A Deo et Rege

The net looms large in religious debates. I’ve been debating, studying, and learning about theology on the internet for over five years now. I can honestly say that I would not be Catholic (and maybe not even Christian) if it were not for the positive and negative influences of the internet. Negatively speaking, the internet exposed me to all the various sects of Christianity, which made me move past debating the content of the Bible to thinking about questions of authority. Positively speaking, the net introduced me to great people and countless resources, both of which addressed the questions I was asking and gave satisfying answers.

One particular resource that was instrumental in my conversion to Catholicism was the blog Pontifications, written by an Episcopal priest. The Pontificator’s genius is not so much in the answers he gives or the resources he provides (although these are both excellent), but in the pointed and relevant questions he asks us all to ponder, especially with regards to authority. His questions troubled me; the solutions he gave resonated strongly with me. The debates among his commenters spurred me into further questions and taught me a lot (it’s amazing how many brilliant people comment on his blog).

The Pontificator has caught some flack from some of his readers recently, so I want to provide an alternative to the criticism and give him a hearty "thank you!" I wouldn’t be where I am today without him.

According to recent news, the Church of England (Anglican) is thinking about re-introducing heresy trials. Although this will surely anger some of the atheists posing as Anglican ministers, I think it’s an important step to re-vitalilze a once respectable, but now moribund church. I have been critical of Anglicanism during and after my conversion to Catholicism, but I will grant that this is a positive step forward. 

I know some people will hear "heresy trials" and shudder, conjuring up images of people being burnt at the stake, but it’s not about that at all. Rather, it’s about a group of people defining themselves and setting boundaries as to what is acceptable practice and theology. Would anyone be surprised or upset if a racist holding a leadership position were kicked out of the NAACP? Of course, not. So, why should a fuss be made about someone who denies key tenets of Christianity being removed from a position of leadership? For purposes of integrity, that person should’ve left a long time ago. There is one main obstacle with heresy trials in Anglicanism: a determination of what exactly Anglicans believe and what is authoritative. 

It seems another Anglican "bishop" admits he doesn’t believe in God after all. Yawn. Um, the shock value has kind of worn off, mate. It’s hard to be shockingly progressive after "bishop" Spong. He sort of ruined it for every closeted liberal atheist in the Anglican Communion. I think what would be truly shocking is if their respective ecclesial communities actually de-frocked these guys.

Thanks to the Pontificator for the link

As many of you know, Catholic-Orthodox Church relations have been a major concern and interest of mine for a number of years.  We still have a long way to go, but there are signs of hope if a person knows where to look.  The newest sign of hope was the return of relics to the Orthodox Church by the Vatican.  The Catholic Church has proven that it is willing to work toward reconciliation, and to a lesser degree, so have many in the Orthodox Church.  We still need to continue to work, especially on the local level, toward the prayer of Jesus: "that we may all be one."

While President Bush and the world ignore the radical Islamist roots of terror, Christians die and churches burn. Pat Buchanan provides an important perspective on the terrible reality many Christians face today at the hands of radical Muslims in the Middle East.

I worked a summer as a sales associate at a local Super KMart.  In order to keep us on our toes they would bring in a “mystery shopper” every now and then.  A person, posing as a shopper, was really coming to evaluate how well we followed the company guidelines for customer service.  The idea was to instill a sense of fear, but also to make us treat every customer like he was a mystery shopper (i.e. according to the guidelines).  The good folks at Ship of Fools have created a new concept, that of a Mystery Worshipper.

This incognito worshipper, visiting a new church, evaluates it on certain criteria.  That person then fills out a questionaire giving answers that may be relevant to others who want to visit the particular church.  The questions are related to several topics, but they mainly deal with how welcoming and hospitable the congregation is to visitors.  These are then posted for the rest of the world to see.  They visit all kinds of churches, although the bulk looked to me like Episcopal/Anglican.

In spite of some obvious drawbacks, I actually like this idea.  First, some of the drawbacks.  I don’t think it’s fair to evaluate a church based on one visit (fortunately many reviewers make this same admission).  I also think the idea of a traveling ‘church critic’ is a tad bit arrogant, especially since some of the reviewers are clearly snobs in certain areas (like music).  I am a liturgical snob, but recognize that my tastes would probably cause the average person to lose interest.

In spite of these drawbacks, I think the concept of a mystery worshipper is very healthy for churches and a great idea overall.  This would not be to ‘test’ a church, but to allow a church to see how it is perceived by an outsider.  Since we are in a post-Christian age, we have to start caring about evangelism and this especially applies to making visitors feel welcome.  This is not about some namby pamby greeter program, but about helping people feel at home as they enter, providing non-members with an idea of how to follow the service, and some sort of after church followup by the priest or a parishoner.

Most churches get so insulated they have no idea how to reach out to visitors.  They also have no idea how to make visitors feel the least bit welcome.  Sometimes even when we think we are welcoming, we fail miserably.  A little outside constructive criticism could be helpful.  I have been in the situation many reviewers describe: standing alone at the church coffee hour being totally ignored, being completely lost in the service, and wanting to talk to a priest/minister and having none in sight.  Believe me, it’s not a feeling that makes a person want to come back.  And if we do not practice sufficient hospitality to our visitors to make them want to come back, how will they ever hear the saving message of the Gospel and know the true Faith?

At left is a photo I took of beautiful St. Mary’s Cathedral (Catholic), Syndey, NSW, Australia. It looms large over Australia’s largest and most well-known city. Although the actual building is imposing on the Sydney skyline, how much does the Catholic Faith, or general Christianity for that matter, influence Australia? In the interest of disclosure I haven’t studied Australian religious trends in depth. This article is just based on my personal observations after three trips to Australia, incidentally a country I admire and love very much.

According to adherents.com Australia, at least in 1996, was 70% Christian. That statistic isn’t too bad. The second place “religion” was surprisingly not Islam (1.12%) or Judaism (.45%), but Non-religious at 16.48%. This includes diehard athiests, agnostics, rationalists, and the vast majority, not surprising in post-modernism: no religion. Other surprises: Australia had 7,615 witches/neopagans and 8,140 spiritualists.

Another site, reporting 2001 census trends, describes 73% of Australians affiliating with a religion (any religion). This contrasts to the pre-1971 rate of around 90% and the 1976 rate of 80%. That’s an amazing drop in only 30 years. Another interesting Australian statistic is that only 23% of adults surveyed had participated in a church/religious service within the three months prior to the interview. So, not only is Australia less religious in general now only 23% can be found in a formal religious setting on a given sunday throughout a three month period.

During my time in Australia, I took notice of this lack of interest in Christianity. One area this manifested itself was in everyday life. I noticed while having coffee at Starbucks the books the Aussies were reading. I saw several people reading New Age type books and one reading the DaVinci code. At nearly every bookstore I visited (and I enjoy visiting many), the New Age section was much larger, often by several shelves, than the Christianity one. At one bookstore, Christianity got half a shelf while the Dalai Lama’s works alone took up one full shelf. These are not indicative of anything in and of themselves, but are consistent with Australian religious trends.

As mentioned in an earlier post, I enjoy visiting churches. There was a steady stream of people at many of the churches, but most of them (by their accents and cameras) were tourists. I attended a eucharist service at St. Paul’s Cathedral (Anglican), Melbourne, VIC. While the staff was friendly and the congregation was diverse (old, young, poor, rich), it was pretty empty for a cathedral. It was obvious 2004 wasn’t their zenith. With only 23% of Aussies in church, this situation is pretty typical. It sounds like the major draw from the churches in Australia isn’t some strange cult, but rather people just staying home to sleep in or watch TV. It does seem that seeking Australians are looking to more unorthodox religious expressions like New Age, Buddhism, and even Wicca.

I don’t intend this as a criticism of Australian Christianity. The same problems plague the USA and Europe (the latter even more so). I think it shows that Western society is generally becoming post-Christian and all of us who espouse the Faith need to think of ways to evangelize and reach out in this new environment. It doesn’t mean altering the ancient message, rather it means proclaiming it in a way that reaches the new generation. We should not dumb down or give in to secular trends, but recognize that we are no longer in a setting where everyone is a Christian because he is an Australian (or American). We need to learn how to evangelize in a skeptical and often hostile society at large. This isn’t a new problem, but an old one. The earliest Church Fathers and Mothers were in the exact same situation. They can be our guides. Given the changing nature of our world, these are issues the Church must confront if we wish to truly fulfill the Great Commission.

Outside of St. Mary’s, the open courtyard is often full of skateboarders (in spite of a carefully placed sign prohibiting it). I often thought that if we could reach them we could reach anyone in the post-Christian generation.

Then the LORD said to Job: Will we have arguing with the Almighty by the critic? Let him who would correct God give answer! (Job 40:1-2, NAB).

Reading this verse in the Office really struck a chord with me, so much that I stopped in my tracks and reflected on it (of course I should do that with all Scripture). How many times have people of all churches and theologies been critics of the Almighty? I wish I had a quarter for everyone who said they could never find a perfect church, i.e. a church that totally agreed with them. At one point people submitted to the Church, but an unhappy result of the Protestant Reformation (an unintended one to be sure) is that no one submits to anything anymore, with the possible exception of his or her ego. Before anyone thinks I’m idealizing Rome, it’s worth mentioning that large majorities of Catholics openly disagree with their Church on important matters too. It’s not a Protestant problem, just a problem.

Especially, on the left critics of the Almighty are numerous. The liberals at least admit that God has changed his God’s mind. Or rather, we have changed God’s mind for him God. Liberals have given us every form of criticism under the sun. God may have revealed it one way, but we know what he God would have said if he God had the benefit of being a 21st century person. Of course then, God would also have the “sense” to reveal himself Godself without a male pronoun! Of course liberals are more than happy to point out the “flaws” in God’s revelation. The result is that we now have whole organizations devoted to telling us what God or Jesus really meant to say. Usually the results are predicatable: God and Jesus said very little about morality, the miraculous, or doctrine, but talked alot of vauge social liberalism. Darn it, I knew if we could just get past the dogma and miraculous Jesus would be a socialist before socialism!

I’m not a liberal, but I’m guilty of this attitude too. Many conservative, mainstream Christians are too. Look even at Protestant conservatives and their willingness to correct the Almighty. Jesus said divorce is prohibited, but most evangelicals have higher divorce rates than non Christians. On the issue of women in the church, most evangelicals ignore some of the clear statements in the Pastoral Epistles. In a couple generations, will these same groups that used to believe divorce was wrong, embrace gay marriage if/when it becomes culturally mainstream? After all, 50 years ago, you’d be hard pressed to find an evangelical who apporoved of divorce. Although less brazen, even conservative Christians are more than willing to correct the Almighty. So, it goes across all churches and the whole theological spectrum.

Maybe it’s an American thing. Our rugged individualism has served us well in our secular history, but in our religious experience it’s been a disaster. With 30,000+ denominations, we should be scandalized. Jesus prayed we would all be one as he and the Father are one, not be 30,000 as he and the Father are one. Our spirit that impelled us to separate from England should not be license to have daily revolutions in our churches to create more and more denominations. I think if Luther could foresee what has become of Protestantism, he probably would’ve taken a different path to reform. But then again, he couldn’t have anticipated American post-modernism!

As Chesterton observed: we need not a church that is right when the world is right, but a Church that is right when the world is wrong. For right or for wrong, the Churches of the Reformation have been wedded to Western culture.

When John Locke decided Christianity needed to be more “rational,” the Reformation Churches obliged him by making it less mystical and sacramental. When the enlightenment decided even that was too “superstitious,” the Reformation churches decided all that “superstition” stuff was optional.

When the modernist West decided man was too good to be damned, the Reformation churches said: “hell, what hell?” When Western culture decided that divorce was liberating, the Reformation churches gladly tore asunder those whom God had joined together.

When the Western feminist movement said women should do anything men do, the Reformation churches went out of their way to accomodate the feminists, even against 3000 years of Judeo-Christian tradition. When the Western cultural elites decided that no modern person could believe this whole Christianity thing, the mainline Reformation churches gutted the faith so that one or two elitists would stay in the pews.

When the West suddenly decided homosexuality was not sinful but something to be embraced and blessed, the Reformation churches feigned a backbone, but gave secular society every demand. Sure, the Reformation churches haven’t officially embraced homosexuality yet, but does anyone think the current leadership of any mainline churches will say no to the constant badgering of gay activists? I wouldn’t bet on it.

Something curious has happened in the last 30 years, however. Through lack of children, a culture of death, and a willful policy of euthanasia by many in the academic elite, Western culture is slowly dying. I can tell you from firsthand experience that many seminary professors use the freedom and tolerance Western culture provides to denounce the same culture as repressive and intolerant.

Yet there is a great irony in the Reformation churches seeking the death of Western culture. The mainlines –like the siamese twin who kills his brother only to come to the horrific realization he cannot live separately– will have to face up to the fact that unless something dramatically changes they too will die with Western modern culture. Since the Reformation churches have dutifully followed every Western cultural trend, they will ultimately follow its current trend toward oblivion. Those in seminaries who seek to destroy Western culture are unwittingly and ironically committing ecclesiacide.

In 2017 we will celebrate the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. If trends continue, by then the Reformation may be a quaint memory in the West’s many retirement homes or on plaques in buildings formerly housing vibrant congregations that will then be either rotting or selling vague, spiritualist New Age paraphernalia. It gives William Inge’s quote–”whoever marries the spirit of this age will find himself a widower in the next”– an eerily literal quality.

I was raised in a Reformation Church. I am currently fighting for the survival of a Reformation Church. The Eames Commission is meeting now to decide the future of the Anglican Church. I am anxiously waiting its results. I believe this is Anglicanism’s last chance to assert its catholic identity or to be forever (in the West anyway) a dying, “has been” institution. It is the last chance the Anglican Church has to turn down the amorous advances of the spirit of the age and assert its timeless place in the Church Catholic. If the Anglican Church, the Reformation Church with the strongest claim to catholicity, cannot break the trend of capitulation to Western culture, the Reformation tradition as a current Christian phenonmenon will be dead.

I am exploring Roman Catholicism while praying for the Commission. More of the same won’t cut it this time. If the Commission cannot stand up for the eternal truths–to be right when the world is wrong– and wishes to die, I don’t wish to die with it.

This is a theme I’ll explore from time to time in this blog as I struggle with my calling to faithfully serve God.

After Gene Robinson’s consecration, I solemnly took down the Episcopal shield sticker from my car window. Once a source of pride, it had become a source of embarrassment and shame. As I look back on that incident, I recall former Presiding Bishop John Allin’s words that he loved the Episcopal Church more than he loved her Lord. Alas, I must make that confession too. I had been so enthralled with the Episcopal Church, I had been willing to make all too many compromises. The Episcopal Church had become an idol to me. As I reflect on the current situation in ECUSA and the mainlines in general, idolatry is the one word that comes to mind.

No, they aren’t running around with little goddess statues (ok some probably are!). Remember, anything can be an idol: money, relationships, and even those little wooden goddess statues. Even those things sanctioned and blessed by God can turn into idols if God or his grace is somehow removed from them. This is the current state of the Episcopal Church in the USA and the Anglican Church in Canada. It is also, in my view, the current state of many of the USA “mainlines.”

In the Episcopal Church we have all the necessary elements of catholic faith and order: the creeds, the liturgy, the sacraments, the Scriptures, the three church orders, the historical episcopate, etc. We even have those lesser things that complement the catholic faith: vestments, ornate buildings, smells and bells, seminaries, etc. ECUSA has a valid claim to catholicity based on the externals. In other words, from a catholic perspective we look good on paper. But, what lies behind the externals? In many quarters in the Episcopal Church that right now is very little. We’ve fallen into idolatry.

First, take the creeds. The creeds are summaries of the catholic faith and their belief is required for catholicity. We have clergy and bishops who openly deny tenets of the creeds and many attack the creeds themselves. Yet, these people continue to say the creed at services they lead. They say: “we believe” and “I believe” about truths they don’t really believe and even mock. Would the majority of the church, if polled, be able to honestly affirm the creed? Without crossing their fingers? Probably not. And this is also reflective of the belief of the leaders. Would a leader who doesn’t believe in the creed instill a genuine belief in it to her parishioners? Answer: she won’t. Yet, the creed is recited every week in every Episcopal Church (in theory anyway). The true intent of the creed as a statement about God, as a marker of the bounds of orthodoxy is gone; it has become an idol, a Marcus Borg like historical document. We might as well read from the Constitution of the USA on Sunday morning.

In ECUSA, we have the liturgy and a beautiful one at that. I personally like the 1979 Prayer Book (although would be more than willing to relegate it to an ASB), finding it more dignified and sublime than most other denominational prayer books. Yet, the liturgy often falls victim to the same problems as the creed. Although the prayers of the 1979 BCP are generally orthodox, there are many clergy who say them and lead them while actively teaching contrary to the beliefs of the Prayer Book. The liturgy becomes not a life changing expression of praise from our hearts to the living God, but instead is simply a literary masterpiece, a collection of beautiful English, no more life changing or theologically important than watching a Shakespeare play. And many leaders no more believe in the substance of the liturgy than they do the creed. Reciting “Christ is Risen” while openly denying the resurrection in the adult forum after the service turns the liturgy into an idol. Even beautiful things can be idols; in fact, they make the most alluring idols.

The Episcopal Church, in my opinion, does have validly ordained ministers and thus valid sacraments. In regards to the Eucharist, many of our churches have beautiful tabernacles holding the host of Christ. But, in many of these same churches, heretical views of Christology are taught. How can one have a tabernacle, which implicitly affirms the Real Presence of Christ, and yet deny that Christ was divine or that he was bodily resurrected? Perhaps it’s because a tabernacle looks nice; it’s pretty. We like pretty things in the Episcopal Church. We have baptism with water in the name of the Trinity, but many clergy don’t even believe in the Trinity or don’t think that there even is a need for regeneration. Also, we are fast losing the ancient connection of baptism and Eucharist since large groups of ECUSA clergy are rabidly pushing for open communion of the unbaptized. We require people get wet and confess faith in Jesus before partaking of our holiest mysteries. That is hardly oppressive, yet open communion advocates will never be placated with anything short of Unitarian Universalism.

We have the Scriptures and until recently our church has been faithful in keeping those Scriptures as the foundation of our theological life. This has changed in the past 20 years. And it’s not just on the issue of homosexuality. We have priests and bishops who openly deny the bodily resurrection, the divinity of Christ, the miracles of Christ, and many other issues in the Bible that are very clearly taught. Many mock the Scriptures, especially the works of St. Paul, while downplaying or abandoning the authority of the Bible. We also have crypto-Marcionites in the church, who feel they can pick and choose as to what is the “real” word of God. The bishop of Pennsylvania even said the Church could change the canon of the Bible because it gave us the canon. Perhaps that is true in theory of the Church as a whole, but when attempted by a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of American Christians, it is nothing short of arrogance.

We have the historic episcopate and apostolic succession, but it has become little more than a purple club. Bishops are supposed to be in charge of defending and guarding the catholic faith. In ECUSA, we have bishops like Spong, Bennison, and Chane who not only do not defend the Faith, they openly deride and attack it. They have never been censored by the House of Bishops or forced to conform to catholic Christianity because the chief virtue in ECUSA has become “niceness,” not upholding the Gospel. By contrast, in many dioceses, so-called successors of the apostles have pressured orthodox parishes and priests into toeing an heretical line to the extent of closing parishes and defrocking priests as punishment. In New Westminster, Michael Ingham violated the canons by doing same sex blessings, yet the bishops pursued Bishop Terry Buckle of the Yukon for violating the canons by intervening on behalf of the orthodox. The house of bishops is really “swell:” getting together, dressing up, discussing issues, drinking fine wine and eating really well. But the substance is gone; they have abandoned their duties when people like Spong and Bennison can remain bishops. It is no surprise that the canons are not enforced or selectively enforced: like defending the catholic faith, they too are optional and invoked only when harassing orthodox believers.

We have some gorgeous churches, beautiful vestments, and shiny gold chalices and crosses. I’ve heard it said that the Episcopal Church has “style.” That we do! But unfortunately we lack much of the substance behind the style. Take the Washington National Cathedral for example. That church is beautiful beyond words. One of my favorite areas is the Resurrection chapel. It is ironic that the bishop of that diocese does not even believe in the orthodox understanding of the resurrection. Our stain glass windows have scenes from the life of Christ that in our reductionist thinking couldn’t have even happened and are occasionally derided as absurd. We in ECUSA do “pretty” very well, but we lack the True, the Good, and the Beautiful.

I have often heard orthodox believers defend the Episcopal Church in its social justice ministries, an area, admittedly where conservatives are often weaker. There was a T-shirt available in an Episcopal Women’s publication that said (not an exact quote): “Social Justice is Orthodox.” Not entirely true. Saying “orthodox Christianity must always have a social justice component” would be more correct. Just doing “social justice” isn’t always orthodox. I want to emphasize again the importance of social justice because the early Christians always worked to literally fulfill Christ’s commandments regarding peace, the homeless, the poor, the naked, etc. But today, much social justice is done, not on the basis of one’s faith, but out of a spirit of activism. Consequently, liberal causes are assumed to be God’s causes (in fairness, many conservatives do the same thing, like thinking God wants lower taxes for Fortune 500 CEOs.). The early Church followed Christ literally because they believed he was the resurrected Son of God, whose words and deeds were vindicated by the Father. I don’t want to malign those who are doing good work in the Episcopal Church, but too often we don’t have the social Gospel, we just have social work. The Gospel is divorced from the equation and the church functions more like a government aid institution. Many Episcopal and mainline ministries do not even allow the sharing of the Gospel in their social ministries. Once again, we have something that is a good service, but the Christian substance is gone.

Our greatest idol over the years in the American Anglican and Episcopal Churches has been our unity. Yes, even unity has been an idol. We have been so concerned with keeping everyone happy and everyone together, that we have abandoned biblical and catholic Christianity except on paper (and sometimes not even there). Christian unity has never been about simply staying together for the sake of peace without real substantial unity. True Christian unity is a unity of both the catholic faith and mission. At the most recent General Convention, the Episcopal Church voted on a motion to affirm some of the most basic teachings of Anglicanism (and even Christianity!). It failed 84-66. If these bishops cannot affirm the most basic elements of our faith, then we have no real unity in faith with them. Some bishops have endorsed the view that the Church should not try to evangelize people of other faiths, while others hold to beliefs that all ways lead to God. How can this be reconciled with those Episcopalians who believe in the Great Commission and seriously follow it? Thus, we have no basic unity in mission either. Some of the newest calls for unity from more liberal leaders base this unity on “diversity” and “inclusion.” This approach is not classically Anglican and certainly not catholic and it will never lead to true unity, just an empty, hollow shell that the revisionists can praise in the name of diversity. However, for catholics, evangelicals, and charismatics it can be nothing but an idol.

I must confess my personal role in the current crisis. I, like many orthodox Episcopalians, have been content to sit on the sidelines, promoting “niceness” and “politeness” while our leaders have been gutting the Church of its substance. Many conservatives, myself included have been the real latitudinarians, while the liberals have been promoting their unified vision for the Church. Not wanting to make waves or rock the boat, we have stayed on the sidelines while ECUSA has been transformed in a non-catholic, barely Christian institution.

Many of my friends ask (correctly): why the furor over Gene Robinson? After all, what about Spong and Bennison and Pike and other rogue bishops? Robinson, unfortunately for him, has become the symbol of all the frustration of orthodox believers over the years. His consecration is not an isolated incident that a few reactionaries are steaming over. Rather, it is the last straw for many faithful people who have stuck it out over the years in a Church where they no longer can find a home. I am one of those people. I joined the Episcopal Church in 2000 because I was attracted to the Anglican faith. I loved CS Lewis and the Church Fathers, and in my estimation, the Anglican Church was the best example of their faith in practice. But instead, in ECUSA, I got the faith of Bennison, Spong, and others, cloaked in the ceremonial. I fell in love with Episcopal Church in 2000 and it seemed like a great home. But it was not the Church I thought it was (barely even Anglican) and all my rationalizations (like there is a silent orthodox majority that will rise up) were just vain attempts to cover up the truth. I was always fond of telling my “story” of becoming an Episcopalian, but no more. Upon examination, it is with great sadness that I must confess: I was in love with an idol.

Imagine if a group within the Sierra Club no longer wanted to fight for the preservation of the environment. Imagine instead that this group, while maintaining to be the Sierra Club, actually lobbied against environmental protection. Naturally the Sierra Club would be completely ineffective in anything it does. This is the mainline situation.

There are two churches in nearly every mainline. Now a group of Methodists wants to recognize this and move on. As bad a split would be, it would be even worse to stay on. It’s not that the mainlines contain a differing of opinion on some issues. No, rather, they contain two groups within them that have totally different, completely opposed, un-reconciliable worldviews. This goes way beyond diversity of opinion and into the heart of the institution. Two totally opposed worldviews can co-exist in a record club or quilting circle, but not in a Church or any other organization that wants to effectively reach out and change the world.

The Methodists make a good point about their recent “victory” at their annual convention: it will never be a final one. I would bet everything in my possession that the revisionists will bring up their agenda at each successive convention ad infinitum (and nauseum). In other words, the orthodox Methodist worldview of making disciples of all nations and converting them to personal holiness will never reach fruition because the revisionists will always be pushing to change the Methodist Church. How can the Methodists or any Church move forward if every Convention they are forced to revisit the past and debate the same issues?

This is why I totally support the Anglican Network being formed in North American. The National Episcopal Church and its official gatherings represent a worldview at odds with the Scriptures and tradition. That worldview and mine can never be reconciled, period. It would be great to be in a Church where we don’t have to revisit heresy every time we gather as a body. I’d love to be among a group of American Anglicans and know when someone says the creed it is said without the crossing of fingers or intellectual gymnastics. If we don’t have to keep arguing about the basics, maybe we could actually move forward in our mission. If you keep trying to re-invent the wheel, you pretty much stay put. The orthodox Anglicans in the Network get it and now it seems the evangelical Methodists do too.

The newest talk on the net is that the Lambeth Commission, which is trying to keep the Anglican Communion together, is considering making the Anglican churches a federation instead of a communion. This allows church diversity and even for one church to be out of fellowship with another. In other words, previously the Anglican Church stood for nothing in a de facto sort of way (mainly through renegades like ECUSA), but now there is talk of making this a part of our institution! What a disaster. You believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, we believe in Gaia, Sophia, and Isis. No biggie, it’s all “Anglican.” If this happens, Anglicanism will forfeit its claim to catholicity. The fact that this has been endorsed mainly by Western, liberal, declining provinces should be enough to convince orthodox Anglicans to run far away from this proposal.

A Glimpse of the Future

Arwen: “You have the gift of foresight. What did you see?”
Elrond: “I looked into your future and I saw death!”
Arwen: “But there is also life. You saw there was a child, you saw my son!”
Elrond: “That future is almost gone.”
Arwen: “But it is not lost.”

Those among the orthodox remnant in ECUSA often play the role of Elrond, but we’ve recently had an Arwen moment. In Atlanta, GA, the bishop of Bolivia re-affirmed over 330 people at 2 services. This included 6 baptisms, 38 confirmations, and 44 receptions. In other words, there were 88 people not previously associated with Anglicanism that found Jesus through the Anglican Way. And all this in a congregation that meets in a school cafeteria. For too long evangelism in American Anglicanism has had the millstone of the National Church to contend with. Now we see a non-ECUSA (yet still Anglican, via Bolivia) parish exploding in growth (the priest expects to double in the next 18 months). And clearly this is not all angry Episcopalians, but new converts to Christ and to Anglicanism. I pray this is a glimpse into the future, the future of a non-ECUSA Anglican Communion in the United States and Canada. Amid all the recent nonsense, especially the “marriage” of Bishop Otis Charles, we see death and the future looks almost gone. But as Atlanta shows, there is also life. The future is not lost.

If you happen to be in Pasadena and are Episcopalian, you may want to check out It’s All About Love: A Celebration of Faith, Love, and Equality* (warning PDF) at All Saints Episcopal. It should be a fun evening where you can spend time with midlevel Hollywood luminaries and even rising star and heresiarch Gene Robinson. But lest equality go to anyone’s head, liberals and wealthy only please. All* are welcome to the table, I guess it just depends what table and what the meaning of “all” is.

*($100 minimum, best seats $10,000).

Neo-Gnostic Revival

My rector (and friend) and I were talking and he told me you can tell a lot about a person’s theology by how he views Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. I agree completely and I think it reveals the neo-Gnostic tendancies among many American Christians.

As a review, Gnosticism is an old heresy which has been revived several times throughout Church history in one form or another. Generally speaking, Gnostics believe that salvation comes through knowledge (Gr. gnosis). They also tend to believe that all creation is evil and many divided the Godhead to speculate an inferior Old Testament Creator God and the superior Father of Jesus. As a result the Gnostic canons of Scripture were usually cut and paste jobs in relation of our current one. Finally, the Gnostics denied the full humanity of Jesus. Some said he only appeared to be human, but didn’t leave footprints, suffer, die, etc. Others took the view that the Spirit in Jesus did not experience full union with humanity, even to the point of leaving the man Jesus before he died.

The orthodox Church Fathers rejected Gnosticism as inconsistent with the apostolic witness, but nonetheless it has been particularly seductive throughout the history of the Church. We are seeing this in America and the West today, especially in the reaction to Mel’s movie. There are people who for one reason or another may not like The Passion and I respect that. But, the religious condemnation of the movie, I believe comes from neo-Gnosticism. It has two sides, both stemming from the most anti-tradition elements of American religion.

First, the revisionist critique, which has been the most vitriolic and the most widespread. They usually complain that the movie is too bloody, too realistic in its portrayal of Jesus’ sufferings, not grounded enough in the Jesus of history (whatever that means). For the revisionists Jesus has become a lightweight, a first century Doctor Phil. The Incarnation is minimized, the bodily resurrection denied, and the power of the cross is removed. We are left with abstract ideas, hardly different than the theological statements about the so-called “Christ of faith” they seek to abandon. The obsession with finding the “historical Jesus” rather than humanizing him has taken him even further into the realm of ideas. Jesus saves through his teachings, through his knowledge, not through the Incarnation or the Cross. The reality of Jesus’ humanity is so downplayed it almost ceases to exist. Not classical Gnosticism, but certainly a cousin. The Passion which graphically portrays Jesus’ human sufferings and death is anathema to this view, just as the Incarnation was an anathema to the the original Gnostics.

The second approach to criticism of The Passion has come from some fundamentalist quarters. They object to a physical portrayal of Jesus on the screen. They insist that the words in the Gospel, the reading of them, is all that is allowed. These are the same churches that often condemn art and even moderate drinking. The material world becomes something that must be resisted. The Incarnation and its purpose of sanctifying creation and breaking it from the bonds of evil (as catholic thought asserts) is denied, at least in practice. Thus, graphically portraying Jesus’ sufferings becomes too close to idolatry in their minds, just like the Jews of Jesus’ day could not conceive of the Incarnation of YHWH as anything other than blasphemy. Jesus’ humanity becomes an afterthought, something we best not dwell on lest God seem too personal. Yet, God did become one of us, which Gibson visualizes so well.

Yet, against all these voices and condemnations, The Passion has been wildly successful. I believe this is for the same reason that orthodoxy triumphed over Gnosticism: the reality of Christ’s humanity is vital given the reality of our humanity. We live in a material world and for God to redeem us outside of our own situation seems distant and unloving. But a God who chooses to stoop down and become one of us, fully and completely, is an act of love that resonates with the human spirit. We cannot make our humanity an abstraction or an afterthought; it defines who we are. What an amazing God we worship for whom becoming man was more than an afterthought or an abstration, but the central event in the mystery of redemption and an act of his immense love for his creation.