Most Kiwis know by now that the biggest church news story of the week concerns Brian Tamaki/Leviticus/quakes/gyas/punishment. That is a pity for all sorts of reasons, including the petition to stop Destiny church being counted as a charity (think: flow on effects, if that happened). Sometimes it is best to fight back against this sort of thing with wit (thank you, Civilian). It can also be useful to write something (as I have been asked to do). Mark Keown (Laidlaw College) has already blogged here.*
No, not that story. I reckon the biggest church news story of this week should be this story, from the Awatere Valley (H/T Taonga). The church in that district has had an amazing "counter-secular" influence for many decades now, under a succession of cracker ministers (and I am not saying that just because they have been great mates!)
So, hats off to Rachel Westenra and the diligence with which she serves as a parish nurse in a genuinely ecumenical role.
Meanwhile many Christians are serving quietly and inauspiciously throughout Marlborough, Kaikoura and North Canterbury.
*UPDATE: This article reminds us of more serious matters in the religious sphere of public speech in NZ. It has been pointed out to me that BT made a connection between quakes and judgment but did not stir the quakes into action. This imam is stirring up something potentially serious ...
41 comments:
Hi Peter
As I have opined on my own blog:
"I believe Brian Tamaki is wrong about God using earthquakes to judge sinners in time and history. If he did, I imagine there are plenty of cities that would have come to his attention before Christchurch New Zealand, or the township of Kaikoura.
I couldn’t easily attend Brian Tamaki’s church. There would be too much going on that I’d find difficult, possibly even offensive. However, Brian and Destiny church have reached out and helped hundreds if not thousands of people who were drowning in drug abuse, violence and personal dysfunction. There are hundreds if not thousands of children who are now well fed, loved and tucked up warm in bed at night because of his ministry. How many reporters or media commentators can say that is true for their lives; that thousands have been helped, lives transformed because of their life’s work?
Yes, Brian makes himself an easy target for criticism from time to time. He is a mixed bag just like so many of us.
Get over it."
No, the biggest news story here is that Brendan has a blog. Where is it?
Bowman Walton
Hi Bowman
http://brendanslongblog.blogspot.co.nz
Enjoy.
Blessings
Brendan
We live in an age of banality
Basically the modern West is full of over indulged clueless people who spend their empty lives finding something to get outraged about.
Hi, Peter, as I too have also opined on MY blog (kiwianglo); I appreciate the tenor of the article of your colleague Mark Keown of Laidlaw College.
To follow through on the biblical references - something that Brian Tamaki does NOT do with any logical application - one can see the flaws on 'Bishop' Tamaki's thesis, which would probably gain an outright rejection at Laidlaw, not even a D.Minus!
On the other hand, as you here seem to suggest, we have Good News, emanating from the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ. 'Rachel Westenra and the diligence with which she serves as a parish nurse in a genuinely ecumenical role' - in the face of the tragic circumstances of a local disaster; is actually DOING the work of the Gospel - not pontificating from afar on its provenance.
All the good deeds in the world - done by the likes of Destiny Church - cannot wipe out the harm done by its preaching of a false Gospel. The fact the God is Love is the message given by Jesus Christ. His liberality was the reason for his crucifixion. Why can we never learn this lesson?
Ron,
Please quote the biblical references to establish your theological grounds for stating that it was Christ's liberality which was the reason for his crucifixion.My understanding is, that it was "HIS OBEDIENCE TO HIS FATHER"S WILL" which led HIM to the cross.HE died, that who so ever that believeth in HIM, might have eternal life.Jesus said:"If you loved me, would you not keep my commandments".What were His commandments--"You shall love the LORD YOUR GOD with ALL HEART,and you shall love your neighbor as yourself".How do we love ourselves;well we start by honoring our bodies as a temple of God-not defiling it in the manner of Romans 1:20-32.Then and only then can we truly LOVE our neighbor, 2 COR 10:5. Let's get this message of LOVE properly founded on Scriptural AUTHORITY.
The understanding of Christ,as per your blog,is the gospel preached at a well known Auckland Anglican?? Church.It is the gospel of TEC and it's Progressive Christianity.Before he went back to England,our son went there,just for the experience;and said: "it had as much taste as a cup of tea where they had forgotten to put the tea bag in."
Perhaps,when the Western Anglican Communion,re-discovers the CHRIST of the GOSPELS,the Church will arrest the well documented decline in Her membership.She may even be like the ACNA and The Global South Churches and start to grow.
Having spent much time now researching the apostasy and false doctrine emulating from TEC;I would venture to opine that their preaching is more harmful to the Universal Church than Tamaki. He has not ripped the Anglican Communion asunder with his doctrine.I seem to remember Jesus saying something about seeing splinters in other people's eyes.
Dear Fr Ron
I’m sure you appreciate that there is a world of difference between theological error and preaching a ‘false gospel’. I suspect that Brian Tamaki may have engaged in the former, but not so much the latter.
Even Paul was able to rejoice under the following circumstances that were hardly ideal:
Philippians 1:15-18New International Version (NIV)
“15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.
Yes, and I will continue to rejoice.”
So perhaps with Paul’s encouragement, you may also find it in your heart to give thanks to God for the ministry of Brian Tamaki and the transforming work that the Spirit of God has done in the lives of so many at Destiny church, and like Paul be able to rejoice?
"Meanwhile many Christians are serving quietly and inauspiciously throughout Marlborough, Kaikoura and North Canterbury."
"You keep using that word 'inauspiciously'. It does not mean what you theenk eet means. I hope you mean 'inconspicuously'."
- with apologies to 'The Princess Bride'.
"The fact the God is Love is the message given by Jesus Christ. His liberality was the reason for his crucifixion."
Nonsense. The "message" given by Jesus Christ was that he is the Son of God and the Suffering Servant laying down his life as the substitutionary atonement for sin, and that those who believed in him would have eternal life and those who rejected him would perish (Mark 10.45; John 3.16-21). That "message" is no more popular now than when it was first enunciated. His "liberality" was NOT the reason for his crucifixion; he was crucified as a political pretender from the Roman point of view, and as a blasphemer from the Jewish point of view (Matthew 27.11; Luke 23.25). This is obvious to anyone who reads the Gospels and the Talmud, where Jesus is named as a blasphemer.
In other words, I encourage Ron "To follow through on the biblical references - something that [he] does NOT do with any logical application - one can see the flaws on [sic] [his] thesis, which would probably gain an outright rejection at Laidlaw [or any other college interested in biblical interpretation rather than creative writing], not even a D.Minus!"
Hi Brian
Vocabulary point noted.
Are you not missing the liberality of God's generous love in Christ for the world?
Is this not the love which drove Jesus to give his life for our sake, a message both encapsulated in John's Gospel and in aspects of Paul's writings?
At the level of human history you are right about why Jesus died if we look at explanations for human forces turning against an otherwise unremarkable bloke from Galilee. But there is a divine history also being worked out, without which we would not have the gospels.
And Jesus might not even warrant a footnote in the histories of (say) Tacitus or Josephus.
Hi Glen
Found your comment after I posted to Brian's!
Additional that comment of mine, "Greater love hath no man ..."
Christ's love for us led him obediently to the cross!
"Are you not missing the liberality of God's generous love in Christ for the world?"
Personally, I hope I'm not! But the idea that Jesus was crucified because he stirred up enmity from the Jews because he was "too kind" to sinners was one pushed by Ed Sanders 25 or 30 years ago, can't really be borne out by the texts, Sanders' liberalism and historical scepticism notwithstanding. Jesus evidently antagonised the Pharisees (if we believe Matthew - does Sanders?) and he was condemned as a blasphemer making himself equal to God. That's the point of the Eighteen Minim.
"Is this not the love which drove Jesus to give his life for our sake, a message both encapsulated in John's Gospel and in aspects of Paul's writings?"
Not 'aspects' of Paul but central to his theology - just as judgment is central to John's theology, with its stark talk of light and darkness: 'men hated the light because their deeds are evil.'
"At the level of human history you are right about why Jesus died if we look at explanations for human forces turning against an otherwise unremarkable bloke from Galilee. But there is a divine history also being worked out, without which we would not have the gospels."
As I noted, his mission began in the love of God (John 3.16; Romans 5.8), and Christ would not have died had it not been for our sinfulness. If men rejected God's "liberality", it can only be because they preferred their own "righteousness" to God's. But even unbelievers never call him "an otherwise unremarkable bloke from Galilee". Staunch atheists remain puzzled by him to this day.
"And Jesus might not even warrant a footnote in the histories of (say) Tacitus or Josephus."
Tant pis pour eux. But even Tacitus and Josephus were not well known in their day, outside their small literary circles, written for and with imperial patronage. The Gospels on the other hand - brief, direct and in (relatively easy) koine - from the beginning were meant to be heard by as wide a number as possible.
Liberality--Free giving,munificence;free from prejudice,breadth of mind. Ox.Dict.
Peter,you are correct in saying that God's love is more than sufficiently abundant, to meet all of us and call us back to Christ.God's love is free from prejudice;He loves us all but He does not love our SIN.Unless our Theology is well constructed and built on the Rock;it is only a wee step to missing the last three letters off "LIBERALITY".
"He loves us all but He does not love our SIN.Unless our Theology is well constructed and built on the Rock;it is only a wee step to missing the last three letters off "LIBERALITY"." - Glen -
As Peter reminds us all: "God so Loved The World...." This needs no prior or post qualification. The absolute liberality of God's Love knows no end - nor, I suspect a beginning in infinity.
Reflect on Fr. Faber's Hymn (E. H.) - "There's a wideness in God's Mercy"
Peter,
"As Peter reminds us all"God so loved The World..." This needs no prior or post qualification.The absolute liberality of God's Love knows no end-nor,I suspect a beginning in infinity." Ron.
So Peter,Ron has has dragged you into this question--not me.I therefore ask you, as the Director of Theology House;,as to whether the doctrine which is being taught under your Directorship,conforms to the above statement.
The statement that:"For God so loved the World" has both prior and post qualifications in John 3:10---21.
Will you categorically state that you believe, that in accepting Christ,as our LORD and SAVIOUR ;we must repent of our sins and keep His Commandments.
If His LOVE is so LIBERAL as Ron suggests;why do you bother to be PRIESTS????
Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty.
I will have to write in support of Ron on this point. It is for the liberty/liberation of humankind from the law of sin and death that Jesus died on the cross.... enabling us the the freedom of living life in the Spirit apart from law. As the Word says Jesus came into the world not to condemn it but to save the world through himself. And judgement became reserved until He comes again and only He who knows our hearts is able to judge. In the meantime there will be wars, rumours of wars and earthquakes....
Of course one can get a bit stuck if we take the definition of liberty/liberation or liberality and equate these terms used theologically to our present day use of a person being 'a liberal'.
As for Brian Tamaki and his recent media spotlight isn't it a pity this is what gets the spotlight. Nevertheless, I would need to listen to a few more sermons of his before I could discern if he preaches a false Gospel or if his teaching is generically contrary to scripture.
"Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty"
There is not liberty to sin - we all sin of course, it is our human weakness, but surely if we gratuitously sin because we "know" that sin will be forgiven surely that disobedient sin is worse than the sin itself
As for "Bishop" Brian has anyone listened to the entire sermon? Or just the soundbite that cause the outrage?
For someone such as "Bishop" Brian I'd posit there is no such thing as bad publicity - where that sits with the Lord is not up to us to judge.
We must persist to the end - "But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved"
Scandals like this storm in a teacup which we should ignore as best we can
I assume all readers of this blog spent part of this day in worship and that this distraction was treated with the merit is deserves
Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, Have Mercy upon us
Hi Glen
(1) Fr Ron would need to confirm whether he does or doesn't believe in the importance of repentance from sin. As far as I can tell he does. As do I.
(2) I especially believe in the repentance of the sin of impugning my integrity as an orthodox theologian.
(3) If we use the language of "qualification" in respect of God's love, we have a number of issues/questions to work through. Taking John 3:16 as an example: did God love the world because he believed it worthwhile because people would repent, or did God love the world without qualification (i.e. even if no one repented, the love God demonstrated was worthwhile in itself)?
(4) Even human beings, with our faults and frailties, are able to love liberally without qualification; and, while it is difficult, sometimes we even forgive people when they do not apologise.
(5) Repentance as a qualification works more on our side of things than God's, does it not? Is it possible to receive the blessing and benefit of God's love unless I repent (i.e. turn from rebelling against God and run to God's loving arms)? I think that is not possible.
"Is it possible to receive the blessing and benefit of God's love unless I repent (i.e. turn from rebelling against God and run to God's loving arms)? I think that is not possible."
No, it happens all the time. 'He sends his rain upon the just and the unjust' - or as I prefer to quote it:
'He sends his rain on the just and the unjust fellah -
But mainly on the just 'cos he has the just's umbrella.'
On the variegated character of God's love, Don Carson's little book 'The Difficult Doctrine of God's Love' is a useful introduction.
I was thinking of the love of God which draws me into eternal union with Christ, Brian, but if you want me to sing in the rain as well ... :)
Peter,
There are never only two sorts of anything, but two sorts of Christians frequently comment on your blog.
One sort seems to believe in God's law as a thing more divine than creaturely. In their view, the law has transcended its original function of tutelage for the family of Abraham to become the reason for the Incarnation of the Son and the telos of history that even God must satisfy. The other sort of Christian tends to see the law as not only creaturely but provisional and even negotiable, within the limits of God's creative activity.
Those of the first kind (should we call them infernalists?) tend to think that if God does not ultimately send somebody to hell, then the law in which they believe will have been inconsequential, and so their faith will have been in vain. Infernalism is as Anglican as the 42 Articles of Religion of 1553.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.ix.vi.iv.html
Meanwhile, those of the other kind (anti-infernalists?) tend to think that if God does intentionally send some to hell, then he will have elevated mere law above bearers of his image that he himself created in a way that even his urgent calls to repent do not quite explain.
https://liturgical.wordpress.com/2016/11/06/a-question-about-christian-theology/
https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2016/10/27/the-god-who-is-love-and-the-incoherence-of-calvinism/
https://anglicanuniversalist.wordpress.com/about/
Both sorts of reader seem to comment on the Bible here with their respective backstories in mind. As they do so, each sort of commentator seems unable to make sense of the way the other construes the sacred page. Yet neither explicitly acknowledges that their readings and objections depend on backstories that had gripped their imaginations before they opened the Word.
Again, there are never only two sorts of anything...
https://conciliaranglican.com/2011/11/11/sweet-pleasant-and-unspeakable-comfort-the-anglican-view-of-predestination-part-i/
Bowman Walton
If His LOVE is so LIBERAL as Ron suggests;why do you bother to be PRIESTS????
= Brian Kelly -
I cannot answer for Peter, but I suspect he also would want to say that the liberality of God in Christ is PRECISELY why we were called to, and answered, God's call to be priests - standing between God and our fellow human beings in supplication and mediating God's forgiveness. Having experienced the wonderful forgiveness of God for myself, i feel duty-bound to extend that forgiveness to other - even before they repent id necessary, but hoping for repentance. Now that is radical. But so was Jesus. Think of his attitude towards the thief who understood his own situation, believing is the mercy of God in Christ."Today you will be with me in Paradise."
I really believe that Love must be the motivation for our mission. Fear no longer works in producing true repentance. Love covers a multitude of sins!
Further to mine of a few moments ago:
(Here is a message from today's 3-minute retreat on the Jesuit website:
"Few were more profoundly aware of God’s mercy than the criminal who hung on the cross next to Jesus. Moved to uphold the innocence of Jesus, this criminal understands that Jesus is a divine ruler. The criminal discovered that through the death of Jesus, we are redeemed from sin and evil. In Jesus’ Resurrection we are blessed with the opportunity to share in the divine life restored.
This is what God offers, we only need to respond with faith! This is where the rubber hits the road. Mercy rules in God's Kingdom. That's why I'm a priest!
"As I noted, his mission began in the love of God (John 3.16; Romans 5.8), and Christ would not have died had it not been for our sinfulness. If men rejected God's "liberality", it can only be because they preferred their own "righteousness" to God's." - Brian Kelly -
Your last sentence here, Brian, is precisely what I am arguing for myself. God's Righteousness is reinforced by God's Mercy and Liberality. It is only those who think themselves more righteous than God - by rejecting his mercy and liberality - who are in danger of error. I think that's where 'Bishop' Tamaki fails the test.
Bowman,
there are two kinds of people: those who divide the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't. Let me indulge in a little of the via negative here.
1. It is not particularly helpful to dichotomise (unless you are the Judge on Doomsday).
2. It is not particularly helpful to speculate about people's motives instead of their express words. Didn't some Elizabethan say she wouldn't make windows into men's souls?
3. The Reformed doctrine of the Law (its original purpose, function and abiding meaning in the economy of salvation) is a complex matter - as it must be if anyone is going to keep Matthew and Paul (and I mean all of Paul's variegated sayings about 'nomos') together in the canon as friends, not enemies. It won't do to cherry-pick one comment about the Law from Galatians and infer that is all Paul has to say on the subject.
4. Christian theology has long seen God's actions as ratifying our own choices. If God sends a soul to hell, equally that soul sends himself there by the impenitent rejection of the offer of grace. Orthodox apokatastasis cannot envisage a soul doing this eternally after death. I do not know if this belief is from Origen but I find it hard to square this with the warnings of Christ on hell. Sometimes we didn't really have "backstories" at all; rather we read the Bible as a canonical whole and try to make sense of it as a symphony rather than a cacophony with parts and players we would prefer to drop from the score.
"If His LOVE is so LIBERAL as Ron suggests;why do you bother to be PRIESTS????
= Brian Kelly -"
- I didn't say that at all. You confused me with another commentator.
As for the second quotation - which is from me - you may have missed my point, which is that what human beings assert as "righteous" - their own desires (whether sexual, material or reputational) - is often objectively sinful in the eyes of God who constituted Nature and who is alone worthy of worship. When post-Christian politicians in the UK prattle about (vague, undefined but essentially secular liberal) "British values" or when Obama hints he will break
convention and attack Trump if he goes against "our core values", they are both engaging in self-righteousness. But that's what human beings do all the time.
"If we use the language of 'qualification' in respect to God's Love,we have a number of issues/questions to work through." Peter.
The point that I am simply trying to make, is that if one accepts the 'liberality Of God's Love and that it is unconditional';without considering the issues/questions which arise from the use of those words;then you can very quickly go head long into the type of doctrine being espoused in TEC and Canada.
John Chapter 3:
"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,even so must the Son of man be lifted up:v 14. WHY MUST THIS BE SO? "That whosoever believeth
in him should not perish,but have eternal life."v 15. SO DOES THE LIBERALITY
AND UNCONDITIONAL NATURE OF GOD'S LOVE EXTEND TO THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN HIM? "For God so loved the world,that he gave His only begotten Son,that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."v 16
"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world but that the world through Him might be saved." v17 "He that believeth on Him is not condemned:he that believeth not is condemned already,because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."v 18.
I believe that to speak of the liberality and unconditional nature of God's Love,being without any qualification;effectively requires the REASON for God's ultimate GIFT and the the GIFT itself being TORN ASUNDER.The magnitude of GOD'S LOVE, lies not only that He still loved us, when we were far off; But what He was prepared to ENDURE to call us home.
The doctrine espoused by TEC and other liberal Progressive Christian congregations have torn the magnificent and abounding Love of God asunder
from the PRECIOUS GIFT; and hence are able to speak of the liberality of God's love/and that Christ is not the only way to the Father,in the same sentence.If you doubt what I write,I can offer you 50 blogs worth of material to back it up.
Brian, it is plainly obvious that you have never, as a Deacon of the Mass, sung the traditional 'Exultet' at the Easter Vigil, which contains this phrase:
"O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam
which gained for us so great a Redeemer!
Most blessed of all nights, chosen by God
to see Christ rising from the dead!"
This is an insight into the mercy of the God and Father of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. The whole of the Exultet deserves careful and prayerful reflection. This frees us believers from the faulty thought that we have "any power, of ourselves to help ourselves". ALL is gift - that we need to receive. This is what is meant by the words: "The Gospel of our Lord, Jesus Christ".
You're right, Ron - though I teach Classics and love the poetry and thought of the Middle Ages (didn't someone in this blog recently inveigh furiously against "Medieval doctrine'?), I am also an Anglican under canonical obedience and have never conducted Roman Catholic worship. Anglican worship, as you know, does not take its cues from Medieval Roman Catholicism. I am not sure what to make of "necessarium ... peccatum", although I can readily see the poetic side to "felix culpa". C. S. Lewis, of course, in "Perelandra", pictured a world in which the Fall had never happened. Perhaps he had better imagination than (some) folk from the Middle Ages?
Of course, the whole poem is full of the doctrine of substitutionary atonement.
"O happy fault,O necessary sin of Adam
which gained for us so great a Redeemer." Ron.
What was Adam's sin necessary for? without sin we would not need a Redeemer !
Poetry should be read as poetry. It expresses a different type of truth than propositional doctrine. The author of that poem is exaggerating in order to express his joy that the sin of Adam led not to eternal condemnation but to the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus. It's actually a poetic truth of the same order as 'whoever comes to me and does not hate father or mother...'
We Christians should get out a bit more and read more poetry.
Tim Chesterton
Interview with Patriarch Kirill - I am sure that you will find much food for thought in his words
Dear Tim,
You've actually bypassed the point of the exercise. What the words mean is that; if there had been no sin, there would have been no need for a Saviour. In other words, human beings would not have know the extent of God's redeeming love and grace in Christ! There may no have been a need for the Church!!!
Simple logic, never mind poetry!
Also, Tim; I think you've got your second proposition wrong! My understanding of Jesus' word 'hate' in that context in not what we understand by the word today. It simply means that (in poetic terms if you like) that we should love God FIRST, BEFORE our neighbour and even our dearest family members = something my wife and I agreed on before we got married!
Come on Ron,God made man in His own image and likeness.Adam had a perfect relationship with God.Adam DID NOT NEED to sin to find out the depth of GOD'S LOVE.In fact, he found exactly what God had told him;DEATH,FEAR and SEPARATION FROM GOD.God's relationship with Adam prior to the fall was the CHURCH;it was the perfect spiritual relationship.
"Poetry should be read as poetry. It expresses a different type of truth than propositional doctrine. The author of that poem is exaggerating in order to express his joy that the sin of Adam led not to eternal condemnation but to the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus. It's actually a poetic truth of the same order as 'whoever comes to me and does not hate father or mother...'
We Christians should get out a bit more and read more poetry."
- I don't know if I would frame it in exactly those ways. Poetry usually denotes a specific scansion as well as a preference for patterns of speech and choice of vocabulary (often archaicising or unusual, esp. in Hebrew poetics). The 'love/hate' contrast/comparison is not so much poetry as idiomatic Hebrew. OT prose is replete with expressions that make little sense in English if rendered word for word. It's the structure of the language and how it conceptualises the world. Ron's interpretation at 9.28 am looks correct to me.
"This imam is stirring up something potentially serious ..."
Perhaps before passing judgment you should listen to the man's whole sermon
All we have is one sentence and no context for that sentence and in this day and age of deceit a sentence taken out of context can be used to rabble rouse and to turn people against one another.
We live in dangerous times
So I listened to the talk.
It was a history of the Levant through Islamic eyes and eschatology, what is to come
I didn't understand it really but the notorious statement refers a future event involving Israel and Iran which from my understanding of what he was saying involves establishing a religious type Jewish presence in Iran
The talk is full of references to the Mahdi, the AntiChrist and so forth
It kind of reminds me of Hal Lindsay's stuff - I read a book he wrote many years ago after someone suggested I do and it didn't impress me then or now
I'm more disturbed by the reaction to this rather than the content - as it is being used to stir and Islamic feeling, Paul Henry's take was almost rabid.
Eschatology is not my thing, trying to live to God's will is and discerning God's will as it relates to what I do and how I behave and react to the world my challenge
Do you mean to suggest, Brian, that Peter's calm readers do not see the contrast of tendencies that I described above? Or do you agree that calm readers do see this contrast, but wish for yourself to defend one and disapprove the other?
There is nothing wrong with preferring one over the other. Christians have done that for somewhat more than a millennium. But today it is unintelligent for the proponents of A to bluster on past B as though B did not exist or is somehow a failed attempt to be A. Perhaps doing that makes them feel better, but there is no reason for the rest of us to take minds closed by partisanship against other traditional Christians seriously. And I don't.
Bowman Walton
"........,but there is no reason for the rest of us to take minds closed by partisanship against other traditional Christians seriously.And I don't."
Bowman.
Peter,neither do I;I don't take 'ardent ADVOCATES of the LGBT'who constantly attack CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS seriously.I do not take the liberal and progressive 'theologians' who attack the Sola Scriptura orthodox believers, seriously, either.In fact,so much of the Western Anglican Communion has become so entrenched in conforming to secular post modernism,that their minds are closed to the true CATHOLIC DOCTRINE of their traditional counterparts.And that is why I can no longer take the ACANZP seriously.
Post a Comment