Anglican Mainstream

by Andrew Goddard, Fulcrum

When those with power seek to pass legislation explicitly contradicting church teaching and thus face strong and united opposition from denominations across the Christian church, one tactic is to seek out one or two Christian leaders who are happy to disown their church’s teaching in order to provide support for the views of the political elite. It is, therefore, no surprise that Lord Alli of Norbury, in the week before the Marriage Bill is debated in the House of Lords, should seek out a bishop who might be willing to contradict the Church of England’s clear, consistent and critical voice, a voice which will doubtless be raised by bishops and others during the Lords‘ debate.

It is also, in one sense, no surprise that Lord Alli should turn to the Bishop of Salisbury given he has previously expressed his support for same-sex marriage. The tensions that intervention caused in the diocese and with partners in Sudan had, however, led him to reaffirm his commitment to “supporting marriage as it is currently understood”. It was therefore far from certain Lord Alli would get the response he sought. He was, however, supplied with a short two-page statement in the form of a letter, quickly made public, including on the diocesan website. This sets out “why I am sympathetic to the possibility of equal marriage and have a different view from that stated in the Church of England’s response to the Equal Civil Marriage consultation”. Unfortunately for Lord Alli, the statement is flawed in almost every area it addresses and so simply confirms the weakness of the Bishop of Salisbury’s case.

Its main weaknesses relate to five central areas in the debate: history, theology, theological method, the character of human sexuality, and logic.

Read here

Vinay Samuel and Chris Sugden

The Bishop of Salisbury, reported today in the Times and the Daily Telegraph, has argued that “Before Wilberforce, Christians saw slavery as biblical and part of the God-given ordering of creation. In South Africa, the Dutch Reformed Church supported apartheid because it was biblical and part of the God-given order of creation.  Now no-one supports either slavery or apartheid.  The biblical texts have not changed. Our interpretation has.”

It should be noted that the two movements that the Bishop cites were not faithful biblical expressions of the Christianity but were cultural accommodations.  Their views were not the views of the whole church throughout the ages or throughout the world. They were out-of-kilter with the rest of the church’s understanding.

It is unfortunate that Bishop Holtam seems to be engaging in exactly the same cultural accommodation as those he criticizes – in this case setting aside the clear teaching of the Bible, acknowledged by the whole church, to accommodate the church’s situation in a culture that has become sexually morally lax.

He concedes that those who believe that homosexuality is a choice rather than an innate characteristic could argue that same-sex marriage would detract from its heterosexual counterpart. And this argument is with good reason for there is no evidence that same-sex attraction is innate. Eight studies  of identical twins reported today demonstrate that same-sex attraction is not genetic. 

To base an argument and change an established law that has enabled families and communities to flourish for generations on such ill-founded evidence is not acceptable, especially for a church leader.

by Peter Mullen, CEN

Trinity Sunday coming up again. You can’t blame preachers for steering clear of the doctrine of the Trinity. It’s not rocket science. It’s more difficult than that. So we take refuge in comparisons with three-leaf clovers. I recall Forty Years On, an early play by Alan Bennett and still, I think, one of his best. It’s set in a prep school and the young Confirmation candidate asks the Chaplain about the Trinity and he replies: “Oh three-in-one and all that – see your maths master!” But, as St Augustine said, Christianity begins and ends with the Trinity, so we ought to make the annual effort.

Trinity is the mysterious festival of the Being and Persons of God himself. And it’s perfectly acceptable simply to contemplate the Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Ghost; and by this to mean that we believe we were created, redeemed and sanctified.  Blaise Pascal in his night vision famously saw “not the God of the philosophers, but the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” But I wonder if I might take a little space to think about the philosophical significance of our faith.

Christianity is a powerful moral force, but it is also a magnificent intellectual achievement that enabled us to think of the world in an entirely new and creative way. The early Fathers of the Church were among the greatest philosophers and intellects of all time. They lived in the first four centuries after Christ in a long period of moral decay and also of intellectual decay. And by their brilliance and tenacity, they showed us how to put this right.

The late Roman Empire was a polytheistic, pagan society. Worse, it was in the grip of debilitating superstition. They worshipped many gods. Believing in many gods meant that they could not see the world as a unity. They had no concept of a unified world of nature. Everything was under the separate jurisdiction of what you might call the departmental gods.

Read the rest of this entry »

By Michael Gryboski , Christian Post

The head of the Episcopal Church has garnered outrage from some in the Anglican Communion over her claim that St. Paul of Tarsus' curing of a demon-possessed slave girl as described in the Bible was wrong.

In a sermon delivered before the Diocese of Venezuela on the island nation of Curaçao, Presiding Bishop The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori said that by driving the demon out of her Paul was "depriving her of her gift of spiritual awareness."

"Paul is annoyed, perhaps for being put in his place, and he responds by depriving her of her gift of spiritual awareness," said Jefferts Schori.

"Paul can't abide something he won't see as beautiful or holy, so he tries to destroy it. It gets him thrown in prison. That's pretty much where he's put himself by his own refusal to recognize that she, too, shares in God's nature, just as much as he does – maybe more so!"

The passage that Jefferts Schori was preaching can be found in the Book of Acts, chapter 16. The chapter provides an account of some of the mission Paul of Tarsus did in the early church.

Read here

From Gospel Coalition

Here are some thoughts on the debate:

1. Kudos to Andrew Wilson for maintaining his composure as he gently presses Rob not only to be clear on his position, but also to reveal the grounding for the position. Too often, discussions on this issue are so focused on the tip of the iceberg that the foundational, grounding elements of the argument are assumed and never made explicit.
 
2. Rob appeals to the contemporary state of things to make his case:

It is time for the church to acknowledge that we have brothers and sisters who are gay and want to share their life with someone. This is a part of life in the modern world. And that's how it is. And cultural consciousness has shifted. This is how the world is.

When Andrew asks Rob if homosexual behavior is sinful, Rob answers:

I am for monogamy, I am for fidelity, I am for commitment. I think the world needs more of that. I think that promiscuity is dangerous and destructive. Some people are gay and want to share their life with someone, and they should be able to. That's how the world is, and we should affirm that. And we should affirm monogamy, fidelity, and commitment, both gay and straight.

Note that Rob answers by appealing to the way the world is in order to make his case. He believes the church must affirm the world as it is.

What is puzzling to me is why Rob takes such a strong stance on fidelity and monogamy when so many in our culture celebrate sex before marriage, adultery, and all sorts of non-monogamous relationships. If the job of the church is to affirm the world as it is, then wouldn't we have to affirm promiscuity too? It's not a big jump from Rob's comments on accepting homosexuality to accepting promiscuity:

It is time for the church to acknowledge that we have brothers and sisters who are promiscuous and want to share their life with multiple people. This is a part of the modern world and we should affirm that. Some people are promiscuous and want to share their life with more than one person, and they should be able to. That's how the world is, and we should affirm that.

So, on the one hand, the church is to stand apart from the world and call people to repentance – a radical change of lifestyle (from promiscuity that is destructive and dangerous to fidelity that is shalom-creating). But on the other hand, the church must affirm the world and embrace the choices of our gay and lesbian friends because that's just the way the world is. Make sense to you? Me neither.

Read here

by Peter Saunders, CMF

An argument frequently advanced by those attempting to defend homosexual practice is that Christians ‘cherry pick’ the commands in the Bible – that is, they chose to emphasise some commands while ignoring others.

by Peter Saunders, CMF

By Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith, Catholic Herald

Dr Giles Fraser is mistaken when he suggests that celebrating the triumph of the Cross is theologically illiterate

By Peter Saunders, CMF

Read here

By Rob Schwarzwalder

The Bible’s teaching on human sexuality is clear: The only kind of sexual intimacy Scripture countenances exists between one man and one woman, within marriage. This teaching is restrictive, limiting, narrow. It also possesses the singular advantage of being accurate, in the sense of being a faithful representation of what the Bible says.

One need not agree with the Bible to acknowledge its clear teaching. Regarding efforts to diminish the Bible’s teachings about homosexuality, specifically, former Benedictine monk Luke Timothy Johnson, now of Emory University, writes, “I have little patience with efforts to make Scripture say something other than what it says, through appeals to linguistic or cultural subtleties. The exegetical situation is straightforward: we know what the text says.”

The text says that heterosexual fornication and adultery, and homosexual intimacy, are sins against God and those who bear His image. Agree or disagree – you’re free to make that decision. But have the intellectual honesty not to engage in the almost comical expositional gymnastics required to make the Bible say something it doesn’t.

Having read the above, many Americans will be dumbfounded: You mean there are people whose allegiance to an anachronistic collection of ancient writings which articulate an archaic moral code actually drives their thinking and behavior today?
 
Read here

Read also:  Family Research Council gunman pleads guilty to armed terrorism, NBC News

By Matthew Hosier, Theology Matters

From Premier Christian Media

Leading UK evangelical Steve Chalke has written an article for Christianity magazine on why he now affirms committed, faithful gay relationships. Premier's Justin Brierley talks to Steve about why he's changed his mind while theologian Greg Downes offers a defence of the traditional evangelical understanding of sexuality. We also hear the responses and reflections of church leaders including Steve Clifford of the Evangelical Alliance, Richard Harries former bishop of Oxford, Faith Forster of Ichthus Christian fellowship and more.

Listen here

By Peter Saunders, CMF

[...]   In recent decades, however, large budget deficits and the resulting increases in debt have led to concern about the long-term sustainability of the federal government's fiscal policies and neither Republicans nor Democrats have seemed able to control it. Now they are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea – do they increase taxes risking national unrest, stifling growth and pushing the country back into recession, or do they decrease welfare spending and risk pushing hundreds of thousands over the poverty line?

[...]  Despite the fact that America is currently fighting no major war and has lived through a time of great prosperity it is caught in an upward spiral of debt of which over a third is owed to foreign investors. Without a significant decrease in government spending or increase in taxation, this spiral will only increase.

God promised the ancient nation of Israel that if they rejected him they would fall into great calamity including financial calamity:

‘ The foreigners who reside among you will rise above you higher and higher, but you will sink lower and lower. They will lend to you, but you will not lend to them. They will be the head, but you will be the tail. All these curses will come on you. They will pursue you and overtake you until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the Lord your God and observe the commands and decrees he gave you… Because you did not serve the Lord your God joyfully and gladly in the time of prosperity, therefore in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and dire poverty, you will serve the enemies the Lord sends against you. He will put an iron yoke on your neck until he has destroyed you.’ (Deuteronomy 28)

Could it be that America is now facing a similar fate – falling not under the sword but under the financial might of creditors both inside and outside its walls? (see more on the biblical analysis of the debt crisis here).

The US had a glorious Christian past but it is now increasingly driven by a secular agenda.

God’s promise to Israel at a similar time was clear:

‘If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land… But if you turn away and forsake the decrees and commands I have given you and go off to serve other gods and worship them, then I will uproot (Israel) from my land, which I have given them, and… I will make it a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples.’ (2 Chronicles 7:14)

Might America turn? It is not too late yet, but it seems it will not be too long before it is.

Read here

By John Dickson, ABC Religion & Ethics

It is time for the evangelists of unbelief to give up the nonsense that the figure at the heart of Christianity may have never even lived.

There are plenty of good arguments against the world's largest religion, but claiming Jesus never walked the roads of Galilee isn't one of them. To make such a claim is to turn what should be a world heavyweight contest into a lightweight sideshow.

Let me press the boxing analogy a little further. A story is told – and I hope it is true – of three young men who hopped on a bus in Detroit in the 1930s and tried to pick a fight with a lone man sitting at the back of the vehicle. They insulted him – he didn't respond. They turned up the heat of the insults – he said nothing. Eventually, the stranger stood up. He was bigger than they had estimated from his seated position – much bigger. He reached into his pocket, handed them his business card and walked off the bus and then on his way. As the bus drove on the young men gathered around the card to read the words: "Joe Louis. Boxer." They had just tried to pick a fight with the man who would be Heavyweight Boxing Champion of the World from 1937 to 1949.

Today's ardent Jesus-deniers remind me of a reckless gang throwing puerile insults at a gentle giant, oblivious to the fact that they are way out of their league.

Read here

By Albert Mohler

Writing a generation ago, sociologist Christopher Lasch pointed to the weakening of the family as the most significant and dangerous development of our times. In his book, Haven in a Heartless World, Lasch described the breakdown of the natural family as a calamity for the society at large, as well as for the individuals whose lives are so directly affected.

Wycliffe Hall is a theological college set within the University of Oxford, an international centre for the study of evangelical theology, an Anglican seminary for the training of Christian ministers and a centre for postgraduate study and research, aiming  to equip  students for their future ministries through excellent academic teaching, practical ministry experience, and living as part of a vibrant and supportive Christian community.

See new website here

The Rt Rev Professor Tom Wright writes in the Times (10 October) that classic Anglican theology does not see scripture, tradition and reason as equal and parallel sources to be played off against each other but interlocking methods.  "As we read the scriptural accounts which converge upon Jesus ( on whom alone the Church rests), we do so in an ongoing dialogue with tradition (what the Church has said down the years) and with the proper use of reason ( ruling our arbitrary, fanciful or speculative readings). This remains a complex and exhilarating task, not to be captured by caricature."  He notes that the idea that the so called "wings" of the Church "deny the intellectual progress marked by the Enlightenment"  ignores most the the leading theological and biblical studies of the last generation which have taken on the Enlightenment's proper questions but frequently come up with different answers…. and refuted or made redundant many 19th century critical theories [ "the assured results of biblical criticism - AM ed.]  He concludes that "to suggest that a "middle liberalism", in between the two "wings" [i.e. catholic and evangelical of the church - AM ed.], is the natural result of using one's intellect to grapple with first century texts, must itself be challenged, as much in the name of "reason" itself as scripture, tradition or anything else."

by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.

Alan Chambers dodges the real issue at hand and inadvertently plays the role of judge.

Alan Chambers has responded in Christianity Today to the controversy surrounding his public assurances to “gay Christians” that they will go to heaven irrespective of lifelong, self-affirming homosexual practice (read the news story in CT by Weston Gentry: “Exodus International's Alan Chambers Accused of Antinomian Theology, July 12, 2012). Chambers, who is president of Exodus International, uses four flawed strategies in his article, “Thoughts from a Simple-Minded Jesus Lover” (July 16, 2012).

Alan’s first strategy is to play the “aw, shucks” humble card. He’s not a Bible scholar or a theologian, he says, but just a “simple-minded Jesus lover,” neither Calvinist nor Arminian. As “just a Christian,” Alan can rise above the controversy (“That argument is so last year”) to tell us what the Bible really says. This posture, however, does not entitle him to avoid the hard work of actually reading Scripture contextually (as opposed to cherry-picking favorite texts) and revising his theology when others point out the problems in his interpretation of Scripture.[1]

Read here

By Stewart Cowan, Real Street

The evangelical Everyday Champions Church first proposed a free school that would teach creationism as a valid scientific theory last year.

 

That application was rejected by the Government on the basis that “the teaching of creationist views as a potentially valid alternative theory [to evolution] is not acceptable in a 21st-century state-funded school”.

 

Now a new bid submitted by a group of individuals from the Church, but without its formal backing, has been accepted. The backers say Exemplar Academy in Newark, Nottinghamshire, will have a faith ethos but will not be formally designated a faith school, and will only teach creationism in RE.

 

Richy Thompson, campaigners manager at the British Humanist Association, said that the proposed school was “absolutely still dangerous”.

 

The Department of Education said that the new school would be banned from teaching creationism in science classes, but it would be allowed in religious education lessons.