Watch this brief (1 min, 41 sec) video and you will never be impressed by anyone's ability to drop a lot of pop culture references again. Tamara Lowe gets the message out.
Showing posts with label Jesus Christ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jesus Christ. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Inclusive Language and the Doctrine of the Trinity
Bishop Mark Lawrence of the Diocese of South Carolina in The Episcopal Church (TEC) recently gave an address to the clergy of his diocese. Since General Convention '09 he has been under pressure to lead his diocese out of TEC but after consultation with his leadership has decided to stay and fight. He said bluntly:
"We face a multitude of false teachings, which like an intrusive vine, is threatening The Episcopal Church as we have inherited and received it from our ancestors. I have called this the false Gospel of Indiscriminate Inclusivity because I see a common pattern in how the core doctrines of our faith are being systematically deconstructed."
Two of the specific doctrines he mentioned as under particular attack from the "false gospel of indiscriminate inclusivity" are the doctrines of the Trinity and the Uniqueness of Christ. In his discussion of the latter he had some plain talk for Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori:
"In answering questions about the Uniqueness and Universality of Christ she has repeatedly suggested that it is not up to her to decide what the mechanism is God uses to save people. But, quite to the contrary, it is her responsibility as a bishop of the Church to proclaim the saving work of Jesus Christ and to teach what it is the Scriptures and the Church teach. Anything less from us who are bishops is an abdication of our teaching office. Otherwise how will the world know to whom to come? How will the unschooled within the Church know what they should believe? I do not cite this to be controversial but to reference the pervasiveness of this inclusive gospel that would, in its attempt to include all people and all religions, fail to rightly delight in, celebrate and worship him before whom every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that he is Lord."
This sets the context for what I wanted to draw to your attention in his speech. (The bolding is mine.)
"The Trinity. One of the doctrines under barrage in our Church is an orthodox understanding of the Trinity. At the last three General Conventions I have been concerned about the lack of Eucharists according to the rites in the Book of Common Prayer. Even this I might be able to overlook if the rites that were employed were not so devoid of references to God the Father. In more than a few of these worship services the only reference to God the Father actually in the liturgy was the Lord's Prayer. In the name of inclusion there's the perception by some (a variant of radical feminism I suppose) that the references to the Father, and the pronoun "he" is some lingering patriarchal holdover. Yet it has always intrigued me that in all of the Hebrew Scriptures there are only a handful of references to God as Father. If one wants to locate the authority of the Church to worship God as Father one need look no further than Jesus himself. It was he who called God "Abba" and taught the disciples to prayer "Our Father." Frankly, if Jesus got that one so wrong, why should we turn to him for anything?"
Elsewhere in his remarks, Bishop Lawrence makes the point that the false "gospel" of indiscriminate inclusivity is not merely a problem for TEC, but is endemic in our culture. It is coming soon, if it has not already, to a neighbourhood near you. He rightly said that being in TEC is just a matter of being on the front lines. So I think it behooves us to pay attention to what someone on the front lines is experiencing and what his perceptions are.
I raise this issue because of the intense discussion generated by my post the other day about inclusive language. I used to think it was OK to meet the feminists half way by using inclusive language of humans and for contemporary writing but not for God or historical documents (like the Bible or English literature). But now I have given up trying to compromise with an ideology that is determined to sweep all before it in the name of a false gospel.
The problem is that, once the concession is made that traditional language is exclusive of women (which is never was), then the integrity and credibility of all the texts of Western civilization are placed in question. Since everything prior to 1970 uses "non-inclusive language," everything is open to suspicion of being "patriarchial" and thus non-binding. This applies to the concept of classic texts in literature, law, philosophy and history, as well as all theological texts up to and including Holy Scripture itself.
Bishop Lawrence clarifies for us what we are up against. We face a movement of self-proclaimed feminists (which, by the way, includes in its ranks as many or more men than women) that arrogantly and without warrant claims to speak for all women. This movement is so proud and so puffed up that even the venerable doctrine of the Trinity - that which makes Christianity itself - must be tossed away like yesterday's newspaper merely because it violates the ideology that judges all other belief systems by the standard of its own presuppositons.
All of Western history is thus dismissed as oppressive, patriarchial and outdated. In order to be progressive we must start all over again like the French revolutionaries with a new social order, a new law, a new calendar and a new religion. This is the spirit of Jacobinism and it is antithetical to the Christian Faith.
Bishop Lawrence gets to the heart of the matter when he points out that the origin of the Church's doctrine of the Trinity and the source of our langauge of God as Father is not the Old Testament nor Church History, but Jesus himself. His question: "Frankly, if Jesus got that one so wrong, why should we turn to him for anything?" raises the stakes and puts the real issue on the table. I would suggest that the next logical direction for the proponents of the false gospel of inclusivity to go is "beyond Jesus." And that is exactly why the Presiding Bishop's downplaying of Jesus as the Way, the Truth and the Life is pointing. TEC, like the United Church of Canada, is quickly moving toward a Deist or even post-Christian position.
I fully understand and appreciate the impulse to be open and humble in the face of the feminist challenge and to try to reach some sort of accommodation that makes us appear sensitive to the very real sufferings of women at the hands of men who violate God's law. But to do so in such a way as to undermine the revelation of God's nature and will is perverse and can only add to the brokenness and misery of our world. The Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Holy Scriptures that contains it are the answer to the problems caused by sin in male-female relations. Once we let ourselves get maneuvered into allowing them to be portrayed as part of the problem we have become unfaithful to our calling to preach Christ to the world. At that point we fail to be the salt that the world needs to stem the rot of sin.
"We face a multitude of false teachings, which like an intrusive vine, is threatening The Episcopal Church as we have inherited and received it from our ancestors. I have called this the false Gospel of Indiscriminate Inclusivity because I see a common pattern in how the core doctrines of our faith are being systematically deconstructed."
Two of the specific doctrines he mentioned as under particular attack from the "false gospel of indiscriminate inclusivity" are the doctrines of the Trinity and the Uniqueness of Christ. In his discussion of the latter he had some plain talk for Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori:
"In answering questions about the Uniqueness and Universality of Christ she has repeatedly suggested that it is not up to her to decide what the mechanism is God uses to save people. But, quite to the contrary, it is her responsibility as a bishop of the Church to proclaim the saving work of Jesus Christ and to teach what it is the Scriptures and the Church teach. Anything less from us who are bishops is an abdication of our teaching office. Otherwise how will the world know to whom to come? How will the unschooled within the Church know what they should believe? I do not cite this to be controversial but to reference the pervasiveness of this inclusive gospel that would, in its attempt to include all people and all religions, fail to rightly delight in, celebrate and worship him before whom every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that he is Lord."
This sets the context for what I wanted to draw to your attention in his speech. (The bolding is mine.)
"The Trinity. One of the doctrines under barrage in our Church is an orthodox understanding of the Trinity. At the last three General Conventions I have been concerned about the lack of Eucharists according to the rites in the Book of Common Prayer. Even this I might be able to overlook if the rites that were employed were not so devoid of references to God the Father. In more than a few of these worship services the only reference to God the Father actually in the liturgy was the Lord's Prayer. In the name of inclusion there's the perception by some (a variant of radical feminism I suppose) that the references to the Father, and the pronoun "he" is some lingering patriarchal holdover. Yet it has always intrigued me that in all of the Hebrew Scriptures there are only a handful of references to God as Father. If one wants to locate the authority of the Church to worship God as Father one need look no further than Jesus himself. It was he who called God "Abba" and taught the disciples to prayer "Our Father." Frankly, if Jesus got that one so wrong, why should we turn to him for anything?"
Elsewhere in his remarks, Bishop Lawrence makes the point that the false "gospel" of indiscriminate inclusivity is not merely a problem for TEC, but is endemic in our culture. It is coming soon, if it has not already, to a neighbourhood near you. He rightly said that being in TEC is just a matter of being on the front lines. So I think it behooves us to pay attention to what someone on the front lines is experiencing and what his perceptions are.
I raise this issue because of the intense discussion generated by my post the other day about inclusive language. I used to think it was OK to meet the feminists half way by using inclusive language of humans and for contemporary writing but not for God or historical documents (like the Bible or English literature). But now I have given up trying to compromise with an ideology that is determined to sweep all before it in the name of a false gospel.
The problem is that, once the concession is made that traditional language is exclusive of women (which is never was), then the integrity and credibility of all the texts of Western civilization are placed in question. Since everything prior to 1970 uses "non-inclusive language," everything is open to suspicion of being "patriarchial" and thus non-binding. This applies to the concept of classic texts in literature, law, philosophy and history, as well as all theological texts up to and including Holy Scripture itself.
Bishop Lawrence clarifies for us what we are up against. We face a movement of self-proclaimed feminists (which, by the way, includes in its ranks as many or more men than women) that arrogantly and without warrant claims to speak for all women. This movement is so proud and so puffed up that even the venerable doctrine of the Trinity - that which makes Christianity itself - must be tossed away like yesterday's newspaper merely because it violates the ideology that judges all other belief systems by the standard of its own presuppositons.
All of Western history is thus dismissed as oppressive, patriarchial and outdated. In order to be progressive we must start all over again like the French revolutionaries with a new social order, a new law, a new calendar and a new religion. This is the spirit of Jacobinism and it is antithetical to the Christian Faith.
Bishop Lawrence gets to the heart of the matter when he points out that the origin of the Church's doctrine of the Trinity and the source of our langauge of God as Father is not the Old Testament nor Church History, but Jesus himself. His question: "Frankly, if Jesus got that one so wrong, why should we turn to him for anything?" raises the stakes and puts the real issue on the table. I would suggest that the next logical direction for the proponents of the false gospel of inclusivity to go is "beyond Jesus." And that is exactly why the Presiding Bishop's downplaying of Jesus as the Way, the Truth and the Life is pointing. TEC, like the United Church of Canada, is quickly moving toward a Deist or even post-Christian position.
I fully understand and appreciate the impulse to be open and humble in the face of the feminist challenge and to try to reach some sort of accommodation that makes us appear sensitive to the very real sufferings of women at the hands of men who violate God's law. But to do so in such a way as to undermine the revelation of God's nature and will is perverse and can only add to the brokenness and misery of our world. The Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Holy Scriptures that contains it are the answer to the problems caused by sin in male-female relations. Once we let ourselves get maneuvered into allowing them to be portrayed as part of the problem we have become unfaithful to our calling to preach Christ to the world. At that point we fail to be the salt that the world needs to stem the rot of sin.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Good Friday Sermon - 2009
Here are the sermon notes I provided for the congregation from the sermon I preached today at the Good Friday Service. I have been wrestling with issues surrounding the doctrine of penal substitution since I taught a 4000 level seminar course "God, Violence and the Atonement" a couple of years ago. I have sought to listen carefully to criticism of the penal substitutionary view of the atonement from feminist, liberal, emergent and non-Christian sources. After reading a dozen books or so books and thinking about it for about three years, I have come to a position of peace with regard to the whole issue. Penal substitution does not say everything there is to say about the meaning of the cross and it does not exhaust the teaching of the NT on the cross, but it is an indispensable element of an orthodox doctrine of the atonement. The Church must not follow the culture into oblivion, but be a sign of contradiction on this matter. Sin, judgment and atonement are of central importance in the preaching of the Gospel.
Introduction - Is it possible to be “too atonement-centered?”
I. Is the Atonement Out-dated?
There are a number of Evangelicals who are wavering on the importance of the atoning death of Christ as the basis for forgiveness of the sin that separates us from God. (eg. Alan Mann, Atonement for a ‘Sinless Society’).
He argues that the post-modern self of the modern world has constructed a narrative to explain the nature of reality in which the concept of sin as breaking God’s law & thus incurring moral guilt no longer makes sense.
Mann quotes another author who says that Christians have allowed the biblical concept of sin as broken relationships to be reduced to sins, that is, to guilty thoughts, words and deeds, especially of the sexual variety. Sin has been reduced to what could be termed a “petty moralizing.” He says that we need to stop talking about: “sinners,” “guilt,” “forgiveness,” “separation,” & “judgment, and talk instead about “persons,” “relationships,” “acceptance,” & “openness to the other.”
II. Two Explanations of the Meaning of the Cross
There are two main explanations of the meaning of the cross:
· Forget sin - that is just old-fashioned mythological baggage
· Forget about guilt – there is no such thing as guilt, just guilt feelings that can gotten rid of in therapy
· Forget about repentance – that is just Fundamentalism
But the true Gospel is all about confessing our sin, repenting & believing in Christ’s atoning death as our hope.
Conclusion - The Fathers of the Church, in meditating on John 19:35, understood the water and the blood as symbols of Baptism and Eucharist. As we come to the Eucharist, (the word means "thanksgiving") we come as sinners saved by grace, as those who have been bought with a price, the precious blood of Christ shed for us. Let us truly be thankful.
The Doctrine of the Atonement as the Basis of Christian Worship
Dr. Craig Carter - Westney Heights Baptist Church - Good Friday, 2009
Dr. Craig Carter - Westney Heights Baptist Church - Good Friday, 2009
Introduction - Is it possible to be “too atonement-centered?”
I. Is the Atonement Out-dated?
There are a number of Evangelicals who are wavering on the importance of the atoning death of Christ as the basis for forgiveness of the sin that separates us from God. (eg. Alan Mann, Atonement for a ‘Sinless Society’).
He argues that the post-modern self of the modern world has constructed a narrative to explain the nature of reality in which the concept of sin as breaking God’s law & thus incurring moral guilt no longer makes sense.
Mann quotes another author who says that Christians have allowed the biblical concept of sin as broken relationships to be reduced to sins, that is, to guilty thoughts, words and deeds, especially of the sexual variety. Sin has been reduced to what could be termed a “petty moralizing.” He says that we need to stop talking about: “sinners,” “guilt,” “forgiveness,” “separation,” & “judgment, and talk instead about “persons,” “relationships,” “acceptance,” & “openness to the other.”
II. Two Explanations of the Meaning of the Cross
There are two main explanations of the meaning of the cross:
1. Traditional Evangelical preaching on the cross emphasized Jesus dying in our place bearing our sins and making possible our forgiveness. (Rom. 3:22b-26)
2. Traditional liberal preaching on the cross emphasized the death of Christ as God demonstrating His love for us. (Rom. 5:8)
Now, what is confusing here is that both ways of preaching the cross are true unless the second way chooses to deny the truth inherent in the first way. And this is exactly what is happening in certain circles of the Church today.
Now, what is confusing here is that both ways of preaching the cross are true unless the second way chooses to deny the truth inherent in the first way. And this is exactly what is happening in certain circles of the Church today.
To say that we are sinners under God's wrath does not in any way diminish God's love for us. The whole point is that it is guilty, condemned sinners that God loves, not pretty good people who deserve to be loved - or at least tolerated. The wonder of the cross is how God's wrath and love come together and how love emerges triumphant, but only because God has taken his own wrath upon himself.
III. The Rejection of the Penal-Substitutionary Doctrine of the Atonement
Many Evangelicals and many popular authors who are being read by Evangelicals today are attacking what is known as the penal-substitutionary doctrine of the atonement, eg. Steve Chalke:
III. The Rejection of the Penal-Substitutionary Doctrine of the Atonement
Many Evangelicals and many popular authors who are being read by Evangelicals today are attacking what is known as the penal-substitutionary doctrine of the atonement, eg. Steve Chalke:
“The cross isn’t a form of cosmic child abuse – a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside the Church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith.” (The Lost Message of Jesus)
“Though the sheer bluntness of my imagery shocked some, I contend that, in truth, it represents nothing more than a stark unmasking of what I understand to be the violent, pre-Christian thinking behind the popular theory of penal substitutionary atonement.” (The Atonement Debate, 34)
Three things hang together in this debate: sin as law-breaking, moral guilt as a result of sin, and penal substitution. If you deny any one of the three, you deny them all implicitly.
IV. The Gospel is A Call to Repentance and Faith
There is mystery in the cross. We can never hope to understand it totally. But the NT does make it clear that we are sinners lost without God and without hope in the world.
The liberal, heretical version of the Gospel, as taught in Liberal Protestantism, is the so-called “gospel of inclusion.” It starts with the idea that God loves everyone as they are and so preaching the gospel means calling everyone into one big inclusive tent where they do not have to repent or change. All they have to do is celebrate their diversity, accept each other unconditionally and pat themselves on the back for being so open-minded.
“Though the sheer bluntness of my imagery shocked some, I contend that, in truth, it represents nothing more than a stark unmasking of what I understand to be the violent, pre-Christian thinking behind the popular theory of penal substitutionary atonement.” (The Atonement Debate, 34)
Three things hang together in this debate: sin as law-breaking, moral guilt as a result of sin, and penal substitution. If you deny any one of the three, you deny them all implicitly.
IV. The Gospel is A Call to Repentance and Faith
There is mystery in the cross. We can never hope to understand it totally. But the NT does make it clear that we are sinners lost without God and without hope in the world.
The liberal, heretical version of the Gospel, as taught in Liberal Protestantism, is the so-called “gospel of inclusion.” It starts with the idea that God loves everyone as they are and so preaching the gospel means calling everyone into one big inclusive tent where they do not have to repent or change. All they have to do is celebrate their diversity, accept each other unconditionally and pat themselves on the back for being so open-minded.
· Forget sin - that is just old-fashioned mythological baggage
· Forget about guilt – there is no such thing as guilt, just guilt feelings that can gotten rid of in therapy
· Forget about repentance – that is just Fundamentalism
But the true Gospel is all about confessing our sin, repenting & believing in Christ’s atoning death as our hope.
Conclusion - The Fathers of the Church, in meditating on John 19:35, understood the water and the blood as symbols of Baptism and Eucharist. As we come to the Eucharist, (the word means "thanksgiving") we come as sinners saved by grace, as those who have been bought with a price, the precious blood of Christ shed for us. Let us truly be thankful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
