A Glimpse into the Future of the Episcopal Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Does the Episcopal Church Actually Care about the Poor?

You hear a lot of talk about "peace and justice" and "concern for the poor" from the Episcopal Church and other liberal Protestants, but the high-minded humanitarianism they profess is really just a cover for their true priorities. They are not interested in helping the poor; the essence of their whole position is that the government should take money from people like you and me by coercion and use it to build a giant welfare state in which everyone becomes dependent on the government. This is a revolutionary and Utopian political agenda, which has always led to repression, slavery and unaccountable government in every place it has been tried so far. But they wouldn't get very far being open about what they really want, would they?

Remember when Obama made a mistake and said that he favored "spreading the wealth around" to Joe the Plumber during the last election campaign? His handlers panicked and went into overdrive denying that he was a socialist. It is one thing to be one, but quite another for the general public come to perceive you in that way. So with the Episcopal Church: talk about peace, justice and poverty relief to cover over your true agenda.

Once in a while, however, you get a chance to see their priorities on display, as in this story about the on-going anti-marriage, pro-pansexualism agenda:

A Michigan-based gay rights foundation has given more than $400,000 to a California seminary to help craft formal liturgies for the Episcopal Church to bless gay and lesbian relationships.

The Episcopal Church still officially considers marriage between a man and a woman, reflected in the marriage rite of its Book of Common Prayer. Many dioceses, however, unofficially allow priests to bless same-sex relationships and even marriages.

Because the church puts a high value on scripted liturgies, many same-sex couples want their own marriage/blessing rite since many bishops are reluctant to use the traditional husband-wife marriage liturgy for same-sex unions.

The church's 2009 General Convention gave the green light to collecting "theological and liturgical resources" that would form the basis of an official same-sex rite that could be added to the list of approved ceremonies.

Many observers expect the church, when it gathers again in 2012, to approve rites for same-sex unions, or at least give official approval to start the process, which can take several years.

Read the rest here.

Remember this little item the next time some liberal "poverty activist" tries to make you feel guilty because you are not supporting their socialist agenda. Ask yourself if they really care about the poor. If they can wast this kind of money on ridiculous games of pretending that homosexual relationships are really the same as marriage except in the obvious ways they are not, how committed are they to the poor?

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

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

Pentecost continues!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May God's peace dwell in your hearts,

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

The Post-Christian Episcopal Church

Here are some excerpts from George Conger's story in the Church of England Newspaper on the recent ceremony held in Los Angles that sum up this story.

First, we note that this was the ordination of the church's second practicing homosexual bishop. The denomination has many divorced bishops, some divorced multiple times, as well as closet homosexuals. But this was a celebration of Mary Glasspool's homosexuality.

US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has consecrated the Episcopal Church’s second ‘gay’ bishop, Canon Mary Glasspool, as suffragan bishop of Los Angeles.

Second, we see the mixture of pagan and Christian symbols in the liturgy expressing the post-Christian, neo-pagan nature of the Episcopal Church.

In a colorful three-hour ceremony that incorporated traditional Episcopal symbols and liturgy with shamanism and a mosaic of ethnic and cultural motifs, Bishop Jefferts Schori consecrated Canon Glasspool and the Rev. Diane Jardin Bruce on May 15.

Third, the forlorn and misguided efforts of the church to reach out to homosexuals by affirming the homosexual lifestyle were on full display. They tried having the ceremony next door to a "Gay Pride" event and invited the participants.

Held in the 13,500 seat Long Beach Arena, the consecrations coincided with the nearby 27^th annual Long Beach Pride Festival, a gay and lesbian community event. Invitations to the 70,000-member Diocese of Los Angeles welcomed all comers, saying 6,700 seats would be set up for the service. The Episcopal News Service reports 3000 people attended the gathering.

Fourth, the homily was an attack on Christian tradition.

In an oblique criticism of conservative Anglican objections, Bishop Bruno stated that “We, as bishops of this church, are called to be exemplars of Jesus’ presence in this world. We are called to teach people and bring them to a place of self understanding so that they do not, out of fear or anxiety or fear of change, become ideological idolaters of the past.”

This ceremony pretty much sums up the state of liberal Protestantism, as exemplified by The Episcopal Church, today. It has embraced sexual sin, adopted religious pagan practices, become smaller and more irrelevant and attacked Christian tradition as "idolatry."

Is there any future for such a religion? One is reminded of the last days of Israel as depicted in the Old Testament as the nation staggered toward judgment seemingly unaware that it had become the problem and ceased to be part of God's solution. The difference is that Liberal Protestantism is not the whole of the Christian Church today. Liberal Protestantism can fail and die and the Church of Jesus Christ can simply go on without it.

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.

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.

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.

Katherine Jefferts Schori's False Gospel of Works

Here is a link to a talk by Katherine Jefferts Schori in which she denies that salvation comes by personal faith in Jesus Christ. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IxG96wpx60&feature=related

1. She says that every person in world has access to God whether he or she has ever heard of Jesus Christ or not.

2. She says that we have to regard those who reject Christ but live good moral lives, such as Ghandi, as saved. At the very least she implies it by stating clearly they we do not need to evangelize them. (If she thinks they are lost and also that we should not evangelize them, then she is extrordinarily hardhearted and cruel.)

3. She denies that the mission of the Church is to evangelize. Like some sort of hyper-Calvinist, she characterized the "mechanism" of people becoming reconciled to God as "God's business" and not our's.

4. She confusingly inverts both the language and meaning of Scripture by saying that personal faith in Jesus Christ is a work and that salvation by repentance, faith and confession is salvation by works.

The Bible says: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast." (Eph. 2:8-9 NIV) Here the contrast is between faith and works. Jefferts Schori conflates what Scripture distinguishes.

Jefferts Schori's false "gospel" is a message of works righteousness. She talks about living a moral life as the meaning of salvation but does not distinguish between living a moral life as the result of faith versus living the moral life as a substitute for faith. This is what she seemed to imply in her Opening Address to the 76th General Convention of The Episcopal Church:

"The crisis of this moment has several parts, and like Episcopalians, particularly the ones in Mississippi, they’re all related. The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God. It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of being."

The grain of truth here is that the Christian life is inevitably an inter-personal and inter-dependent form of existence. Faith brings us into a new relationship with God, other people and ourselves and these new relationships are essential to Christian existence. Every heresy takes truth and distorts it. The distortion here is the denial that each person - in order to enter into this new form of existence called the Christian life - has to repent of his or her sins, believe the Good News about Jesus Christ and begin to trust in Christ alone for salvation. Jefferts Schori denies this. But the Scripture says:

"That if you confess with your mouth 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. . . . for 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Rom. 10:9-10, 13 NIV)

In the video clip (at about 2:20) she says: "in some parts of Christianity we have turned salvation into a work, that you have to say I claim Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour in order to be saved. That turns it into a work." So for her, works are the new faith and faith is the new works. She completely inverts the NT Gospel to suit her agenda: which is to redefine Christianity in terms of social justice work, rather than pesonal faith leading to working for social justice and many other things, chiefly among them evangelism.

It can be no surprise that Resolution CO69, which was similar to a recently passed motion in the Church of England General Synod that affirms the uniqueness of Jesus Chirst in a multi-faith world, was rejected by the Episcopal General Convention.

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church can be presumed to be a spokesperson for the Church; that is beyond dispute. So TEC tolerates, allows and promotes the heresy that personal faith is unnecessary for salvation; that good works by non-Christians make them Christians even when they explicitly reject Christ as Lord and Saviour. And then to top it off they accuse the orthodox majority throughout history of teaching salvation by works becasue they follow the clear and pervasive teaching of the whole Bible that that salvation comes by hearing the Good News and putting one's faith and trust in it.

It must be stressed that when Jefferts Schori dismissively refers to "some parts of Christianity" that teach false doctrine in her opinion, she is dismissing Athanasius, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jacob Spener, John and Charles Wesley, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, William Carey, John Stott, Billy Graham, Karl Barth, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and all Evangelical and Pentecostal forms of Christianity. Basically, she is cutting herself off from all of Christianity and all of Church history except for a relatively recent tradition of theologically liberalism manifested in the Social Gospel, Liberation Theology, Feminist Theology, etc. and embodied in the dying, liberal, Protestant denominations of the Western world and a few of its outposts. Theological liberalism looks huge in the talk shops of Western academia, but it is really a blip on the radar of Chrstianity as a whole, comprising perhaps 10-15% of world Christianity and a tiny little slice of Church history.

It is little wonder, then, that ecumenical relations are in deep freeze as far as TEC is concerned with the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy and all forms of Evangelicalism - meaning about 80-90% of world Christianity. Liberal Protestants basically have only each other to talk as far as ecumenism is concerned. TEC is even in a state of impaired communion with 80% of the Anglican Communion itself!

What we have now in TEC is a heretical, schismatic movement that has cut itself off from the roots of the Faith once delivered to the saints and which has no prospects for the future except degeneration and death. Only a revival and Spiritual renewal through biblical preaching of the Gospel accompanied by a long, hard process of reformation can save TEC. All things are possible with God; the Unitarian Universalist denomination theoretically could be reformed by a similar movement of conversion and renewal. But at the moment, TEC is in a death spiral. Homosexuality is only one aspect of the problem facing TEC, although it is integrally related to the loss of a firm grasp on the Gospel itself and the acceptance of a false "gospel" which is no Gospel at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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."

Brian McLaren at The Episcopal Church General Convention

Here is a sermon preached by Brian McLaren at the General Convention of the Episcopal Church on July 16. My comments are in [bold and brackets]. (Video is available on the Media Hub, http://gchub.episcopalchurch.org/)

"Sisters and brothers, we live in a strange time in relation to the E-Word. For many of us, the word evangelism evokes ugly and morally tainted associations with colonialism, religious supremacy, and shabby televangelism. As a result, many Episcopalians would say that evangelism may be Southern Baptist or Pentecostal, but it's not Episcopalian, thank you very much. May I humbly propose that the time for this reactionary prejudice against evangelism is over? May I further propose that from this day forward, we see E-piscopal and E-vangelistic as a holy union joined together by God, and what God has joined together, no one should put asunder. Amen?

Think of it this way: If only fundamentalists evangelize in America, what predictions can you make about the future of the American religious landscape? If Christian moderates and progressives seldom if ever share their faith with love and enthusiasm, what will their future be? [The natural sense of this paragraph in light of the previous one is that Southern Baptists and Pentecostals are "Fundamentalists." This is playing to the gallery and unfair.]

To rediscover the good and true essence of evangelism, we need to rediscover evangelism in a more biblical light.And we can start with today's reading from 2 Corinthians. There we see evangelism as our call to demonstrate and proclaim a new creation in Christ. We see our call to live and invite others into a new way of life. We see evangelism as recruiting early adopters to be part of a radical new beginning for the human race - which Paul calls the new creation in Christ.

This world and its empires are living by an old script, Paul would say. Politics of domination and exploitation, economies of consumption, sociologies of exclusion and prejudice, and psychologies of shame and self-justification all flow from the old destructive narrative that is passing away. The crucifixion and resurrection of Christ mean for Paul, among many other things, that it is time for a new politics of service and the common good, for new economies of sustainability and regeneration, for new sociologies of reconciliation and love, and for new psychologies rooted in grace and faith [So here he explains what he understands to be the meaning of the cross. No mention of sin or repentence or faith or justification. The only meaning is a social justice meaning and "new psychologies rooted in grace and faith" whatever that is supposed to mean.] . . . in short, in Christ, all things are made new, and evangelism means recruiting and training people to defect from the old order and throw themselves wholeheartedly into the new way. [Essentially people "see the light" and roll up their sleeves to save themselves by saving the world. This is entirely Pelagian. Apparently there is no need for repentance from sin, forgiveness and grace. The cross is an inspirational story, not an event of cosmic salvation.] The E-word for Paul, then, is the R-word: reconciliation. We are God's reconciling co-workers; we are God's reconciling co-conspirators; we seek to demonstrate what it looks like to be spiritually and socially reconciled individuals and communities in the Spirit of the risen Christ.

This ministry of reconciliation gives us a vibrant new identity, according to Paul. We are not merely religious insiders huddled in our stained glass ghettoes, nor are we religious outsiders living without reference to the living God, but instead we are God's peace ambassadors, insiders who intentionally move outside to invite - actually, please is Paul's word - to plead with others to be reconciled to God. So we plead with them to rethink everything [rethink - that's it?] and follow the way of Jesus. [We can do this?] We plead with them based on the good news that in Christ, God is offering amnesty for all offenders, whatever they've done, whoever they've been. We plead with people to stop being part of the problem, and to join God in Christ as agents of the solution, so God's will can indeed be done on earth as it is in heaven. ["We plead with people to stop being part of the problem." Does works righteousness get any more banal than this?]

If we go to our reading in John seeking a more biblical understanding of the E-word, we see none of the ugly things that typically scare well-bred Episcopalians. [Unlike the great unwashed of other denominations, one presumes - can we say shameless pandering?] away from evangelism. Instead, we see intelligent and earnest people engaging with Jesus in mutually respectful conversation, and at the center of the conversation, we see Jesus ask a simple, powerful question: what are you seeking? In this way, evangelism first means inciting redemptive conversations, asking good questions, helping people think about what they're really seeking in life . . . and then it means inviting people to come and see . . . to come and experience . . . to join us on a journey of faith and mission and see what unfolds.

I'm sure agree that these are good things, beautiful things, needed things. I think that Episcopalians could get downright excited about evangelism if it were defined like this. [Instead of being defined in those old-fashioned ways that talk about sin and repentence] And frankly, I believe Episcopalians will get excited about evangelism again. [Oh yeah, its bound to happen any minute now in a denomination losing 1,000 members per week.] I think it's time. I think it's happening already. But dear brothers and sisters, three obstacles or distractions must be overcome for that to happen.

The first and most obvious is institutional conflict. I believe your community has been doing a difficult but needed service for the whole church and the whole world by wading into turbulent waters in recent years. [This is as clear an endorsement of the heretical and divisive decisions to endorse homosexual behaviour in Christian leaders as one could imagine. What else could he be talking about in this context? He is commending them for schism!] But there is more at stake than the immediate outcome in terms of policy. What good would it be for your side - whatever that is - to win the debate if in the process you lost your balance and lost your identity as God's evangelistic agents of reconciliation? [Is McLaren so dense that he actually believes that TEC is an agent of reconciliation? With a Presiding Bishop who calls individual salvation a heresy? With a social gospel that focuses on politics and economics and not on personal salvation? What does the word "reconciliation" mean here?] Your challenge, it seems to me, is to faithfully work through this season of conflict without letting it form or deform your identity. Your challenge, it seems to me, is to reaffirm at this very moment of institutional conflict your deeper incarnational identity as ministers of reconciliation.

That brings us to the second potential obstacle or distraction, which I would identify as institutional identity. People like you in these times of institutional conflict and stress could easily be tempted to lodge your identity in the saving of a beloved institution. But here we encounter, I believe, a great spiritual paradox. To recall Jesus' words, what if those who try to save their institutions will lose them? What if the best way to save an institution is to focus on saving something else, something bigger? What if the point isn't saving the institution but rather leveraging the institution in the saving of . . . the world, the world God so loves, according to John 3:16? In your simultaneous commitment to the Millennium Development Goals and to true and deep evangelism, [OK, they at least claim to be commited to the MDG but where in this Convention do you see any committment to evangelism? Where - unless evangelism is redefined as social work.] you are in the process of choosing this outward, missional [the word "missional" has now been hijacked - it is an empty word] focus . . . leveraging your institution for God's mission in today's world. So much depends on this.

That means that we can't afford to have a single one of you, as leaders in the church, to see yourselves as institutional maintenance people alone. From oldest to youngest, from the most seasoned bishop to the most newly baptized disciple, you must see yourselves as leveraging the institution for the mission of making disciples, and not vice versa. Do you see the difference? If you seek to do evangelism for the sake of the institution, I think you will lose ground and experience frustration. But if you align and retool the institution for the grand biblical mission of making authentic, fully-formed disciples of Jesus Christ for the good of the world, I think you will find God's empowerment and blessing at every turn.

Which brings us to the third obstacle which all denominations face, not just Episcopalians: along with institutional conflict and institutional identity, we must grapple with institutional rigidity. From my outsider's perspective, your most urgent issue of institutional rigidity related to the complex ways candidates are accepted and trained into ordained ministry. To put it bluntly: for all your system does well, it is perfectly designed to scare away from Episcopal leadership almost everyone with the spiritual gift of evangelism. And I have to make a confession: I am one of those people who was scared away about twenty years ago. I was deeply drawn both to evangelism and to the Anglican tradition while I was in graduate school in my twenties. But as I approached my discernment retreat with the bishop, I increasingly felt that a call to Episcopal ministry was at odds with my primary calling to evangelism. I hope that you will make it possible for people like me not have to choose one over the other in the future. May it be said to all people who are gifted and called in evangelism that the Episcopal church welcomes you. Amen?

The good news is that this would be a relatively simple thing to change . . . and the Episcopal structure itself, I believe, has remarkable inherent powers of self-renewal. And that's why, I believe, this moment of Episcopal crisis is also a moment of Episcopal opportunity. Perhaps, in the ways of the Spirit, the crisis and opportunity always go together. In that Spirit, let us pray:
_____________________

My Summary: This is a sad and abysmal sermon that is simply not Evangelical. No one should be in doubt now about where Brian McLaren stands theologically. He stands with The Episcopal Church - the most radical left wing denomination in America just barely to the right of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship. You don't need the Jesus of Nicaea and Chalcedon to fund the vision of evangelism as social work proferred here. Whether McLaren still believes in the deity of Christ or not, he doesn't need to in order to preach this kind of sermon. He can talk the lingo, but the theological content has been evacuated. It is really too bad. He is a nice man; but his theology simply does not measure up to Scripture and Tradition.