Same-sex "Marriage" and Schism

There are many theological issues over which sincere Christians can agree to disagree until further light comes to us. Evangelical Christians have learned to be a united renewal movement within the broader Church despite disagreements over the form and mode of baptism, models of church government, Calvinism versus Arminian soteriology, speaking in tongues and so on. The two-decade long process of Evangelical and Catholics Together has dulled the anti-Catholic fervor of most Evangelicals, although many Reformed conservatives still hold out. Personally, I think a tipping point was reached with the Lutheran-Catholic joint statement on justification and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I still believe the Roman Catholic Church is in need of further reforms, but I acknowledge that on many issues the last two centuries has witnessed a remarkable number of reforms for which the 16th century Reformers called. Significant ecumenical progress is underway.

The sheer number of such non-fellowship destroying theological issues and the good ecumenical news on several fronts, however, can have the unintended side-effect of inuring us to more serious theological disagreements which do, in fact, destroy the unity of Christ's Church and cause the loss of salvation for those who deny central truths of the Scripture. As Evangelicals and Catholics come closer together, liberal Protestantism becomes increasingly isolated from the mainstream of Christianity.

To deny the substitutionary atonement of Christ as necessary for the forgiveness of sins or the Triune nature of God or the full deity and humanity of the God-Man, Jesus Christ - these are not things which we can agree to disagree about. To deny these doctrines is to deny the Faith and to separate oneself from Christ and from his body in schism.

A serious question that must be faced today, given the slide into acceptance of so-called same-sex "marriage" by liberal Protestants, is whether or not this issue falls into the category of secondary doctrines about which disagreement can be tolerated without destroying the Church's unity or whether or not the endorsement of same-sex "marriage" is a soul-destroying heresy that rends the fabric of Christ's Church. Technically, a heresy is a doctrinal deviation that causes the heretic to be regarded as a non-Christian doomed to eternal punishment and which causes a schism in the Church by placing those who embrace the heretic outside the Church. Not all doctrinal disagreements rise to the level of heresies, but some do. It takes spiritual discernment, careful thought, historical awareness and, above all, deep biblical understanding to tell which are which.

So, is the embrace of the charade known today as same-sex "marriage" a heresy?

John Piper has a good post on Dietrich Bonhoffer and Wolfhart Pannenberg, two major twentieth-century theologians who have made solemn judgments on heresy and schism. Bonhoffer denounced the "Aryan Paragraph," which the Nazis tried to impose on the German Protestant Church in order to exclude Jews from the Church as heresy in the precise and fullest sense. In the Barmen Declaration (authored by Karl Barth) the Confessing Church separated itself from the German Christians who accepted the Aryan Paragraph. They did not just claim to be disagreeing with fellow-Christians; they were clear that to accept the Nazi demand that Jews be excluded from the Church was to abandon the Church and cease to have a credible Christian testimony.

Piper also quotes Wolfhart Pannenberg on the same-sex "marriage" issue as follows:

Here lies the boundary of a Christian church that knows itself to be bound by the authority of Scripture. Those who urge the church to change the norm of its teaching on this matter must know that they are promoting schism. If a church were to let itself be pushed to the point where it ceased to treat homosexual activity as a departure from the biblical norm, and recognized homosexual unions as a personal partnership of love equivalent to marriage, such a church would stand no longer on biblical ground but against the unequivocal witness of Scripture. A church that took this step would cease to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

You can access Pannenberg's entire article, of which this is the final paragraph, here. Pannenberg views the embrace of same-sex "marriage" as a schismatic act. It is a heresy.

Piper notes that the Aryan Paragraph and the endorsement of homosexuality both deny the cross of Christ. Christ died, he notes, to bring Jews and Gentiles together in one body. (Eph. 2:14-16) And Christ died to bring repentant sinners into the Kingdom of God. (I Cor. 6:9-10) Therefore, he concludes, to exclude Jews is to deny Christ and his cross and to affirm a way of life that excludes people from the kingdom of God is to take a stand against the cross of Christ, which aims to save people for the Kingdom of God.

There is no plausible way to view those who endorse homosexual sin as attempting to acknowledge the authority of Scripture. Scripture is crystal clear that homosexual activity is sin and homosexual temptations are a result of a fallen, disordered, human sexuality - a curse we all bear. There is not a single positive or neutral reference to homosexuality in all of Scripture. Romans 1 distinguishes between those who are tempted and fall into temptation and those who "not only do them but give approval to those who practice them." (Rom. 1:32) Those who commit homosexual sins merely need to repent and they can be forgiven. But those who "give approval" to such sins need to change their minds about the morality of such actions before they can repent. It is far worse to teach that evil is good and that sinful acts are not under God's condemnation than merely to engage in a wrong act. The latter imperils one's own soul, but he former imperils the souls of others as well. Only a mind that is sunk deep into sin and rebellion against Christ could endorse same-sex "marriage" as good.

The United Church of Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada have gone into schism from the rest of Protestantism. It is highly problematic even to articulate a way in which they could legitimately be called Christian Churches anymore. Their status would be closer to the Mormans or Jehovah's Witnesses than to Protestant Churches. This is a very serious matter for those who find themselves members of schismatic bodies. They need our prayers as they wrestle with what to do.

The tragedy of being conformed to this world is the loss of Jesus Christ. Same-sex "marriage" is probably the primary way contemporary Christians are being conformed to this world and thus drawn away from a living unity with our Lord and His Church. Clarity on this issue is a major requirement for effective pastoral ministry.

Officially Going Pelagian: Let's Get it Out in the Open

It has been some time since we last checked in with the Episcopal Church in the US, which continues to implode and decline at a rapid rate.

The latest development is the move by some in the Diocese of Atlanta to officially adopt Pelagian heresy as the official doctrine of the Church. David Virtue of Virtue Online reports:

If the Rev. Benno D. Pattison, Rector, the Church of the Epiphany in Atlanta, has his way, the 5th Century heretic Pelagius, declared so by the Council of Carthage, will be reinstated at the next and final Diocese of Atlanta annual meeting presided over by Bishop Neil Alexander.

Nearly 500 clergy members and parish delegates will gather in Rome (Georgia) Nov. 4-5 for the 105th Annual Council of the Diocese of Atlanta and vote on reinstating Pelagius who denied original sin as well as Christian grace.

Pelagius was an ascetic who denied the need for divine aid in performing good works. For him, the only grace necessary was the declaration of the law; humans were not wounded by Adam's sin and were perfectly able to fulfill the law apart from any divine aid. He denied the doctrine of original sin as developed by Augustine of Hippo. Pelagius was declared a heretic. His interpretation of a doctrine of free will became known as Pelagianism.

According to Pattison, the historical record of Pelagius's contribution to our theological tradition is shrouded in the political ambition of his theological antagonists who sought to discredit what they felt was a threat to the empire and their ecclesiastical dominance. "An understanding of his life and writings might bring more to bear on his good standing in our tradition."

Pattison wants to see Pelagius's "restitution as a viable theological voice within our tradition might encourage a deeper understanding of sin, grace, free will, and the goodness of God's creation, and that the history of Pelagius represents to some the struggle for theological exploration that is our birthright as Anglicans.

"The church needs to reclaim his voice in our tradition," concluded Pattison.

Of course, the issue isn't "reclaiming his voice." That is entirely unnecessary as the voice of the Episcopal Church been loudly Pelagian for years now. The point is, rather, to openly embrace heresy and make it official.

I can't help but thinking this is a good thing. It gets tiresome listening to these Anglican/Episcopal bishops running around mouthing submission to the ecumenical creeds as a pro forma matter all the while trashing the Great Tradition of Christian orthodoxy by their actions. This at least has the virtue of openness and honesty.

Persecuting the orthodox has already begun in South Carolina, so to make it official is to let everybody know exactly where things stand. I suppose making Arius a saint and openly repudiating Athanasius and the Nicene Creed can't be far off for this formerly Christian sect. When your "church" has no problem with John Spong, Pelagius and Arius don't seem like a stretch.

Rowan Williams: Marxist Subversive

Rowan Williams' recent intervention in partisan politics on behalf of the Left has prompted journalists to do a little digging on his past political views as background for understanding his present views. A story in the Telegraph by Jason Lewis and Jonathan Wynne-Jones (HT Virtue Online) gives interesting background on Rowan Williams' radical, neo-Marxist past:

When he launched a stinging attack on the Coalition government over policies "for which no one voted", the Archbishop of Canterbury put himself squarely in the centre of a political storm.

Critics accused him of political bias, claiming it was a throwback to the days when his predecessors regularly clashed with past Conservative administrations.

But perhaps they should not be too surprised, as it can be revealed that the Archbishop has a long-standing left-wing political past.

The young Rowan Williams was once labelled 'a subversive' by a senior MI5 officer over his involvement with a group of Marxist, Trotskyite and socialist campaigners.

The secret briefing papers were seen by then Prime Minister Baroness Thatcher and circulated to MPs.

Last week Dr Williams, who describes himself as a "lapsed" Labour party member held private talks with Ed Miliband, the leader of the opposition, in the wake of his New Statemsman article which attacked the coalition.

The future head of the Church of England first came to the attention of the Security Service when he helped found a left-wing Christian group during his student days at Oxford University.

He wrote the original manifesto for the Jubilee Group, claiming capitalism was in its death-throes and 'threatens to inflict even greater violence on manking (sic) than it has done before'.

Rubbing shoulders with left-wing politicians such as Tony Benn and the late Eric Heffer, he wrote: 'We must make our stand with the oppressed'.

The Jubilee Group was identified as a "problem" neo-Marxist organisation in confidential intelligence documents drawn up by MI5 officer Charles Elwell.

This is interesting as it shows that his left-wing bias is deep-seated and long-standing. His main beef with New Labor seems to be that it was not left-wing enough. The article goes on to give some of the most illuminating quotes from documents authored by the "red" Williams.

Dr Williams was a leading member of the radical Jubilee Group's executive committee during the 1970s and 1980s alongside Mr Heffer, Mr Benn and Communist priest Rev Alan Ecclestone.

The archbishop, an Oxford graduate, was ordained a priest in 1977 but spent almost all of his clerical career until he was consecrated a bishop in 1991 as a lecturer at Cambridge and Oxford universities.

In 1974, he had co-written a manifesto for the group with his friend John Saward, now a Catholic priest, in the Horse and Jockey pub on Woodstock Road, Oxford. They claimed: "We are "subversive contemplatives". We are not shallow activists."

Their manifesto railed against "the ruthless pursuit of private gain" and the "idolatry of profit" adding: "We cannot...feign neutrality, or remain uncritical, in the face of a society based upon the ruthless pursuit of private gain and unlimited consumption."

It concluded: "We do not run away from history. We know what the present crisis of capitalism demands of us...we are in the death-throes of late capitalism, which threatens to inflict even greater violence on mankind than it has done before, we must make our stand with the oppressed, with the movement for liberation throughout the world."

According Rev Dr Ken Leech, the group's founder member, the manifesto was never formally adopted. He said: "It reflected our thinking at the time, but the view was it was too much of a rant. It was a fascinating document, but rather triumphalist, and we rejected it."

He added: "At the time we had never heard of Rowan Williams. He was introduced to us by John Saward. But he became very involved, regularly attended meetings, running our literature committee, giving lectures and writing pamphlets."

Together they edited a series of essays "Catholic and Radical" for the group, and the Rev Dr Leech is still in regular touch with the Archbishop who hosted a 70th birthday party for him at Lambeth Palace last year.

He added: "I would not want to commit Rowan to the language of 1974...but it does really show the heart of the theological focus of the man and this has not changed."

- - - snip - - -

During this period Dr Williams was arrested for "singing Psalms" at a CND demonstration outside RAF Lakenheath, a nuclear weapons base in Suffolk, and questioned Baroness Thatcher's references to her religious convictions to back her political views.

In a speech at Edinburgh University in 1989 he talked of "the alarming religiosity of Ronald Reagan (then US President) and Margaret Thatcher."

So he is anti-capitalist and anti-American and he worked for unilateral Western nuclear disarmament at a time when Soviet expansionism was at its height and the Soviets dreamed of conquering Western Europe. He also criticized Thatcher and Reagan for being too religious, which is code for being orthodox, rather than liberal. When politicians are left-wing politically and liberal theologically, they can be as religious as they like and Marxists never criticize them for it.

I don't know what you would call a person with such views but some would call him a traitor to his country and to the West. Maybe one couldn't quite go that far, but I think it puts his left-wing, anti-biblical and anti-traditionl views on sexuality in a very interesting light. There are many non-Marxists who have, nonetheless, fallen for the cultural Marxist line, but there are very few Marxists who have not adopted the cultural Marxist line as a matter of course.

The goal of cultural Marxism is the infiltration of Western institutions, including the Church, and the gradual destruction of the philosophical, ethical and theological bases of Western culture. This will inevitably lead to the erosion and collapse of the family as the main bastion of resistance to the total state, which is necessary to implement socialism and destroy capitalism.

It seems to me that the crying need of our age is for Christians to understand and oppose cultural Marxism and to understand the revolutionary implications of the sexual revolution.

The promotion of anarchy, as in the recent riots in Vancouver after the Stanley Cup finals and the G-7 meetings in Toronto, is the Marxist method of putting strain on civil society and pushing toward a breakdown of order that will provoke an authoritarian backlash. This backlash will be useful to the Marxists in one of two ways: it might be seized by them and become a vehicle for the revolution or, alternatively, if they cannot get control of it then they will hypocritically criticize it as fascist and pose as the forces of liberation.

In any case, Marxism is Marxism. It is heretical and dangerous to a free society. Unfortunately, churches like the Anglican Communion are infested with Marxists to the very highest levels. One of the benefits of schism may well be to isolate the Marxists in their own dying institutions until they die out instead of allowing them to control the entire communion.

Evangelical churches need to be on the look-out for heresy and need to understand the various forms Marxism takes. This is a subject that should be discussed and debated far more than it is among conservative Christians of all denominations. We can be grateful for newspaper articles like this one, which bring to light the sources of the left-wing bias exhibited at the very top of the Church of England.

Apparently They Don't Call Them "Orthodox" for Nothing!

Well, in a speech at Lambeth Palace Metropolitan Hillarion of the Russian Orthodox Church blasted the heresy, worldliness and immorality running rampant throughout Western Anglicanism with the Archbishop of Canterbury sitting in the audience. David Virtue reports:

In a groundbreaking address at Lambeth Palace before the Nicean Club that included the Archbishop of Canterbury, Russian Metropolitan Hilarion blasted those parts of the Anglican Communion experimenting with sexual innovations saying they threatened continuing dialogue with the Orthodox Church.

In surprise remarks that observers say embarrassed Dr. Williams, Hilarion ripped Western Anglican liberals who have deviated from heterosexual marriage calling it "an abyss that divides traditional Christians from Christians of liberal trend."

The Patriarch praised "traditionalists", especially in the South and the East, saying the recent 2nd All African Bishops' Conference held in late August had it right when they affirmed the Biblical standard of the family as marriage between a man and a woman as its foundation. "One of the purposes of marriage is procreation of children some of whom grow to become the leaders of tomorrow," he said.

"Nowadays it is increasingly difficult to speak of 'Christianity' as a unified scale of spiritual and moral values, universally adopted by all Christians. It is more appropriate, rather, to speak of 'Christianities', that is, different versions of Christianity espoused by diverse communities.

"All current versions of Christianity can be very conditionally divided into two major groups - traditional and liberal. The abyss that exists today divides not so much the Orthodox from the Catholics or the Catholics from the Protestants as it does the 'traditionalists' from the 'liberals'.

"Some Christian leaders, for example, tell us that marriage between a man and a woman is no longer the only way of building a Christian family: there are other models and the Church should become appropriately 'inclusive' to recognize alternative behavioral standards and give them official blessing. Some try to persuade us that human life is no longer an absolute value; that it can be terminated in a mother's womb or that one can terminate one's life at will. Christian 'traditionalists' are being asked to reconsider their views under the slogan of keeping abreast with modernity.

"Among the vivid indications of disagreement within the Anglican Community (I am reluctant to say 'schism') is the fact that almost 200 Anglican bishops refused to attend the 2008 Lambeth Conference. I was there as an observer from the Russian Orthodox Church and could see various manifestations of deep and painful differences among the Anglicans."

Heresy absent

"Today the notion of heresy, while present in church vocabulary, is manifestly absent from the vocabulary of contemporary politically-correct theology - a theology that prefers to refer to "pluralism" and to speak of admissible and legitimate differences," he opined.

"Indeed, St Paul himself wrote that 'there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval' (1 Cor. 11:19). But what kind of differences was he referring to? Certainly not those which concerned the essence of faith, church order or Christian morals. For, in these matters, there is only one truth and any deviation from it is none other than heresy."

Dialogue Threatened

"Today the Orthodox-Anglican Dialogue itself has come under threat. It is especially lamentable because this dialogue has had a long and rich history, beginning with the numerous talks at various levels held between Orthodox and Anglicans from the 17th century.

Hilarion voiced concerns about the fate of this dialogue. "We appreciate the proposal Archbishop Rowan Williams made this year to exclude from the dialogue those Anglican churches which failed to observe the moratorium on the ordination of open homosexuals. But we regard this proposal as not quite sufficient to save the dialogue from an approaching collapse. The dialogue is doomed to closure if the unrestrained liberalization of Christian values continues in many communities of the Anglican world.

"We are equally concerned about the fate of bilateral relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Church of England," he stated.

Read it all here. The Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church of the US have reduced themselves to the status of liberal Protestant sects and abandoned true catholicity and orthodoxy. The Church of England seems to have committed itself to the same path to irrelevance irrevocably. Now it reaps what it has sown. Sure Williams must be embarassed, but how could he be surprised?

Brian McLaren Interviewed by Scot McKnight

The following interview of Brian McLaren by Scot McKnight at a recent conference is an interesting opportunity to hear McLaren's answers to three pre-approved questions. McKnight does not really debate or dialogue with McLaren: he just reads the questions. So it is really like a structured speech by McLaren.

What I found interesting was the way in which McLaren obfuscates on doctrine and sounds the clarion call with utter clarity on social work and politics. He expresses frustration with those who read him to see if his views are compatible with biblical truth saying that when he is in the presence of people like that it feels like the inquisition. He advocates reading an author for what one can get out of it rather than to see if the author is orthodox, which is to present a false dilemma between two kinds of reading with two different purposes - both of which are perfectly legitimate. To suggest that only one way of reading is legitimate when one has been accused of teaching false doctrine is pretty self-serving and question-begging.

He says he was "stunned" that people could read his book, Everything Must Change, and then ask questions about the doctrine of the atonement - as if to think of a question on atonement after reading a book about Jesus is somehow surprising. He says "I talked about war, I talked about poverty, I talked about the environment - and all they wanted to talk about was atonement theory." The scorn in his voice here is crystal clear: how provincial and uncaring these people must be! Yet, if the greatest need of the poor is to know Jesus and the eternal salvation he offers, then it is cruel and unfeeling to place socialist ideology above the spiritual needs of poor people. Yet this is what he does - and then calls his critics uncaring because they object to his rejection of the penal substitution doctrine of the atonement, which is the heart of the gospel.

The discussion on universalism in the third part is not very interesting to me because I don't think we can know or are supposed to know whether it is somehow possible that more than we think will end up saved. All we know from Scripture is that eternal punishment is eternal and some are eternally punished. To go beyond this is dangerous. But it is interesting to see McLaren dancing around the question like a politician who knows he will lose votes if he gives a clear answer no matter which side he comes down on. It simply reinforces the impression that theology qua theology is not very interesting to McLaren; it is simply a tool that can be used to motivate certain people to embrace left-wing positions.

Answering a question about whether some of the things he writes are "provocatively ambiguous" McLaren compares his approach to that of Soren Kierkegaard, who said that when you are talking to people who are in the grip of an illusion, who are wrong but don't know they are wrong, it is difficult to be indirect. This shows what McLaren thinks of his "theological critics." Of course, it is not the liberals who criticize his theology; they have no problem with his theology because it leads him to agree with them on what they deeply care about: namely, politics. But conservatives are the ones who are concerned about possible false teaching and McLaren shows very little patience for them in this interview. They are the ones who are in the grip of an illusion and are so obviously wrong even though they can't see it. And why is he so sure they are wrong? Because they don't accept his leftist views on politics and ethics.

When asked about whether his rejection of "the Greco-Roman narrative" in A New Kind of Christianity does not contradict his affirmation of the faith of the Christian Church in Generous Orthodoxy, McLaren proceeds to redefine the word "faith." In so doing he sounds a lot like Rudolph Bultmann insofar as he makes a distinction between "faith" as trust and dependence on God and "faith" in the sense clearly meant in the question, which was "faith" in the sense of the main teachings of Christianity: the Gospel and the cardinal doctrines flowing from and supporting the Gospel. McLaren makes a great point of affirming the need for "faith" in the Bultmannian sense, which Evangelicals would not deny, but fails to go to affirm the importance of the Biblical Gospel and major doctrines that flesh out the Gospel, which would be just as important to Evangelicals as "faith" in the sense of trust.

McLaren shows a tendency here to view doctrine in a pragmatic manner; true doctrine is doctrine which leads those who hold it to take up a properly left-wing political stance. False doctrine is any doctrine that leads people to oppose left-wing politics. Doctrine is not true or false in itself; it becomes true or false only when its political outcomes are observed.

McLaren is not shy about specifying who in church history is right and who is wrong. He lists St. Patrick as over against Constantine, St. Francis as over against the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches in their colonial era and their crusading era. He also identifies with the approach taken by the Anabaptists and the Radical Reformation and in the modern era with movements like the Social Gospel, Liberation Theology, Black Theology, Latino Theology, Feminist and Eco Theologies and so on. Ironically, he gives this list of the "Good Guys" right after criticizing those who look in the Church for only one line of purity stretching down through church history. One wonders if he really objects to the methodology or the conclusions because he seems to be utilizing the same methodology by constructing his "alternative history" of what I suppose could be termed "counter-orthodoxy."

If you don't want to invest the time in reading his books, this 18 minute video is an excellent way to acquaint yourself with his main ideas in a first hand way in a short time.

Q | Conversations on Being a Heretic from Q Ideas on Vimeo.

The Socialist Temptation V: Socialism as a Christian Heresy

Jesus Christ did what Israel failed to do. He lived the perfect life of obedience to God's law in both its letter and its spirit. He was the light of the world whereas Israel had failed to be a light to the nations. He embodied the fullness of human life and therefore to be in his is to be alive eternally. He gave his life as a ransom for many and through his propitiatory sacrifice we sinners have access to a holy God and to life abundant. We are set free to be ourselves by his death and we have a share in his resurrection life through his spirit.

Jesus said to Pilate that his kingdom is not of this world. Many from the Social Gospel movement, Liberation Theology and the Evangelical Left do not believe him. They argue that if this creation is to be redeemed than the beginnings of the a redemption must already be apparent before our very eyes and there must be a direct continuity between our project of social justice and God's kingdom. But as St. Augustine recognized, we live in the in-between period between the Ascension and the Second Coming and although we are citizens of the City of God we journey through the City of Man and live in an eschatological tension between our present recognition of Christ's Lordship and Christ's future return when that Lordship will be recognized universally.

This eschatological tension pervades the New Testament, perhaps no more poignantly than in the Upper Room Discourses of John's Gospel, but perhaps no more spectacularly than the apocalyptic imagery of the Revelation of St. John. Yet Paul too knew this tension and he taught his followers to wait eagerly for the appearing of the Son of God.

Socialism represents the collapse of this eschatological tension and the attempt of men to lay hands on the future and drag it back into the present by force. It is the denial of the need to wait on God and the impatience of modern, technological man who believes he is sovereign over nature despite the fact that every death reveals nature's victory over human pretension.

Socialism also represents the denial of the Christian doctrine of original sin and the affirmation of technological reason as a sufficient means of salvation from material want. Socialism believes in the end of history through the attainment of a final state of therapeutic stasis in which man accepts the loss of freedom in exchange for security and the satisfaction of material needs - and in which he no longer views the loss of freedom as a real loss.

This is the Brave New World of recreational drugs, free sex, materialism and perfect comfort. It is a world in which there is no fear of death, no need for struggle, no hate and no love. It is a world beyond the human - all created and managed in the name of "humanity," which becomes a word without meaning.

Socialism denies eschatology, or rather immanentizes it, and denies sin, or rather redefines it as freedom. Socialism is a parody of Christianity - a heresy in which the Faith is distorted just enough so as to turn it into the opposite of itself.

To view socialism as benign is to be muddle-headed. To view it as a solution is perverse. To take it to seriously is to worship an idol. To oppose it is the only thing a believing Christian can do in a world that longs for salvation without God.

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.

Katherine Jefferts Schori's Muddled Thoughts on Salvation

Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop has attempted to clarify her remarks at the General Convention Opening Session last month in an article in Episcopal Life. She was criticized for teaching heresy from almost every sector of the Church Catholic (except liberal Protestantism) after claiming that "the great Western heresy" is "that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God."

The article follows in red with my comments in square brackets and in [bold].

[Episcopal Life] I always am delighted when people listen to what I say in a sermon or address. Sometimes I am surprised by what they hear. In my opening address at General Convention, I spoke about the "great Western heresy" of individualism (see the full text here).

There have been varied reactions from people who weren't there, who heard or read an isolated comment without the context. Apparently I wasn't clear! [That might be the problem, or it might be that she was too clear.]

Individualism (the understanding that the interests and independence of the individual necessarily trump the interests of others as well as principles of interdependence) is basically unbiblical and unchristian. [This is a bit rich coming from the leader of an Anglican Province that has bulled ahead with its homosexualist agenda despite the pleas of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the majority of the Anglican Communion to hold back from doing what all the Communion leadership has said is unacceptable to the vast majority until there is more agreement! She talks "interdependence, but practices "TEC individualism" in which the desires of individual homosexuals take precedence over Anglican interdependence.]

The spiritual journey, [Salvation is certainly a journey, but it is also an event. (Jn. 1:12, 3:16, Rom. 10:13)] at least in the Judeo-Christian tradition, is about holy living in community. When Jesus was asked to summarize the Torah, he said, "love God and love your neighbor as yourself." That means our task is to be in relationship with God and with our neighbors. If salvation is understood only as "getting right with God" without considering "getting right with (all) our neighbors," then we've got a heresy (an unorthodox belief) on our hands. [Where is the connection between the idea that we must love our neighbours and the idea that verbal assent to the Gospel is unnecessary or unimportant? The former does not imply the latter.]

The theme of our General Convention, ubuntu, was chosen intentionally to focus on this. Often translated from its original African dialects as "I am because we are," ubuntu has significant biblical connections and warrant. The Hebrew prophets save their strongest denunciation for those who claim to be worshiping correctly but ignore injustice done to their neighbors (e.g., Amos 5:21-24), and Jesus insists that those who will enter the kingdom are the ones who have cared for neighbor by feeding, watering, clothing, housing, healing and visiting "the least of these" (Matt 25:31-46). [Logically, not caring for neighbours may make our profession of faith hypocritical, or possibly even invalid, but it does not make it unnecessary. Neither the OT prophets or Jesus ever implied that.]

In my address, I went on to say that sometimes this belief that salvation only depends on getting right with God is reduced to saying a simple formula about Jesus. Jesus is quite explicit in his rejection of simple formulas: "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven" (Matt 7:21). [Yet Paul says: "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Rom. 10:13) She is interpreting Jesus in such a way as to create an unnecessary contradiction with Paul. Is Jesus saying that "simple formulas are unnecessary or insufficient in themselves? There is a huge difference; the issue is the difference between how salvation is received initially and how is it worked out in our lives afterwards. The latter interpretation harmonizes Jesus and Paul and thus preserves the authority of Scripture, which makes it a better interpretation.] He is repeatedly insistent that right relationship depends on loving neighbors – for example, "those who say, ‘I love God,' and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen" (1John 4:20). The Epistles repeatedly enjoin the followers of Jesus to "give evidence of the hope within you" (1Pet 3:15ff), that "faith without works is dead" (James 2:14-26), that our judgment depends on care for brother and sister (Rom 14:10-12) and that we eat our own destruction [Is she a closet believer in hell or is she just getting carried away rhetorically here?] if we take Communion without having regard for the rest of the community (1Cor 11:27-34). [She is beating a dead horse here. A Wesley or a Luther or an Edwards or a Billy Graham would never disagree with any of these passages, but they would not interpret them as meaning that we obtain salvation by loving our neighbours, as she seems to be doing. She can apparently only conceive of salvation as either a matter of "mere words" or salvation as loving neighbours - both are things we do. She seems to be oblivious to a third possibility; namely, that salvation might be something God does in us and which we receive by faith.]

[Watch the contradiction in the next two sentences.] Salvation depends on love of God and our relationship with Jesus, and we give evidence of our relationship with God in how we treat our neighbors, nearby and far away. Salvation is a gift from God, not something we can earn by our works, but neither is salvation assured by words alone. [She almost tip toes back from the brink here by stating that salvation is a gift. But does she mean to affirm salvation by grace and faith alone? She is contrasting not faith in God's grace versus works here, but rather our works versus our words. Is salvation "given" as a free, unmerited gift of grace or as a reward for loving God and neighbour? Which comes first: salvation or love of neighbour? The whole context inclines the reader to the reward interpretation since there is no mention of faith, grace, sin, repentance, atonement or forgiveness in this whole discussion of salvation, which, after all, is supposed to clarify her theological teaching on the nature of salvation. Now if you were accused of heresy and works righteousness, do you think it would be a good idea to write a clarifying article that omitted all those ideas? Can a biblical theology of salvation be conveyed without using them?]

Salvation cannot be complete, in an eternal and eschatological sense, until the whole of creation is restored to right relationship. That is what we mean when we proclaim in the catechism that "the mission of the church is to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ" [The mission of the church is to restore all people to unity with God??? In the Bible that is the mission of Jesus Christ. The mission of the Church is to proclaim the good news of what Christ has done, is doing and will do. This is a pretty gigantic issue to get wrong. My undergraduate 'Introduction to Christian Theology' students would not get away with such a theologically careless statement.] and that Christian hope is to "live with confidence in newness and fullness of life and to await the coming of Christ in glory and the completion of God's purpose for the world." We anticipate the restoration of all creation to right relationship, and we proclaim that Jesus' life, death and resurrection made that possible in a new way. [Here she catches herself and affirms that the death and resurrection of Jesus "made that possible." But this is very vague and ambiguous. How did it make it possible? By this point, how much of a hermeneutic of suspicion is required to suspect that if pressed she would profer some sort of subjective, exemplarist view of the atonement? She must have realized that people would suspect her of holding such a non-objective view of atonement based on the response to her original remarks. Why would she not clarify her view here on the nature of atonement?] At the same time, salvation in the sense of cosmic reconciliation is a mystery. It's hard to pin down or talk about. It is ultimately the gift of a good and gracious God, [Again, the language of gift is not clear; it is really unmerited favor?] not the product of our incessant striving. It is about healing and wholeness and holiness, the fruit of being more than doing. [Now she needs to make up her mind. For several paragraphs it has been all about doing and striving; now suddenly she changes her tack and says it is not the product of our striving. Which is it? If loving God and neighbour in practical ways is how we merit the "gift" of salvation, rather than repeating a "mere verbal formula," then how is it that we can rest in God's grace?] Just like another image we use to speak about restored relationship, the reign of God, salvation is happening all the time, all around us. Where do you see evidence?" [She denigrates the whole idea of a "simple verbal formula" and opposes it to loving God and neighbour because she does not understand that the "empty hand of faith" by which we receive, in a totally passive way, the grace of God in Jesus Christ is the heart of the Gospel and the means by which the Church is preserved from legalism and works righteousness. She has no more understanding of the Gospel than the Judaizers, who accused Paul of antinomianism because he refused to make salvation contingent on keeping the works of the law. Whether it is circumcision or working for social justice, the question Paul addressed to the Galatians remains: "Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?"]

"You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? . . . Consider Abraham: 'He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. Understand then that those who believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that those God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: All nations would be blessed through you.' So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith." (Gal. 3:1-9)
______________

Unfortunately, this "clarification" obscures more than it clarifies. If her point was that salvation is a free, unmerited gift of God that we receive by faith alone and that, as a result of being born again and filled with the Spirit, we naturally do good works as evidence of the reality of our new life in Christ, then why did she not just say so? Her point that good works and love of neighbour inevitably follow from a true conversion is uncontroversial among Evangelicals and Catholics; if that is all she wanted to say, no one could possibly object. But she had to draw the contrast not between true and false profession, but rather between doing good works and loving neighbour versus making a verbal profession of faith. The latter contrast shows a liberal trying to denigrate Evangelical theology as heretical. The former contrast would have been one Evanglicals frequently make themselves.

If you compare the theological writings and sermons of Jefferts Schori (who is the Presiding Bishop, after all, the chief teacher of the Episcopal Church) to the writings and sermons of J. R. W. Stott or J. I. Packer or N. T. Wright, her writings look amateurish, muddled and shallow. There is no reason to suspect, based on how she talks, that she has read widely or deeply in the Christian traditon. She gives no evidence of understanding orthodox teaching on salvation, either in its Augustinian-Reformed varieties or even in its Wesleyan-Arminian varities. She, apparently, from what she writes, could not distinguish between the teaching of Luther on justification and the teaching of the indulgence peddlers or explain what Luther was so exercised about.

Her writings are what one might expect as a legacy of nearly a century of liberal, social gospel theology dominating TEC and nearly a half-century of liberation theology being at the center of its seminary education. A church that could elect such a person bishop is a church that is not just heretical but a church that has lost the ability to distinguish between orthodoxy and heresy. The TEC is in much worse shape theologically than the Roman Catholic Church was on the eve of the Reformation.

Episcopalians as Montanists

I just read the new book by Episcopalian journalist William Murchison on the descent of the Episcopal Church into division, heresy and chaos over the past 50 years. It is called Mortal Follies: Episcopalians and the Crisis of Mainline Christianity (Encounter Books, 2009).

It is a breezy, light-weight, but generally accurate and very well-written account of the process by which TEC has declined beginning with the 1960's. He does a fairly good job of analyzing the links between the various movements - the civil rights movement, social activism, women's liberation, prayer book revision, inclusive language, women's ordination and the pro-homosexual movement. If he is, as a layman, unable to reflect theologically at an expert level, he at least is perceptive enough to lament the lack of theological discussion of these issues by those qualified (and charged by office) to do do.

His basic thesis is that the church got caught up in mirroring the culture and blending into the culture in the decades prior to the 1960's when church and culture were not in such dramatic tension and was thus unprepared to resist when the culture suddenly lurched in an anti-Christian and radical direction. Having grown unused to converting people out of the culture, it found that it could do nothing but flow along with the culture even when the culture led it away from Scripture, Christian Tradition and other Christian Churches.

I was struck, however, by a passage in which Murchison tellingly describes the justification offered by the innovators for their new doctrine. After referring to Hooker's three-legged stool of Scripture, Tradition and Reason as a balanced approach designed to steer a course between fanaticism and apathy, he notes the new style apparent in the TEC in the 1970's:

"In no time, progressive Episcopalians began to speak of visits from another spirit - the Holy Spirit, the one identified by Paul (I Cor. 2:11) as revealing the thoughts of God. The attribution to the Holy Spirit of a will to overthrow old standards, old arrangements, is on the the persistent themes in recent Episcopalian history. Not long after the General Convention of 2006, an Episcopal publication ran a letter that epitomized that theme. 'If we accept the idea that Jesus reflects the will and nature of our Creator,' said the letter-writer, a priest, 'then it appears that God isn't male-biased. The Holy Spirit, whose guidence we always seek when we consider making changes in the Church, must be leading us toward egalitarianism and away from autocracy and a hierarchial form of polity.'

How was that again? The Spirit was saying . . . what? And how were others to know it was truely the Spirit talking and not just some angry inner voice? Where was the proof? As to women's ordination, the issue with which the letter-writer was immediately concerned, why had no promptings of the Holy Spirit reached the Roman Cathoics and the Orthodox, who continue to understand the all-male priesthood as God's will for the Church? Was it that the Spirit particularly liked Episcopalians? How was one to know? Where was the proof? None has ever been forthcoming." (pp. 185-6)

Put like that, the whole thing reminds one of nothing so much as the ancient heresy of Montanism.

Monatanism was one of the first heresies and became popular in North Africa. Montanus, accompanied by two female prophetesses, Prisca and Maximilla, began to prophesy and claimed to be speaking in the name of the Holy Spirit. He claimed that the Holy Spirit was now revealing new truth about sexuality, fasting and other matters. In keeping with the tenor of the times, it tended to be ascetic rather than promiscuious, but it did allow the leaders of the sect to re-interpret Catholic Christianity in a way that suited the sect leaders' desire for updating the message of the Church to suit new conditions. Montanism managed to recruit Tertullian as a member, but eventually it was condemned as a heresy. This early attempt at women's ordination did not work out so well.

What we appear to have in the appeal to the Holy Spirit as justification for going against Scripture, Tradition and Reason is a new outbreak of Montanism. But this time, instead of the bishops of the Church refuting and casting out such heresy, the TEC bishops have capitulated to it and thereby allowed an historic branch of the Christian Church to be re-invented as a sect. Significantly, the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, or 80% of the Anglican Communion for that matter, have not received this prophecy as the authentic voice of the Holy Spirit.

The absolute self-confidence of the TEC leadership that in time their innovations will be accepted by the whole Church is breath-takingly audacious. But it reeks of the same, tired, old pride exhibited by heretics and schismatics throughout the history of the Church. John Spong may claim that the Church must change or die, but it would appear that it is the innovators themselves who are doing the dying. His diocese (Newark, New Jersey), according to Murchison, has declined 46% in membership since 1972 and 16% of its churches have closed. (p. 36) Meanwhile, the Roman Catholic Church is further away from embracing women's ordination and homosexuality than it was 50 years ago. (You will not even find "inclusive language" on the Vatican website.)

So much for the claim that it was the genuine voice of the Holy Spirit revealing the "new things" that dominate the life of TEC today. The new things turn out to be no so new and although they were undoubtedly revealed by a spirit, it looks more likely that it was the spirit of the age rather than the Holy Spirit.

Reaction to Jefferts Schori's Condemnation of Individual Salvation

In her recent speech to the opening of the Episcopal Church's General Convention, the Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori made a statement calling individual salavation a "heresy." She said: ""The individualistic focus on reciting a personal formula about Jesus Christ as Savior is a heresy."

David Virtue of Virtue Online, that idefatigable chronicler of all things Episcopalian, called her statement "dead wrong." He writes:

"Her ridiculing of personal salvation in favor of social amelioration through Millennium Development Goals is little more than a rehash of the Social Gospel of the Sixties that has seen a massive hemorrhaging of mainline denominations in America.

Jefferts Schori is on the wrong side of history. Her, and the church's understanding of mission - to save the world for God - is arrogance and hubris. No one human being, organization or ministry has that capacity. God alone has the power to save the world. Jesus himself admitted that the poor would always be with us.We are called to be obedient to The Great Commission, "to go into all the world and preach the gospel" of God's grace, inviting people into his kingdom based on the very (and personal) call to repentance."

Al Mohler admits that in certain contexts her words could be interpreted in a positive sense:

"Interestingly, the bishop's comments could, in other contexts, have been directed at a legitimate concern more commonly known among evangelicals. A good number of American evangelicals press a simple formula often known as the "sinner's prayer" as an instrument of demonstrating conversion. The use of such a formula can be a way of reinforcing a convert's understanding of the Gospel and of assisting a convert to articulate the Gospel in a way that makes sense and expresses the new convert's faith.

On the other hand, the sinner's prayer can be used in a mechanistic and manipulative way in order to insinuate --- if not outright to declare -- that the repeating of these words in itself constitutes the experience of salvation. Had the Presiding Bishop been concerned about evangelistic excesses and confusions in her church, her concern might have been both timely and legitimate. Regrettably, this bishop has made clear that her concern is something altogether different."

It seems to me that Mohler is right to be skeptical that her words were directed at "evangelistic excesses" in the Episcopal Church. "Evangelistic excesses" may be a fault to be discerned in say the independent, fundamental, Bible church movement or even the Southern Baptist Convention, but it is rather far-fetched to imagine that it is a big problem for Episcopalians! Mohler goes on to write:

"Indeed, her assertion of heresy was directed to the very idea of individual conversion to faith in Christ -- the faith that has always and everywhere defined authentic Christianity. In her address, she made her views clear: "I said that this crisis has several elements related to that heretical and individualistic understanding. We’ve touched on one – how we keep this earth, meant to be a gift to all God’s creatures. The financial condition of the nations right now is another element. The sins of a few have wreaked havoc with the lives of many, as greed and dishonesty have destroyed livelihoods, educational possibilities, care for the aged, and multiple forms of creativity – and that’s just the aftermath of Ponzi schemes for which a handful will go to jail."

Don't miss this -- the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church openly lamented a focus on evangelization that would seek conversions for such a focus would divert the attention of her church from ecological, economic, and other political imperatives. This was the main thrust of her address, with this central theme indicative of her larger episcopal agenda."

Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Seminary, took a slightly more irenic line in an article for Christianity Today online but it is important to see that he understood Jefferts Schori's words in exactly the same way as Virtue and Mohler did. Under the heading of "The Heresy of Individualism?" he begins:

"In her opening address to the Episcopal Church's recent General Convention, the Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, the church's presiding bishop, made a special point of denouncing what she labeled "the great Western heresy"—the teaching, in her words, "that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God." This "individualist focus," she declared, "is a form of idolatry."

There is good news and bad news here. The good news is that the Episcopal Church's presiding bishop is not afraid to denounce heresy. The bad news is that we evangelicals turn out to be the heretics she is denouncing."

Mouw is willing to meet Jefferts Schori half-way and admits that individual salvation is not enough:

"We never say that an individual's very personal relationship to God is not important. What we do say is that individual salvation is not enough."

But he ends by saying:

"Call that "individualism" if you want. But for us not only is it not heresy, it is at the heart of what it means to affirm the gospel of Jesus Christ."

Modernity as a Heresy Revisited: A Clarification of Terms

A few weeks ago I posted a brief article on Michael Allen Gillespie's excellent book, The Theological Origins of Modernity, entitled: "Descartes' Understanding of Man." This post generated two posts of condemnation by Halden Doerge, the second of which generated 78 comments including some very interesting ones from Doug Harink and D. Stephen Long. The posts are entitled: "Why Modernity is not the Problem" and "Why Modernity is not a Christian Heresy" and can be found here.

One of the comments near the end tried to summarize what Halden's problem is with my post and said the following.

"Clearly Halden is concerned, at least on some key level, with the politics effected (or perhaps at the heart of) a certain discursive strategy: whereby an opposition to modernity functions to present Christendom (as what is prior to modernity) and modernity as the only two games in town.”

Halden then quoted this statement and said: "Thanks, Dan. This is quite well put."

So we have a starting point for discussion here. Halden's problem is that he thinks that by calling Modernity a Christian heresy, I am setting up a choice between Chrisendom and Modernity: Choose One! This is so far off from what I was intending to say that it means that clearly there has been a breakdown in communication. Halden and I are not using words to meant the same things. We may well disagree dramatically about Jesus and the Gospel, (or maybe agree), but it would take a lot of terminological clarification to be sure one way or the other.

Christendom - Halden uses this word pejoratively exclusively. He apparently thinks there should never have been a Christendom. The fact that Christendom arose at all is proof positive that the Church had fallen into compromise and true discipleship had been overshadowed by worldliness. I would now use "Christendom" in a more neutral way that I did in my book, Rethinking Christ and Culture, to mean the geographical location where most people are Christian. Christendom need not necessarily imply Constantinianism. (Se below.)

Constantinianism - Halden does not use this word. He does not need to because it for him appears to be synonomous with Christendom. I disagree. I understand "Constantinianism" to be an eschatological heresy first identified by Yoder. (See my: The Politics of the Cross, ch. 6.) Constantinianism is the false doctrine that Christ's future kingdom can be brought into existence here and now by human effort and does not need to await the Second Coming. This heresy allows the Church to over-identify itself with a particular human government or ideology and sanctify it. This leads to utopianism, totalitarianism and ecclesial compromise with violence. I would not say that Christendom necessarily needs to be Constantinian, although it is a constant temptation.

Orthodoxy - I never mentioned either Constantinianism or Christendom in my post, but Halden seems to hear "Christendom" when I say "Orthodoxy." This is deeply concerning to me. Tolstoy took this approach to the limit when he says that one must choose between the Nicene Creed and the Sermon on the Mount: one have one or the other but not both. Is that true? Or is it exactly the opposite of the truth? I contend that one can never have the Sermon on the Mount without the Nicene Creed. One can have a bland form of liberal tolerance, yes, but not the radical discipleship of the Sermon on the Mount without orthodoxy. (If Jesus was just a man and he said what Matt. 5-7 says he said - then he was insane.)

I would not deny that the concept of orthodoxy was misused in Christendom as a tool of oppression. The Church should have stuck to excommunication and not become complicit in killing heretics. There should have been religious freedom. But the abuse does not negate the proper use (Aquinas). Orthodox doctrine is still essential to the Church, its abuse in Christiandom notwithstanding. Christians too are sinners and will abuse everything holy: sacraments, church office, canon law, tithes, music - you name it! We cannot drop everything that has been abused or there would be no Christianity left.

Heresy - I used the term "heresy" in its precise, technical, theological sense. A heresy is a twisting of a true doctrine either by over-emphasizing one aspect of the truth at the expense of other aspects or by over rationalizing the mystery. Contrary to Halden's concerns, "heresy" can never be completely "the other." On the other hand, he goes too far in implying (without actually saying so) that true doctrine "generates" heresy. No: sinners generate heresy, not by faithfully handing on true doctrine (orthodoxy), but by twisting and distorting it.

So Orthodoxy can be used under the guidence of the Holy Spirit to discern truth from error, to correct false teaching and to guard the purity of the Gospel the Church is charged to preach. Orthodoxy can be radical! It can take us back to the roots of our faith. Orthodoxy can condemn deviations from tradition that distort the biblical narrative centering on Jesus Christ.

Of course nominalism arose out of the Medieval Church and of course many orthodox ideas were in the mix of concepts used by Occam and others. It didn't drop out of the sky. It wasn't imported from India. But heresy is always a twisting of truth. Strictly speaking, that which is completely "other" (such as Hinduism or pre-Christian paganism) can never be heretical. Only a Christian doctrine twisted or over-rationalized can be heresy. And that is what the nominalist view of God turned out to be. As one commentator noted, nominalism is not itself a heresy (which is not to say it could not be wrong) but applied to certain doctrines (God and man in this case) it can lead to heresy. And it did.

Halden is too quick to reduce everthing to politics when he says that Orthodoxy conjurs up images of coercive, violent Christendom for him. This is as reductionistic as what he opposes.

One last point: Halden tries to play off "Jesus" against "Orthodoxy" in his post and is rightly criticized for it by Harink and Long. I don't mean to pile on, but there is perhaps one more point to be mentioned here. The question that is begged in using "Jesus" to critique Christendom or Orthodoxy or whatever is "Which Jesus?" There are many concepts of Jesus floating around out there. Which Jesus is the basis for critique? I'm reading Harnak's History of Dogma right now. If Halden does not mean Harnack's Jesus, then what terminology (other than the terminology of the creeds, i.e. orthodoxy) can Halden turn to in order to clarify what he means by "Jesus?" Surely Harink is correct to say that my call "Back to Orthodoxy" in the end is the same as Halden's call "Back to Jesus." But if so, then why cannot Halden admit that Orthodoxy may function as a way of critiquing Christian unfaithfulness today?

I did not have the pure pagan or total non-Christian in my sights, but rather liberal Christianity as in The Episcopal Church. Now they are heretics and also as Constantinian as they come. They are so intertwined with the dominant culture of Modernity that they cannot even conceive of the Church standing against the destruction of marriage and the abandonment of the virtue of chastity. I would go further and say that their heresy even arises out of their Constantinianism because it is their desperate lust for "relevance" that drives their abandoment of communion with orthodox Christians.

The Voice of Heresy and Pure Evil

Here is an extract from a sermon by the new President and Dean of Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, MA, Katherine Ragsdale, which she proudly posted on her blog. http://ragsdalesermons.blogspot.com/ (The bolding is mine.)

(Note: This page seems to have been removed since last night. Damian Thompson, however, has a link to the same sermon on the NARAL website here.) http://www.prochoicetexas.org/news/headlines/200708172.shtml

Damian's blog has comments here:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_thompson/blog/2009/04/02/

Extract from the sermon:
"When a woman finds herself pregnant due to violence and chooses an abortion, it is the violence that is the tragedy; the abortion is a blessing.

When a woman finds that the fetus she is carrying has anomalies incompatible with life, that it will not live and that she requires an abortion – often a late-term abortion – to protect her life, her health, or her fertility, it is the shattering of her hopes and dreams for that pregnancy that is the tragedy; the abortion is a blessing.

When a woman wants a child but can’t afford one because she hasn’t the education necessary for a sustainable job, or access to health care, or day care, or adequate food, it is the abysmal priorities of our nation, the lack of social supports, the absence of justice that are the tragedies; the abortion is a blessing.

And when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion – there is not a tragedy in sight -- only blessing. The ability to enjoy God’s good gift of sexuality without compromising one’s education, life’s work, or ability to put to use God’s gifts and call is simply blessing.

These are the two things I want you, please, to remember – abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Let me hear you say it: abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done."

No, Katherine, your work is not done . . . for evil never sleeps. But we were warned about you and we know who you are.

"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. " (I Tim. 4:1-2)

"But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God - having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them." (II Tim. 3:1-5)