities in religion than international Christian institutions?] Similar concerns over self-determination in the face of colonial control led the Scottish Episcopal Church to consecrate Samuel Seabury for The Episcopal Church in the nascent United States – and so began the Anglican Communion.

We have been repeatedly assured that the Anglican Covenant is not an instrument of control, yet we note that the fourth section seems to be just that to Anglicans in many parts of the Communion. So much so, that there are voices calling for stronger sanctions in that fourth section, as well as voices repudiating it as un-Anglican in nature. Unitary control does not characterize Anglicanism; rather, diversity in fellowship and communion does.

We are distressed at the apparent imposition of sanctions on some parts of the Communion. We note that these seem to be limited to those which "have formally, through their Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion." We are further distressed that such sanctions do not, apparently, apply to those parts of the Communion that continue to hold one view in public and exhibit other behaviors in private. Why is there no sanction on those who continue with a double standard? [This is an effective shot at the Church of England for tolerating homosexual activity among its clergy.] In our context bowing to anxiety by ignoring that sort of double-mindedness is usually termed a "failure of nerve." Through many decades of wrestling with our own discomfort about recognizing the full humanity of persons who seem to differ from us, we continue to work at open and transparent communication as well as congruence between word and behavior. We openly admit our failure to achieve perfection!

The baptismal covenant prayed in this Church for more than 30 years calls us to respect the dignity of all other persons and charges us with ongoing labor toward a holy society of justice and peace. That fundamental understanding of Christian vocation underlies our hearing of the Spirit in this context and around these issues of human sexuality. That same understanding of Christian vocation encourages us to hold our convictions with sufficient humility that we can affirm the image of God in the person who disagrees with us. We believe that the Body of Christ is only found when such diversity is welcomed with abundant and radical hospitality. [So diversity in ethics is hereby elevated to one of the marks of the Church. I don't think Paul's Churches would qualify as real "churches" in her theology.]

As a Church of many nations, languages, and peoples, we will continue to seek every opportunity to increase our partnership in God's mission for a healed creation and holy community. We look forward to the ongoing growth in partnership possible in the Listening Process, Continuing Indaba, Bible in the Life of the Church, Theological Education in the Anglican Communion, and the myriad of less formal and more local partnerships across the Communion – efforts in mission and ministry that inform and transform individuals and communities toward the vision of the Gospel – a healed world, loving God and neighbor, in the love and friendship shown us in God Incarnate.

May God's peace dwell in your hearts,

There is no mention of God the Father or the name "Jesus Christ" in this letter. In sum it represents a revival of the Montanist sect. The Church of Jesus Christ has seen these sects come and go and you can be sure that The Episcopal Church, like the Unification Church, the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormans, will fade eventually while the true Church of the Prophets and Apostles will endure until our Lord returns.

Is it Embarrassing to Provide a Refuge for Abused Wives?

From the Daily Telegraph comes a story about plans for the defection of Church of England clergy to Rome by Jonathan Wynne-Jones.

When hundreds of Church of England clergy defected to the Roman Catholic Church nearly 20 years ago, it dealt a damaging blow to Anglican unity and strained relations between the two Churches.

These relations will now be stretched to breaking point with the revelation that the Vatican is secretly plotting with English bishops over plans for a new wave of converts.

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has already expressed his dismay at the way Pope Benedict XVI last year made his offer to disaffected Anglicans to join the Catholic Church He would have been encouraged by the lack of clergy who have so far responded to the invitation, but The Sunday Telegraph has learnt that schemes to allow for an exodus of Anglican priests are being discussed at the highest levels of the Vatican.

This is likely to prove highly embarrassing for the Pope and deepen suspicions that he is preparing to poach clergy from England only months before he visits Britain.

If the initial offer was described as a move that parked his tanks on the lawn of Lambeth Palace, the Archbishop's residence, one bishop said last week's Vatican summit would be seen as "a declaration of war".

I don't understand how on earth this embarrasses the Pope, but it sure seems to be an embarrassment for the Archbishop of Canterbury. Surely the source of the problem here is the utter failure of the Church of England even to make accommodation for orthodox, traditional bishops who simply want to maintain what the Church has always believed. It seems to me that if Williams and his friends want so much to be part of a liberal Protestant denomination, they should become Methodists.

A comment on a thread on Virtue Online sums it up well. It says:

The Pope's not poaching anybody's clergy. The C of E is like some bullies I knew as a kid. They attack you, beat you up, and then go running to their father's crying about how you hit them first. In the end the bullies' fathers phoned your father and complained about what a rotten kid you were for hitting their precious boys first. This is the same scenario. The C of E walks all over everyone's rights and then cries "Foul!," when the victims seek solace from another party.

It seems to me that the liberal Anglicans should just suck it up. If they want to go against catholic tradition they are free to do so, but they should stop pretending to be "catholic" while doing so and they should understand that not everyone is going to go along with them. Liberal Anglicans have done more to undermine ecumenical dialogue than anyone else, so their wounds are entirely self-inflicted.

I would have used a stronger image. They are like wife-abusing husbands who are indignant when the long-suffering wife moves out for her safety and that of the children. Everyone else is to blame - the Pope, the Anglo-Catholic bishops and priests - everybody but them.

Coptic Bishop Rips The Episcopal Church

At the meeting of Global South Anglican bishops, theologians and others in Singapore, the recent actions of the Episcopal Church USA have hardened attitudes and stiffened the resolve of the Global South to resist the pansexualist agenda of the American and Canadian Anglican Churches.

In case anyone was wondering what the Eastern Orthodox thought of it, here is a part of a report of what a Coptic bishop observer to the conference had to say:

A Coptic Orthodox Church observer to the Fourth Global South to South Encounter ripped into the Episcopal Church, stunning some 130 archbishops, bishops, clergy and laity, urging them to say "no to ordination of homosexuals, no to gay marriage, no to such immorality, and that it is time to purify the sanctuary of the Lord from this abomination that causes our God to suffer, bleed and be crucified again everyday."

"You are martyrs without the shedding of blood because you are upholding the teaching of the Gospel handed down once and for all to the apostles," Bishop Anba Suriel told the stunned delegates.

"An army of sheep led by a lion is more powerful than an army of lions led by a sheep. I really pray that you lions here, the primates of each of the provinces of the Global South will stand united with one accord against the heresies of The Episcopal Church.

"I want to share with you a saying of Saint Anthony the Great, the father of monasticism. This great Egyptian saint said, "There will come a day when the mad people will look at the normal people and say, 'Look at these mad people because they are not like us.'" I think this prophecy has been fulfilled in our day and age. Abnormality has become the new normality. Certain factions of the Christian Church are becoming desensitized to the truth of the Gospel. I call it the frog in the kettle syndrome.

"If you place a frog in a kettle at room temperature the frog will be comfortable, if you raise the temperature slightly, the frog will quickly adapt. If you continue to raise the temperature very gradually the frog will continue to adapt to its new environment until finally the water is boiling and the frog is fried inside the kettle and loses its life. This is what today's Post Modern society is doing; it is pushing the limit of immorality further and further till it tries to make some lose their spiritual life and die."

The bishop blasted New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson. "He was a married man and had two daughters. He divorced his wife and left his daughters to live this unthinkable life of abomination. Is this the holiness and perfection and the image and likeness of God? How then can such a person be ordained to the highest level of authority in a Church, the episcopate? What example does he give to young people, what long term effects will such a decision by The Episcopal Church USA (TEC) have on the North American Episcopalians in generations to come?" . . .

"Today's heresy often becomes tomorrow's orthodoxy. Well, let me say the orthodoxy of God will never allow for these heresies.

"That is why TEC allows a heretic like Bishop Spong to promulgate his poison all over the world and publish books advocating a cocktail of heresies ranging from denying the divinity of Christ to a complete and shocking attack on the inspired Word of God. And yet at the same time they depose an orthodox Episcopal bishop for upholding the true faith of the Scriptures that marriage is between one man and one woman... I cannot even begin to get comprehend that."

Anyone who thinks that this is only about homosexuality is very much mistaken. And anyone who thinks that all the conservatives will either die out or come along with the liberal agenda is dreaming. What we are witnessing is the global re-alignment of Christianity.

The Orthodox Church in America broke off ecumenical relations with the Episcopal Church years ago and now is in dialogue with the Anglican Church in North America, the continuing Anglican witness to Anglican tradition.

Ecumenical relations of the liberal Anglicans with the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy grow shaky by the day. Pentecostalism and Evangelicalism vastly outnumber liberal Protestants and have better relations with the Roman Catholics. Liberal Protestantism is increasingly looking like a dying rump. Pentecostals are more ecumenical than they are.

The Future of the Anglican Communion is Not in the Hands of the Western Liberal Rump

In an article entitled "Anglican Consultative Council Reinstates the White Man's Burden," Canon Gary L'Hommedieu explains the connection between the liberal agenda of the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada and significant elements of the Church of England, on the one hand, and colonialism and racism, on the other. [My comments in square brackets and in blue]

__________

If over 80% of Anglicans live in the global south, why is this not reflected in communion structures?" writes Indian Ocean Primate Ian Earnest in an April 12 letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury in which he protests, among other things, the illicit transfer of power from the Primates' Meeting to the Anglican Consultative Council and its Joint Standing Committee. [Instead of being governed by its 38 Primates, which one would expect in an episcopal system, the Anglican Communion has seen the shifting of power to a set of institutions which are recent innovations and financially beholden to the funding of the Episcopal Church. This is what the global South bishops are now criticizing.]

Why indeed?

The short answer is that the present "structures" of power and influence continue to reflect the colonial history of the Anglican Communion. More to the point, these persistent "structures" demonstrate how that history continues unabated. While cosmetic changes have been made to church governance, and while token appointments give the appearance of social transformation, the fact remains: the present structures of power and influence in the Anglican Communion continue to serve the same socio-economic interests as during the pre-conscious Age of Colonialism. The same dominant group that colonized the Global South is still in charge and serving primarily the same social interests-its own. [This is in spite of the rhetoric, as we shall see.]

Here's the difference: We are at least two generations past the world-shattering consciousness-raising of the mid-twentieth century. The West has long stood convicted of its imperialism, its historic tendency to exploit the resources and even the will of indigenous populations, and even to romanticize this through mythology such as Kipling's "White Man's Burden." We know about the near determinism, the almost transcendent force, whereby "structures" of self-interest project their structured history through relations of power unto the third and fourth generation, even against the most guarded good intentions and sublime gestures of penitence.

In other words, the usurpation of the Primate's Meeting and the transfer of power to the ACC and its Standing Committee were done in the full light of day, in the full awareness of history, and in the consciousness of full intentionality. It was a deliberate usurpation of power and authority without any need for the former rationalization that "it's for their own good". It was done so that the same group could make sure that the major perks of the institution-in particular, the power to define its future-continued to fall to them. [Note the charge that it is deliberate; this is important.]

It has become almost cliché to toss the word "colonialism" at the Western power brokers of the Anglican Communion-the Church of England, the Church of Canada and the paymasters of both, the Episcopal Church. The term has generally been used by Western conservatives and the Global South as a counterpunch in the ideological struggle of the Anglican culture wars. Generally tossed in the faces of Liberal ideologues and bureaucrats, it is meant as a "gotcha" remark-an expected "score" against the self-proclaimed Liberal champions of equality and empowerment. And yet these demonstrably unempowering and illiberal power brokers have sufficient social and moral capital so that the obvious evidences of imperialism glance off, leaving them morally unscathed. [I'm not so sure they are unscathed, but let's grant it for the sake of argument.]

What is the source that gives weight to this moral and social "capital"?

The claim by Western Anglicans that they represent the interests of a new world order of social justice and compassion can be taken at face value because so many Westerners have a stake in the "truth" value of this claim. "Truth" is not even a good word for it, as is quickly demonstrated by the utter lack of correspondence here between "truth" and facts.

The Liberal claim to be on the side of justice, compassion, equality and every other social bromide has no necessary relation to facts as long as those "facts" can be controlled and kept out of the mainstream. "Facts" are now "demonstrated" by slogans and token appointments in political and corporate offices-in other words in a well publicized campaign of good intentions. [Get that? This is brilliant: no matter what evil outcomes may occur, we cannot be accused of being oppressors because of our symbolic acts and good intentions.] Those who feel guilty in the face of historic racism and imperialism (for example) have a stake in the "truth" claims that their institution now exists to counter these gross historic anomalies. Any truth to the contrary can be kept out of public awareness. Thus the public is aware of two pressing needs: its own need for social rehabilitation, and the claim that this rehabilitation is taking place. No one questions the irony that the same group that enjoyed the former fruits of dominance is now seeking above all to retain its dominant position. [Exactly right . . . this is a massive, well-played con game.]

The Episcopal Church, for example, has all its moral capital invested in the recent innovations of female clergy, gay liberation, and now Millennium Development Goals. These all serve as ideological justifications for an institution thoroughly invested in the socio-economic structures of the old order to retain its historic position of dominance in a slightly new order after the awakening of global consciousness. Like universities and corporations throughout America, the mainline Protestant institutions had to find a present justification for its present position of power and influence within the society. [They had to adjust to present society because they don't preach a Gospel that can convert people, which is why they have to justify themselves on the world's terms.] Christian Liberalism with its platitudes of justice provides such an ideological cover. The churches "bought in" to a new emphasis of religious doctrine because they were "invested" in its promise to guarantee a continued dominance. [Such a religion is of great usefulness to colonialist whose conscience might be bothering them, no?]

At a fundamental level, then, the claims of Liberal Christianity have nothing to do with factual claims of ending historic injustice, and everything to do with providing ideological cover for power. [It is nice to see the hermeneutic of suspicion wielded against those who deserve to be analyzed suspiciously, for once.] Thus American Bishops can get away with calling African Christians "animists" and rant before their peers that the Global South has been bought off by American conservatives. Never mind that these are outwardly racist comments. Knowing that they are racist is insufficient ideological ammunition for the powerless. Western Anglicans can get away with belittling their Global South counterparts with the same impunity as White Supremacists in the American South during the 1950s, and for the same reason: they know they will not be held accountable. [But that is beginning to change because of the courage and savvy of the African and other Global South bishops.]

The real racist aspect of these kinds of remarks is not so much the words themselves as the social structure that gives them weight and the present intentionality with which that structure is maintained. The same relationship between the colonizer and the colonized is lived out in the present expectation that the Global South, in spite of the fact that they represent 80% of the Anglican Communion, are just as lacking in political resources as they were fifty years ago. Just like then they can be expected to capitulate. The Big Three will redefine the power structures of the Communion at will and with the usual haughty contempt of colonial "betters" living out their birthright.

The Churches in Canada, the UK and the US are all thoroughly invested in the traditional structures of historic dominance. Their confidence in the durability of these structures is what translates into the power to define "truth," which includes the power to reduce obvious facts to irrelevance. [We need to remember that the Big Three only have a limited time left, since they are dying out. How much can the endowments last with the markets in a funk? How much longer until the present aging congregations move to the graveyard?]

It is an illusion to expect colonialists to change their method of operation when it continues to pay off. They can only make such a change when they see that their interests have changed, a change that can only be imposed by a rearranging of external relations-in effect, by a new history.

What is essential is that the former colonized, the Global South, refuse to play their expected role in the old pattern of colonialism. [This is the key; salvation won't come from the West.] The Singapore Conference this week must emphatically refuse to reinstate the White Man's Burden. Going along with Western parliamentary practice has been exploited by the powerful to construct a subterfuge for this historic pattern of colonialism. The former colonies have the power now to refuse to give substance to this pattern of relations now embedded in the "structures" of the Anglican Communion. [What a hopeful and wonderful thought! They have the power now . . .]

To paraphrase Ugandan Archbishop Henry Orombi in another recent missive to Lambeth Palace: a return to "business as usual" would be just that: business as usual.

_____________

This is one of the most incisive, clear and powerful articles I have seen on the crisis in the Anglican Communion. I now realize that it is silly to sit waiting breathlessly to see what the Archbishop of Canterbury is going to "do" - since when does he do anything? We should all be waiting to see what the Global South bishops, who represent more than 80% of the Anglicans in the world, do next. And that is an extremely encouraging shift in perspective.

Archbishop of Canterbury Fiddles While Anglican Communion Burns

Ruth Gledhill's blog and Virtue Online have both published a letter from Henry Luke Orambi, Archbishop of the Anglican Church of Uganda, announcing his resignation from the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion in solidarity with Bishop Mouneer Anis, who resigned a few weeks ago. The letter is addressed the Archbishop of Canterbury and copied to the other Primates and members of the Joint Standing Committee.

The letter laments the shift in power from the Primates as a group to the Standing Committee, which includes representatives of The Episcopal Church on it. The refusal of the Archbishop of Canterbury to discipline TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada for their flaunting of the manifest will of the Communion as a whole is exacerbating the crisis.

"Subsequent meetings of the Joint Standing Committee have included the Primate of the Episcopal Church (TEC) and other members of TEC, who are the very ones who have pushed the Anglican Communion into this sustained crisis. How can we expect the gross violators of Biblical Truth to sanction their own discipline when they believe they have done nothing wrong and further insist that their revisionist theology is actually the substance of Anglicanism?

We have only to note the recent election and confirmation of an active Lesbian as a Suffragan Bishop in the Diocese of Los Angeles to realize that TEC has no interest in "gracious restraint," let alone a moratorium on the things that have brought us to this point of collapse. It is now impossible to regard their earlier words of "regret" as a serious gesture of reconciliation with the rest of the Communion."

The "open Evangelical" group Fulcrum in the UK has recently called on the Archbishop of Canterbury to exclude the representative of the Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada from future meetings of Communion instruments of unity. Here is an excerpt:

"The nature of the Communion's structures at present is such that effecting this distancing will require clear and decisive action by the Archbishop of Canterbury. At the very least he needs to make clear that bishops participating in the May consecration in Los Angeles will thereby exclude themselves from being invited by him to participate in the Instruments or to represent the Communion in any form.

Unless he does this all that the Instruments have repeatedly said in relation to TEC's conduct will be undermined. The sickness of TEC's inability to say what it means and mean what it says to the rest of the Communion will then have infected the Instruments and will surely destroy the Communion. The fact the Presiding Bishop of TEC and Ian Douglas are on 'The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion' (which according to the proposed covenant will have a crucial role in monitoring the covenant's functioning) only highlights the need for decisive action if the Communion and the covenant are to retain any credibility."

Fulcrum has been extremely loyal to the Archbishop of Canterbury and includes within its ranks N. T. Wright. Up to this point it has obviously hoped that the Archbishop of Canterbury would uphold traditional and biblical doctrine and ethics and eventually discipline TEC and AC of C. But hope for Williams to do anything but stall, fiddle and hope that the orthodox eventually accept homosexuality is fading now.

It is clear that Williams is not prepared to defend the unity of the Communion. His professed desire to "hold it all together" is not credible any longer. What he wants to do is to enable the heretics in TEC and AC of C to stay in the Communion without being disciplined until their revisionist viewpoints eventually wear down the orthodox opposition.

The clear message to orthodox Christians from other denominations watching this tragedy unfold is two-fold. First, we cannot count on the Anglicans to champion orthodoxy in a balanced, scholarly manner as they have done for centuries as a gift to the wider Christian world. And, secondly, we must oppose liberal theology whenever it raises its ugly head in our own Churches because if it is allowed to grow and spread like a cancer the ultimate result will be division, heartache and scandal.

UPDATE:
There seems to be some confusion as to whether Archbishop Orambi has actually resigned or merely stated his support for his fellow bishop Mouneer Anis's resignation. Both Gledhill and Virtue Online initially said he had, but have now post corrections saying that he has not actually resigned, only expressed support for Anis. See also the Stand Firm website, which has more details. Even if he has not resigned, this letter still exposes the unwillingness to act on the part of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Breaking News: New Anglican Primate of Nigeria Also Believes in Evangelism!

Archbishop Peter Akinola, primate of the Anglican Church of Nigeria for the past 10 years, is retiring and his successor, Archbishop Nicholas Okoh, was recently elected. The Primate of the Anglican Church of Nigeria is the head of the largest province in the Anglican Communion and thus a key figure in the on-going reform of the Communion. Akinola was reviled by Western liberals because he was a truely post-colonial figure, that is, a man who refused to be cowed by Westerners whose faith had faded into cultural accomodation. He saw the role of the largest province in the Communion as being a leadership role, rather than being content to take orders from New York and Canterbury.

So the world has been waiting to see what kind of leader would follow Akinola. Would he be one who would be more "reasonable," that is, one who would be less willing to challenge the entrenched and wealthy power structures of the Communion? Would he be more "politically correct" and less oriented to evangelism? Would he be more open to Westerners re-defining the Gospel for Africans?

The answer to all these questions is clearly "No." So the predictable attacks have begun. Ruth Gledhill leads off in the Times of London with a story on a sermon preached by Okah when he was in England for the launch of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans in July. [My comments in red in square brackets.]
______________

Muslims mass-producing children to take over Africa, says Archbishop
Ruth Gledhill

One of the most powerful figures in the Anglican Church believes that Africa is under attack from Islam and that Muslims are “mass-producing” children to take over communities on the continent. [The fact that Gledhill sees this as the most controversial and newsworthy statement in the sermon already betrays her nervousness about potential infractions of political correctness.]

Archbishop Nicholas Okoh, 56, was elected Primate of Nigeria last week and his elevation could exacerbate tensions at a time when Anglicans are working to build bridges with Muslims. Dr Michael Nazir-Ali resigned as Bishop of Rochester earlier this year to work in countries where Islam is the majority religion. [Nazir-Ali isn't going on an Obama-like world apology tour. He is going there to strengthen the persecuted church.]

Nigeria is split almost half and half between Christianity and Islam. There are about 17 million practising Anglicans in the country, but they face persecution in the north, while the two faiths vie with local religions for supremacy in the rest of the country.

Archbishop Okoh made his controversial comments [Just think about this: to say that Islam is pushing for dominance in Africa is a controversial statement. It seems to me to be as straightforward a fact as "Africa is hot." What Muslim would deny it or want to deny it? This could only be controversial to the decadent, politically correct, liberal, Western mind. For everyone else it is a fact of life.] about Islam in a sermon in Beckenham, Kent, in July. He said that there was a determined Islamic attack in African countries such as Uganda, Kenya and Rwanda.

They spend a lot of money, even in places where they don’t have congregations, they build mosques, they build hospitals, they build anything.

“They come to Africans and say, ‘Christianity is asking you to marry only one wife. We will give you four!’ ” Archbishop Okoh described this as “evangelism by mass-production”. [This is the statement referred to in the headline. Archbishop Okah sounds like he is against polygamy. Muslims in Africa are for it. Why does Gledhill label this "controversial"? What is "controversial" anyway? Factually innacurate? Impolite? True, but we must not say it out loud lest we offend someone? It is a weasel word.]

He said: “That is the type of evangelism they are doing: mass-production, so if you have four wives, four children, sixteen children, very soon you will be a village.”

Africa was “surrounded by Islamic domination,” he said, and he urged Christians to speak out now or lose the authority to speak. “I am telling you, Islam is spending in Uganda and in other places, it is money from the Arab World,” he claimed, accusing Christians of abdicating their responsibilities. “Who is the leader in the Christian world? There is no leader.” [I'm not sure but is he here reprimanding the West, or at least the liberal Protestants, for letting the worldwide missionary movement of the 19th century slip into oblivion due to a growing lack of conviction in the truth of the Gospel? If so, he is right.]

One senior member of Britain’s Muslim community said: “The views presented by the Archbishop are extremist and overwhelmed by Islamophobia and his elevation will certainly foster misunderstanding and extremism. Knowing the communal geography of Nigeria, he will be a massive danger to community relations and cohesion in his country, besides places like London.” [Translation: This guy is a threat to our hegemony.]
___________________

Comments:
Islamophobia: isn't it interesting how they have learned how to utilize the Western lingo of political correctness to beat on Christians with? Note too that Christians who believe in evangelism are "extremists." Now where do you suppose a Muslim would get that idea? Hmm. I wonder - couldn't be liberal Anglican theologians and bishops, could it? I can just hear the Nigerians saying "Thanks guys - big help." I wonder if he thinks that Muslims who proselytize in Africa are "extremists"?

No doubt Christians preaching the Gospel does lead to a lack of "cohesion" in Islamic dominated societies. There is no help for that. Religious freedom is inherent in the image of God: no human has the right to forbid another to worship the Triune God.

It must be pretty discouraging for Christians on the front lines of Islam-Christian rivalry to know that the liberal Christians in the West are more interested in appeasing Muslims than supporting their fellow Christians.

N. T. Wright Tells It Like It Is on Homosexuality and the Gospel

I have found N. T. Wright to be a bit hard to figure out at times during the crisis in the Anglican Communion, but this article in the Times of London is hard-hitting, clear and unapologetically orthodox and Evangelical. He writes of the actions of The Episcopal Church in passing a resolution that says that active homosexuals are eligible for ordination:

"Both the bishops and deputies (lay and clergy) of TEC knew exactly what they were doing. They were telling the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other “instruments of communion” that they were ignoring their plea for a moratorium on consecrating practising homosexuals as bishops. They were rejecting the two things the Archbishop of Canterbury has named as the pathway to the future — the Windsor Report (2004) and the proposed Covenant (whose aim is to provide a modus operandi for the Anglican Communion). They were formalising the schism they initiated six years ago when they consecrated as bishop a divorced man in an active same-sex relationship, against the Primates’ unanimous statement that this would “tear the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level”. In Windsor’s language, they have chosen to “walk apart”".

He is obviously frusterated by the obstinance of the Americans after all the meetings, all the drafting of reports, all the dialogue and all the efforts expended by so many in good faith to hold the fractured Communion together. He would certainly be justified in feeling as if a dirty dish cloth had been flung in his face by Jefforts Schori and the extremist liberals who now run The Episcopal Church. I especially liked the way he dismissed the lame arguments put forward by the revisionists showing them the contempt they deserve from reasonable people:

"That wider tradition always was counter-cultural as well as counter-intuitive. Our supposedly selfish genes crave a variety of sexual possibilities. But Jewish, Christian and Muslim teachers have always insisted that lifelong man-plus-woman marriage is the proper context for sexual intercourse. This is not (as is frequently suggested) an arbitrary rule, dualistic in overtone and killjoy in intention. It is a deep structural reflection of the belief in a creator God who has entered into covenant both with his creation and with his people (who carry forward his purposes for that creation).

Paganism ancient and modern has always found this ethic, and this belief, ridiculous and incredible. But the biblical witness is scarcely confined, as the shrill leader in yesterday’s Times suggests, to a few verses in St Paul. Jesus’s own stern denunciation of sexual immorality would certainly have carried, to his hearers, a clear implied rejection of all sexual behaviour outside heterosexual monogamy. This isn’t a matter of “private response to Scripture” but of the uniform teaching of the whole Bible, of Jesus himself, and of the entire Christian tradition."

I don't think it is accidental or just excessive rhetoric to refer to "paganism" in this context. The Episcopal Church has not just embraced a liberal Christian position, but has admitted pagan sexuality into the Church. The religion of the Canaanites that Israel was to exterminate, but which infected the people of God in the Old Testament, is now being welcomed into The Episcopal Church by vote of the bishops.

The "new morality" is nothing new. What is new and revolutionary in history is the Judeo-Christian sexual morality that ties sex to marriage and child-rearing. It is this ethic that has made Western civilization possible and which now is being tossed out by the late modern West in its decadent phase.

Finally, Wright does not fail to get at the heart of the matter by tying the permissive attitude to various sexual perversions and sins to the Gospel itself when he writes:

"We must insist, too, on the distinction between inclination and desire on the one hand and activity on the other — a distinction regularly obscured by references to “homosexual clergy” and so on. We all have all kinds of deep-rooted inclinations and desires. The question is, what shall we do with them? One of the great Prayer Book collects asks God that we may “love the thing which thou commandest, and desire that which thou dost promise”. That is always tough, for all of us. Much easier to ask God to command what we already love, and promise what we already desire. But much less like the challenge of the Gospel."

At the end of the day, the Gospel is a call to repentence, faith, forgiveness and sanctification. It is the good news that sinners can change. It is the counter-cultural faith that we, as creatures made in God's image and endowed with reason and the ability to make moral choices may, with the aid of Divine grace, face up to our sins and not simply sink under the waves of immorality. No one is perfect and there are many kinds of sins, not just sexual ones. But the good news is that Christ died for our sins and the Spirit's power is available to all of us in our great need. There is hope in Christ for all sinners - even the currently fashionable ones.

All orthodox Christians the world over owe Bishop Wright a vote of thanks for acting like a true bishop and telling the truth. Most of all, we commend him for preaching the Gospel even when the truth is unpopular.