Anybody casually reading my writing on this blog might really think that I have it in for the Episcopal Church USA. I really don’t, but they do seem to be a perfect example of where liberal mainline Christianity is off the tracks. But today’s installment shows that they are not only off the track, but the train has plunged off the cliff, exploded, and the wreckage is smoldering.
Now, some of you, no matter how well you know me and trust me, will nevertheless have to click the link to be sure that I’m not making up something this completely ridiculous. That’s okay, though, because when my friend Herb Saunders [hat tip] sent this to me, as much as I trust Herb, I had to read it for myself to believe it.
Here goes: an Episcopal priest of some 20 years, Rev. Ann Holmes Redding, has become a muslim - but without leaving the priesthood or the church. She’s claims to be BOTH a Christian and a muslim. You can read the whole story here.
There’s so much to write about, one hardly knows where to begin. I’ll start by commending Kurt Fredrickson of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, whom the articles quotes, for asking the blazingly obvious question that seems to not bother Rev. Redding:
“There are tenets of the faiths that are very, very different,” said Kurt Fredrickson, director of the doctor of ministry program at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif. “The most basic would be: What do you do with Jesus?”
Indeed. What do you do with Jesus? Rev. Redding’s answer is the most wonderful illustration of the absolute intellectual bankruptcy of postmodern relativism:
Redding doesn’t feel she has to resolve all the contradictions. People within one religion can’t even agree on all the details, she said. “So why would I spend time to try to reconcile all of Christian belief with all of Islam?
“At the most basic level, I understand the two religions to be compatible. That’s all I need.”
…
“It wasn’t about intellect,” she said. “All I know is the calling of my heart to Islam was very much something about my identity and who I am supposed to be.
Isn’t it wonderful how relativism makes virtue of intellectual laziness?
And, lest you wonder about the ECUSA’s position on all this, when asked, they said that it was up to her bishop, who opined as follows:
Redding’s bishop, the Rt. Rev. Vincent Warner, says he accepts Redding as an Episcopal priest and a Muslim, and that he finds the interfaith possibilities exciting.
So, there you have it. It’s “exciting” to the powers that be in the ECUSA.
It is absolutely no wonder that the African branches of the Anglican Communion consider the US to be apostate and in need of conversion. I suggest they get a missionary out to Seattle ASAP.
The Cross intersects the past, present, and future. The finished work of Christ in the past is the basis for our present justification, anticipating God’s ultimate verdict in the future that we are indeed righteous. In a similar way, the cross stretches us from the past to the present to the future in the way we conceive the Church. We hold fast to the traditions passed down to us, but we also stand ready to engage the future.
Peter Leithart has some helpful comments in this regard:
According to Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy’s cross of reality, individuals are always stretched out on a cross, in four directions - to the past and to the future, to the inside and to the outside. Growth and maturity come when we endure the cross in faith that when we are torn to pieces we will yet be revived, that our death on the cross of reality is the gateway to life. Like Jesus, we are glorified through the cross.
Churches are also on the cross.
Churches are called to remain faithful to the past while also boldly embracing the novelty of the future; called to cultivate a distinctive language and culture inside the community, while also listening attentively to voices from outside.
Life would be much easier if we could ignore one or the other poles of the cross. Life would be much easier if we could retreat to a pure inside and ignore the outside; life would be much easier if we could rest in the securities of the past rather than face the uncertainties of the future.
Another great group of people joined Riverwood recently. However, according to the Association of Religious Data Archive, less and less people view actual membership as vital, necessary, or spiritually significant.
And although, this is substantially less-than-scientific, I have compiled a “Top 10 List” of popular objections to official membership. Instead of commenting on all of them, select just one and point out its flaws or merits.
I am an unabashed fan of Ronald Reagan. I think he was a great (not perfect) president in a time that desperately called out for great leadership. In many ways, his ghost haunts the Republican Party to this day, which is searching for the next great leader of that caliber.
Twenty years ago today, Ronald Reagan stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate, on this side of the Berlin Wall, and gave a speech in which he uttered the now famous line, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” Here’s a clip of that speech:
Isn’t it amazing how much the world has changed since then? There’s now one Germany, not two. That wall was torn down, and shortly after it, the entire “Iron Curtain.” Reagan, once reviled by many politically, has since died, and was given a hero’s burial, being credited even by his former adversaries for his role in bringing down communism.
Yet, in many ways, the world has not changed much at all. In this speech, Reagan asserted that when nations allow their people to live in freedom, the cause of peace is advanced. Consider how similar this is to George W. Bush’s more recent speeches where he argues that freedom is best antidote for middle eastern dictatorships and Islamic fascism. I think Reagan was right (and, by extension, so is Bush 43) that tyrannies are generally destabilizing in the world, and that free democracies rarely make war on each other, thus advancing peace. But note that the problem remains the same today as in Reagan’s time (as it was in FDR’s time, etc., etc. all the way back through history): oppression and tyranny. We who are reformed are likely to see this as an affirmation that, over history, the depravity of mankind is unchanging and constant. That’s certainly how I see it.
Yet, God is gracious to us here in the West and in the US in particular. We today enjoy freedom, liberty, and prosperity almost unheard of in human history. I believe that God has worked through ordinary, imperfect men like Reagan to give us that blessing. This speech just reminded me of that. The Powerline guys are friends with the author of this speech, Peter Robinson. Over on their site, he recalls the story of how the speech came to be delivered over the objections of many in the government at the time. Fascinating stuff. You can read it here.
This week the PCA (our denomination) will meet for its annual General Assembly. Each year Ruling Elders and Teaching Elders from our churches congregate to discuss and deliberate various theological, cultural, and practical issues facing our denomination.
The PCA has enjoyed much growth in recent years while remaining faithful to the Gospel and historic Christian orthodoxy. We also are a “big-tent” denomination including inner city church plants in needy areas, downtown high-churches, suburban mega-churches, country parishes, and everything in between. With such a healthy diversity, obviously our ministers and leaders do not agree on every jot and tittle of theology. That is why our denomination practices “good-faith subscription.” Members and ministers do not have to agree on particular matters that are unclear or commonly disputed in our Confession of Faith.
Many faithful men of God in the PCA are rightfully concerned to protect the purity of the church against threats to the gospel. Unfortunately, though, Presbyterians have an unpleasant track record of infighting, and thus splintering all in the name of “the Gospel.” While we should be eager to protect the purity of the church, we should also be eager to protect the unity of the church.
As the General Assembly meets this week, please pray for our elders and ministers to wisely carryout the business of our denomination in a way that preserves the unity and peace of the PCA.
Hugh Hewitt, whose blog I have plugged several times before, has a fantastic exchange on his site this morning. He hosts a radio show (which, unfortunately is not carried by any local station) and on yesterday’s program he hosted a debate which he called “The Great God Debate.”
On the non-believer side was Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens is an atheist liberal (his latest book is an argument for atheism entitled God is not Great). However, his liberalism is not of the anti-war peacenik kook variety. He is very pro-US in the war and is quite eloquent in his defense of Western Civilization, especially against the threat of Islamofascism. So, even though I don’t agree with him on religion, he’s not, to use Jean Kirpatrick’s formulation, a “blame America first” type.
On the believer side is Mark D. Roberts, whose blog I read occasionally as well. Roberts is the senior pastor of First Pres. in Irvine, CA (Kimberly’s hometown). Despite being PCUSA, he’s very conservative in his theological views, and I would describe him, from what I’ve read, as pretty solidly reformed. He’s got a new book out, which is a defense of the reliability of the Gospels historically, called Can We Trust the Gospels?
Both men debating are extremely bright and articulate, despite how I may disagree with Hitchens. I’ve only made it through the first exchange (the entire transcript covers the three-hour radio show), but it looks like great reading. I recommend it highly. Go here and enjoy!
Jeff Miller’s recent post was very helpful to me as I tried to figure the recent, troubling “book banning” thing out. In fact, this post originated as a response to Jeff, but became lengthy enough and enough of a rabbit trail to necessitate its own space. Because of respect I hold for some of the book-banners, I could not easily write them off as paranoid kooks or power-hungry autocrats….but identifying it as an issue of CONTROL makes more sense to me….an earnest fear that “this thing will get out of control” and everything will take a new and never envisioned direction….the loss of control by the “old guard”…that makes sense. When I have created something I tend to want to maintain control over the direction it goes. Of course, this is quite at odds with my intellectual understanding of God, His sovereignty and His ways, but I understand it. Most parents, I assume from my own experience, have this kind of battle with themselves and their children from time to time. I lay a certain foundation, and even though I can see the stamp of that foundation in my children…they sometimes take it in directions I did not envision…which makes me nervous! I prayed a lot when my sons were small that they would be warriors, men’s men. Now that my first born is preparing to be a “navy nuclear emergency diver,” planting and defusing underwater mines and going into the guts of torpedoed, nuclear-powered ships to repair them enough to limp back to port… “well, Lord, could I make some amendments to that prayer?”
This reminds me of something a former pastor, Dr. Summers, (who wrote the Communion Hymn we occasionally sing at Riverwood), once counseled me about. He said, “The problem we encounter with our aging parents is, they increasingly want and need us to assume their responsibilities, but refuse to give up the decision-making power that the responsibilities entail.” That helped me a lot. In this same vein, I am reminded of a prayer for sons that has always been valuable to me. In part, it says, “I want you to be one of the best men that ever lived-to see God and to reveal him to men…I ask, I implore, that Christ may be formed in you, that you may be made not in any likeness suggested by my imagination, but in the image of God-that you may realize not my, but His ideal-however much that ideal may bewilder me, however little I may recognize it when it is created. I hate the thought that out of love for me you should accept my presentations, my feeble ideal, of the Christ. I want God to reveal His Son to you independently of men-to give you a first hand knowledge of Him whom I am only beginning to see.” (Forbes Robinson.)
I think this speaks to the issues our denomination is wrestling with. I do not believe either “side” of these arguments really involves heresy or wolves among the sheep. Christianity, like children, continues to grow up. It must. Surely none of us think we have it all figured out. But there is that problem of control…and the needed ability to discern the difference between heresy and growth pains.
mir•a•cle (mĭr’ə-kəl)
n. An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God.
While in a hotel recently, I was flipping television channels and landed on the preaching of Joel Osteen. His sermon topic was how to be a miracle in someone’s life. Osteen described how he often buys dinner for people he sees in restaurants, buys shoes for needy kids, and even stopped his car one day to offer his umbrella to some ladies walking in the rain. He described all these acts as being miracles in the recipients’ lives. You and I too can produce miracles in others’ lives, if we simply follow Osteen’s lead. I’d love to spend time discussing how this is a totally inappropriate use of the word “miracle”, but the punch line came later on.
Osteen explained if you want to “get on God’s good side” you will be a giver to others. Get on God’s good side? Is that all it takes? Why in the world did Jesus come to Earth and die the death He did if I can get on God’s good side by simply sharing my umbrella? This sounded so strangely opposite to what Tim preached a few weeks ago. There is nothing wrong with buying dinner for someone…unless I am doing it to get on God’s good side. Then it becomes disgusting. Oh how I wanted to rail on Osteen. I so badly wanted to send him an email listing all the ways his theology was so screwed up – until I remembered the things I do to make God like me. I found myself in a strange place. My blood was boiling over what I heard Osteen say, but I also knew that I still put on my costume and perform to gain God’s approval.
I think I was finally able to sleep when I realized that I truly do not believe I must, or even can, do anything to get on God’s good side. The only reason I am on His good side is because of His unfathomable grace…but I really am there, whether or not I share my umbrella. Yes, I sometimes forget this beautiful reality and try to convince God to accept me. But again, through His grace and mercy, I am reminded that He truly does like me.
It isn’t terribly often that I find myself sympathetic to any of the statements of the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State, but this may be one.
This all centers around the latest idiotic statement coming out of a televangelist’s mouth - or, rather, computer. Bill Keller runs a minisitry through an internet site called “LivePrayer.com.” Keller sends out daily devotionals to his site’s subscribers. The May 11 devotional was a doozie. You can read the whole thing here. The point of it was to trash Mitt Romney, his campaign for President, and his religion. I don’t want to be misunderstood as being sympathetic theologically to Mormonism - I’m definitely not. But, regardless of anyone’s feelings about Mormonism, I think that most fair minded folks will find these statements from Keller’s devotional to be over the top:
If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for satan! This message today is not about Mitt Romney. Romney is an unashamed and proud member of the Mormon cult founded by a murdering polygamist pedophile named Joseph Smith nearly 200 years ago. The teachings of the Mormon cult are doctrinally and theologically in complete opposition to the Absolute Truth of God’s Word. There is no common ground. If Mormonism is true, then the Christian faith is a complete lie. There has never been any question from the moment Smith’s cult began that it was a work of satan and those who follow their false teachings will die and spend eternity in hell. This message is about the top Christian leaders in our nation who are supporting this cult members quest to become the next President of the United States.
And that’s just the first paragraph.
Now, the reaction from Americans United for Church and State was predictable. They’re calling for Keller’s organization’s tax-exempt status to be revoked for engaging in political activities. Read about that here.
I think that Keller has definitely crossed the line. And, for whatever it’s worth, I think lots of churches and Christian ministries with tax-exempt status are doing this too, though perhaps not as egregiously and boldly as Keller did. Perhaps the draconian remedy of revocation isn’t quite called for yet. That’d be hard to say definitively without knowing what the ministry’s history has been with the IRS. But, I’m much more in agreement with AUSCS than I typicaly find myself on this one, for sure.
Interestingly, I just got a new ruling from the IRS on this very issue on Friday. The ruling gave guidance to non-profits about what does and doesn’t cross the line into prohibited politicking. Here are some of the hypotheticals the IRS gave in the ruling:
Situation 5. Minister C is the minister of Church L, a section 501(c)(3)
organization and Minister C is well known in the community. Three weeks before
the election, he attends a press conference at Candidate V’s campaign
headquarters and states that Candidate V should be reelected. Minister C does
not say he is speaking on behalf of Church L. His endorsement is reported on
the front page of the local newspaper and he is identified in the article as the
minister of Church L. Because Minister C did not make the endorsement at an
official church function, in an official church publication or otherwise use the
church’s assets, and did not state that he was speaking as a representative of
Church L, his actions do not constitute campaign intervention by Church L.
Here’s another:
Situation 9. Minister F is the minister of Church O, a section 501(c)(3)
organization. The Sunday before the November election, Minister F invites
Senate Candidate X to preach to her congregation during worship services.
During his remarks, Candidate X states, “I am asking not only for your votes, but
for your enthusiasm and dedication, for your willingness to go the extra mile to
get a very large turnout on Tuesday.” Minister F invites no other candidate to
address her congregation during the Senatorial campaign. Because these
activities take place during official church services, they are attributed to Church
O. By selectively providing church facilities to allow Candidate X to speak in
support of his campaign, Church O’s actions constitute political campaign
intervention.
One More:
Situation 21. Church P, a section 501(c)(3) organization, maintains a web
site that includes such information as biographies of its ministers, times of
services, details of community outreach programs, and activities of members of
its congregation. B, a member of the congregation of Church P, is running for a
seat on the town council. Shortly before the election, Church P posts the
following message on its web site, “Lend your support to B, your fellow
parishioner, in Tuesday’s election for town council.” Church P has intervened in
a political campaign on behalf of B.
As a general matter, the IRS says, “A communication is particularly at risk of political campaign intervention when it makes reference to candidates or voting in a specific upcoming election.” Given these examples and the Service’s generalization, I think that Keller ought to be worried. And that’s probably a good thing.
