Anglican Mainstream

By Peter Stanford, Telegraph

For Christians gathering in churches this Easter weekend, the gospel accounts of Jesus’s death and resurrection bring us to the absolute core of our faith. But, even as I am caught up in the savage brutality of his Crucifixion, and then the rebirth of hope, symbolised by the empty tomb, I cannot help noticing those inconsistencies and contradictions between Matthew, Mark, Luke and John’s versions.

By Mark Tooley, American Spectator

Hundreds of millions of Christians will celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ on Easter Sunday. And after a century and a half of liberal Protestant attempts to redefine the resurrection into merely a metaphor, the vast majority of Christians still believe that Christ's body physically arose. Revisionist theologians still find airtime on the History Channel or PBS, but their project never gained a mass following. Even most secular media coverage about religion today focuses largely on orthodox expressions of Roman Catholicism or evangelical Protestantism. Whatever their own beliefs, most reporters and pundits intuit that rationalist liberal theology does not command a lot of adherents.

The Jesus Seminar, founded in 1985 to adjudicate over which Scriptures were historically accurate, and which always excluded any talk about miracles, once gained widespread attention for its routine objections to traditional Christian belief. "Christ's Body Actually Eaten by Wild Dogs!" was a typical headline from a Jesus Seminar gathering, where liberal scholars would vote with color marbles over which biblical verses were valid. Eventually these self-selected academics ran out of incendiary claims, and the media mostly stopped heeding their pronouncements after founder Robert Funk died in 2005, if not well before. Co-founder and former Roman Catholic priest John Dominic Crosson, now about 76 years old, still soldiers on. He and other kindred academics routinely speak around the nation, gathering usually small audiences of gray-headed, mostly retired clergy. Of course, the Jesus Seminar skeptics insist notions about a divine Jesus being born of a virgin or rising from the dead were self-servingly and dogmatically imposed by the later church. They themselves typically and dogmatically assert Christianity's unqualified support for a redistributive welfare state, sexual liberation, and opposition to the American "empire."

Read here

Letter to CEN from Faith Hanson

Sir,

Slavery in the Bible is a subject which is repeatedly raised in relation to current gender issues, namely human sexuality. Yet again this slavery argument is “trotted out” by Benny Hazlehurst to support his recent spurious ideas on marriage and relationship fulfilment, (April 8). The message we hear is that because the Bible misleads on the subject of slavery, so likewise it misleads on matters of gender and sexuality.

This accusation against Scripture does not stand. It reflects a total misunderstanding of slavery in the Bible, presenting a fallacious argument in an attempt to align the teaching of today’s Church with secular and so-called progressive culture changes. May I suggest that we need to understand Biblical slavery within its own context?

For us in the 21st century, the emotive word, “slavery”, brings pictures to the mind of our fellow human beings who were chained and shipped abroad, ill treated, abused and exploited in a way that was utterly inhumane and unacceptable; and that was the evil form of slavery which Christians rightly campaigned to abolish.

That kind of slavery, however, is very far removed from the slavery /servitude in the Bible. Slaves in the ancient biblical East were “owned” people who ideally acquired various rights which were laid down and practised within a humane and civilised framework according to Old Testament laws and customs. “Do not rule over them ruthlessly” is the recurring injunction in the books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus.

Read the rest of this entry »

By Charles Raven, SPREAD

By 'The Ugley Vicar' in the Church of England Newspaper

[...]  Thus it is ‘Christ and the Church’ which is the paradigm for Adam and Eve, and for all married couples to follow. And the fact that the love between Adam and Eve was imperfect is no more a barrier to the Apostle than the fact that the husbands he addresses are imperfect. It is the paradigm, not its outworking, which counts.

By Tom Colls, Today Programme

As scientists discover increasing amounts about life, the universe and everything, are we approaching a point where we can rely on science alone to answer all of life's big questions?

Physicists have measured the speed of light as 299,792,458 metres per second and have figured out that universe is approximately 13 billion years old.

But does this help when it comes to turning on the light and getting out of bed in the morning?

Biologists can plot the DNA codes that make life possible and chemists can describe in detail how bodies decompose. But does that put you at ease when you contemplate your own death?

These questions lie at the heart of the cultural struggle taking place between religion and science.

Entering the fray is a new book, On Being, in which Oxford University chemist Professor Peter Atkins pieces together all that science has discovered on these big questions, and finds the evidence unquestionable.

Read here

By Albert Mohler

The novelist Saul Bellow once remarked that being a prophet is nice work if you can get it. The only problem, he suggested, is that sooner or later a prophet has to speak of God, and at that point the prophet has to speak clearly. In other words, the prophet will have to speak with specificity about who God is, and at that point the options narrow.

For the last twenty years or so, a movement identified as emerging or emergent Christianity has done its determined best to avoid speaking with specificity. Leading figures in the movement have offered trenchant criticisms of mainstream evangelicalism. Most pointedly, they have accused evangelical Christianity, variously, as being excessively concerned with doctrine, culturally tone-deaf, overly propositional, unnecessarily offensive, aesthetically malnourished, and basically uncool.

Read here

From Anglican TV

Further interview with Charles Raven here

By Albert Mohler

The doctrine of hell has recently come under vicious attack, both from secularists and even from some evangelicals. In many ways, the assault has been a covert one. Like a slowly encroaching tide, a whole complex of interrelated cultural, theological, and philosophical changes have conspired to undermine the traditional understanding of hell. Yesterday, we considered the first and perhaps most important of those changes — a radically altered view of God. But other issues have played a part, as well.

A second issue that has contributed to the modern denial of hell is a changed view of justice. Retributive justice has been the hallmark of human law since premodern times. This concept assumes that punishment is a natural and necessary component of justice. Nevertheless, retributive justice has been under assault for many years in western cultures, and this has led to modifications in the doctrine of hell.

Read here

Read part I here

By Albert Mohler

After reviewing the rise of the modern age, the Italian literary critic Piero Camporesi commented, “We can now confirm that hell is finished, that the great theatre of torments is closed for an indeterminate period, and that after 2000 years of horrifying performances the play will not be repeated. The long triumphal season has come to an end.” Like a play with a good run, the curtain has finally come down, and for millions around the world, the biblical doctrine of hell is but a distant memory. For so many persons in this postmodern world, the biblical doctrine of hell has become simply unthinkable.

By Anita Singh, Telegraph

Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou has been given a primetime BBC Two series, The Bible's Buried Secrets, in which she makes a number of startling suggestions.

She argues in the programme that Eve was not responsible for the Fall of Man and was not even the first woman, as the story of the Garden of Eden did not belong in the first book of the Old Testament.

"Eve, particularly in the Christian tradition, has been very unfairly maligned as the troublesome wife who brought about the Fall," Dr Stavrakopoulou said. "Don't forget that the biblical writers are male and it's a very male-dominated world. Women were second-class citizens, seen as property."

The idea that God had a wife is based on Biblical texts that refer to "asherah". According to Dr Stavrakopoulou, Asherah was the name of a fertility goddess in lands now covered by modern-day Syria, and was half of a "divine pair" with God.

Dr Stavrakopoulou is a senior lecturer in the Hebrew Bible at the University of Exeter, and gained a doctorate in theology from Oxford. Born in London to an English mother and Greek father, Dr Stavrakopoulou was raised "in no particular religion" and does not believe in God.

Read here

By Micah Watson, Witherspoon Institute

From The Ruth Institute

Dr Robert Gagnon @ ITAF – Jesus & Sex

By Fr A J Milner, Catholic Herald (Hat Tip: Barbara Gauthier)

Fr Austin J Milner OP explains the rationale for one of the most striking changes in the new (Roman Catholic) English Mass translation

Perhaps one of the most difficult of the changes which people will be asked to make when the new translation of the Roman Missal comes into use will be that from “And also with you” to “And with your spirit”. People have got used to the former. It makes good sense. Why change it?

“And with your spirit” is the literal translation of et cum spiritu tuo, which itself is a literal translation from the Greek. This phrase, whether in Greek or in Latin, was quite strange to the ancient world. It appears only in Christian writings. It already forms part of greetings at the end of some of the Pauline Epistles: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit brethren. Amen” (Gal 6:18; cf Phil 4:23; Philemon 25); “The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you” (2 Tim 4:22).

It may be that St Paul was echoing here a liturgical formula that was already familiar to the recipients of his letters, but we have no way of knowing this for certain. The work known as The Apostolic Tradition, sometimes attributed to Hippolytus, in a passage which dates from the third or early fourth century, shows that the liturgical use of the phrase is by that time well established. Before the prayer of thanksgiving over the bread and wine the bishop greets the assembly with the words “The Lord be with you” and all reply “And with your spirit”. The same exchange accompanies the kiss given by the bishop to each of the newly baptised when he has laid hands on them and signed their foreheads with chrism.

Read here

By Sarah Finch, CEN

During the next nine months, in Anglican circles, there will be a great deal of debate about the women bishops legislation, in parishes and in deanery and diocesan synods. Frequently, no doubt, speakers will refer to Scripture, showing how their convictions are derived from the word of God. One of the passages that will often be referred to is a crucial verse in St Paul’s letter to the Galatians, chapter 3 verse 28: ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus’ (ESV).

But this verse is understood in two very different ways: some people believe it supports the consecration of women as bishops, others believe it is about a different topic altogether, and so should not be cited in the debate.

In the words of Canon A5: The doctrine of the Church is grounded in the Holy Scriptures … Since it is Scripture that binds us together, it is critically important that Scripture be properly understood.

Writing to Timothy, St Paul instructs him to be ‘… a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth …’ (2 Timothy 2:15, ESV)The implication is clear: there is a wrong way of handling the word of truth.

Read the rest of this entry »

By Michael Nazir-Ali

The Rt Revd Michael Nazir-Ali commends the recent ARCIC report and urges us all to read the Scriptures more carefully as we seek to discover the unique role of Mary in the incarnation of the Son

There is a difference in culture in the two Churches in how we approach the Blessed Virgin Mary. And this difference in culture may also be a difference in theological culture. From the earliest days of the Christian Church there had been two 'tempers', one associated with Alexandria which is speculative and dogmatic, and one associated with Antioch which is historical and biblical, and inductive rather than deductive. If you wanted a crude guess about where I think the Roman Catholic Church's approach is, I would say that it is much more Alexandrian, particularly in its relation to Mary, and the dogmas and beliefs about Mary which have been developed over the years. Whereas the Anglican approach, even that of the Caroline divines and the Non-Jurors, has been more inductive; biblical, historical and patristic. We are discovering more and more that each approach can enrich the other. But it is worth recognizing the difference.

Since the second Vatican Council the Roman Catholic Church has shown a welcome tendency in all of its pronouncements to examine first the biblical background to any particular doctrine. And so we found it easy in ARCIC to consider, first of all, 'Mary and the Bible'. Pretty straightforward? Actually it raises all sorts of questions about how we read the Bible. Many of the reformers were critical of ways of reading it that had developed in the middle ages: the allegory and even the typography had got so florid you could make any part of the Bible mean anything at all. The Reformers were calling the Church back to a historical and literary seriousness, and the Anglican side were well aware of this. So we were delighted that the Roman Catholics also wanted to begin with the Bible and with some discussion about how typology, for example, could validly be used.

Of course, with the Older Testament, we must use typology with regard to Mary, as with Jesus. Anglicans sometimes sing Bishop Thomas Ken's hymn 'Her virgin eyes saw God incarnate born', which compares Mary to Eve. What was said about Eve in Genesis 3.15, about her offspring crushing the serpent's head, must apply in any kind of typological approach to the Blessed Virgin Mary. So not all allegory and typology is wrong and having got rid of the excesses we can now see where, from the Older Testament, we can validly talk of Mary.

Read the rest of this entry »

By Graham Kings, Fulcrum

• The emphasis on the unique mediation of Christ, and the implication that words such as 'co-redeemer' are inappropriate concerning Mary.
• That the sensitive spiritual context of this discussion means that we are 'treading on holy ground' and therefore, in our dialogue, the first thing we need to do is to 'take off our shoes' and not trample on people's sensitivities.
• God's commandment to 'honour your father and mother' applies to Mary, in that she was chosen by God to be the mother of Christ.
• God's choosing is not just for an hour or a day, but for eternity.
• In Mary's song, she says she will be called blessed, as indeed she is, and has been, called for many centuries.
• The apologia for the virginal conception in the Lucan narrative, para 18, fn 2.
• The admission that there was a mistranslation in the Vulgate of Gen 3:15 ('she will strike your head' instead of 'he…'), which has led the 'Latin Church' to see this as referring to Mary. The statement shows that the Neo-Vulgate translates it correctly.
• The note that Mary was not considered to be without sin in the thought of Irenaenus, Origen, Tertullian, Ambrose and John Chrysostom, para 38 fn 8.
• The Roman Catholic criteria on private revelations of Mary, para 73.
• The stress on issues of justice in the Magnificat, para 74.
• The 'ecumenical' traditions within our own Anglicanism, in that the invocation of Mary and the saints is not a communion-dividing issue, para 75, because many Anglican Catholics believe in the propriety of these prayers and we are in communion with them.

Read here

By Rachel Williams, Guardian

Bishop of Oxford says anti-Islam protests make the subject essential for the English baccalaureate

By Albert Mohler

The reversal of the curse of sin originates in God’s love and his sovereign determination to save sinners, and it is grounded in the cross and resurrection of Christ. The atonement of Jesus Christ accomplishes our salvation from sin. Nevertheless, the New Testament makes clear that we are awaiting the transformation of our bodies and the arrival of the Kingdom in fullness. Any honest reading of the New Testament leaves us knowing that our salvation is secure in Christ, but we await the final display of Christ’s glory in the Kingdom’s fullness.

In understanding the Kingdom, we benefit by considering the fact that the Kingdom is already here, inaugurated by Christ, but is not yet fully come. The “already/not yet” character of the Kingdom explains why, though sin is fully defeated, we still experience sin in our lives. Death was defeated at the cross, but we still taste death. The created order continues to cry out for redemption, and the venom of the serpent still stings.

Read here

By Albert Mohler

The third great movement in the Christian metanarrative begins with the affirmation that God’s purpose from the beginning was to redeem a people through the blood of his Son – and that he does this in order to show the excellence of his name throughout eternity. The God of the Bible is not a divine strategist, ready with a new plan in the event his original plan fails. The God of the Bible is sovereign and completely able to accomplish his purposes. Thus, when we come to the great act of God for our redemption we come to the very heart of God’s self-revelation.

Beyond this, an adequate understanding of human sin brings us to the inescapable conclusion that there is absolutely nothing that the human creature can do to rescue himself from his plight. We find ourselves in an insoluble situation and are brought face to face with our own finitude. What is worse, all our efforts to solve the problem on our own lead only into an even deeper complex of sin. We are rebels to the core, and our attempts to justify ourselves lead only into deeper levels of sinfulness.

Read here