The following is taken from a column last November by Steve Janke, in the Canadian newspaper, The National Post --
How zealotry came to pervert climate science
Posted: November 26, 2009, 11:15 AM by NP Editor
Full Comment, Steve Janke
There are many ways to characterize people, and one way is to separate them into idealists and realists.
The words, as I use them here, mean something somewhat different from their common usage.
An idealist passes judgment on the universe. For the idealist, the universe (or some portion of it, like his country's politics), ought to behave in a certain way. In other words, there is an ideal state that ought to be achieved. Of course, no two idealists will agree to what that state is, and that is why countless millions have died throughout history, caught up in the fight between competing idealists for whom being right is more important than, well, anything. Putting that aside, idealists work on the premise that if the universe (or some portion of it) is not behaving as it should, then the universe (or some portion of it) is broken.
Though not necessarily a characteristic of every idealist, most by far, it seems, also believe that it is their job to fix the universe (or their portion of it). The cost of fixing it is not an issue. Trillions of dollars or millions of lives -- it doesn't matter to an idealist. The stakes are just too high to worry about piddling issues like that. The universe (or their portion of it) is broken, and they know how it should be, and it is their mission in life to remake things to reach that ideal.
Contrast that with the realist. For the realist, the universe (including their portion of it) is neither right nor wrong, it just is. It is in a state reached for any number of reasons, some apparent and some not, but whatever the route taken, it is what it is and you just have to deal with it. There is no right answer to the question about how the universe should be, because the question of how things "should be" is itself meaningless. It is possible to influence conditions under certain circumstances to improve a local situation, and those opportunities ought to be considered, but in the end, our ability to influence things is rather limited, and the outcome of our attempts to alter a situation might not be what we expected or what we hoped. Realists take that in stride, because, as always, there is no right answer to the question "How should the universe be?". A realist merely asks what is the state of the universe now, accepts that, and moves on.
Liberals are invariably idealists of the worst kind. A liberal (in the modern usage of the term) will spend countless millions on social programs, for example, because he is offended that some people don't have this benefit or that. Taking someone else's money, and then using it to deliver that benefit to another person at no cost to that other person, is perfectly acceptable, because now the universe (or this portion of it) is closer to his ideal. The opinion of the person paying the tax is barely considered, since the stakes are so high. That giving something of value to certain people for free might have unintended consequences on the recipients, or on the rest of society, is also blithely ignored, unless the liberal decides that his universe includes a fix for that too, in which case, our liberal will impose his own fix on that problem too. Whatever the cost or consequence.
Conservatives are usually realists. That there are inequities in life is neither acceptable nor unacceptable. That is a moral judgment on what is merely a fact of life, or so a realist would say. Perhaps some inequities can be addressed, but a realist recognizes that virtually any attempt to level out such inequities across broad swathes of the population with massive state intervention will probably create other inequities. And that too is neither good nor bad, it just is, though a conservative will likely wonder if substituting one inequity for another is truly achieving anything, and might opt to leave well enough alone. Indeed, experience shows that large-scale interference typically exacerbates existing problems while simultaneously creating new ones.
In any case, idealists are, by definition, arrogant. You'd have to be to think the universe ought to be a particular way, and that you know what that way should be. Their plan to fix things will always succeed, and if things get worse, then it means their perfect plan wasn't followed correctly. For them, leaving well enough alone is never an option. Efforts are redoubled, and more money and more lives are dedicated to the plan.
Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/26/steve-janke-how-zealotry-came-to-pervert-climate-science.aspx#ixzz0gltYnhJ9
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
This image is how I experience "progressives" as they try to deal with conservatives. They seem to think that we conservatives are too ignorant, or too dimwitted, or too warped to be able to grasp the beautiful "truth" that they have to share.
I am sure that there are conservatives who are thoughtless, ignorant, or psychologically unhealthy - just as there are those who hold to "progressive" positions for reasons that in reality have little to do with those positions. Taht being said, however, the majority of conservatives know what they are talking about, have good reasons to believe what they believe, and are psychologically healthy. We simply have a different starting point - and for Christian conservatives, that starting point is that there is a God who communicates. He may not tell us all we want to know, but he has told us what we need to know in order to trust him, follow him, and grow to be more like him.
I am sure that there are conservatives who are thoughtless, ignorant, or psychologically unhealthy - just as there are those who hold to "progressive" positions for reasons that in reality have little to do with those positions. Taht being said, however, the majority of conservatives know what they are talking about, have good reasons to believe what they believe, and are psychologically healthy. We simply have a different starting point - and for Christian conservatives, that starting point is that there is a God who communicates. He may not tell us all we want to know, but he has told us what we need to know in order to trust him, follow him, and grow to be more like him.
Friday, April 17, 2009
The Wrath of God
A number of our lectionary readings, particularly those near Advent, have much to say about God’s judgment: “He will separate them as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats;” “Watch, therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house will come;” “Prepare the way of the Lord!” The Bible says that when the Lord Jesus returns, he will assemble the nations before himself and judge every individual. To some he will say, “Well done, good and faithful servant!” To others he will say, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” God is a God of justice, and there will be a day when all wrongs are ended and everything will be put right.
The judgment of God flows out of the wrath of God. We often focus on the love of God, and remember his compassion to the troubled and his mercy to the guilty who turn to him for forgiveness. It is easy to think that God’s love means that he has set aside his wrath, as though God has decided that since he cannot scare us into being good he should try to “schmooze” us into acting as we should. Most angry people we meet are people who seethe with anger most of the time, or who can erupt into a fit of anger at a moment’s notice. It is very hard for us to think that both wrath and love can exist in the same person at the same time.
That, however, is exactly what the Bible says is true of God. His wrath and his love are both present at all times. Even more, the wrath of God is part of his love. If you are a parent, you can understand this. It is not just that you love your child even when you are angry with her or him. Think about threats to your child: what do you think of leukemia? What do you think of a bully who would make the life of your child miserable? What do you think of a drug dealer who would lure your child into dependency simply for the sake of his own financial profit?
You would resist each of these things with all the power you had, because each is capable of doing harm to your child and preventing your child from being what he or she can and should be. That is what the wrath of God is – a resisting of what is harmful to his creatures and to creation at large.
Human anger can be diffuse and spread over onto elements of life that do not deserve judgment. Indeed, human anger can be entirely misdirected and have no basis at all. The wrath of God, however, is always accurate, aimed at what is harmful and not what is good. God is never “in a bad mood,” when it would be dangerous for anyone to approach him. He always hates sin and the light of his holiness cannot tolerate the stain of sin for an instant. However, he always loves the sinner, and seeks what is best for him or her. God always wants and seeks the best for all of his creatures.
I am dealing with a complex subject and trying to do so as clearly and concisely as I possibly can. I will not be able to answer all the questions you might have, but want to deal with the heart of the matter as best I understand it from Scripture. God hates sin because it harms his creation, particularly that part of his creation that was created in his own image, the human race.
That is good news for us. Sin hurts us. Indeed, it would destroy us if left to work its complete results upon us. Consider the recent economic upheavals: the meltdown of the credit system of the last few months came about through a combination of several things – the desire of Congress to increase the percentage of home ownership in the population, which led to loans being offered to people who would never be able to repay them; the huge increase in “bundling” mortgages into investment instruments; the practice of selling and re-selling these bundles for a fee; and the invention of the “default credit swap.” Any one of these might have caused some trouble if it went sour, but they all went sour together and financial corporations that held much of their assets in mortgages became untrustworthy. No one would lend them money because they had unreliable assets. That lack of trust spread, and credit dried up – and our economy is so credit-dependent that has come to a crashing halt.
For the last several decades, creative people were making new investment instruments that promised large returns. Other people were reaching for “the American dream” of owning their own home. Real estate values were appreciating very rapidly, and many people tapped into the rising equity of their homes, and were able to buy things – some important, some simply pleasant – that they had long hoped for. Everything seemed very positive in many ways. But there were some greedy people in the midst do all this and we now see a painful halt to what had been an expanding economy and increasing wealth for many.
Greed is one of the Seven Deadly Sins, and greed has been at work to build a house of cards and then to knock it down. It is hard to know how many people who were not in any way involved in the activities that led to the credit collapse who have nevertheless been hurt by it – lost homes, lost jobs, perhaps even marriages that collapsed under the financial pressure. Sin hurts us. That is why God hates sin. At any given time, we may think that something God calls sin is really God being a spoilsport – the thing seems pleasant and we do not see how anyone would be hurt. We, however, are ignorant of the ramifications of the particular activity. An addict may have a few good experiences with a drug and think that he can use it as he pleases and stop any time he wants, yet the reality is that he is on the way to slavery. God created us and he knows what is helpful and what is harmful, even though as we see things they may appear exactly the opposite.
God hates sin because sin hurts us. Our sins may hurt only ourselves, or they may hurt others as well – but sin brings pain and decreases our joy – indeed, I would say that sin decreases our humanity, for, whether we sin against others or are sinned against, we become other than, and less than, what God created us to be.
God’s wrath is not an indiscriminate anger that boils over without explanation or warning. It is a hatred of sin and of all that sin does to hurt us. Of course, if we decide that we prefer the way of sin to the way of God, we will wind up clinging to the object of God’s wrath and experience that wrath ourselves. That indeed is the human dilemma: we were created to enjoy unbroken fellowship with God, but ever since humanity rebelled against God in the Garden and lost that fellowship, we have been trapped in rebellion – wanting to be on our own, and yet aware that something vital was missing. Left to ourselves, we do cling to sin – and so we are slated to experience the wrath of God, if nothing is done.
God hates sin, but he loves us. He wanted to break our attachment to sin and restore us to fellowship with himself, so that we will move from being hurt by sin to being joyful in his presence. He cannot ignore sin because the painful results of sin will last forever unless sin is dealt with. God the Father, in his love for us, sent God the Son to us. At Christmas we celebrate the reality that the Son of God entered his own creation as a human being to experience it from the inside. God hates sin because sin hurts us – and sin hurt him when he walked among us. Jesus did not experience the ill-effects of his own sin, for he committed no sins – but he certainly experienced the ill-effects of the sins of others: the pain of betrayal by his own friend, the angry opposition by those whose pride he revealed, the injustice of a ruler for whom peace was worth more than a human life – all these and more Jesus experienced in his flesh. He knew the pain of sin’s results.
But the Son did not enter the world simply to share with us the pains of living in a broken world. It is enormously encouraging to know that God the Son knows what life is like not only from observation but from direct experience. But Jesus did far more than experience the pains of life in a world filled with sin and brokenness.
Jesus was born in great humility, so poor that he was housed in a stable and put to bed in an animal feeding trough. The humility of God the Son in coming to earth is so amazing and so touching that we rightly wonder at such humility, and we worship and rejoice. The taking on of human nature by the very Son of God is a weighty and joyful thing. God was not compelled to enter his own creation; that he did so when we had become sinful is staggering.
What is even more staggering is that he not only took human flesh and experienced the results of humanity’s sinfulness as the results of human sins came upon him, but he also experienced the spiritual results of sin: spiritual death. Over the manger hung the shadow of the cross, for he was born to die. Jesus, of all human beings, deserved to live forever – his life was everything it should have been. Jesus, however, had not come primarily to teach us and to show us how to live a life that honors and pleases God. Jesus had come to endure what sin deserves, the wrath of God. Since he deserved no such wrath himself, when he bore the wrath of God, he took what we deserve, so that we would not need to experience such wrath.
In Jesus Christ, the love of God and the wrath of God meet. God hates sin and its dreadful effects upon us. He cannot let go of his wrath – if he did, there could be no justice, and the ills of this world would continue on forever. In his love, he must deal with sin and drive it away from his beloved creation. Jesus came to earth and on the cross experienced the fullness of the results of sin – suffering from the sinful acts of others who condemned him, and suffering the spiritual results of sin as though he had sinned himself. He did not sin at all – but he received what we deserve so that we can receive what he deserved in his utter obedience: the joy of being with God forever.
We do not like to consider the wrath of God. It sounds too negative, and too angry. God’s wrath, however, is not the same as human anger, but the response of a loving creator to that which harms his creation. Because of the wrath of God, we have hope of a better life – for God’s wrath will do away with all that harms and distorts his creation – and all that harms and distorts us. As sinful people, we will either experience God’s wrath, if we cling to sin, or the presence of God, if we cling to Jesus, thanking God that his wrath passed over us and came upon Jesus for us.
Those who take refuge in the mercy of God have no fear of the wrath of God. They know that his perfect justice has been satisfied, and that his wrath will pass over them. It has already fallen on "Christ our Passover." The door of reconciliation is open and the perfect relationship between God and his people, for which he created humanity, has been restored. Because the perfect justice of God has been satisfied, no one who looks to Jesus ever need to worry about experiencing God's wrath. His perfect love, which includes his hatred of sin, has brought about a perfect reconciliation.
The judgment of God flows out of the wrath of God. We often focus on the love of God, and remember his compassion to the troubled and his mercy to the guilty who turn to him for forgiveness. It is easy to think that God’s love means that he has set aside his wrath, as though God has decided that since he cannot scare us into being good he should try to “schmooze” us into acting as we should. Most angry people we meet are people who seethe with anger most of the time, or who can erupt into a fit of anger at a moment’s notice. It is very hard for us to think that both wrath and love can exist in the same person at the same time.
That, however, is exactly what the Bible says is true of God. His wrath and his love are both present at all times. Even more, the wrath of God is part of his love. If you are a parent, you can understand this. It is not just that you love your child even when you are angry with her or him. Think about threats to your child: what do you think of leukemia? What do you think of a bully who would make the life of your child miserable? What do you think of a drug dealer who would lure your child into dependency simply for the sake of his own financial profit?
You would resist each of these things with all the power you had, because each is capable of doing harm to your child and preventing your child from being what he or she can and should be. That is what the wrath of God is – a resisting of what is harmful to his creatures and to creation at large.
Human anger can be diffuse and spread over onto elements of life that do not deserve judgment. Indeed, human anger can be entirely misdirected and have no basis at all. The wrath of God, however, is always accurate, aimed at what is harmful and not what is good. God is never “in a bad mood,” when it would be dangerous for anyone to approach him. He always hates sin and the light of his holiness cannot tolerate the stain of sin for an instant. However, he always loves the sinner, and seeks what is best for him or her. God always wants and seeks the best for all of his creatures.
I am dealing with a complex subject and trying to do so as clearly and concisely as I possibly can. I will not be able to answer all the questions you might have, but want to deal with the heart of the matter as best I understand it from Scripture. God hates sin because it harms his creation, particularly that part of his creation that was created in his own image, the human race.
That is good news for us. Sin hurts us. Indeed, it would destroy us if left to work its complete results upon us. Consider the recent economic upheavals: the meltdown of the credit system of the last few months came about through a combination of several things – the desire of Congress to increase the percentage of home ownership in the population, which led to loans being offered to people who would never be able to repay them; the huge increase in “bundling” mortgages into investment instruments; the practice of selling and re-selling these bundles for a fee; and the invention of the “default credit swap.” Any one of these might have caused some trouble if it went sour, but they all went sour together and financial corporations that held much of their assets in mortgages became untrustworthy. No one would lend them money because they had unreliable assets. That lack of trust spread, and credit dried up – and our economy is so credit-dependent that has come to a crashing halt.
For the last several decades, creative people were making new investment instruments that promised large returns. Other people were reaching for “the American dream” of owning their own home. Real estate values were appreciating very rapidly, and many people tapped into the rising equity of their homes, and were able to buy things – some important, some simply pleasant – that they had long hoped for. Everything seemed very positive in many ways. But there were some greedy people in the midst do all this and we now see a painful halt to what had been an expanding economy and increasing wealth for many.
Greed is one of the Seven Deadly Sins, and greed has been at work to build a house of cards and then to knock it down. It is hard to know how many people who were not in any way involved in the activities that led to the credit collapse who have nevertheless been hurt by it – lost homes, lost jobs, perhaps even marriages that collapsed under the financial pressure. Sin hurts us. That is why God hates sin. At any given time, we may think that something God calls sin is really God being a spoilsport – the thing seems pleasant and we do not see how anyone would be hurt. We, however, are ignorant of the ramifications of the particular activity. An addict may have a few good experiences with a drug and think that he can use it as he pleases and stop any time he wants, yet the reality is that he is on the way to slavery. God created us and he knows what is helpful and what is harmful, even though as we see things they may appear exactly the opposite.
God hates sin because sin hurts us. Our sins may hurt only ourselves, or they may hurt others as well – but sin brings pain and decreases our joy – indeed, I would say that sin decreases our humanity, for, whether we sin against others or are sinned against, we become other than, and less than, what God created us to be.
God’s wrath is not an indiscriminate anger that boils over without explanation or warning. It is a hatred of sin and of all that sin does to hurt us. Of course, if we decide that we prefer the way of sin to the way of God, we will wind up clinging to the object of God’s wrath and experience that wrath ourselves. That indeed is the human dilemma: we were created to enjoy unbroken fellowship with God, but ever since humanity rebelled against God in the Garden and lost that fellowship, we have been trapped in rebellion – wanting to be on our own, and yet aware that something vital was missing. Left to ourselves, we do cling to sin – and so we are slated to experience the wrath of God, if nothing is done.
God hates sin, but he loves us. He wanted to break our attachment to sin and restore us to fellowship with himself, so that we will move from being hurt by sin to being joyful in his presence. He cannot ignore sin because the painful results of sin will last forever unless sin is dealt with. God the Father, in his love for us, sent God the Son to us. At Christmas we celebrate the reality that the Son of God entered his own creation as a human being to experience it from the inside. God hates sin because sin hurts us – and sin hurt him when he walked among us. Jesus did not experience the ill-effects of his own sin, for he committed no sins – but he certainly experienced the ill-effects of the sins of others: the pain of betrayal by his own friend, the angry opposition by those whose pride he revealed, the injustice of a ruler for whom peace was worth more than a human life – all these and more Jesus experienced in his flesh. He knew the pain of sin’s results.
But the Son did not enter the world simply to share with us the pains of living in a broken world. It is enormously encouraging to know that God the Son knows what life is like not only from observation but from direct experience. But Jesus did far more than experience the pains of life in a world filled with sin and brokenness.
Jesus was born in great humility, so poor that he was housed in a stable and put to bed in an animal feeding trough. The humility of God the Son in coming to earth is so amazing and so touching that we rightly wonder at such humility, and we worship and rejoice. The taking on of human nature by the very Son of God is a weighty and joyful thing. God was not compelled to enter his own creation; that he did so when we had become sinful is staggering.
What is even more staggering is that he not only took human flesh and experienced the results of humanity’s sinfulness as the results of human sins came upon him, but he also experienced the spiritual results of sin: spiritual death. Over the manger hung the shadow of the cross, for he was born to die. Jesus, of all human beings, deserved to live forever – his life was everything it should have been. Jesus, however, had not come primarily to teach us and to show us how to live a life that honors and pleases God. Jesus had come to endure what sin deserves, the wrath of God. Since he deserved no such wrath himself, when he bore the wrath of God, he took what we deserve, so that we would not need to experience such wrath.
In Jesus Christ, the love of God and the wrath of God meet. God hates sin and its dreadful effects upon us. He cannot let go of his wrath – if he did, there could be no justice, and the ills of this world would continue on forever. In his love, he must deal with sin and drive it away from his beloved creation. Jesus came to earth and on the cross experienced the fullness of the results of sin – suffering from the sinful acts of others who condemned him, and suffering the spiritual results of sin as though he had sinned himself. He did not sin at all – but he received what we deserve so that we can receive what he deserved in his utter obedience: the joy of being with God forever.
We do not like to consider the wrath of God. It sounds too negative, and too angry. God’s wrath, however, is not the same as human anger, but the response of a loving creator to that which harms his creation. Because of the wrath of God, we have hope of a better life – for God’s wrath will do away with all that harms and distorts his creation – and all that harms and distorts us. As sinful people, we will either experience God’s wrath, if we cling to sin, or the presence of God, if we cling to Jesus, thanking God that his wrath passed over us and came upon Jesus for us.
Those who take refuge in the mercy of God have no fear of the wrath of God. They know that his perfect justice has been satisfied, and that his wrath will pass over them. It has already fallen on "Christ our Passover." The door of reconciliation is open and the perfect relationship between God and his people, for which he created humanity, has been restored. Because the perfect justice of God has been satisfied, no one who looks to Jesus ever need to worry about experiencing God's wrath. His perfect love, which includes his hatred of sin, has brought about a perfect reconciliation.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Progressives and Conservatives - In the Same Ball Park?
The Consultation, a coalition of 13 or so "Progressive" groups in ECUSA, recently published their platform for General Convention, 2009. One aspect of Progressive thinking that was both openly advocated and was also an assumption for several planks in the platform is the idea that humanity is inherently good. We do sin, but our sins are errors due to ignorance, faulty judgment, difficult upbringing, etc, etc. Sin is "falling short of the mark," but it is not an inborn part of human nature. If God pronounced all creation, including humankind, "very good," then human beings are indeed "very good."
I made a comment in Susan Russell's blog about Genesis 3 being overlooked in the thinking of Progressives. We may have been "very good" at creation, but we turned away from God early on, and became rebels. Our sin is a refusal to trust, and thus to obey, the living God. My comment engendered several others, criticizing me for being so negative, and so encouraging a low and wretched view of humanity, which keeps us prisoners of gloom and doom.
I later wrote a note on how the ideas of original sin and of total depravity are helpful to a positive attitude and to hope for the future. That comment (made to a posting on Original Blessing, a day or so later than the one on the platform) is posted below.
As I reflect on this still further, however, I am sure that the difference of opinion has its roots in a difference of assumptions. Conservative and Progressives do theology from an entirely different set of presuppositions. I argued for one major meaning to a passage of Scripture, if words are useful for communicating at all. But, Progressives believe (on the whole) two different things about Scripture and about interpreting Scripture.
For conservatives, Scripture is revealed by God. We believe that God spoke by the Holy Spirit through the authors of the Bible. The authors have their own perspective, style, etc, but the Spirit coordinated them all to produce the message he wanted. Conservatives also believe that God, who created the world by his power, also can act within this world miraculously, so that the miracles recorded were actual events. When we interpret Scripture, we do so convinced that our task is possible, for God has a meaning that he intended, and we can, through careful reading, ascertain that reading with a reasonable conviction of accuracy. We also believe that the task of theology is to take what Scripture says in various places and to produce a coherent, logical systematic of the Scriptural teachings of the books of the Bible. The Bible, God’s Word, deals with subjects that are larger than the mind can comprehend, so we are not going to be able to understand God completely, nor will we get answers to all our questions, but since God inspired the human authors to tell us what we need to know about how to relate to God and how we are to live, we will have a clear understanding of many things, or at the very least, a range with boundaries.
Progressives, on the other hand, do not think that the Bible is inspired, at least not in the sense that what the words say was directed by God. From the Progressive point of view, ancient people had spiritual experiences, reflected on them, and then wrote about them. Their encounter with the divine was real, but their interpretation of what that experience meant is not necessarily connected to what God intended. The Bible is to be respected and to be used to develop ideas, for it 1) has primacy in time, and 2) it has been used by the Church since it began. For most Progressives, the Bible also must be respected because it contains the words and teachings of Jesus (although some would say that not all of these are genuine, but many are). Some Progressives consider the miracles to be mere legend, others consider them to have a kernel of truth, but with a much more science-based understanding that can explain the event. On the whole, the supernatural is ruled out and even when it is not, it is minimized.
Since the Bible is not reliably from God, we do not need to take all parts of it seriously. We can take what is useful, or find major concepts and themes, and then develop those concepts without needing to heed what the rest of Scripture says. In addition, thoughts from later times may also be incorporated. In her first sermon as Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori spoke of “our mother Jesus,” using the words of a 12th (?) century mystic. She and other Progressives were astonished that conservatives were horrified at the use of such terms – the mystic had had her own experience of God, as authentic as any prophet, so why were her insights not as valuable? (Or so I think the thinking goes.)
In addition, there seems to be a different understanding of who God is. To conservatives, God is a personal being, incapable od being fully understood, but still knowable because he has revealed himself in creation and in history, and especially in his Word and in his incarnate Son. To Progressives, God is beyond knowing, and all religions have touched upon, somehow, the Divine, and each has its own perspective. Progressives vary on whether Christianity may be more true than other religions, but no Progressive seems willing to say that a particular religion is wrong or that it cannot be a way to truly know (insofar as any religion can be) the divinity.
I do not know exactly what the methodology of Progressive theology is, but it seems to be far more philosophically based than conservative theology. Most of the recent schools of theology (Liberation, feminist, womanist, etc, etc) seem to be theology done from a particular philosophical basis, or at least heavily influenced by a philosophy; Liberation theology draws heavily from a Marxist understanding of history and from “Process Theology.”
In addition, most Progressive theology written recently seems to be highly topical. Maybe someone has written a systematic theology from a Progressive perspective, but I have not heard of one (although that would not be surprising, as I am not an academic). Conservatives seek to have a consistent, coherent theology. Progressives seem to write things that back up a change they want to make, and do not worry about having consistency or even (it appears to me) coherence.
I also think that that many Progressives hold to a “deconstructionist” view of writing, which means that the reader brings all the meaning to the reading event, and the intent of the author has no bearing at all. Such a view means that multiple, conflicting understandings of the text are to be expected – so the Bible is merely a source of ideas. (I have often wondered why anyone who believes in deconstructionism would write anything, since the intent of the author is worthless – I could read something by the most rabid deconstuctionist and say that I was glad to hear that he upheld the idea of strict, logical interpretation. How could such a writer prove me wrong? He would have to admit that he intended a particular message and that I had gotten it wrong, thereby defeating his own thesis.)
Conservatives and Progressives come at the Bible and theology from an entirely different set of presuppositions and perspectives. We use a lot of the same words, but we do not mean the same thing. We refer to the same Bible, but understand its nature quite differently. We understand who Jesus is completely differently. It is no wonder that the Episcopal Church is fracturing, and it will be no surprise when other mainline denominations undergo the process in the next decade or so. We live in houses divided, and we cannot stand.
Post to “An Inch at a Time” on 21 March 09
Usually it is conservatives who say “either-or” and progressives who say “both-and,” but I will vary things a bit by saying we are both beloved and broken. I sometimes use an illustration: humanity is like a Rolls-Royce that has had a bad accident, where the car still runs, but the frame has been bent, the radiator pierced, the wheels are out of alignment, and so forth. You can take one look and know that it is a fine and valuable car – but you will have lots of trouble as you drive it, for many things do not work as they should.
We were formed by God in creation, and he called us “very good.” We were deformed in the Fall, so that we do not trust God to do what is right and good for us, and seek instead to live by our own lights. Those who come to Christ are transformed, so that we once again fully reflect the image of God, and come to trust him completely as we were intended to do at creation.
I am going to cite five passages of Scripture that give me hope and direction. (These are from the English Standard Version)
Mt 6:31-33, Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
This gives us our priorities, the same priorities assigned to Adam and Eve: the Kingdom of God, and a trusting confidence that God will supply what is needed, when it is needed.
Rom 5:8, but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Gal 2:20, I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
These two verses show me how deeply God loves me, and how far his grace goes. They mean that I have the freedom to explore the depths of my heart, and whatever I find there, no matter how dreadful, is covered by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. He already knew the worst about me, and still he chose to die for me. There is nothing I can discover about myself that will cause him to run in terror and say, “That is more than I can forgive!” Thus, I can know the worst, and not fear. And it is when you are willing to know the worst and accept it as a part of yourself that you will also discover the best about yourself, for when we put a barrier over our hearts in order not to see and admit the worst, we also place a barrier in the way of seeing the best. In addition, since evil is not a thing in itself, but rather deformed goodness, whatever ill I discover can be forgiven and its source transformed into a source of good. In my teens I was very sarcastic – but the same ability I had to “read” people and see their weaknesses and then lambast them with pointed words can now be used to understand and to offer words of acceptance, consolation, and direction.
1 Jn 1:8-9, If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
As we recognize our sins, confess them, and offer ourselves to God for transformation, we are cleansed and we become what the Father has called us in Christ: “righteous.” This is something that is recognized in Eucharistic Prayer B: “In him, you have delivered us from evil, and made us worthy to stand before you. In him, you have brought us out of error into truth, out of sin into righteousness, out of death into life.”
Finally, Phil 1:6, And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
There is no need to prettify ourselves and acknowledge and recognize only the good. We can see ourselves whole, and offer it all to Jesus for the sake of his Kingdom. Luther said it very succinctly: “simul justus et peccator.” Those who believe in Christ are at one and the same time justified and sinners. And the day will come when we will be fully transformed, rescued from the penalty, the power, and the presence of sin, in God’s perfect Kingdom. The process of transformation will be complete. All who belong to Jesus Christ will fully reflect his image and will be what God had intended at creation.
I made a comment in Susan Russell's blog about Genesis 3 being overlooked in the thinking of Progressives. We may have been "very good" at creation, but we turned away from God early on, and became rebels. Our sin is a refusal to trust, and thus to obey, the living God. My comment engendered several others, criticizing me for being so negative, and so encouraging a low and wretched view of humanity, which keeps us prisoners of gloom and doom.
I later wrote a note on how the ideas of original sin and of total depravity are helpful to a positive attitude and to hope for the future. That comment (made to a posting on Original Blessing, a day or so later than the one on the platform) is posted below.
As I reflect on this still further, however, I am sure that the difference of opinion has its roots in a difference of assumptions. Conservative and Progressives do theology from an entirely different set of presuppositions. I argued for one major meaning to a passage of Scripture, if words are useful for communicating at all. But, Progressives believe (on the whole) two different things about Scripture and about interpreting Scripture.
For conservatives, Scripture is revealed by God. We believe that God spoke by the Holy Spirit through the authors of the Bible. The authors have their own perspective, style, etc, but the Spirit coordinated them all to produce the message he wanted. Conservatives also believe that God, who created the world by his power, also can act within this world miraculously, so that the miracles recorded were actual events. When we interpret Scripture, we do so convinced that our task is possible, for God has a meaning that he intended, and we can, through careful reading, ascertain that reading with a reasonable conviction of accuracy. We also believe that the task of theology is to take what Scripture says in various places and to produce a coherent, logical systematic of the Scriptural teachings of the books of the Bible. The Bible, God’s Word, deals with subjects that are larger than the mind can comprehend, so we are not going to be able to understand God completely, nor will we get answers to all our questions, but since God inspired the human authors to tell us what we need to know about how to relate to God and how we are to live, we will have a clear understanding of many things, or at the very least, a range with boundaries.
Progressives, on the other hand, do not think that the Bible is inspired, at least not in the sense that what the words say was directed by God. From the Progressive point of view, ancient people had spiritual experiences, reflected on them, and then wrote about them. Their encounter with the divine was real, but their interpretation of what that experience meant is not necessarily connected to what God intended. The Bible is to be respected and to be used to develop ideas, for it 1) has primacy in time, and 2) it has been used by the Church since it began. For most Progressives, the Bible also must be respected because it contains the words and teachings of Jesus (although some would say that not all of these are genuine, but many are). Some Progressives consider the miracles to be mere legend, others consider them to have a kernel of truth, but with a much more science-based understanding that can explain the event. On the whole, the supernatural is ruled out and even when it is not, it is minimized.
Since the Bible is not reliably from God, we do not need to take all parts of it seriously. We can take what is useful, or find major concepts and themes, and then develop those concepts without needing to heed what the rest of Scripture says. In addition, thoughts from later times may also be incorporated. In her first sermon as Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori spoke of “our mother Jesus,” using the words of a 12th (?) century mystic. She and other Progressives were astonished that conservatives were horrified at the use of such terms – the mystic had had her own experience of God, as authentic as any prophet, so why were her insights not as valuable? (Or so I think the thinking goes.)
In addition, there seems to be a different understanding of who God is. To conservatives, God is a personal being, incapable od being fully understood, but still knowable because he has revealed himself in creation and in history, and especially in his Word and in his incarnate Son. To Progressives, God is beyond knowing, and all religions have touched upon, somehow, the Divine, and each has its own perspective. Progressives vary on whether Christianity may be more true than other religions, but no Progressive seems willing to say that a particular religion is wrong or that it cannot be a way to truly know (insofar as any religion can be) the divinity.
I do not know exactly what the methodology of Progressive theology is, but it seems to be far more philosophically based than conservative theology. Most of the recent schools of theology (Liberation, feminist, womanist, etc, etc) seem to be theology done from a particular philosophical basis, or at least heavily influenced by a philosophy; Liberation theology draws heavily from a Marxist understanding of history and from “Process Theology.”
In addition, most Progressive theology written recently seems to be highly topical. Maybe someone has written a systematic theology from a Progressive perspective, but I have not heard of one (although that would not be surprising, as I am not an academic). Conservatives seek to have a consistent, coherent theology. Progressives seem to write things that back up a change they want to make, and do not worry about having consistency or even (it appears to me) coherence.
I also think that that many Progressives hold to a “deconstructionist” view of writing, which means that the reader brings all the meaning to the reading event, and the intent of the author has no bearing at all. Such a view means that multiple, conflicting understandings of the text are to be expected – so the Bible is merely a source of ideas. (I have often wondered why anyone who believes in deconstructionism would write anything, since the intent of the author is worthless – I could read something by the most rabid deconstuctionist and say that I was glad to hear that he upheld the idea of strict, logical interpretation. How could such a writer prove me wrong? He would have to admit that he intended a particular message and that I had gotten it wrong, thereby defeating his own thesis.)
Conservatives and Progressives come at the Bible and theology from an entirely different set of presuppositions and perspectives. We use a lot of the same words, but we do not mean the same thing. We refer to the same Bible, but understand its nature quite differently. We understand who Jesus is completely differently. It is no wonder that the Episcopal Church is fracturing, and it will be no surprise when other mainline denominations undergo the process in the next decade or so. We live in houses divided, and we cannot stand.
Post to “An Inch at a Time” on 21 March 09
Usually it is conservatives who say “either-or” and progressives who say “both-and,” but I will vary things a bit by saying we are both beloved and broken. I sometimes use an illustration: humanity is like a Rolls-Royce that has had a bad accident, where the car still runs, but the frame has been bent, the radiator pierced, the wheels are out of alignment, and so forth. You can take one look and know that it is a fine and valuable car – but you will have lots of trouble as you drive it, for many things do not work as they should.
We were formed by God in creation, and he called us “very good.” We were deformed in the Fall, so that we do not trust God to do what is right and good for us, and seek instead to live by our own lights. Those who come to Christ are transformed, so that we once again fully reflect the image of God, and come to trust him completely as we were intended to do at creation.
I am going to cite five passages of Scripture that give me hope and direction. (These are from the English Standard Version)
Mt 6:31-33, Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
This gives us our priorities, the same priorities assigned to Adam and Eve: the Kingdom of God, and a trusting confidence that God will supply what is needed, when it is needed.
Rom 5:8, but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Gal 2:20, I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
These two verses show me how deeply God loves me, and how far his grace goes. They mean that I have the freedom to explore the depths of my heart, and whatever I find there, no matter how dreadful, is covered by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. He already knew the worst about me, and still he chose to die for me. There is nothing I can discover about myself that will cause him to run in terror and say, “That is more than I can forgive!” Thus, I can know the worst, and not fear. And it is when you are willing to know the worst and accept it as a part of yourself that you will also discover the best about yourself, for when we put a barrier over our hearts in order not to see and admit the worst, we also place a barrier in the way of seeing the best. In addition, since evil is not a thing in itself, but rather deformed goodness, whatever ill I discover can be forgiven and its source transformed into a source of good. In my teens I was very sarcastic – but the same ability I had to “read” people and see their weaknesses and then lambast them with pointed words can now be used to understand and to offer words of acceptance, consolation, and direction.
1 Jn 1:8-9, If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
As we recognize our sins, confess them, and offer ourselves to God for transformation, we are cleansed and we become what the Father has called us in Christ: “righteous.” This is something that is recognized in Eucharistic Prayer B: “In him, you have delivered us from evil, and made us worthy to stand before you. In him, you have brought us out of error into truth, out of sin into righteousness, out of death into life.”
Finally, Phil 1:6, And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
There is no need to prettify ourselves and acknowledge and recognize only the good. We can see ourselves whole, and offer it all to Jesus for the sake of his Kingdom. Luther said it very succinctly: “simul justus et peccator.” Those who believe in Christ are at one and the same time justified and sinners. And the day will come when we will be fully transformed, rescued from the penalty, the power, and the presence of sin, in God’s perfect Kingdom. The process of transformation will be complete. All who belong to Jesus Christ will fully reflect his image and will be what God had intended at creation.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
A Conversation on California Proposition 8
Susan Russell posted this, from Bp Brunno, on her site on 5 Nov 2008 :
I made the following comment:
Ann Marie responded by saying:
And I made the following comment in reply:
One of the questions that has to be dealt with in discussing same-sex marriage is what marriage is. Ann Marie, you seem to be working with the definition that marriage is the legal union (which grants certain privileges and responsibility) of two people who love each other.
Historically speaking, and looking at all cultures, marriage (at its most essential foundation) has meant not simply the union of two people who love each other, but the union of a man and a woman. Marriage as it has been historically understood has an objective dimension to it: male and female. Of course, marriage has had some variations on that objective reality; some cultures allow or encourage polygamy. In some cultures, the couple is chosen for one another by the parents, so that love does not develop until some time after the wedding. In ancient Greece (and I think Rome as well), marriage was to insure legally recognized heirs. Members of the upper class got married – but they also had paramours, of either or both sexes, “on the side.” In more modern times marriages among the wealthy might be more business partnerships than love matches. Nobility and royalty might contract marriages for political purposes.
Marriage has taken a number of forms over the millennia. Some of these forms might well seem hideous to us; to modern hearts, a marriage as a way to cement political or economic ties seems cold-blooded. But whatever the subjective element might be, the objective aspect has always been male and female. Biologically, this makes sense: it takes a male and a female to produce offspring. It takes a mother and a father to raise a child. (Yes, some families are single-parent, and the children raised in many of these are psychologically healthy and well-adjusted. And some household have two adults of the same sex, who may raise healthy children – although it required at least one other person to bring a child into that household.)
What you and other proponents of same-sex marriage propose to do is to remove the objective foundation from the meaning of marriage. You may not have even considered that objective aspect of marriage important. You may have thought that male and female was merely custom, not a part of the essence of marriage. But marriage is a relationship based on both objective (male and female) and subjective (love) elements.
If you remove the objective aspect of marriage, what you have left is the subjective. Affectional preference is the determinant factor. When all you have left is the subjective, you have an extremely unstable foundation. Two women are sexually attracted to each other and have a deep love for one another. Why not marriage for them? But if you have made the subjective aspect – affectional preference – the basis for marriage, then what do you do about all the other affectional preferences that exist? Why is “two” the magic number? Why not three, four, or more? Why not father and daughter? Why not an adult male and an eight-year-old boy? Why not siblings? Why not the living and the dead? Why not affection for animals? If all you have to base marriage on is affectional preference, you have no reason to exclude any affectional preference?
By making the subjective element the sole element for marriage, you have destroyed the very idea of marriage. There are no longer any boundaries. A man or woman may say, “I cannot help it. The only place I find any sense of joy or fulfillment is in brief encounters. Why cannot I have a wife/husband for a week and then move on to someone new?”
You will not destroy my marriage of course. I know what marriage really is, and my wife and I are committed to that God-given ideal. But if, according to law, any and all relationships can be called marriage in the world my grandchildren grow up in, they will be surrounded by instability, and they will not know what it means to be committed to a person for life. They will be given the ideal by law (and quite likely by the educational system, if things continue as they have been going) that only affectional preference matters. And mere emotion, which is so variable, is no foundation for a life. We will have societal chaos that will make our current instability look like “the good old days.”
I call upon Californians who supported Proposition 8 to make an honest and dedicated effort to learn more about the lives and experiences of lesbian and gay humanity whose constitutional rights are unfairly targeted by this measure. Look carefully at scriptural interpretations, and remember that the Bible was once used to justify slavery, among other forms of oppression.
It is important that we understand that we are a state that lives with freedom of religion – and freedom from religious oppression.
In my view, and in that of many Episcopalians, Proposition 8 is a lamentable expression of fear-based discrimination that attempts to deny the constitutional rights of some Californians on the basis of sexual orientation. It is only a matter of time before its narrow constraints are ultimately nullified by the courts and our citizens’ own increasing knowledge about the diversity of God’s creation.
Too often the road to justice is made deeply painful by setbacks such as Proposition 8, which nearly half of California voters rejected. But as our new President-elect has said, “…let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other.”
I made the following comment:
Bp Bruno:
"It is important that we understand that we are a state that lives with freedom of religion – and freedom from religious oppression."
People are entitled to their opinions, regardless of the source of those opinions. Bp Bruno would probably say that his opinion on same-sex marriages comes out of his faith. So why should his faith-based opinion override someone else's faith-based opinion? Or even their fact and research-based opinion?
Bp Bruno:
"In my view, and in that of many Episcopalians, Proposition 8 is a lamentable expression of fear-based discrimination that attempts to deny the constitutional rights of some Californians on the basis of sexual orientation. It is only a matter of time before its narrow constraints are ultimately nullified by the courts and our citizens’ own increasing knowledge about the diversity of God’s creation."
How does he know that opposition to same-sex marriage is "fear-based"? Did he go out and psychoanalyze a sufficiently large sample of opponents to same-sex marriage?
And if the state constitution of California has provisions for amendments to that constitution to be made, and an amendment and proposed and passes according to the proper procedures, that amendment is, inherently, constitutional.
His final sentence in this statement is again a faith-based statement: "our citizens’ own increasing knowledge about the diversity of God’s creation." People have known about the diversity of sexual attractions for a long time. Some people now, for any number of reasons, believe that the differences do not make a difference. Others of us believe that they do make a difference, and that the historic definition of marriage is the proper one, and that to change the definition will weaken marriage and (overall, although not in every case) harm the families and children of our society.
Ann Marie responded by saying:
Hiram,
Considering that a number of the Pro 8 ads I saw promoted a sense of fear I would say the Bishop Bruno hit the nail on the head. Truth was stretched and reality twisted in order to scare people into voting no. Any time people use a non-existant threat to children to win, they are hoping to get a knee jerk reaction based on fear.
Marriage is not weakened by two people of the same sex getting married but rather by narrow definitions where getting married is soley [sic] based on the sex of the people getting married rather than on the health and love present in the relationship. It is not same sex couples that threaten the sanctity of marriage but we ourselves. We won't allow two people who want the life long commitment supported by community get married but we will insist that two children in lust, who happen to be pregnant, get married even knowing the chances of that marriage lasting are low.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
And I made the following comment in reply:
One of the questions that has to be dealt with in discussing same-sex marriage is what marriage is. Ann Marie, you seem to be working with the definition that marriage is the legal union (which grants certain privileges and responsibility) of two people who love each other.
Historically speaking, and looking at all cultures, marriage (at its most essential foundation) has meant not simply the union of two people who love each other, but the union of a man and a woman. Marriage as it has been historically understood has an objective dimension to it: male and female. Of course, marriage has had some variations on that objective reality; some cultures allow or encourage polygamy. In some cultures, the couple is chosen for one another by the parents, so that love does not develop until some time after the wedding. In ancient Greece (and I think Rome as well), marriage was to insure legally recognized heirs. Members of the upper class got married – but they also had paramours, of either or both sexes, “on the side.” In more modern times marriages among the wealthy might be more business partnerships than love matches. Nobility and royalty might contract marriages for political purposes.
Marriage has taken a number of forms over the millennia. Some of these forms might well seem hideous to us; to modern hearts, a marriage as a way to cement political or economic ties seems cold-blooded. But whatever the subjective element might be, the objective aspect has always been male and female. Biologically, this makes sense: it takes a male and a female to produce offspring. It takes a mother and a father to raise a child. (Yes, some families are single-parent, and the children raised in many of these are psychologically healthy and well-adjusted. And some household have two adults of the same sex, who may raise healthy children – although it required at least one other person to bring a child into that household.)
What you and other proponents of same-sex marriage propose to do is to remove the objective foundation from the meaning of marriage. You may not have even considered that objective aspect of marriage important. You may have thought that male and female was merely custom, not a part of the essence of marriage. But marriage is a relationship based on both objective (male and female) and subjective (love) elements.
If you remove the objective aspect of marriage, what you have left is the subjective. Affectional preference is the determinant factor. When all you have left is the subjective, you have an extremely unstable foundation. Two women are sexually attracted to each other and have a deep love for one another. Why not marriage for them? But if you have made the subjective aspect – affectional preference – the basis for marriage, then what do you do about all the other affectional preferences that exist? Why is “two” the magic number? Why not three, four, or more? Why not father and daughter? Why not an adult male and an eight-year-old boy? Why not siblings? Why not the living and the dead? Why not affection for animals? If all you have to base marriage on is affectional preference, you have no reason to exclude any affectional preference?
By making the subjective element the sole element for marriage, you have destroyed the very idea of marriage. There are no longer any boundaries. A man or woman may say, “I cannot help it. The only place I find any sense of joy or fulfillment is in brief encounters. Why cannot I have a wife/husband for a week and then move on to someone new?”
You will not destroy my marriage of course. I know what marriage really is, and my wife and I are committed to that God-given ideal. But if, according to law, any and all relationships can be called marriage in the world my grandchildren grow up in, they will be surrounded by instability, and they will not know what it means to be committed to a person for life. They will be given the ideal by law (and quite likely by the educational system, if things continue as they have been going) that only affectional preference matters. And mere emotion, which is so variable, is no foundation for a life. We will have societal chaos that will make our current instability look like “the good old days.”
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Two Types of Unity and Diversity
The statement from the March meeting of the House of Bishops also includes this statement: “What is important to us is that The Episcopal Church is a constituent member of a family of Churches, all of whom share a common mother in the Church of England. That membership gives us the great privilege and unique opportunity of sharing in the family’s work of alleviating human suffering in all parts of the world.”
This sentence seems to be saying that we have one mission: “alleviating human suffering in all parts of the world.” While Jesus did tell us to help others (and his brother James later said that without such work, our faith is but empty words), the commission he gave us was to call the world to faith in him as the divinely appointed Savior who gave his life for the sins of humanity. It was that commission that sent the Apostles out into the world to preach Christ and to work strenuously for healthy, gospel-preaching congregations.
The Episcopal Church seems to be saying, “Unity of Purpose, Diversity of Beliefs.” Episcopalians are free, it would seem from what many reappraisers are saying, to believe pretty nearly anything, as long as everyone is on board with the purpose of “alleviating human suffering in all parts of the world.”
That is hogwash. We are to have a unity of belief and purpose, and a diversity of gifts to accomplish the ministry of the Church, which is to call all to repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus and to establish congregations which will carry on the belief and purpose commissioned by the Lord Jesus. Yes, we are to help those in need, but physical relief alone is not humanity's ultimate problem. We suffer physical needs because we have rebelled against out Creator and our King. We can only fully meet the needs of humanity if we also enable people to lay down their arms and be reconciled to God.
If we can affirm the Nicene Creed and be guided by Scripture as the revealed Word of God, we will be at unity with the Church. We will also exhibit a breathtaking diversity in gifts and graces, as we seek to serve the Lord Jesus in the myriad ways he will empower and direct.
And in truth, the idea of “Unity of Purpose, Diversity of Beliefs” is bound to result in a unity of beliefs itself in the long run. Such a grouping cannot long tolerate those who would uphold historic faith as being true. To remain within the "modern Episcopal Church," one must bow the knee to affirming the validity of whatever nonsense a fellow Episcopalian may dream up – or else one will be cast out as not affirming diversity. In the end, there will be no diversity at all, but only a group of people who affirm no creed but that of “diversity,” and who may exhibit some diversity of outward appearance or sexual orientation, but not the richness of diversity of those united in a common faith as Jesus as the only Lord and Savior, the one who died to pay the penalty of our sins and who rose to affirm his victory over sin and death.
Glorify Christ and preach him, and a vast diversity of humanity will be drawn to him in love, praise, and gratitude. Glorify diversity, and you will get chaos.Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Category Confusion?
One thing that their letter said about the request to have a Primatial Vicar to oversee conservative dioceses (and parishes?) was, “It violates our founding principles as The Episcopal Church following our own liberation from colonialism and the beginning of a life independent of the Church of England.”
I have read on quite a few “reappraiser blogs” words to the effect that “we fought a war to end British control of this nation.” It is this idea, reflected in the above quote from the HoB’s statement, that leads me to the idea of category confusion. We fought a war in 1776 to attain political independence from Great Britain. But when the dust settled, and the Protestant Episcopal Church was formed in the United States, we went to great lengths to maintain spiritual interdependence with the Church of England.
We did not organize dioceses and then elect bishops and consecrate them ourselves. Rather, the first bishop we elected was sent to England to be consecrated by English bishops, to show our connectedness to the Church of England. When, because of requirements in the English Prayer Book that the candidate affirm loyalty to the King made it impossible for an American to be consecrated bishop, the Rev. Samuel Seabury went to Scotland and the bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church, who had no such requirement in their service of ordination for bishops. The Church of England later recognized the need for Americans to have bishops of their own, and did not require an American candidate for bishop to swear loyalty to the Crown.
If we are connected to the Church of England, and to her other daughter churches, by spiritual ties, then we should heed their voice as they address us. The United States may be politically independent from Great Britain, but that does not make the Episcopal Church independent of all the other Churches of the Communion. Why should we not accede to the voices of love that bid us review our decisions and see if they are appropriate for a Christian Church to make? Apparently, however, we would rather be like the scribes and chief priests, who would rather challenge Jesus than be challenged by him.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Here is an article by JI Packer. He walked out of a synod meeting of the Diocese of New Westminster, in BC, Canada, when the synod (Diocesan Convention) voted to approve the blessing of same sex unions. His reasons are because such blessings do not augment but rather destroy the Gospel of the Lord Jesus.
The following article is located at:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/001/6.46.html
Why I Walked
Sometimes loving a denomination requires you to fight.
| posted 01/03/2003
The following article is located at:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/001/6.46.html
Why I Walked
Sometimes loving a denomination requires you to fight.
| posted 01/03/2003
In June 2002, the synod of the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster authorized its bishop to produce a service for blessing same-sex unions, to be used in any parish of the diocese that requests it. A number of synod members walked out to protest the decision. They declared themselves out of communion with the bishop and the synod, and they appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Anglican primates and bishops for help.
J. I. Packer, an executive editor of Christianity Today, was one of those who walked out. Many people have asked him why. Though one part of his answer applies specifically to Anglicans, his larger argument should give guidance to any Christians troubled by developments in their church or denomination.
Why did I walk out with the others? Because this decision, taken in its context, falsifies the gospel of Christ, abandons the authority of Scripture, jeopardizes the salvation of fellow human beings, and betrays the church in its God-appointed role as the bastion and bulwark of divine truth.
My primary authority is a Bible writer named Paul. For many decades now, I have asked myself at every turn of my theological road: Would Paul be with me in this? What would he say if he were in my shoes? I have never dared to offer a view on anything that I did not have good reason to think he would endorse.
In 1 Corinthians we find the following, addressed it seems to exponents of some kind of antinomian spirituality:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God (6:9–11, ESV).
To make sure we grasp what Paul is saying here, I pose some questions.
First: What is Paul talking about in this vice list? Answer: Lifestyles, regular behavior patterns, habits of mind and action. He has in view not single lapses followed by repentance, forgiveness, and greater watchfulness (with God's help) against recurrence, but ways of life in which some of his readers were set, believing that for Christians there was no harm in them.
Second: What is Paul saying about these habits? Answer: They are ways of sin that, if not repented of and forsaken, will keep people out of God's kingdom of salvation. Clearly, self-indulgence and self-service, free from self-discipline and self-denial, is the attitude they express, and a lack of moral discernment lies at their heart.
Third: What is Paul saying about homosexuality? Answer: Those who claim to be Christ's should avoid the practice of same-sex physical connection for orgasm, on the model of heterosexual intercourse. Paul's phrase, "men who practice homosexuality," covers two Greek words for the parties involved in these acts. The first, arsenokoitai, means literally "male-bedders," which seems clear enough. The second, malakoi, is used in many connections to mean "unmanly," "womanish," and "effeminate," and here refers to males matching the woman's part in physical sex.
In this context, in which Paul has used two terms for sexual misbehavior, there is really no room for doubt regarding what he has in mind. He must have known, as Christians today know, that some men are sexually drawn to men rather than women, but he is not speaking of inclinations, only of behavior, what has more recently been called acting out. His point is that Christians need to resist these urges, since acting them out cannot please God and will reveal lethal impenitence. Romans 1:26 shows that Paul would have spoken similarly about lesbian acting out if he had had reason to mention it here.
Fourth: What is Paul saying about the gospel? Answer: Those who, as lost sinners, cast themselves in genuine faith on Christ and so receive the Holy Spirit, as all Christians do (see Gal. 3:2), find transformation through the transaction. They gain cleansing of conscience (the washing of forgiveness), acceptance with God (justification), and strength to resist and not act out the particular temptations they experience (sanctification). As a preacher friend declared to his congregation, "I want you to know that I am a non-practicing adulterer." Thus he testified to receiving strength from God.
With some of the Corinthian Christians, Paul was celebrating the moral empowering of the Holy Spirit in heterosexual terms; with others of the Corinthians, today's homosexuals are called to prove, live out, and celebrate the moral empowering of the Holy Spirit in homosexual terms. Another friend, well known to me for 30 years, has lived with homosexual desires all his adult life, but remains a faithful husband and father, sexually chaste, through the power of the Holy Spirit, according to the gospel. He is a model in every way. We are all sexually tempted, one way or another, yet we may all tread the path of chastity through the Spirit's enablement, and thereby please God.
Missing Paul's point
As one who assumes the full seriousness and sincerity of all who take part in today's debates among Christians regarding homosexuality, both in New Westminster and elsewhere, I now must ask: how can anyone miss the force of what Paul says here? There are, I think, two ways in which this happens.
One way, the easier one to deal with, is the way of special exegesis: I mean interpretations that, however possible, are artificial and not natural, but that allow one to say, "What Paul is condemning is not my sort of same-sex union." Whether a line of interpretation is artificial, so constituting misinterpretation, is, I grant, a matter of personal judgment. I do not, however, know how any reasonable person could read Robert A. J. Gagnon's 500-page book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon, 2001), and not conclude that any exegesis evading the clear meaning of Paul is evasive indeed. Nor from now on can I regard anyone as qualified to debate homosexuality who has not come to terms with Gagnon's encyclopedic examination of all the relevant passages and all the exegetical hypotheses concerning them. I have not always agreed with James Barr, but when on the dust jacket he describes Gagnon's treatise as "indispensable even for those who disagree with the author," I think he is absolutely right.
The second way, which is harder to engage, is to let experience judge the Bible. Some moderns, backed by propaganda from campaigners for homosexual equality, and with hearts possessed by the pseudo-Freudian myth that you can hardly be a healthy human without active sexual expression, feel entitled to say: "Our experience is—in other words, we feel—that gay unions are good, so the Bible's prohibitions of gay behavior must be wrong." The natural response is that the Bible is meant to judge our experience rather than the other way around, and that feelings of sexual arousal and attraction, generating a sense of huge significance and need for release in action as they do, cannot be trusted as either a path to wise living or a guide to biblical interpretation. Rhyming the point to make what in my youth was called a grook: the sweet bright fire / of sexual desire / is a dreadful liar. But more must be said than that.
Two views of the Bible
At issue here is a Grand Canyon–wide difference about the nature of the Bible and the way it conveys God's message to modern readers. Two positions challenge each other.
One is the historic Christian belief that through the prophets, the incarnate Son, the apostles, and the writers of canonical Scripture as a body, God has used human language to tell us definitively and transculturally about his ways, his works, his will, and his worship. Furthermore, this revealed truth is grasped by letting the Bible interpret itself to us from within, in the knowledge that the way into God's mind is through that of the writers. Through them, the Holy Spirit who inspired them teaches the church. Finally, one mark of sound biblical insights is that they do not run counter to anything else in the canon.
This is the position of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, and of evangelicals and other conservative Protestants. There are differences on the place of the church in the interpretive process, but all agree that the process itself is essentially as described. I call this the objectivist position.
The second view applies to Christianity the Enlightenment's trust in human reason, along with the fashionable evolutionary assumption that the present is wiser than the past. It concludes that the world has the wisdom, and the church must play intellectual catch-up in each generation in order to survive. From this standpoint, everything in the Bible becomes relative to the church's evolving insights, which themselves are relative to society's continuing development (nothing stands still), and the Holy Spirit's teaching ministry is to help the faithful see where Bible doctrine shows the cultural limitations of the ancient world and needs adjustment in light of latter-day experience (encounters, interactions, perplexities, states of mind and emotion, and so on). Same-sex unions are one example. This view is scarcely 50 years old, though its antecedents go back much further. I call it the subjectivist position.
In the New Westminster debate, subjectivists say that what is at issue is not the authority of Scripture, but its interpretation. I do not question the sincerity of those who say this, but I have my doubts about their clear-headedness. The subjectivist way of affirming the authority of Scripture, as the source of the teaching that now needs to be adjusted, is precisely a denying of Scripture's authority from the objectivist point of view, and clarity requires us to say so. The relative authority of ancient religious expertise, now to be revamped in our post-Christian, multifaith, evolving Western world, is one view. The absolute authority of God's unchanging utterances, set before us to be learned, believed, and obeyed as the mainstream church has always done, never mind what the world thinks, is the other.
What are represented as different "interpretations" are in fact reflections of what is definitive: in the one view, the doctrinal and moral teaching of Scripture is always final for Christian people; in the other view, it never is. What is definitive for the exponents of that view is not what the Bible says, as such, but what their own minds come up with as they seek to make Bible teaching match the wisdom of the world.
Each view of biblical authority sees the other as false and disastrous, and is sure that the long-term welfare of Christianity requires that the other view be given up and left behind as quickly as possible. The continuing conflict between them, which breaks surface in the disagreement about same-sex unions, is a fight to the death, in which both sides are sure that they have the church's best interests at heart. It is most misleading, indeed crass, to call this disagreement simply a difference about interpretation, of the kind for which Anglican comprehensiveness has always sought to make room.
Spiritual dangers
In addition, major spiritual issues are involved. To bless same-sex unions liturgically is to ask God to bless them and to enrich those who join in them, as is done in marriage ceremonies. This assumes that the relationship, of which the physical bond is an integral part, is intrinsically good and thus, if I may coin a word, blessable, as procreative sexual intercourse within heterosexual marriage is. About this assumption there are three things to say.
First, it entails deviation from the biblical gospel and the historic Christian creed. It distorts the doctrines of creation and sin, claiming that homosexual orientation is good since gay people are made that way, and rejecting the idea that homosexual inclinations are a spiritual disorder, one more sign and fruit of original sin in some people's moral system. It distorts the doctrines of regeneration and sanctification, calling same-sex union a Christian relationship and so affirming what the Bible would call salvation in sin rather than from it.
Second, it threatens destruction to my neighbor. The official proposal said that ministers who, like me, are unwilling to give this blessing should refer gay couples to a minister willing to give it. Would that be pastoral care? Should I not try to help gay people change their behavior, rather than to anchor them in it? Should I not try to help them to the practice of chastity, just as I try to help restless singles and divorcees to the practice of chastity? Do I not want to see them all in the kingdom of God?
Third, it involves the delusion of looking to God—actually asking him—to sanctify sin by blessing what he condemns. This is irresponsible, irreverent, indeed blasphemous, and utterly unacceptable as church policy. How could I do it?
Changing a historical tradition
Finally, a major change in Anglicanism is involved: Writing into a diocesan constitution something that Scripture, canonically interpreted, clearly and unambiguously rejects as sin. This has never been done before, and ought not to be done now.
All the written standards of post-Reformation Anglicanism have been intentionally biblical and catholic. They have been biblical in terms of the historic view of the nature and authority of Scripture. They have been catholic in terms of the historic consensus of the mainstream church.
Many individual eccentricities and variations may have been tolerated in practice. The relatively recent controversial permissions to remarry the divorced and make women presbyters arguably had biblical warrant, though minorities disputed this. In biblical and catholic terms, however, the New Westminster decision writes legitimation of sin into the diocese's constitutional standards.
It categorizes the tolerated abstainers as the awkward squad of eccentrics rather than the mainstream Anglicans that they were before. It is thus a decision that can only be justified in terms of biblical relativism, the novel notion of biblical authority that to my mind is a cuckoo in the Anglican nest and a heresy in its own right. It is a watershed decision for world Anglicanism, for it changes the nature of Anglicanism itself. It has to be reversed.
Luther's response at Worms when he was asked to recant all his writings echoes in my memory, as it has done for more than 50 years.
Unless you prove to me by Scripture and plain reason that I am wrong, I cannot and will not recant. My conscience is captive to the Word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe [it endangers the soul]. Here I stand. There is nothing else I can do. God help me. Amen.
Conscience is that power of the mind over which we have no power, which binds us to believe what we see to be true and do what we see to be right. Captivity of conscience to the Word of God, that is, to the absolutes of God's authoritative teaching in the Bible, is integral to authentic Christianity.
More words from Luther come to mind.
If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point that the world and the devil are at the moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages is where the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is merely flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.
Was the protest in order? Was "no" the right way to vote? Did faithfulness to Christ, and faithful confession of Christ, require it? It seems so. And if so, then our task is to stand fast, watch, pray, and fight for better things: for the true authority of the Bible, for the "true truth" of the gospel, and for the salvation of gay people for whom we care.
J. I. Packer is an executive editor of Christianity Today.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
First Post
This is my first blog post. I had to get a blog account in order to post on another blogger site. I like to read blogs and comment, but I do not have the time to do regular posts.
I am an evangelical Anglican, and a presbyter in the Episcopal Church (for now, at any rate), serving in the Northeast. My inspirations are Charles Simeon, JC Ryle, John Stott, and JI Packer. These are not easy days for biblical Christians in the Episcopal Church. Only God knows what the future will hold -- and that is my comfort, for as long as I attend to the Lord and seek his will, I will be able to serve him and I will be sustained, no matter what. God is in control!
I am an evangelical Anglican, and a presbyter in the Episcopal Church (for now, at any rate), serving in the Northeast. My inspirations are Charles Simeon, JC Ryle, John Stott, and JI Packer. These are not easy days for biblical Christians in the Episcopal Church. Only God knows what the future will hold -- and that is my comfort, for as long as I attend to the Lord and seek his will, I will be able to serve him and I will be sustained, no matter what. God is in control!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
