Catalysed by a series of columns on the Guardian's 'Comment is Free' site, an interesting series of discussion threads have burst into life concerning what evangelicals believe, despite the busyness of the pre-Christmas season: here, here, and there (that I am aware of).
Its always interesting as an evangelical Anglican to follow these kinds of threads. Constructively the debates can remind us of what the key characteristics of evangelical belief are. But the debates can also alert us to some characteristics of evangelicals which are unhelpful.
Why, for example, are some of us so keen to (a) define who we are, and (b) define those who are not true evangelicals? Some sense of definition is important for any group of people but when the process of definition leads to, or fosters a spirit of division, is that a useful process? When our definition of evangelical belief leads to a side-lining of the Alpha Course, or declaring the Archbishop of Canterbury to be a false teacher, have we contributed constructively to the church and its role in the mission of God? Do we understand the nature of power within group dynamics: in particular the way a rigorous, closed definition of the group's beliefs leads to intimidation of members of the group who no longer feel able to raise legitimate questions and issues for fear of being cast out?
The picture I get from some of these discussion threads is this: I go to an evangelical party. First I meet Bob and Bill who immediately tell us that they cannot understand why James and Gerry are at the party, because James is soft on homosexuality and Gerry says the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement is no longer central to evangelical theology. When I drift across the room and talk with James and Gerry they tell me that its a pity Bob and Bill are at the party because it surely represents a sign that they want to take over the key roles in the organising committee for future events, which would be a great pity because they are very conservative evangelicals and only about 30% of those present would be invited to the next party, and none of those would be the women present tonight. I note that James and Gerry drop their voices when speaking to me about this. Why, I wonder? After a few other conversations like this I compare notes with a friend as we leave ... and agree that its a pretty strange group of people who want to party together while distrusting and disputing with each other.
But there is an alternative picture of what an evangelical party could be like! On entering the party my friend and I are warmly welcomed and one person takes us around the whole group and makes a point of introducing us to each person present. The introductions go like this: 'This is James. He's one of the more interesting evangelicals here because he thinks a faithful, stable same-sex partnership is commensurate with Scripture. In fact he's probably the only evangelical here who believes that. ... Meet Gerry. Perhaps more than anyone here he makes us think about what Scripture is really saying about priority in evangelical belief. He's particularly well known for arguing that the centre of evangelical belief is not penal substitutionary atonement. ... Now, finally, say "hello" to Bill and Bob. They are notable for arguing a very conservative approach to evangelical belief. If you want to learn some theology in a hurry, eavesdrop on one of their debates with Gerry and James. They are the best of friends despite their sharp disagreement on some points of theology.' With these introductions I realise that here is a party which expresses one of the great characteristics of the New Testament: unity-in-diversity. In fact my conversations through the evening move me profoundly as I recognise the deep love each evangelical has for the other, a strong loyalty to the group which is also worked out in dynamic support from one individual member to another, and a determined willingness to work out differences of viewpoint for the greater good not just of the party, but also of the whole world.
At this point I am talking about the possibility for better relationships among evangelicals as a broad community of people have some points of common theological conviction while also having points of theological difference. I recognise that certain 'working' relationships are harder to conform to my second picture. It would be difficult, for example, to have Bob, Bill, Gerry and James on the same parish staff team.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Episcopal Epiphany
As a follow up to the post below, Ephraim's Epiphany, I reproduce a letter published on Stand Firm. It speaks for itself. (Note: Tennessee and its bishop is described as a Windsor diocese and bishop ... so somewhere in range of sympathy with Ephraim Radner and the Anglican Communion Institute, not particularly in sympathy with the New American Province, and not necessarily agreeing with PB Schori and co).
The Rt. Rev. John Bauerschmidt
Episcopal Diocese of Tennessee
50 Vantage Way, Suite 107
Nashville, TN 37228
Dear Bishop Bauerschmidt,
My name is Juanita Barry and I am from the area near Sewanee called the Midway community. I was baptized in 1935 as a new Christian at a mission station of the Diocese of Tennessee which became St. James Mission Church in 1957. As a young girl the message of the Gospels was set forth to us by some of the best minds of the Church. The Rev. Haskell DuBose, son of The Rev. William DuBose, was the founder of this mission and named it Summit Mission in 1935. DuBose was assisted by energetic students from the School of Theology such as George M. Alexander, later Bishop of Upper South Carolina, and many, many others. The "theologs" taught us Sunday School, arranged for the Eucharist to be celebrated, taught us altar guild ministry, constructed a movable altar, played softball, had "box suppers" to raise money for a church, and served as models of Christian life as we met for services in the school house on Sundays. The Bishops of Tennessee sent forth into this mission field many who became leaders in the Episcopal Church. The Very Rev. David Collins, The Rt. Rev. Alex Dickson, The Rt. Rev. C. Fitzsimmons Allison are still among those living and contributing in retirement to the ongoing work of the Church. They and many others at different times preached and celebrated the Eucharist for this fledgling mission. The Very Rev. Fleming James was our preacher at times when he was Dean of the School of Theology and thrilled us with his wonderful accounts of his trip to the Holy Land. He had been appointed to work on the Revised Version of the Bible published in 1951. We have been richly endowed with these and many, many others.
I am a founding member of St. James Mission and was among the group of laypeople who petitioned for the admission of St. James as a full-fledged mission. I note that very few are left at St. James who signed that charter which was accepted by the Episcopal Diocese of Tennessee in January of 1958. My years at St. James were filled with going to church with my husband and our four children and their coming to Christ in baptism and confirmation. My husband and I were members who did all we could to support the growth of St. James. Throughout the years we served as mission council members serving many times as senior warden, junior warden, treasurer, altar guild director, and as delegates to the conventions of the diocese. I was blessed with the honor of being a delegate to convention during your recent election as Bishop of Tennessee.
In 2003 the Episcopal Church began actions at General Convention that I found alarming. I then undertook the task of informing myself by reading, studying, following the various media outlets, networking with other orthodox Episcopalians, and attending Bible studies that solidly reaffirmed the Gospel message in the Anglican tradition. As you suggested, I attended forums on Communion Matters. In 2006 nothing changed at General Convention. Since then there has been more denial and betrayal of the 2000-year-old Gospel as practiced in the Anglican tradition in the Episcopal Church of the United States. These innovations include questioning the uniqueness of Christ and the continuing undermining of the authority of the Scriptures. As a result the Episcopal Church has elevated man above God in a gospel of social reform and humanism and established a new religion. The world wide Lambeth Conference of 2008 did nothing to discipline The Episcopal Church. Indeed, the prevailing opinion from Canterbury is not to discipline The Episcopal Church, and by default to bless these new actions that are contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour.
As I continued to inform myself, the facts that were, for me, hazy to say the least, became focused. Many laypeople delude themselves into thinking that the innovations in The Episcopal Church do not affect the local work of the church. This congregationalism is not part of the “polity” of The Episcopal Church. What happens in New Hampshire or in California does affect the mission of the church in the Diocese of Tennessee, even when we designate ourselves as a “Windsor Diocese.”
I have come to see that the prevailing mindset of the majority of Bishops and Deputies to the General Convention of the Episcopal Church is to agree with the new religion. The canons have been misapplied in order in order to advance the agenda of the new religion. Many laypeople are uninformed while others are struggling to understand these "changes". We have been remiss in not asking what these changes are and standing up and fighting these destructive changes. We will repent of these sins of omission for the rest of our lives and answer for them as we are eventually judged in God's time.
The years from 2003 until 2008 were filled for me at first with alarm and then with grief. As I have already stated, I have studied and prayed for guidance. Finally, after 73 years at St. James, as of August 31, 2008 I made the very difficult decision to leave the Episcopal Church. Therefore, by this letter I request that my name be removed from the membership rolls of St. James Mission Church, and that my letter of membership be sent to Christ the King Anglican Church, P.O. Box 296, 1211 Dinah Shore Boulevard, Winchester, TN 37398. Christ the King Anglican Church (CANA) has given me refuge to heal and grow in God's grace in the beloved Anglican tradition in the hope of the Jerusalem Declaration of 2008.
My prayers are always for the people of St. James, the Diocese of Tennessee, and the Episcopal Church for God has given me so much and taught me how to truly love in Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Saviour. In His love and peace I hold all of you. Recalling the words of my childhood baptismal and confirmation vows, may His love guide us in this very real battle against the world, the devil and the flesh.
Peace in Jesus Christ,
Juanita Barry
818 Old C.C.C. Rd.
Sewanee, TN 37375
Copy to: St. James Episcopal Church
The Rev. Linda Hutton
P.O. Box 336
Sewanee, TN 37375
The Rt. Rev. John Bauerschmidt
Episcopal Diocese of Tennessee
50 Vantage Way, Suite 107
Nashville, TN 37228
Dear Bishop Bauerschmidt,
My name is Juanita Barry and I am from the area near Sewanee called the Midway community. I was baptized in 1935 as a new Christian at a mission station of the Diocese of Tennessee which became St. James Mission Church in 1957. As a young girl the message of the Gospels was set forth to us by some of the best minds of the Church. The Rev. Haskell DuBose, son of The Rev. William DuBose, was the founder of this mission and named it Summit Mission in 1935. DuBose was assisted by energetic students from the School of Theology such as George M. Alexander, later Bishop of Upper South Carolina, and many, many others. The "theologs" taught us Sunday School, arranged for the Eucharist to be celebrated, taught us altar guild ministry, constructed a movable altar, played softball, had "box suppers" to raise money for a church, and served as models of Christian life as we met for services in the school house on Sundays. The Bishops of Tennessee sent forth into this mission field many who became leaders in the Episcopal Church. The Very Rev. David Collins, The Rt. Rev. Alex Dickson, The Rt. Rev. C. Fitzsimmons Allison are still among those living and contributing in retirement to the ongoing work of the Church. They and many others at different times preached and celebrated the Eucharist for this fledgling mission. The Very Rev. Fleming James was our preacher at times when he was Dean of the School of Theology and thrilled us with his wonderful accounts of his trip to the Holy Land. He had been appointed to work on the Revised Version of the Bible published in 1951. We have been richly endowed with these and many, many others.
I am a founding member of St. James Mission and was among the group of laypeople who petitioned for the admission of St. James as a full-fledged mission. I note that very few are left at St. James who signed that charter which was accepted by the Episcopal Diocese of Tennessee in January of 1958. My years at St. James were filled with going to church with my husband and our four children and their coming to Christ in baptism and confirmation. My husband and I were members who did all we could to support the growth of St. James. Throughout the years we served as mission council members serving many times as senior warden, junior warden, treasurer, altar guild director, and as delegates to the conventions of the diocese. I was blessed with the honor of being a delegate to convention during your recent election as Bishop of Tennessee.
In 2003 the Episcopal Church began actions at General Convention that I found alarming. I then undertook the task of informing myself by reading, studying, following the various media outlets, networking with other orthodox Episcopalians, and attending Bible studies that solidly reaffirmed the Gospel message in the Anglican tradition. As you suggested, I attended forums on Communion Matters. In 2006 nothing changed at General Convention. Since then there has been more denial and betrayal of the 2000-year-old Gospel as practiced in the Anglican tradition in the Episcopal Church of the United States. These innovations include questioning the uniqueness of Christ and the continuing undermining of the authority of the Scriptures. As a result the Episcopal Church has elevated man above God in a gospel of social reform and humanism and established a new religion. The world wide Lambeth Conference of 2008 did nothing to discipline The Episcopal Church. Indeed, the prevailing opinion from Canterbury is not to discipline The Episcopal Church, and by default to bless these new actions that are contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour.
As I continued to inform myself, the facts that were, for me, hazy to say the least, became focused. Many laypeople delude themselves into thinking that the innovations in The Episcopal Church do not affect the local work of the church. This congregationalism is not part of the “polity” of The Episcopal Church. What happens in New Hampshire or in California does affect the mission of the church in the Diocese of Tennessee, even when we designate ourselves as a “Windsor Diocese.”
I have come to see that the prevailing mindset of the majority of Bishops and Deputies to the General Convention of the Episcopal Church is to agree with the new religion. The canons have been misapplied in order in order to advance the agenda of the new religion. Many laypeople are uninformed while others are struggling to understand these "changes". We have been remiss in not asking what these changes are and standing up and fighting these destructive changes. We will repent of these sins of omission for the rest of our lives and answer for them as we are eventually judged in God's time.
The years from 2003 until 2008 were filled for me at first with alarm and then with grief. As I have already stated, I have studied and prayed for guidance. Finally, after 73 years at St. James, as of August 31, 2008 I made the very difficult decision to leave the Episcopal Church. Therefore, by this letter I request that my name be removed from the membership rolls of St. James Mission Church, and that my letter of membership be sent to Christ the King Anglican Church, P.O. Box 296, 1211 Dinah Shore Boulevard, Winchester, TN 37398. Christ the King Anglican Church (CANA) has given me refuge to heal and grow in God's grace in the beloved Anglican tradition in the hope of the Jerusalem Declaration of 2008.
My prayers are always for the people of St. James, the Diocese of Tennessee, and the Episcopal Church for God has given me so much and taught me how to truly love in Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Saviour. In His love and peace I hold all of you. Recalling the words of my childhood baptismal and confirmation vows, may His love guide us in this very real battle against the world, the devil and the flesh.
Peace in Jesus Christ,
Juanita Barry
818 Old C.C.C. Rd.
Sewanee, TN 37375
Copy to: St. James Episcopal Church
The Rev. Linda Hutton
P.O. Box 336
Sewanee, TN 37375
Ephraim's Epiphany: life is complicated!
Ephraim Radner has written an insightful piece entitled 'What I have learned these past five years: reflections in Advent 2008'.
Here is a taster:
"How does one navigate this time as an Anglican Christian? I have a number of friends and colleagues who have decided simply that it is not possible to do so. For various reasons, they have left Anglicanism altogether – becoming Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox (less common), non-denominational evangelical Christians (often) or finally (most frequently) “church drop-outs” altogether. A common theme among these persons has been a sense of exhaustion and spiritual depletion, even as they have discerned elements of doctrine and ecclesial life that they believe, in different ways, are best embodied in other Christian traditions. The ache of inner ailment has stirred up a theological ferment whose outcome has opened up the press for a new direction altogether.
Some of these friends wonder when the same will happen for me. “You cannot keep it up”, they suggest, noting that the efforts expended in working for Anglicanism’s integral witness in the face of its internal and external weaknesses and conflicts have not garnered renewing results. There have been moments, to be sure, when I have wondered this myself. Yet, in fact, I have grown less and not more anxious over the past year or so; more, and not less hopeful in the usefulness of this work; less, and not more impatient over its eventual fruit. This change has happened, not without pain to be sure; but precisely through the continuing process of seeing some things afresh, of letting go of ill-founded assumptions, of being wrenched from selfishness.
What, then, have I learned? A good bit of it falls within the scope of traditional Advent concerns – attentiveness, penitence, hope, eagerness, waiting, and finally receiving from God."
But the words which I like best were these (with one sentence emboldened by me):
"Recognizing that one’s own way turns out not to be so obvious to lots of other people, even if you think you are faithful and knowledgeable, and sufficiently upstanding so as to be trusted, allows one to accept the even more obvious fact (often ignored in my own self-certainties) that we live, as Christians, in non-uniform communities. Big news!, one might respond. But it is news, when it comes to actual decision-making and comportment within the Church in times of struggle. One thing that conservatives have had to learn, just as much as liberals, is that their parishes, which they thought were all so “orthodox” (according, of course, to one’s own self-image), are made up of people whose views, virtues, and emotions are actually quite varied. One may well believe strongly that TEC’s decisions and discipline are deeply flawed and requiring of rejection and drastic reformation, without believing that the “right thing” is to engage in a fight with the local bishop. One may believe the opposite. Some people are “activists”, some people are steadfast servants in a place. There are manifold variations in how people understand “good strategy” or “demanded witness”. And, even more fundamentally, there are many people in churches of every sort, who in fact are in different places when it comes to interpreting the center of the Gospel and the Scripture’s application."
As in North America, so down under, in respect of the emboldened sentence int he above paragraph. Some of us down here would like a more decisive response to the general Anglican situation of this time in which toleration of TEC's stance on human sexuality continues. But the reality of a synodical church is that we vote on matters relating to the formal structure of our life. An 'orthodox' vicar in an 'orthodox' parish or an 'orthodox' bishop in an 'orthodox' diocese does not mean 100% support in the parish or the diocese for the apparently 'orthodox' strategy of response X or response Y which the leadership wishes to pursue. It is notable at this time, for example, that the secession of the Diocese of Pittsburgh is not the secession of the whole of the Diocese but the secession of a majority of the Diocese. However helpful and advantageous it is for that majority in Pittsburgh to have followed the path they have taken, it is a resolution which creates another problem, especially for the outsider: why are there two Anglican/Episcopalian dioceses of Pittsburgh, which one is better/truer than the other (better or truer by what measure?), would it be better to belong to neither and join another denomination? But, since those are questions for people in Pittsburgh inclined towards Anglicanism, the pressing issue for those of us far away is (say) this: if we pressed for a more decisive course of action than 'watching and waiting' would we find ourselves in a similar place of confusion for the mission of God?
But, to underline the messiness of it all, no matter which way one turns - the recognition of which lies at the core of Ephraim's Epiphany - the mission of God is also confused by 'watching and waiting' since that involves the presentation of a structurally united Anglican church bitterly divided in its theology of sexuality.
What is our most fervent prayer at this time? Maranatha or save us from ourselves?
Here is a taster:
"How does one navigate this time as an Anglican Christian? I have a number of friends and colleagues who have decided simply that it is not possible to do so. For various reasons, they have left Anglicanism altogether – becoming Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox (less common), non-denominational evangelical Christians (often) or finally (most frequently) “church drop-outs” altogether. A common theme among these persons has been a sense of exhaustion and spiritual depletion, even as they have discerned elements of doctrine and ecclesial life that they believe, in different ways, are best embodied in other Christian traditions. The ache of inner ailment has stirred up a theological ferment whose outcome has opened up the press for a new direction altogether.
Some of these friends wonder when the same will happen for me. “You cannot keep it up”, they suggest, noting that the efforts expended in working for Anglicanism’s integral witness in the face of its internal and external weaknesses and conflicts have not garnered renewing results. There have been moments, to be sure, when I have wondered this myself. Yet, in fact, I have grown less and not more anxious over the past year or so; more, and not less hopeful in the usefulness of this work; less, and not more impatient over its eventual fruit. This change has happened, not without pain to be sure; but precisely through the continuing process of seeing some things afresh, of letting go of ill-founded assumptions, of being wrenched from selfishness.
What, then, have I learned? A good bit of it falls within the scope of traditional Advent concerns – attentiveness, penitence, hope, eagerness, waiting, and finally receiving from God."
But the words which I like best were these (with one sentence emboldened by me):
"Recognizing that one’s own way turns out not to be so obvious to lots of other people, even if you think you are faithful and knowledgeable, and sufficiently upstanding so as to be trusted, allows one to accept the even more obvious fact (often ignored in my own self-certainties) that we live, as Christians, in non-uniform communities. Big news!, one might respond. But it is news, when it comes to actual decision-making and comportment within the Church in times of struggle. One thing that conservatives have had to learn, just as much as liberals, is that their parishes, which they thought were all so “orthodox” (according, of course, to one’s own self-image), are made up of people whose views, virtues, and emotions are actually quite varied. One may well believe strongly that TEC’s decisions and discipline are deeply flawed and requiring of rejection and drastic reformation, without believing that the “right thing” is to engage in a fight with the local bishop. One may believe the opposite. Some people are “activists”, some people are steadfast servants in a place. There are manifold variations in how people understand “good strategy” or “demanded witness”. And, even more fundamentally, there are many people in churches of every sort, who in fact are in different places when it comes to interpreting the center of the Gospel and the Scripture’s application."
As in North America, so down under, in respect of the emboldened sentence int he above paragraph. Some of us down here would like a more decisive response to the general Anglican situation of this time in which toleration of TEC's stance on human sexuality continues. But the reality of a synodical church is that we vote on matters relating to the formal structure of our life. An 'orthodox' vicar in an 'orthodox' parish or an 'orthodox' bishop in an 'orthodox' diocese does not mean 100% support in the parish or the diocese for the apparently 'orthodox' strategy of response X or response Y which the leadership wishes to pursue. It is notable at this time, for example, that the secession of the Diocese of Pittsburgh is not the secession of the whole of the Diocese but the secession of a majority of the Diocese. However helpful and advantageous it is for that majority in Pittsburgh to have followed the path they have taken, it is a resolution which creates another problem, especially for the outsider: why are there two Anglican/Episcopalian dioceses of Pittsburgh, which one is better/truer than the other (better or truer by what measure?), would it be better to belong to neither and join another denomination? But, since those are questions for people in Pittsburgh inclined towards Anglicanism, the pressing issue for those of us far away is (say) this: if we pressed for a more decisive course of action than 'watching and waiting' would we find ourselves in a similar place of confusion for the mission of God?
But, to underline the messiness of it all, no matter which way one turns - the recognition of which lies at the core of Ephraim's Epiphany - the mission of God is also confused by 'watching and waiting' since that involves the presentation of a structurally united Anglican church bitterly divided in its theology of sexuality.
What is our most fervent prayer at this time? Maranatha or save us from ourselves?
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Preliminary search for Anglican of the Year
Its been a big year for the Anglican Communion, what with GAFCON, Lambeth, and the new province. If one Anglican stands out from other Anglicans, head and shoulders above the rest, or stooping low in meekness and selfless humility, who might that be?
Obvious candidates are episcopal figures: Williams, Sentamu, Duncan, Jefferts Schori, Akinola, Jensen, and co. Even Desmond Tutu, ostensibly on the 'retired' list continues to contribute much.
But some keen and key influential figures have not been bishops (slight bias to internet contributors in what follows): Mark Harris, Kendal Harmon, and Graham Kings spring to mind. But the figures at the Anglican Communion Institute, Ephraim Radner, Christopher Seitz, and Philip Turner have also contributed, especially to the possibility - increasingly remote as it seems - that conservative Anglicans cannot not only safely sail in the good ship TEC, but even turn her course around! But this triumverate is well matched by three significant figures on the Stand Firm site, Matt Kennedy, Sarah Hey, and Greg Griffiths.
But one can always overestimate the power of the media, or of one medium within it. Perhaps the Anglican of the Year in 2008 should be someone less well known. Someone who exhibits in their ministry and mission quintessential Anglican qualities. It could be your home group leader or parish visitor. Or someone quite anonymous, one who follows our Lord's instructions in respect of secret prayer.
Any thoughts from readers?
Obvious candidates are episcopal figures: Williams, Sentamu, Duncan, Jefferts Schori, Akinola, Jensen, and co. Even Desmond Tutu, ostensibly on the 'retired' list continues to contribute much.
But some keen and key influential figures have not been bishops (slight bias to internet contributors in what follows): Mark Harris, Kendal Harmon, and Graham Kings spring to mind. But the figures at the Anglican Communion Institute, Ephraim Radner, Christopher Seitz, and Philip Turner have also contributed, especially to the possibility - increasingly remote as it seems - that conservative Anglicans cannot not only safely sail in the good ship TEC, but even turn her course around! But this triumverate is well matched by three significant figures on the Stand Firm site, Matt Kennedy, Sarah Hey, and Greg Griffiths.
But one can always overestimate the power of the media, or of one medium within it. Perhaps the Anglican of the Year in 2008 should be someone less well known. Someone who exhibits in their ministry and mission quintessential Anglican qualities. It could be your home group leader or parish visitor. Or someone quite anonymous, one who follows our Lord's instructions in respect of secret prayer.
Any thoughts from readers?
Monday, December 15, 2008
Do Anglicans have to be muddled thinkers to be Anglican?
Its hard to know where to begin with this piece on salvation by the Dean of Perth (Down Under - most Western branch!!), John Shepherd, published in The Times of London (why there?). A starting point in response could be to ask about the standards of logic and content applied to what The Times sees fit to publish? But inevitably one questions standards of theology in churches not one's own and wonders about the diplomatic protocols of critiquing clerics in neighbouring countries!! Here is the heart of the piece:
"At least three things stand out. The first is that this salvation is experienced corporately, not individually. The Old Testament writers speak in terms of a community in which the presence of God could be experienced within a fellowship bound together by devotion to God. For the writers of the New Testament, Jesus was never to be thought of as a personal saviour, as though He were our personal toothbrush.
We are not saved individually, as though by some private act of divine indulgence. It is within the community that we can find forgiveness for the past, and hope for a way of beginning again.
Second, there is no evidence to suggest that what is required for salvation is an intellectual assent, a signing-off, which would effect a once-for-all change in us, whereby salvation is instantaneous, and we are passive recipients of its benefits.
It would be wrong to imagine that salvation occurs in a single act of religious fervour. The most usually quoted example of such an apparently swift transformation is Paul’s conversion. Yet, according to the account in Acts (ix, 1-19), it was not suddenly on the Damascus road, but only after the laying-on of hands by Ananias in the context of the care of the house of Judas, and after the scales had fallen from his eyes, and his sight was restored, that Paul was baptised, and his strength returned.
Salvation cannot be confined to one cataclysmic event; it requires engagement with a process in the context of a community — the Church. The transformation of human life that salvation suggests takes time, and needs to embrace many aspects of Christian insight and understanding.
Third, salvation is not about who is in or who is out — who are sheep or who are goats.
Can we really imagine the God of all creation, the Lord of Heaven and Earth, being fussed by the status of everyone’s individual belief? Salvation is concerned with the transformation of life. All life. Barriers to the flourishing of all human beings are to be overcome, whatever stage people are at in the awareness of this life-giving dynamic. What matters is that we have all been freed to be all there is in us to be. Otherwise Christ has died in vain."
Why 'corporately, not individually' and not 'corporately and individually'? Shepherd is quick to cite part of the Old Testament while overlooking Ezekiel 18 which discloses God's recognition that individuals are responsible for their own wrong-doing and not for that of their ancestors.
Does anyone who thinks of Jesus as their 'personal Saviour' think of him in terms commensurate with their 'personal toothbrush'? The latter concerns the toothbrush belonging to me and carrying my own germs which you probably do not want to share with me. The former concerns the Saviour who relates to me as one person to another. In that sense the New Testament writers most certainly understood Jesus to be their personal Saviour!
We can agree that salvation is not confined to one cataclysmic event, though personal life-changing encounters with the risen Lord Jesus have not been confined through the centuries to just Paul's Damascus Road experience. But salvation is about 'who is in or who is out'. At the least that is the implication of many of Jesus' parables, including the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25.31-46. If salvation is not about who is in or who is out then its difficult to understand why anyone should bother to respond to the gospel, engage with the corporate life of the church, or sacrificially work to flourish the lives of others in the name of Christ. For, if salvation is not a question of who is in or who is out then either it is a question of everyone being out (i.e. the gospel hope of salvation is not true in any sense) or of everyone being in (i.e. the choices we make matter little in the eternal scheme of things because God will save everyone in the end).
More can be said; suffice to conclude for now that this is very muddled thinking by the Dean of Perth. Such thinking is neither new nor surprising in Anglican Land. I wonder if to be 'in' the Anglican church one needs to be a muddled thinker ... clear thinking belonging 'outside', to Baptists and Catholics!!!!!
"At least three things stand out. The first is that this salvation is experienced corporately, not individually. The Old Testament writers speak in terms of a community in which the presence of God could be experienced within a fellowship bound together by devotion to God. For the writers of the New Testament, Jesus was never to be thought of as a personal saviour, as though He were our personal toothbrush.
We are not saved individually, as though by some private act of divine indulgence. It is within the community that we can find forgiveness for the past, and hope for a way of beginning again.
Second, there is no evidence to suggest that what is required for salvation is an intellectual assent, a signing-off, which would effect a once-for-all change in us, whereby salvation is instantaneous, and we are passive recipients of its benefits.
It would be wrong to imagine that salvation occurs in a single act of religious fervour. The most usually quoted example of such an apparently swift transformation is Paul’s conversion. Yet, according to the account in Acts (ix, 1-19), it was not suddenly on the Damascus road, but only after the laying-on of hands by Ananias in the context of the care of the house of Judas, and after the scales had fallen from his eyes, and his sight was restored, that Paul was baptised, and his strength returned.
Salvation cannot be confined to one cataclysmic event; it requires engagement with a process in the context of a community — the Church. The transformation of human life that salvation suggests takes time, and needs to embrace many aspects of Christian insight and understanding.
Third, salvation is not about who is in or who is out — who are sheep or who are goats.
Can we really imagine the God of all creation, the Lord of Heaven and Earth, being fussed by the status of everyone’s individual belief? Salvation is concerned with the transformation of life. All life. Barriers to the flourishing of all human beings are to be overcome, whatever stage people are at in the awareness of this life-giving dynamic. What matters is that we have all been freed to be all there is in us to be. Otherwise Christ has died in vain."
Why 'corporately, not individually' and not 'corporately and individually'? Shepherd is quick to cite part of the Old Testament while overlooking Ezekiel 18 which discloses God's recognition that individuals are responsible for their own wrong-doing and not for that of their ancestors.
Does anyone who thinks of Jesus as their 'personal Saviour' think of him in terms commensurate with their 'personal toothbrush'? The latter concerns the toothbrush belonging to me and carrying my own germs which you probably do not want to share with me. The former concerns the Saviour who relates to me as one person to another. In that sense the New Testament writers most certainly understood Jesus to be their personal Saviour!
We can agree that salvation is not confined to one cataclysmic event, though personal life-changing encounters with the risen Lord Jesus have not been confined through the centuries to just Paul's Damascus Road experience. But salvation is about 'who is in or who is out'. At the least that is the implication of many of Jesus' parables, including the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25.31-46. If salvation is not about who is in or who is out then its difficult to understand why anyone should bother to respond to the gospel, engage with the corporate life of the church, or sacrificially work to flourish the lives of others in the name of Christ. For, if salvation is not a question of who is in or who is out then either it is a question of everyone being out (i.e. the gospel hope of salvation is not true in any sense) or of everyone being in (i.e. the choices we make matter little in the eternal scheme of things because God will save everyone in the end).
More can be said; suffice to conclude for now that this is very muddled thinking by the Dean of Perth. Such thinking is neither new nor surprising in Anglican Land. I wonder if to be 'in' the Anglican church one needs to be a muddled thinker ... clear thinking belonging 'outside', to Baptists and Catholics!!!!!
Sunday, December 14, 2008
The True Anglican Communion is here
No need to worry about new provinces, Communion or Federation, Anglican Covenant, the orthodoxy of Rowan Williams, the heresy of the Presiding Bishop, or any Anglican issue. Its all sorted in the True Anglican Communion!
Hat-tip to Bosco Peters
Hat-tip to Bosco Peters
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Why the Communion should accept the new North American Province
Close on the heels of the announcement of the formation of the new North American Anglican Province is the decisions of the Diocese of California to embed the blessing of same sex relationships into its statutes. Included in the announcement of policy around these decisions is this statement:
"The Prayer Book also provides an option for an alternative Rite. We recommend the supplemental Rite attached to this policy to be used for the blessing of all covenants whether between men and women or same-sex couples as a means of demonstrating our solidarity with our brothers and sisters currently denied the right of civil marriage, and as a means of having one Rite appropriate to all such Blessings." (page 3 of the document).
Here, surely, is the future of TEC following its General Convention in 2009: complete flexibility in respect of ceremonies, blurring distinction between marriage (man and woman) and a same sex partnership.
Viewed against the history of the universal church and its understanding of Scripture on marriage, this is a major change to core belief and practice of the church in respect of the fundamental relationship of human society.
Without deciding whether California is right or wrong on this matter, this is, I suggest, a difference in doctrine sufficient to warrant a clear distinction between those Anglican bishops, priests, and laity who wish to belong to an Anglican polity supporting California's policy, and those who wish to belong to an Anglican polity not supporting California's policy.
The Anglican Communion should get off its collective posterior and offer warm recognition to the new province. Our diversity as Anglicans warrants no less a response.
"The Prayer Book also provides an option for an alternative Rite. We recommend the supplemental Rite attached to this policy to be used for the blessing of all covenants whether between men and women or same-sex couples as a means of demonstrating our solidarity with our brothers and sisters currently denied the right of civil marriage, and as a means of having one Rite appropriate to all such Blessings." (page 3 of the document).
Here, surely, is the future of TEC following its General Convention in 2009: complete flexibility in respect of ceremonies, blurring distinction between marriage (man and woman) and a same sex partnership.
Viewed against the history of the universal church and its understanding of Scripture on marriage, this is a major change to core belief and practice of the church in respect of the fundamental relationship of human society.
Without deciding whether California is right or wrong on this matter, this is, I suggest, a difference in doctrine sufficient to warrant a clear distinction between those Anglican bishops, priests, and laity who wish to belong to an Anglican polity supporting California's policy, and those who wish to belong to an Anglican polity not supporting California's policy.
The Anglican Communion should get off its collective posterior and offer warm recognition to the new province. Our diversity as Anglicans warrants no less a response.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)