VirtueOnline Digest, Vol 17, Issue 28
2 views
Skip to first unread message
virtueonli...@listserv.virtueonline.org
Jul 28, 2017, 8:34:42 AM7/28/17
to virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org
=================================
VirtueOnline Weekly News Digest
http://www.VirtueOnline.org
=================================
Welcome to the VOL Weekly News Digest, an electronic communique of news about The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion is brought to you by VirtueOnline (VOL), a non-profit news and information ministry to the Anglican Communion. Subscriptions are offered free of charge.
For questions about the digest, to subscribe or modify your subscription:
a. Visit: http://www.virtueonline.org/listserv.html, or
b. Email your request to: in...@virtueonline.org
VOL depends on its readers for financial support. Please consider a tax deductible donation. You can do so via check or credit card. http://www.virtueonline.org/support.html
VIRTUEONLINE
570 Twin Lakes Rd
P.O. Box 111
Shohola, PA 18458
http://www.virtueonline.org
http://www.facebook.com/virtueonline
http://twitter.com/VirtueOnline
THANK YOU FOR READING AND SUPPORTING VOL
--
P.S. Direct replies to this digest do NOT go to VOL staff. If you wish to comment on today's digest, please address your email to in...@virtueonline.org
Today's Topics:
1. Table of Contents (David Virtue)
2. VIEWPOINTS: July 28, 2017 (David Virtue)
3. The Decline of the Episcopal Church (David Virtue)
4. Hearing Panel to recommend suspension of ministry for Bruno
(David Virtue)
5. St. James church property in Newport is under bishop's
control, civil judge rules (David Virtue)
6. An Open Letter to Anglicans of Great Britain (David Virtue)
7. CHURCH OF ENGLAND: Ichabod - the glory of the Lord has
departed (David Virtue)
8. The Movement for a Renewed Orthodox Anglicanism (David Virtue)
9. The Queen's former chaplain is leading a vicar rebellion over
gay marriage, as he threatens to break away from the Church of
England (David Virtue)
10. Fundamental shifts in the General Synod (David Virtue)
11. CHURCH OF ENGLAND: Hull Minster Holds Service for LGBT
(David Virtue)
12. Including the Exclusive: how liberal can you be? (David Virtue)
13. Church of England 'withdrew emotional support for abused'
(David Virtue)
14. Conservative Anglicans are close to despair. Is the CofE
about to split? (David Virtue)
15. An Open Letter to Anglicans of Great Britain (David Virtue)
16. Anglican leader in Jamaica breaks ranks by calling for
legalisation of sodomy (David Virtue)
17. Gay marriage opened the door to the trans madness (David Virtue)
18. The Religious Left's Abortion Gospel (David Virtue)
19. The Tyranny of Hurt Feelings (David Virtue)
20. Spin of The Year (David Virtue)
21. When men stop believing in God, they believe anything
(David Virtue)
22. Leaving the denomination (David Virtue)
23. 6. PATIENCE: What Does it mean to be a Mature Christian
Disciple? - 2 Peter 3:5-18 (David Virtue)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:21:06 -0400
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: Table of Contents
Message-ID:
<1501244466.2245367....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
VirtueOnline Weekly News Digest - Desktop & Mobile Edition
www.virtueonline.org
July 28, 2017
*************************************
VIEWPOINTS
*************************************
1. Bishop Bruno Suspended * Episcopal Church Continues to Decline *
Church of England Synod Crosses the Line * Schism inevitable...
http://www.virtueonline.org/bishop-bruno-suspended-episcopal-church-continues-decline-church-england-synod-crosses-line-schism
*********************************************
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
*********************************************
2.The Decline of the Episcopal Church
http://www.virtueonline.org/decline-episcopal-church
3.Hearing Panel to recommend suspension of ministry for Bruno
http://www.virtueonline.org/hearing-panel-recommend-suspension-ministry-bruno
4.St. James church property in Newport is under bishop's control, civil
judge rules
http://www.virtueonline.org/st-james-church-property-newport-under-bishops-control-civil-judge-rules
*********************************************
CHURCH OF ENGLAND NEWS
*********************************************
5.An Open Letter to Anglicans of Great Britain
http://www.virtueonline.org/open-letter-anglicans-great-britain
6.CHURCH OF ENGLAND: Ichabod - the glory of the Lord has departed
http://www.virtueonline.org/church-england-ichabod-glory-lord-has-departed
7.The Movement for a Renewed Orthodox Anglicanism - Sign to join up
http://www.virtueonline.org/movement-renewed-orthodox-anglicanism-sign-join
8.The Queen's former chaplain is leading a vicar rebellion over gay.
http://www.virtueonline.org/queens-former-chaplain-leading-vicar-rebellion-over-gay-marriage-he-threatens-break-away-church
9. Fundamental shifts in the General Synod
http://www.virtueonline.org/fundamental-shifts-general-synod
10.CHURCH OF ENGLAND: Hull Minster Holds Service for LGBT
http://www.virtueonline.org/church-england-hull-minster-holds-service-lgbt
11.Including the Exclusive: how liberal can you be?
http://www.virtueonline.org/including-exclusive-how-liberal-can-you-be
12.Church of England 'withdrew emotional support for abused'
http://www.virtueonline.org/church-england-withdrew-emotional-support-abused
13.Conservative Anglicans are close to despair. Is the CofE about to
split
http://www.virtueonline.org/conservative-anglicans-are-close-despair-cofe-about-split
14.An Open Letter to Anglicans of Great Britain
http://www.virtueonline.org/open-letter-anglicans-great-britain
***************************************
GLOBAL ANGLICAN NEWS
***************************************
15.Anglican leader in Jamaica breaks ranks by calling for legalisation
of sodomy
http://www.virtueonline.org/anglican-leader-jamaica-breaks-ranks-calling-legalisation-sodomy
********************************
CULTURE WARS
********************************
16.Gay marriage opened the door to the trans madness
http://www.virtueonline.org/gay-marriage-opened-door-trans-madness
17.The Religious Left's Abortion Gospel
http://www.virtueonline.org/religious-lefts-abortion-gospel
18.The Tyranny of Hurt Feelings
http://www.virtueonline.org/tyranny-hurt-feelings
********************************
AS EYE SEE IT
********************************
19.Spin of the Year
http://www.virtueonline.org/spin-year
20.When men stop believing in God, they believe anything
http://www.virtueonline.org/when-men-stop-believing-god-they-believe-anything
21.Leaving the denomination
http://www.virtueonline.org/leaving-denomination
*********************************
DEVOTIONAL
*********************************
22.Patience: What Does It Mean To Be A Mature Christian Disciple? - 2
Peter 3:5-18
http://www.virtueonline.org/6-patience-what-does-it-mean-be-mature-christian-disciple-2-peter-35-18
END
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:22:17 -0400
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: VIEWPOINTS: July 28, 2017
Message-ID:
<1501244537.2245992....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Jesus and the young. The young, with their strong loathing for the
unauthentic, quickly detect any dichotomy between the church and its
founder. Jesus has never ceased to attract them. They see him as the
radical he was, impatient with the traditions of the elders and the
conventions of society, a merciless critic of the religious
Establishment. They like that. But the church? Somehow it seems to them
to have lost the 'smell' of Christ. So many vote -- with their feet.
They get out. --- John R.W. Stott
We need to be faithful to our first and true calling. We don't need
reform. We need renewal. --- Fr. Dwight Longenecker
"I do not think there are many among Bishops that will be saved, but
many more that perish." --- St. John Chrysostom, Extract from St. John
Chrysostom, Homily III on Acts 1:12.
ON TEC: Having abandoned anything to do with orthodox Christianity, we
find that we have made ourselves completely irrelevant. If we spin our
theological and financial bankruptcy as a sign of our virtue, maybe we
won't look so bad. --- Rod Dreher
"Sin is not a characteristic of a particular group of people. Sin is the
same for all of us. And the challenge to take onto ourselves the
obligation to be yoked with Christ, to bear the load he gives us, is the
same for all of us." --- Archbishops Justin Welby and John Sentamu
Dear Brothers and Sisters
www.virtueonline.org
July 25, 2017
Los Angeles Bishop J. Jon Bruno got his, this week, when the long-time
bully received a scathing 91-page order of a Hearing Panel of bishops
that voted to suspend him. The blistering report highlighted a career of
venality and behavior that just stopped short of seeing him tossed out
of the Episcopal Church forever. He will not be deposed, (that's only
reserved for adulterers apparently). He did get support from the
conservative bishop of North Dakota, the Rt. Rev. Michael G. Smith, who
said (property issues) like this should not go to secular courts, but be
resolved internally as the Apostle Paul said they should be.
He is right. But Bruno's sins are way deeper than a property dispute.
He's a pig, a bully, a hater of orthodoxy that saw him toss out the
godly evangelical, Rev. Richard Crocker (and 80% of his congregation)
from St. James the Great, long before Canon Cindy Voorhees got her hands
on the property. Furthermore, getting a suspension for three years from
a job that he was already slated to leave by the end of the year is
disingenuous at best.
One magazine said the order "painted a sustained, meticulous, and
devastating picture of the sixth bishop of Los Angeles." Indeed, it
does. Bruno got a three-year 'get lost' card. The truth is, we will not
hear from him again. If he thinks he can get any kind of job after three
years, he should ask Bishop Stacy Sauls, former TEC COO on how he is
doing finding a job. He can't even find a small parish. You'll recall he
got fired by PB Michael Curry in a shake-up at 815 and is suing the
Church for more money and, presumably, his tattered reputation.
Even if Bruno appeals, it is irrelevant. His successor as Bishop of Los
Angeles, the Rt. Rev. John Harvey Taylor, was consecrated as the
diocese's bishop coadjutor on July 8 and is already up and running.
Bishop Bruno's opportunity to appeal will begin after the Hearing Panel
issues the final order. Bruno's three-year suspension will not begin
until sentence is pronounced by the president of the Disciplinary Board
for Bishops, the Rt. Rev. Catherine M. Waynick, retired Bishop of
Indianapolis. The canons (IV.17.6) specify that sentence must be
pronounced not less than 40 and not more than 60 days after the order is
issued, but that clock will stop if Bruno appeals.
Any way you cut it, it is over for the bully of LA...and all the
millions he lost in lawsuits.
A very reliable "inside" source told VOL that the L.A. diocese is in
financial crisis and faces total collapse within 12 months and that is
why Bruno desperately tried to close the property deal.
The good news, if there is any, is that Voorhees will probably get her
church back, but not the original congregation who left years ago for
greener spiritual pastures.
*****
The decisions taken in the February and July 2017 sessions of the Church
of England General Synod crossed a line never before reached, writes Dr.
Chik Kaw Tan a member of General Synod. "Its failure to take note of the
definition of marriage as that between 'one man and one woman in
lifelong commitment, its embrace of key LGBT agenda (banning so-called
'conversion therapy' for unwanted same-sex attraction, liturgy to mark a
person's gender transition) has caused serious consternation, anger and
anxiety in the Church of England, and beyond."
It was the scale of defeat of orthodoxy in the July sessions that is
most shocking, he writes.
He thinks that within the next 3-7 years, three tumultuous and tragic
events will occur:
1.There will be a major split in the Church of England over sexuality
issues. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury is, apparently, willing and
ready to accept that.
2. There will be deep division between the orthodox who choose to remain
in the Church of England and those who choose to leave (whilst remaining
Anglican within the Anglican Communion or leaving the denomination
entirely)
3. There will be a more formalized split in the global Anglican
Communion, along with the continuing re-alignment between the orthodox
across all Christian denominations.
As if to reinforce the possibility of a split, was the emergence of some
20 strong evangelical voices including bishops, clergy and laity, which
argued that the recent actions in the General Synod was little more than
a pursuit of a culture which denies biblical ethics, as they have been
practiced and understood 'at all places and in all times' and has caused
many Anglicans great concern.
"There are times, particularly in the face of social disintegration,
when it is the duty of the Church to be counter-cultural. The failure of
the House of Bishops to uphold the teaching of the Bible and of the
Universal Church in this area is very disappointing, if not surprising.
"The booing of traditionalists and the levels of personal abuse aimed at
them during the General Synod has only deepened mistrust between the
different sides.
"There are now effectively, at least, two opposed expressions of
Anglicanism in this country. One which has capitulated to secular
values, and one that continues to hold the faith 'once delivered to the
saints'."
There you have it. If this is not the loudest and clearest voices
hammering at Archbishops Justin Welby and John Sentamu, they have to be
the blindest, deafest and dumbest leaders on God's green earth.
Of course, all this is grist for the GAFCON mill. They are watching all
this playing out in the CofE and you can be sure that GAFCON chairman
and Nigerian primate, Nicholas Okoh, will have something to say about
all this in his August letter.
The twenty signers concluded this; "We and others stand with the
majority of faithful Anglican across the globe, in prioritizing
Scripture and the unanimous teaching of the universal Church over
secular fashion. We note the results of this same conflict in North
America, even as we look for and pray for a similar renewal of orthodox
Anglicanism and of Anglican structures in these islands."
If the CofE continues to appear to be shaped more by its surrounding
culture than theology and particularly if its bishops fail to clearly
teach the sexual ethic supported by the wider Communion...then it may be
that the ACNA Synod will come to be seen as representing an even more
seismic shift than that which some hope and others fear occurred at
General Synod, concluded one blogger.
One hopes that someone in Lambeth Palace is reading all this and
slipping a note to Justin Welby with his morning coffee.
*****
The steady drip, drip, drip of sodomite inclusion in the Church of
England continues apace. Rochester Cathedral is exploring establishing
an LGBTI+ friendly Eucharist and social/pastoral support group for some
members of the congregation, and as a wider offering to the diocese of
Rochester as a whole.
A provisional date has been arranged for Wednesday 18 October at 6pm.
Organized by Joel Love -- had to look him up: He's vicar of St Peter's
Rochester -- the parish in which the cathedral sits. Presumably he's
also organizing it with the consent / support of the Dean and Chapter.
Anybody who thinks that it is all not going to come apart are deluding
themselves. The CofE is going down the same pathway as TEC and the ACoC
and only a fool would say otherwise.
*****
The Episcopal Church continues to slide into irrelevancy with figures
showing further decline of the dying denomination.
The Episcopal Church lost almost a quarter of its members from 1986 to
2010, within the context of a rapidly rising population. Between 2010
and 2015, TEC's baptized membership dropped further by 172,000 to
1,779,335, meaning the overall drop in membership from 1980 to 2015 was
on the order of 30%.
This and other findings were made by Dr. Jeremy Bonner, a Durham-based
researcher, and reported by David Goodhew for Covenant, the weblog of
The Living Church in a no holds barred look at the decline of The
Episcopal Church.
During the 1990s, average Sunday attendance was relatively stable, but
from around 2000, serious decline set in. This has continued and TEC's
average Sunday attendance dropped by nearly one third between 2000 and
2015, from 857,000 in 2000 to 579,780 by 2015. While there is some
regional variation, substantial decline has been happening across the
country.
The rate of baptism has been cut almost in half over a thirty-year
period. But the rate of decline has steepened. Child baptisms increased
slightly in the early 1980s, then declined dramatically from around
1990. That decline has continued since 2010. In 2000, TEC baptized
46,603 children, but new numbers show that in 2015, TEC baptized 24,069
children, nearly half the number baptized in 2000.
Adult baptism's decline was even more striking. In 2015, 3,305 adults
were baptized by TEC, less than half the number of adults TEC baptized
in 2000: 7,231.
TEC has started only 12 churches in recent years, compared to the ACNA
which starts, on average, one new church plant every week. You can read
more about this in today's digest. 2016 figures are due out in
September. Whatever the numbers show, one thing is certain, TEC is
rapidly descending to 500,000 Average Sunday Attendance.
*****
AS TEC prepares for General Convention in 2018, the following was sent
out to all attendees from the Office of Public Affairs: The House of
Deputies Committee on the State of the Church has issued a press release
seeking input from church leaders on the work of the Church Pension Fund
and the work of individual congregations in areas of social justice.
"The State of the Church committee is canonically mandated to prepare a
report on the state of the Episcopal Church for the House of Deputies,
which we send to the House of Bishops after we have approved it," says
the Rev. Gay Clark Jennings, President of the House of Deputies. "Based
on the concerns I've heard raised in my conversations with deputies and
other leaders at General Convention and as I travel around the church,
in 2015 I asked the group to focus on the state of the church in three
specific areas: multicultural ministries, justice and advocacy
ministries, and the Church Pension Fund."
There is a distinct omission of any mention of the gospel that promises
to change peoples' lives. Of course, there is concern for "multicultural
ministries" that they hope will rope in Hispanics and other disparate
groups, but what's the Church selling these folks? Many will be divorced
Catholics who still want to have holy communion. "Justice and Advocacy"
groups of which there are an endless number will be largely ignored by a
government that is to the right of Attila the Hun, and the Church
Pension Fund, which has a cool $13 billion, faces several thousand
retiring clergy in the next 3 years, could be a wee bit overwhelmed.
*****
Columnist Rod Dreher has written a brilliant piece on why TEC is
failing. The Mass. based Episcopal Divinity School announced it was
closing its doors and you might ask why. With courses like Liberating
Bible Interpretations, Antiracist, and White Identity: Approaches to
Reading Scripture; Feminist Theories and Theologizing and Challenging
the Liturgical Traditions, Postcolonial, and Queer Perspectives, it
doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure why the seminary collapsed.
The seminary was briefly led by a lesbian priest who championed
abortion, which tells you even more.
Dreher had this to say; "If I were a billionaire, I would buy the EDS
buildings in Cambridge, Mass., and turn them over to the Anglican
Archbishop of Nigeria. After an exorcism, naturellement."
You can read his Spin of the Year story here:
http://www.virtueonline.org/spin-year
*****
"Union is not a panacea", writes Archbishop Mark Haverland, Metropolitan
of the Anglican Catholic Church. Writing in the latest issue of The
Trinitarian, he said that while efforts in the matter of the Continuing
Church unification are "very hopeful and in and of themselves worth
undertaking", such efforts, however, do not relieve us of the duty to
grow our own parishes and improve the pastoral and organizational skills
of our clergy. The progress we are making should help. It will not solve
all problems." A reunified Continuing Church movement is not a panacea,
he said.
*****
A CofE evangelical theologian, Martin Davie, has identified "serious
problems" with The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and
Polynesia (ACANZP) report on same-sex church blessings.
A review of the Interim Report of the Motion 29 Working Group is
seriously flawed says the theologian.
"The Motion 29 Working group was a group of six people set up by the
Anglican Church in Aotearoea, New Zealand and Polynesia (ACANZP)
following the failure of its 2016 meeting of the General Synod/Te Hinota
Whanui (GSTHW) to find a common view on whether it would be right to
permit the blessing in church of same-sex couples who had previously
entered into a civil marriage...as the report goes on to say, the
Working Group's mandate was neither to consider the differing
theological positions on the blessing of same-sex couples, nor to look
at the teaching of Scripture in relation to this issue. Instead the
Group was asked to consider... what arrangements and safeguards could be
put in place to hold us together within the same ecclesial family so
that no one was forced to compromise sincerely held beliefs. We were
asked to find structural solutions which would hold our Church together
in that unity which Christ expressed, and which He has gifted to us.'
[...]
Davie critiqued the idea of holding differing convictions over the
blessings of same sex couples advocated by one liberal priest as "a
beautiful Anglican accommodation" to be largely fictional.
He cites seven serious problems with this report which mean that it
would unwise for ACANZP to accept its recommendations or for those in
the Church of England to see it as a model to imitate. You can read his
full report here: http://www.ceec.info/
*****
The Anglican Bishop of Jamaica, Howard Gregory, has called for the
legalization of sodomy and has broken ranks with many fellow Christian
leaders in the region. He has urged the removal of the offence of sodomy
from the law. He has also recommended a widening of the definition of
rape and the recognition of marital rape.
In a written submission to the committee examining the Sexual Offences
Act and related laws in which he emphasized that his views were
personal, Gregory likened his position to that of the executed German
Christian leader Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who had argued that the aim of the
Church is not 'that the authorities make Christian policies, Christian
laws and so on, but that they be proper authorities in the sense of
their special commission'.
The Jamaica Gleaner reported that Gregory believes that the State should
not waste time with a referendum on the sodomy law, and instead should
simply strike it from the books.
Gregory cautioned that he was not advocating the legalization of
same-sex marriage, and said "sexual activity engaged in public spaces is
illegal and should continue to be so, whether of a heterosexual or
homosexual nature. Beyond that, what happens in privacy between
consenting adults should be beyond the purview of the Government."
*****
Two out of five self-identified white evangelicals own a gun, higher
than any other religious group, according to a recent study from the Pew
Research Center. Four out of five have fired one.
But only a quarter of white evangelical gun owners are members of the
National Rifle Association (NRA), and more white evangelicals actually
want US gun laws to be stricter than less strict. (A plurality is
satisfied with the status quo.)
The 41 percent of white evangelicals that own a gun surpasses the 33
percent of white mainliners, the 32 percent of the religiously
unaffiliated (or "nones"), the 29 percent of black Protestants
(two-thirds of whom identify as evangelical, according to Pew), and the
24 percent of Catholics who own one also. (By comparison, 30 percent of
all American adults report they own a gun.)
However, the most faithful aren't packing the most heat.
Americans who attend religious services weekly were less likely to own a
gun than those who attend less frequently (27% vs. 31%). And Americans
with a high level of religious commitment were less likely to own a gun
than those whose commitment is low (26% vs. 33%).
But the major reason cited most often--by majorities of all religious
groups--was protection. More than half of white evangelicals (57%) say
protection is the single most important reason they own a gun, compared
to hunting (21%) or sport shooting (10%) or for their job (1%).
GUN deaths include the following: 11,208 homicides, 21,175 suicides, 505
deaths due to accidental or negligent discharge of a firearm, and 281
deaths due to firearms use with "undetermined intent". ... In 2012, 64%
of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides.
Having a gun in your home significantly increases your risk of death --
and that of your spouse and children. And it doesn't matter how the guns
are stored or what type or how many guns you own.
If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your
non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related
accident, suicide or homicide.
Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that having a gun in your
house reduces your risk of being a victim of a crime. Nor does it reduce
your risk of being injured during a home break-in.
*****
White evangelicals worry more about personal health than terrorism and
mass shootings, according to a report in Christian Today. Health is the
main worry among white evangelicals, with 75 per cent worrying about a
personal health crisis.
That is compared to 66 per cent who worry about being the victim of a
terrorist attack and just 38 per cent who worry about being the victim
of a mass shooting.
According to a new Pew Research survey, 26 per cent worry "a lot" about
their health, while only 15 percent worry a lot about terrorism and just
5 percent worry a lot about mass shootings.
*****
The 1928 Prayer Book Alliance has changed its name. It was formerly
Episcopalians for Traditional Faith, founded in 2002 in New York City.
*****
VOL's Summer Appeal is under way and we hope you will consider a
tax-deductible donation. We are light on funds and really need your
help. Summer is always a slow period for most non-profit organizations,
but the bills pile up and must be paid.
Please consider making a tax-deductible contribution through PAYPAL at
the link here: http://www.virtueonline.org/support-vol/
Or you can send a snail mail check to:
VIRTUEONLINE
570 Twin Lakes Rd
P.O. Box 111
Shohola, PA 18458
In Christ,
David
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:22:31 -0400
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: The Decline of the Episcopal Church
Message-ID:
<1501244551.2245996....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
The Decline of the Episcopal Church
By David W. Virtue, DD
www.virtueonline.org
July 24, 2017
The Episcopal Church lost almost a quarter of its members from 1986 to
2010, within the context of a rapidly rising population. Between 2010
and 2015, TEC's baptized membership dropped further by 172,000 to
1,779,335, meaning the overall drop in membership from 1980 to 2015 was
on the order of 30%.
This and other findings were made by Dr. Jeremy Bonner, a Durham-based
researcher and reported by David Goodhew for Covenant, the weblog of The
Living Church in a no holds barred look at the decline of The Episcopal
Church.
During the 1990s, average Sunday attendance was relatively stable, but
from around 2000, serious decline set in. This has continued and TEC's
average Sunday attendance dropped by nearly one third between 2000 and
2015, from 857,000 in 2000 to 579,780 by 2015. While there is some
regional variation, substantial decline has been happening across the
country.
The rate of baptism has been cut almost in half over a thirty-year
period. But the rate of decline has steepened. Child baptisms increased
slightly in the early 1980s, then declined dramatically from around
1990. That decline has continued since 2010. In 2000, TEC baptized
46,603 children, but new numbers show that in 2015, TEC baptized 24,069
children, nearly half the number baptized in 2000.
Adult baptism's decline was even more striking. In 2015, 3,305 adults
were baptized by TEC, less than half the number of adults TEC baptized
in 2000: 7,231.
However startling the drop in baptisms, the most dramatic data was for
marriages. Here the decline was shown to be steady, from 38,913 in 1980
to 11,613 in 2010. This dropped further to 9149 in 2015. In other words,
in 2015 TEC married less than a quarter of the number it married in
1980!
Comparison with other churches and other denominations was equally
revealing. Are things worse for TEC than elsewhere, or sometimes better?
Bonner's research showed that between 1980 and 2010, some American
denominations grew (notably Roman Catholicism, the Southern Baptist
Convention, Mormons and Pentecostals -- although some of these have seen
their rate of growth shrink in recent years) and others have declined to
varying degrees. TEC is not the worst performing of U.S. denominations,
but it is one of the worst. The mainline churches have, in the main,
done worse than the non-mainline.
>From the early 1990s TEC has started around 12 congregations a year
across the United States, markedly fewer than in the 1970s and '80s and
vastly fewer than in the 1950s and '60s (when between 40 and 100 were
being founded each year). Wider evidence suggests that disinterest in
starting new congregations correlates with a greater propensity to
decline.
Division? One explanation is division. TEC lost a number of
congregations in recent years to what is now the Anglican Church in
North America (ACNA). But TEC has declined by a far larger amount than
can be accounted for by such divisions. Moreover, in several key
metrics, TEC's decline long predates these divisions. Even if you add
TEC and ACNA together, Anglicanism in the United States has dramatically
declined in recent years, notes Bonner.
What are the lessons for the wider Church? U.S. Anglicanism operates in
a very different context to other parts of Anglicanism. That said, there
is much for wider Anglicanism to learn from the U.S. experience.
Bonner's analysis shows how TEC has dramatically declined in recent
years. There is a sense that the wider Anglican Communion has not
awakened to how far and fast that decline has happened.
VOL. Not true. The Global South, especially GAFCON, have been made
painfully aware of TEC's losses from several sources including VOL over
the years..
In significant parts of the United States, TEC has ceased or will soon
cease to have a meaningful presence. That said, those who write TEC off
are overstating their case. Despite severe decline, it remains a
substantial presence in parts of the nation, especially in some major
cities.
The article examined data from the Episcopal Church's dioceses in the
United States. It did not include overseas dioceses, such as those in
Province IX, where the situation is quite different.
The Rev. Dr. David Goodhew is director of ministerial practice at
Cranmer Hall, St. John's College, Durham University, England. The full
article which can be seen here:
http://livingchurch.org/covenant/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Goodhew-Facing-Episcopal-Church-decline.pdf
END
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:22:46 -0400
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: Hearing Panel to recommend suspension of ministry for Bruno
Message-ID:
<1501244566.2246102....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hearing Panel to recommend suspension of ministry for Bruno
By Jon White
EPISCOPAL CAFE
July 22, 2017
A Draft decision from the Hearing Panel reviewing complaints of Bishop
J. Jon Bruno of Los Angeles handling of the sale of church property in
Newport Beach suggests that Bishop Bruno will have his ministry
suspended for three years, but stops short of deposition.
A) Bishop Bruno is suspended for three years. During the period of his
suspension Bishop Bruno will refrain from the exercise of the gifts of
the ministry conferred by ordination (Canon IV.2, definition of
"Sentence") and not exercise any authority over the real or personal
property or temporal affairs of the Church (Canon IV.19.7)
B) The Hearing panel declines to depose Bishop Bruno
C) The Hearing Panel is not aware of any evidence supporting a need for
forensic accounting. IF the Church Attorney possesses such evidence he
should present it to the appropriate authorities.
D) After thorough and detailed consideration of the facts, positions,
contentions, testimony and documents, the Hearing Panel has concluded
that the scope and severity of Bishop Bruno's misconduct, as described
above, have unjustly and unnecessarily disturbed the ministry of the
Church. St James the Great is a casualty of Bishop Bruno's misconduct
acting as Diocesan and Corp Sole. While it is beyond the authority and
ability of the Hearing Panel to fully assess what might have happened if
St James the Great had been allowed to continue its ministry in its
church facility, there is ample evidence of its viability and promise to
convince the Hearing Panel that St James the Great was robbed of a
reasonable chance to succeed as a sustainable community of faith.
The panel essentially affirmed that Diocesan bishops do hold authority
over property but also affirmed that the Standing Committee has a
crucial role in all issues of property.
"While Canon IV.14.6 would allow the Hearing Panel to take action for
the benefit of St James the Great, the Hearing Panel has concluded that
Title IV disciplinary actions are not designed to address the
complexities of the specific diocesan property issues that are before
it. The Hearing Panel believes that bishops do and should have authority
over mission property and that Standing Committee review and approval is
a crucial part of the fabric and polity of the church. But more
importantly, the Hearing Panel is convinced that the Diocese of Los
Angeles, particularly its Standing Committee with the supportive
leadership of its newly ordained Coadjutor, must consciously choose to
take part in a process of self-examination and truth-telling around
these unfortunate and tragic events."
Though the panel, however, stopped short of directing the diocese to
restore St James the Great congregation to the disputed property.
Believing that true reconciliation could not be achieved that way. It
did strongly recommend that it do so.
"The Hearing Panel strongly recommends to the Diocese of Los Angeles
that as a matter of justice it immediately suspend its efforts to sell
the St James property, that it restore the congregation and vicar to the
church building and that it reassign St James the Great appropriate
mission status"
Though unsigned, the Draft has the names of four members of the panel;
The Rt Rev Herman Hollerith, IV, The Rt Rev Nicholas Knisely, The Rev
Erik Larsen, and Ms. Deborah Stokes.
Bishop Smith of North Dakota, the fifth member of the panel has offered
a dissent. In that dissent, while recognizing the shortcomings of using
a Corp Sole, the Standing Committee's neglect of its canonical duties,
and Bishop Bruno's mixed signals to the congregation; Smith holds to the
belief that Bruno acted wholly within his rights as Bishop Diocesan and
that adjudication of property disputes belongs solely within the
authority of the diocese.
"It is my understanding that in the Episcopal Church, resolution of
property disputes properly resides within local diocesan entities,
notably the Bishop and Standing Committee, and should not be adjudicated
through the disciplinary process."
One of his most significant complaints is that both Bishop Bruno and
Save St James the Great resorted to the secular courts in this dispute.
Suggesting even that the effort to reclaim the property from the
breakaway group in the first place was inappropriate. After quoting
1Corinthians 6:1, 7-8; he writes;
"Both parties have ignored this scriptural wisdom: the Bishop, when he
resorted to the secular court against the Anglicans who attempted to
depart with the property; and the congregation of St. James the Great,
under the guise of "Save St. James the Great," when it filed a civil
complaint against the Bishop to stop the sale of the property. Christian
reconciliation becomes an elusive goal under these circumstances."
It should be noted that Bishop Smith is a member of the Communion
Partners, which has largely sought to put forth the minority opinion
that the church is a confederation of otherwise independent dioceses
rather than a single unity organized into separate diocesan
jurisdictions.
*****
Episcopal panel recommends suspending bishop three years over attempt to
sell St. James church
By HILARY DAVIS
LOS ANGELES TIMES
http://www.latimes.com/
July 21, 2017
An Episcopal Church disciplinary panel has recommended a three-year
suspension for the bishop who locked worshippers out of St. James the
Great church in Newport Beach after a failed sale attempt two years ago.
The panel also recommended that the shuttered church be restored to its
displaced members.
The tentative ruling, which came down late Friday afternoon, determined
that the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los
Angeles, was guilty of all allegations brought against him by the
congregation during a hearing the panel conducted in March: that he
attempted to sell consecrated property without consent of diocesan
leadership, made several misrepresentations along the way and acted in a
manner unbecoming of a clergyman.
The panel voted 4-1 to find Bruno guilty, with the Rt. Rev. Michael G.
Smith, bishop of North Dakota, dissenting.
The Rev. Canon Cindy Voorhees, St. James the Great's vicar, who has
continued to minister to the members, could not be reached for comment
Friday evening.
Los Angeles diocese spokesman Bob Williams said in an email Friday that
the diocese is withholding comment, "continuing their commitment to
respect the integrity of the (disciplinary) process, a priority that
Bishop Bruno has upheld through the duration of the two-year
proceedings."
In summer 2015, Bruno changed the locks on the church at 3209 Via Lido
after committing to sell the site for $15 million to Legacy Partners, a
developer that wanted to raze the church to build luxury townhomes. The
congregation filed an ecclesiastical complaint not long after its
eviction.
The sale fizzled after Legacy's investment partner dropped out, but
Bruno did not reopen the building. Members now worship in a community
room at Newport Beach City Hall.
In their decision Friday, panelists said there was "no good reason" to
lock the church and that doing so "created disorder and prejudiced the
reputation of the Episcopal Church."
"Although the building is an asset, Bishop Bruno is not the CEO of a
commercial, for-profit company," the ruling reads. "The 'asset' is a
consecrated church that should be used for the glory of God and worship
by a congregation rather than sold to build condos and left idle and
useless after the sale fell through, almost two years ago."
Though the panel said there was no "good" reason to mothball the church,
it suggested that Bruno did have motivation: "to punish Canon Voorhees
and the St. James congregation for what he views as their defiance of
him."
The same panel warned Bruno in June not to sell the property until it
reached a decision in the misconduct case. Another disciplinary board
rejected Bruno's appeal of the admonishment, and the top bishop of the
Episcopal Church in the United States, the Most Rev. Michael Curry,
issued a similar sale-blocking order late last month.
The series of stern rebukes came after the original hearing panel,
acting on a tip from a congregation member about a possible second sale
attempt, issued its restriction not knowing whether Bruno had entered a
new sale contract. However, an attorney for Bruno eventually confirmed
that the bishop contracted with Newport Beach-based developer
Burnham-Ward Properties in May. The price and plans for the property
were not disclosed, and it's unclear whether escrow closed as planned
early this month.
Friday's draft ruling will be finalized after Curry and the congregation
submit comments next week.
Congregation member Bill Kroener said he will compile his fellow
complainants' feedback by Wednesday's deadline. He declined further
comment.
Panelists concluded their 91-page decision by saying that diocese
leadership must "consciously choose to take part in a process of
self-examination and truth-telling around these unfortunate and tragic
events" so healing and justice can be achieved.
And they suggested what church members have wanted most:
"The hearing panel strongly recommends to the Diocese of Los Angeles
that as a matter of justice it immediately suspend its efforts to sell
the St. James property, that it restore the congregation and vicar
[Voorhees] to the church building and that it reassign St. James the
Great appropriate mission status."
*****
Dissenting Opinion by the Rt. Rev. Michael G. Smith
1. The current Title IV disciplinary process proposes to "promote
healing, repentance, forgiveness, restitution, justice, amendment for
life and reconciliation" [Canon IV.14.1(a)]. This task has been made
more difficult by two matters in particular: resorting to secular courts
for the resolution of ecclesiastical matters, and the institution of
Corporation Sole as a legal entity of the state. 2.
2. The biblical instruction is clear: "When any of you has a
grievance against another, do you dare to take it to court before the
unrighteous, instead of taking it before the saints? ... In fact, to
have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why
not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves
wrong and defraud--and believers at that" (1 Corinthians 6:1,7-8). Both
parties have ignored this scriptural wisdom: the Bishop, when he
resorted to the secular court against the Anglicans who attempted to
depart with the property; and the congregation of St. James the Great,
under the guise of "Save St. James the Great," when it filed a civil
complaint against the Bishop to stop the sale of the property. Christian
reconciliation becomes an elusive goal under these circumstances. 3.
3. The canons are clear that the sale of a consecrated Church
requires "the consent of the Bishop, acting with the advice and consent
of the Standing Committee of the Diocese" (II.6.2). Both the Bishop and
the Standing Committee understand, incorrectly in my opinion, that Corp
Sole does not need the consent of the Standing Committee to sell church
property. Regardless, the minutes of the Standing Committee indicate
knowledge and support of both the Bishop's attempts to sell the property
in question. 4.
4. It is my understanding that in the Episcopal Church, resolution
of property disputes properly resides within local diocesan entities,
notably the Bishop and Standing Committee, and should not be adjudicated
through the disciplinary process. 5.
5. The building or property is not the congregation. In this season
of the Church's life, many congregations are learning to become
communities of faith outside the "four walls of the church building."
St. James the Great was given a chance to continue as a congregation
outside the current property with seed money of $1,000,000 until they
took the Bishop to secular court and the Vicar was terminated, as is the
prerogative of the Bishop in the Diocese of Los Angeles. Furthermore,
the idea to sell either the property of St. James the Great in Newport
Beach or St. Michael & All Angels in Corona del Mar and to combine the
congregations is entirely plausible as a viable mission strategy since
the two church properties are only five miles in distance from one
another. 6.
6. Since 2008, Bishop Bruno's intent to sell the disputed
properties for the purposes of recovering litigation costs and setting
aside resources for diocesan-wide mission strategy was known. It is not
unreasonable, however, for St. James the Great or its Vicar to have
believed that Bishop Bruno had changed his mind about that decision when
he allowed them to use the property of the old congregation of "St.
James" for the startup of the new congregation of "St. James the Great."
Regrettably, they were given tremendously mixed signals. While one may
question his reasoning or the quality of pastoral care provided, the
Bishop appears to be within the scope of his rights and responsibilities
according to the canons and traditions of the Diocese of Los Angeles.
7. Finally, on June 21, 2017, the Standing Committee of the Diocese
of Los Angeles wrote: "By way of unanimous motion, the Standing
Committee members reaffirm their action regarding the sale of Lido Isle.
The Standing Committee concurs with [Bishop Bruno's] decision and
judgment that sale of this property is in the best interest of the
Diocese of Los Angeles." Considering this and the matters listed above,
I recommend that the matter against Bishop Jon J. Bruno be dismissed
91-PAGE HEARING PANEL ORDER:
https://www.scribd.com/document/354402121/Bruno-Hearing-Panel-Draft-Order-of-July-20-2017
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:23:01 -0400
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: St. James church property in Newport is under bishop's
control, civil judge rules
Message-ID:
<1501244581.2246112....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
St. James church property in Newport is under bishop's control, civil
judge rules
The Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno is the VI Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of
Los Angeles
The Hon. David Chaffee is a Superior Court judge in Orange County,
California
By HILLARY DAVIS
http://www.latimes.com/
JULY 14, 2017
An Orange County Superior Court judge has ruled that Los Angeles
Episcopal Bishop J. Jon Bruno has legal control over the St. James the
Great church property in Newport Beach, nullifying a claim by the land's
donor that it can only be used as a church. The decision basically
clears Bruno to sell the property, which he has contracted to do twice
since 2015.
The Griffith Co., which donated the land at 3209 Via Lido to the diocese
in 1945, raised the deed restriction issue with Bruno in 2015 after the
bishop agreed to sell the site to a developer that planned to build
luxury townhomes there. Griffith acknowledged that it had dropped the
deed restriction on three of the property's four lots in the 1980s to
allow for parking. But it maintained that the restriction remained on
the fourth lot, the central plot where the building sits.
Judge David Chaffee, however, ruled that "Griffith has no right, title,
lien or interest whatsoever in the church's property or any part
thereof."
In the judgment, dated Tuesday, Chaffee said, "The court further decrees
that the restriction in the 1945 grant deed that the property 'shall be
used for church purposes exclusively and no building other than a church
and appurtenances may be erected, placed or maintained thereon' (the
'use restriction') is released and/or is otherwise unenforceable and
invalid, and Griffith has no interest that is adverse to the church in
the property."
The ruling in the secular court is in conflict with restrictions that an
ecclesiastical disciplinary panel and the country's highest-ranking
Episcopal bishop placed on Bruno in the past few weeks. Both told him
not to sell the property while the panel continues deliberating
misconduct allegations against him related to his attempted sale in
2015. The sale fell through, but the church gates remain locked.
The hearing panel, acting on a tip from a congregation member that Bruno
was trying again to sell the site, issued its restriction not knowing
whether he had entered a new sale contract. However, an attorney for
Bruno eventually confirmed that he had contracted with Newport
Beach-based developer Burnham-Ward Properties in May.
Another church disciplinary board rejected Bruno's appeal of the hearing
panel's sanction.
The 2015 sale attempt was the focal point of a three-day hearing in
March to determine whether Bruno had acted deceptively and unbecoming of
a clergyman when he tried to sell the property.
The hearing panel has yet to issue a decision on the misconduct
allegations.
*****
Orange County Superior Court rules Episcopal bishop has authority over
disputed Newport Beach property
Deepa Bharath
Orange County Register
http://www.ocregister.com
July 14, 2017
An Orange County Superior Court judge on Thursday, July 13, ruled in
favor of Los Angeles Episcopal Bishop J. Jon Bruno, essentially stating
the bishop -- as sole administrator of the property -- has full
authority to do as he wishes with the Newport Beach site formerly
occupied by St. James the Great Episcopal Church.
When Bruno decided to sell the property in 2015, the move was met with
an objection from the Griffith Co., which had donated the property to
the diocese in 1945 with the restriction that the site remain a church.
The Griffith Co. developed much of Lido Isle since the 1920s.
However, the diocese's lawyers argued that the church in 1985 negotiated
removal of that use restriction from the deed, granting the diocese the
right to sell the property for other purposes.
On Thursday, the trial court upheld the diocese's claim that there is no
restriction on the property.
"The court has decreed what has been known all along, that the
property's original donor has no claim on the property title," said
diocese spokesman Bob Williams. "In addition, the diocese's top
decision-making bodies ... continue to concur that the property should
be sold and the proceeds applied to sustaining wider mission and
ministry."
It is not known if the Griffith Co. will appeal this decision. An
attorney for the Griffith Co. refused to comment Friday.
In June 2015, Bruno entered into an agreement with a developer who
planned to build luxury condominiums on the site. That proposal fell
through, but the bishop had already evicted St. James congregants who
now hold services in a community room at the Newport Beach Civic Center.
Congregants filed a complaint with the national Episcopal Church
accusing Bruno of misconduct. A hearing was held in March before a panel
of members from the national church. A decision is still pending.
However, in April, Bruno entered into a confidential agreement with
another local developer to sell the Via Lido property. He was ordered by
the hearing panel and the acting bishop of the national Episcopal Church
to stop that sale until the panel reaches a decision regarding his
misconduct charges.
The panel also rejected Bruno's appeal asking to complete the sale, and
an attorney for the national church recommended defrocking Bruno based
on his attempt to sell the church without informing the hearing panel.
Bruno is scheduled to retire by the end of the year and the Rt. Rev.
John Taylor is expected to take his place.
END
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:23:17 -0400
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: An Open Letter to Anglicans of Great Britain
Message-ID:
<1501244597.2246142....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
An Open Letter to Anglicans of Great Britain
July 18, 2017
Many will share our dismay at the recent decisions of the General Synod
of the Church of England and the pursuing principles, values and
practices contrary to Holy Scripture and church Tradition.
Given the persistent failure of the majority of the House of Bishops to
fulfil the God-given duties which they have sworn to discharge these
tragic developments were, sadly, not wholly unexpected.
Accordingly, and in preparation for such eventualities we, as some of
those committed to the renewal of biblical and orthodox Anglicanism have
already started to meet, on behalf of our fellow Anglicans, to discuss
how to ensure a faithful ecclesial future.
We now wish that we have done so to be more widely known.
Our number is drawn from bishops, clergy and laity, from across Great
Britain and from a breadth of traditions. Much more importantly,
however, we meet joyfully united by a shared endorsement of the terms of
the Jerusalem Declaration.
We will meet again, as planned and with external facilitation, mediation
and episcopal advice, in October.
It is our intention to welcome on that occasion an even greater
diversity of contributors.
We would value your prayers and any expressions of interest from those
who feel they might be able to make a valuable contribution to our
deliberations.
Anyone desiring to contact us can do so through any of the organisations
or churches listed.
Revd Dr Gavin Ashenden, Former Chaplain to the Queen
Mrs Lorna Ashworth, General Synod of the Church of England, Archbishops'
Council
Revd Nigel Atkinson, Vicar St John's, Knutsford and Toft
Revd Andrew Bawtree, Chair of the House of Clergy, Diocese of Canterbury
Revd Mark Burkill, Chairman of Reform
Rt Revd John Ellison, Anglican Mission in England Executive
Rt Revd John Fenwick, Bishop Primus, Free Church of England
Rt Revd Josep Miquel Rossello Ferrer, Free Church of England
Ven Dr Amatu Christian-Iwuagwu, Vicar St Mary's Harmondsworth & PiC
Anglican Igbo Church of the Holy Trinity, London
Rt Revd Paul Hunt, General Secretary, Free Church of England
Canon Nigel Juckes, Incumbent, Llandogo, Monmouth
Mr Daniel Leafe, Gafcon UK
Mrs Susie Leafe, Director of Reform
Rt Revd Andy Lines, ACNA Bishop with Special Mission
Revd David McCarthy, Coordinator of the Scottish Anglican Network
Revd Lee McMunn, Mission Director, Anglican Mission in England
Revd James Paice, Trustee, The Southwark Good Stewards Trust
Rt Revd Jonathan Pryke, Senior Minister Jesmond Parish Church, Anglican
Mission in England Executive
Revd Dr Peter Sanlon, Convenor of Anglican Partnership Synod
Ven Dr Will Strange on behalf of the Evangelical Fellowship in England
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:23:31 -0400
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: CHURCH OF ENGLAND: Ichabod - the glory of the Lord has
departed
Message-ID:
<1501244611.2246190....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
CHURCH OF ENGLAND: Ichabod - the glory of the Lord has departed
Money pool begins to dry up as evangelical parish in Hull dissents over
recent Synod votes
By David W. Virtue, DD
www.virtueonline.org
July 24, 2017
And so, it has begun.
A small, but steady trickle, in time becomes a stream and then a flood;
the dam breaks and what was once a proud church that spread the gospel
around the world is suddenly washed away. Its history will be dredged up
by future archaeologists who will openly marvel that all they could
immediately find were ancient scripts talking about sodomy and something
called transgenderism and fiction about conversion therapy.
Archaeologists will later unearth news that the church's coffers had
dried up and the church could not pay its bills. Cathedrals which had
stood empty for years, had decayed and crumbled, their ancient bells
fallen silent.
History will note that the decline began in the year 2017, when a single
parish announced it was withholding funds from the church after an
activist layman in Canterbury called on large evangelical Anglican
parishes to withhold funds following the Church of England's recent
synod's hapless vote to approve transgenderism, and to push "radical
inclusion", echoes of an American playbook presiding bishop on
homosexual marriage.
The Parochial Church Council (PCC) of St John, Newland, (Diocese of
York) is the largest Anglican Church in the City and one of the largest
in the Diocese. St. John's wrote an open letter to the Archbishop of
York, John Sentamu, and told him in no uncertain terms that they had
lost total trust in his theological leadership and, to indicate the
seriousness of their concerns, they would forthwith withhold their free
will offering until further notice.
The PCC called on the Archbishop to express repentance for what took
place at Synod and said the PCC looked forward to receiving an
indication of repentance from the Archbishop and will offer prayers to
that end.
"The PCC has also been grieved by the general direction of the Synod and
the appalling manner in which those who hold to the teachings of Jesus
have been ridiculed, mocked and scorned. We fear that the Synod has
imbibed the 'spirit of the age' and we request satisfactory assurances
from the leadership that this kind of behavior is not acceptable and
that it will work towards creating a more courteous and biblically
responsive environment in the future."
The letter went on to say that The Parochial Church Council (PCC)
considered the response by the Archbishop of York to Mrs. Andrea
Williams' amendment of Item 48 at the July General Synod of the Church
of England, 2017, in terms of what was said, to indicate theological
ineptitude at best and error at worst; and how it was said, as
intemperate and ungodly.
"As such there was a failure to meet the standard required of a bishop
according to Titus 1:7-9. Neither did the Archbishop display his
canonical duty to 'with all faithful diligence.... banish and drive away
all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God's Word; and both
privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to the same' in
relation to Item 58."
For international readers, a parochial church council (PCC) is the
executive committee of a Church of England parish and consists of clergy
and churchwardens of the parish, together with representatives of the
laity.
The resolution was passed unanimously and sent by a Mr. Timothy
Benstead, Lay Chair of St John, Newland, PCC
*****
Here is the full text of the letter..
Open letter Call to the Archbishop of York for Repentance
July 24, 2017
An Open Letter containing a Resolution from St John, Newland PCC, 17th
July 2017
To his Grace, the Archbishop of York,
The PCC considers the response by the Archbishop of York to Mrs Andrea
Williams' amendment of Item 48 at the July General Synod of the Church
of England, 2017, in terms of what was said, to indicate theological
ineptitude at best and error at worst; and how it was said, as
intemperate and ungodly. As such there was a failure to meet the
standard required of a bishop according to Titus 1:7-9. Neither did the
Archbishop display his canonical duty to 'with all faithful
diligence.... banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrine
contrary to God's Word; and both privately and openly to call upon and
encourage others to the same' in relation to Item 58.
Accordingly, this PCC no longer has any confidence in the Archbishop of
York in 'all things spiritual' and requests that he expresses repentance
for what took place.
The PCC looks forward to receiving an indication of repentance from the
Archbishop and will offer prayers to that end.
The PCC has also been grieved by the general direction of the Synod and
the appalling manner in which those who hold to the teachings of Jesus
have been ridiculed, mocked and scorned. We fear that the Synod has
imbibed the 'spirit of the age' and we request satisfactory assurances
from the leadership that this kind of behaviour is not acceptable and
that it will work towards creating a more courteous and biblically
responsive environment in the future.
In the meantime, to indicate our serious concern with the present state
of affairs the PCC will withhold its free will offering until further
notice.
The resolution was passed unanimously.
Mr Timothy Benstead,
Lay Chair of St John, Newland, PCC
17th July 2017
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:23:47 -0400
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: The Movement for a Renewed Orthodox Anglicanism
Message-ID:
<1501244627.2246210....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
The Movement for a Renewed Orthodox Anglicanism
https://anglicanlive.wordpress.com/open-letter/
July 25, 2017
This letter was published in the Daily Telegraph on 25 July 2017. If you
would like to support the original signatories in this Movement for a
Renewed Orthodox Anglicanism, please sign below.
All those who sign will receive updates on future developments.
SIR -- Recent actions in the General Synod in pursuit of a culture that
denies biblical ethics, as they have been practised and understood "at
all places and in all times", have caused many Anglicans great concern.
There are times, particularly in the face of social disintegration, when
it is the duty of the Church to be counter cultural. The failure of the
House of Bishops to uphold the teaching of the Bible and of the
Universal Church in this area is very disappointing, if not surprising.
Booing of traditionalists and the levels of personal abuse aimed at them
during the Synod have only deepened mistrust between the different
sides.
There are now effectively two opposed expressions of Anglicanism in this
country. One has capitulated to secular values, and one continues to
hold the faith "once delivered to the saints".
We and others stand with the majority of faithful Anglican across the
globe, in prioritising Scripture and the unanimous teaching of the
universal Church over secular fashion. We note the results of this same
conflict in North America, even as we look for and pray for a similar
renewal of orthodox Anglicanism and of Anglican structures in these
islands.
Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali
Bishop of Rochester, 1994-2009
Rt Rev John Fenwick
Bishop Primus, Free Church of England
Rev Gavin Ashenden
Former Chaplain to the Queen
Rev Mark Burkill
Chairman of Reform
Andrea Minchello Williams
CEO of Christian Concern
Rev William Taylor
Chairman of Renew
Rev Nigel Atkinson
Vicar of St John's, Knutsford
Rt Rev John Ellison
Executive of Anglican Mission in England (AMiE)
Rev Lee McMunn
Mission Director of AMiE
Rev Tim Chapman
Minister of Christ Church, South Cambridgeshire
AMiE
Rev Paul Darlington
Vicar of Oswestry, Holy Trinity
Chairman of Church Society
Mary Durlacher
Member of General Synod
Rev Dick Farr
Chairman of Church Society Trust
Fr Martin Hislop
St Luke's, Kingston upon Thames
Rev Canon Nigel Juckes
Incumbent, Parish of Llandogo
Rt Rev Josep Miquel Ferrer
Free Church of England
Rev Steven Hanna
St Elisabeth's Church, Dagenham
Rt Rev Paul Hunt
General Secretary of Free Church of England
Rev James Paice
Vicar of St Luke's, Wimbledon Park
Trustee of Southwark Good Stewards Trust
Rev Dr Peter Sanlon
Vicar of St Mark's, Tunbridge Wells
Convener of Anglican Partnership Synod
Rev Dr Andrew Symes
Executive Secretary of Anglican Mainstream
Rev Melvin Tinker
Vicar of St John's, Newland
Rev Robin Weekes
Minister Emmanuel Church Wimbledon & Chairman of Reform Southwark
Click the link below and sign this letter:
https://anglicanlive.wordpress.com/open-letter/
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:23:59 -0400
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: The Queen's former chaplain is leading a vicar rebellion over
gay marriage, as he threatens to break away from the Church of England
Message-ID:
<1501244639.2246219....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
The Queen's former chaplain is leading a vicar rebellion over gay
marriage, as he threatens to break away from the Church of England
By Camilla Turner, education editor
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/24/queens-former-chaplain-leads-vicar-rebellion-gay-marriage/
JULY 25, 2017
The Rev Dr Gavin Ashenden, who until earlier this year was one of the
special chaplains to the Queen, has warned of the prospect of a
"declaration of independence" from vicars who feel that those with
traditional views are being "marginalised" by the Church establishment.
In a letter published in today's Daily Telegraph, a group of 23
conservative Anglicans raise the prospect of a split in the Church.
They claim that the most recent meeting of the General Synod - the
Church of England's lawmaking body which earlier this month appeared to
signal support for gay marriage - has caused "great concern" to
Anglicans, and has deepened tensions between the traditionalist and
progressive camps.
"There are times, particularly in the face of social disintegration,
when it is the duty of the Church to be counter-cultural," the letter
said.
It added that the "booing of traditionalists" and the "personal abuse"
they suffered at the General Synod has "deepened mistrust" between the
two camps.
The letter concludes by raising the prospect of a split in the Church of
England, similar to that which took place in the North American Anglican
church.
Dr Ashenden told The Daily Telegraph that the letter is a warning that
unless there is a change of direction, the archbishop risks a "revolt in
the form of an independence movement".
"This is a warning that the Archbishop is under notice that unless he
leads the Church in a way that remains consistent with the values and
authority of the bible as opposed to progressive secularism, he will
risk some kind of revolt in the form of an independence movement," he
said.
In 2009, The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) was set up by
former members of the Episcopal Church in the United States and the
Anglican Church of Canada who disagreed with what they saw as the
increasingly liberal direction of their former Church's teachings.
"We are saying if you don't draw a halt at this point the same thing
will happen here and there will be a significant number who will secede
and reconstitute an Anglican church to keep faith with authentic
Anglican Christianity," Dr Ashenden said.
An increasing numbers of orthodox Anglicans have lost confidence in the
archbishops
The Rev Dr Peter Sanlon, Vicar of St Mark's Church in Tunbridge Wells,
said that a lot of Anglican leaders are concerned "not just about votes
at the General Synod regarding sexuality but also votes against the
uniqueness of Christ and against urging all minister to share the gospel
with the nation".
Dr Sanlon, who also helped to organise the letter, added that
"increasing numbers of orthodox Anglicans have lost confidence in the
archbishops. Clergy like me are in touch with senior leaders of ACNA."
Dr Ashenden resigned earlier this year after publicly criticising a
church that allowed a Koran reading during its service as part of an
interfaith project, saying the reading was "a fairly serious error"
which he had a duty to speak out about.
A Church of England spokesman said: "As with any debating chamber, Synod
often debates controversial issues and members can sometimes disagree
strongly with each other. That is the nature of debate. If there is an
issue the Chair will intervene. The expectation is that Synod members
are courteous at all times both to each other and invited guests."
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:24:13 -0400
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: Fundamental shifts in the General Synod
Message-ID:
<1501244653.2246224....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Fundamental shifts in the General Synod
There will be a major split in the Church of England over sexuality
issues
By Dr Chik Kaw Tan
https://www.gafcon.org/news/
July 20, 2017
The decisions taken in the February and July 2017 sessions of the
General Synod crossed a line never before reached. Its failure to take
note of the definition of marriage as that between 'one man and one
woman in lifelong commitment', and its embrace of key LGBT agenda
(banning so-called 'conversion therapy' for unwanted same-sex
attraction, liturgy to mark a person's gender transition) has caused
serious consternation, anger and anxiety in the Church of England, and
beyond. It was the scale of defeat of orthodoxy in the July sessions
that is most shocking. The following is my reflection on some of the
significant shifts in the character and workings of the General Synod
over my last 12 years as a member of General Synod:
>From theology to experience
The quality of debate has fallen sharply in recent years. The vogue is
to vocalise experience and 'tell stories'. In particular, the
victimisation and injustice narrative holds sway. Any serious
theological input is viewed with growing impatience and embarrassment.
Theology is seen to get in the way of real life. The little theological
context there is focuses on love, acceptance, equality and justice.
These issues have trumped any references to the holiness of God and the
need for purity and obedience in His church. The two debates on
sexuality in the July sessions consisted of stories of 'victims' of
church teachings and actions. What little there was of serious theology
came from the lips of conservative evangelicals.
The LGBT agenda and constituency firmly entrenched
12 years ago when I first joined Synod, the LGBT lobby consisted of a
little stand with a few people handing out leaflets. Many Synod members
subtly changed the direction of movement away from them and politely
avoided any conversation with LGBT activists. 12 years on, they are the
all-winning victorious juggernaut, crushing all in its path. Not only is
the LGBT constituency well and truly embedded in the organisational
structure of the Church of England, its agenda for change dominates
proceedings.
Loss of the fear of God and reverence for His word
There is no fear of God or reverence for His word anymore. Scripture has
been twisted, misinterpreted, misused, or avoided to support ideologies
that are completely at odds with God's word. Theological illiteracy
reigns. A Synod member speaking in support of transgender liturgy quoted
a transgender friend who said to her that Genesis says '... and He made
them man and woman' and the not 'man or woman'. The implication is that
God did not create man distinct from woman but created 'man' in the
nebulous 'man and woman mixed sexuality'. Linguistically,
hermeneutically and theologically this was as example of a descent into
theological balderdash. Every opportunity to proclaim the uniqueness of
Christ and Biblical teachings, by way of amendments, was comprehensively
defeated in vote after vote. Oftentimes, what is left unsaid and
untaught is that which leads to errors and sin rather than outright
heretical statements.
Demise of socially conservative Anglo-Catholics
There was a time when the Anglo-Catholics reigned supreme in the Church
of England. Although sacramental in their theological approach, they
were at least largely socially conservative. Their sad demise since the
ordination of women clergy and bishops, and their apparent loss of
cohesion in General Synod, is to be lamented. That constituency's voice
on sexuality is becoming less and less clear.
The loss of any meaningful understanding of evangelicalism
The so-called 'evangelicals' form the largest bloc of Synod members.
Despite there being more 'evangelicals' than ever, its weakness has
never been more obvious. The word 'evangelical' has lost its distinctive
meaning and Synod 'evangelicals' range from openly practising
homosexuals who take the lead in promoting the LGBT agenda to
conservative evangelicals who believe that 'God's Word (the Bible) is
God's word in His own words'. Despite the EGGS (Evangelical Group in
General Synod) leadership's valiant effort to steer the evangelical
group in Synod towards Biblical orthodoxy, it is clear from the voting
records that many members vote for revision.
Presence of women bishops
Whatever position evangelicals take on complementarian theology, the
admission of women into the House and College of Bishops have moved the
church and Synod towards a more revisionist position. Even a senior
evangelical bishop in favour of women bishops privately admitted that to
me. With the increasing tendency to appoint women (almost exclusively
drawn from the liberal constituency) to episcopal vacancies, the
trajectory is ominous for the General Synod and for the Church of
England.
Loss of giants in the House of Bishops
I respect the faithful orthodox bishops who are quietly working behind
the scene to ensure Biblical teachings are adhered to. Yet I lament the
loss of some of the true giants that I had the privilege to know when I
first entered Synod. One can immediately think of Bishops Michael
Scott-Joynt and Michael Nazir-Ali. A present bold figure and rising star
is Julian Henderson of Blackburn but we need more orthodox
prophet-bishops to speak to our times.
Not without sympathy, I think there are now many Christians, Synod
members included, who have chosen the path of self-censorship. It is
increasingly difficult to be counter-cultural and it is telling that our
own church leaders are avoiding making any statements that will cause
conflict with the LGBT lobby in society, and even within Synod itself.
Who are the prophets of our times in the Church of England? Where are
the Elijahs? Certainly not our archbishops, one of whom was conspicuous
by the absence of any contribution in the two major debates on sexuality
and the other notable by his support of the LGBT-inspired motions. This
has raised serious concerns about the future of our beloved church.
What of the future?
In the U.S., the secularists are fighting to separate church from state.
In the UK, the church (of England) is fighting to be like the state.
Recent actions and statements by General Synod, except for the
perfunctory use of words like 'God', 'Jesus' and 'church', are
indistinguishable from statements made by secular and state
organisations.
Within the next 3-7 years I anticipate three tumultuous and tragic
events:
1. There will be a major split in the Church of England over
sexuality issues. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury is, apparently,
willing and ready to accept that.
2. There will be deep division between the orthodox who choose to
remain in the Church of England and those who choose to leave (whilst
remaining Anglican within the Anglican Communion or leaving the
denomination entirely)
3. There will be a more formalised split in the global Anglican
Communion, along with the continuing re-alignment between the orthodox
across all Christian denominations.
It is time for deep reflection and prayer and we need to prepare for the
evil days ahead. But for the faithful, whatever the tribulations, we can
confidently trust in the God who is 'from everlasting to everlasting.'
Dr. Chik Kaw Tan is a member of General Synod
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:24:27 -0400
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: CHURCH OF ENGLAND: Hull Minster Holds Service for LGBT
Message-ID:
<1501244667.2246284....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
CHURCH OF ENGLAND: Hull Minster Holds Service for LGBT
July 24, 2017
A "Service of Welcome" was held recently at Hull Minster for members of
the LGBT Christian Fellowship in Hull and East Riding.
This service is open to everyone, regardless of age, background,
ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation (as are all our worship services
and events at Hull Minster). Hull Minster were approached by LGBT
Christian Fellowship Hull and East Riding Group to see if we could
provide a service in the church, and we have worked with them, under the
guidance of Archbishop Sentamu and with the vote of our PCC, to provide
this Service of Welcome, which will be an Anglican Service of the Word.
The guest speaker will be Rev Rachel Mann, Resident Poet at Manchester
Cathedral. We acknowledge that there are a range of views on human
sexuality within and outside of the church, and in providing this
service we seek to provide a welcome to all rather than a particular
stance, whilst operating within the current position of the Church of
England and the authorised forms of liturgy and worship.
We have taken our cue from the statements of Archbishop of Canterbury
Justin Welby and Archbishop of York John Sentamu, written after the
Report from the House of Bishops at General Synod February 2017 was not
'taken note of'. The report noted that the current teaching of the
Church of England on marriage and sexual ethics remains the same and
that the consensus of the Bishops was that this should remain unchanged,
and that 'a fresh tone and culture of welcome and support' towards LGBT
people was needed. While this report was not 'taken note of', the
position of the Church of England meanwhile remains the same, with the
Archbishops encouraging a ' a radical new Christian inclusion in the
Church', based on the truth that all people are created in the image of
God. Included below are relevant excerpts from the Archbishops'
Statements and Bishops' Report from February 2017. Reverend Canon Dr
Neal Barnes, Vicar of Hull Minster, says: "All are welcome to worship at
Hull Minster and this service reflects that. It will be very informal,
inclusive and full of joy. We hope many people will come and experience
it in this wonderful setting.
At Hull Minster we welcome all people to 'Worship, Enjoy, Explore and
Belong' with us. All are welcome at our worship services, events and
community life. We hope this Service of Welcome will be a positive
occasion of inclusion, worship and prayer. 1 'The Church of England
affirms, according to our Lord's teaching, that marriage is in its
nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better for worse, till death
them do part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others
on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the
hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections,
and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have
of the other, both in prosperity and adversity' (Canon B 30.1).
Statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury following today's General
Synod Wednesday 15th February 2017 Statement from Archbishop Justin
Welby following the General Synod's vote "not to take note" of a Report
by the House of Bishops on the report earlier today on Marriage and
Same-Sex Relationships. "No person is a problem, or an issue. People are
made in the image of God. All of us, without exception, are loved and
called in Christ. There are no 'problems', there are simply people. How
we deal with the real and profound disagreement - put so passionately
and so clearly by many at the Church of England's General Synod debate
on marriage and same-sex relationships today - is the challenge we face
as people who all belong to Christ. To deal with that disagreement, to
find ways forward, we need a radical new Christian inclusion in the
Church. This must be founded in scripture, in reason, in tradition, in
theology; it must be based on good, healthy, flourishing relationships,
and in a proper 21st century understanding of being human and of being
sexual. We need to work together - not just the bishops but the whole
Church, not excluding anyone - to move forward with confidence. The vote
today is not the end of the story, nor was it intended to be. As bishops
we will think again and go on thinking, and we will seek to do better.
We could hardly fail to do so in the light of what was said this
afternoon. The way forward needs to be about love, joy and celebration
of our humanity; of our creation in the image of God, of our belonging
to Christ - all of us, without exception, without exclusion."
GENERAL SYNOD Marriage and Same Sex Relationships after the Shared
Conversations A Report from the House of Bishops - Excerpts Presented to
General Synod February 2017 'The bishops of the Church of England have
spent some months in further conversations on the issue which is the
subject of this report. We want to begin by reaffirming the key
Christian understanding that all human beings are made in the image of
God. This report is offered from the wellsprings of prayer, careful
thought, and, mindful of our calling as bishops, listening, both to the
Christian faith as we have received it, and to our Shared Conversations.
We affirm the integrity and value of each person affected by what we say
here. We recognise our deficiencies and offer this paper with humility.'
Paragraph 18: 'Two aspects of the emerging consensus are particularly
important. First, there was little support for changing the Church of
England's teaching on marriage, as expressed in Canon B.30.3*
Second, there was a strong sense that existing resources, guidance and
tone needed to be revisited.' * 'The Church of England affirms,
according to our Lord's teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union
permanent and lifelong, for better for worse, till death them do part,
of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either
side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and
right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the
mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the
other, both in prosperity and adversity' (Canon B 30.1). Paragraph 23.
In practical terms this would mean: (a) establishing across the Church
of England a fresh tone and culture of welcome and support for lesbian
and gay people, for those who experience same sex attraction, and for
their families, and continuing to work toward mutual love and
understanding on these issues across the Church; (b) the preferred
option should be backed up by a substantial new Teaching Document on
marriage and relationships, replacing (or expanding upon) the 6House's
teaching document of 1999 on marriage and the 1991 document Issues; (c)
there should be guidance for clergy about appropriate pastoral provision
for same sex couples; and (d) there should be new guidance from the
House about the nature of questions put to ordinands and clergy about
their lifestyle. Paragraph 39.
Currently, according to the law of the land, clergy may not legally
solemnise the marriage of two persons of the same sex, and civil
partnerships may not be registered in Church of England places of
worship.
There is no proposal to change this. Clergy may pray informally with
same sex couples, including following a civil partnership, but now the
question arises of offering guidance to help them shape those prayers.'
END
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:24:47 -0400
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: Including the Exclusive: how liberal can you be?
Message-ID:
<1501244687.2246305....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Including the Exclusive: how liberal can you be?
The following is a lecture delivered by David Ison Dean of St. Paul's,
London on July 20 as the annual lecture of the "Inclusive Church".
NOTE: Dean Ison once claimed the mantle of being an evangelical. This
lecture will finally put to bed any claim he can make for being one now.
I am reliably told he has his eyes set on being the next Bishop of
London following the retirement of Richard Chartres. This lecture is in
the category of "itching ears" of II Tim 4:3 -- St. Paul's timely
response to those who would distort the truth.
- We had an election recently.... Did anyone have election hustings in a
church or cathedral near you? How did you decide who participated and
who didn't? Where do you draw the line on who's allowed...
- Student unions are increasingly barring speakers they think they don't
want to hear.
- On the Radio 4 Sunday morning programme on 2nd July there was a report
about Billy Graham's son Franklin going to Blackpool and objections at
his anti-gay and anti-Muslim views: 'we are open to free speech not hate
speech'.
- Conservative evangelicals threatened to boycott the opening of General
Synod two weeks ago because of the welcome given to the Bishop of
Edinburgh, who had led the debate for legitimising gay marriage in the
Scottish Episcopal Church.
- 'Biblically responsible US investment funds are screening out
companies deemed to be participating in the LGBTQ lifestyle.' [Inspire
Investment Group - article 5 Mar 2017 FT Iain Anderson Christian LGBT
writer/exec chair Cicero Group]
These are examples of the intractably complex human problem of whether
and how we can manage to live together with difference, and
specifically: how do we include in humanity those who exclude us or
others from their concerns? And do we nonetheless exclude the exclusive
in our practice?
I set up this lecture to reflect on the immediate Christian problem
which was part of the impetus of the founding of this group, Inclusive
Church. It is, when you begin to delve into it, an impossibly ambitious
aim: so my disclaimer at the beginning is that in 45 minutes it's only
possible to begin addressing this
question. And I'm not going to explore the very complex political and
philosophical discourse about this issue which has gone on since time
immemorial, in which I am no expert.
I'm not taking a philosophical approach but a Christian one, to help
inform the work of this organisation. How I'm going to structure the
lecture is to reflect briefly on seven wider human issues around
difference; then to look at how the contemporary situation for Inclusive
Church might relate to these; and then to offer seven further
reflections on Christian ways to handle difference as constructively as
possible. And if you can remember all 21 points you'll be doing well!
Please note that nothing I say will be a final word: as we go along, you
will be thinking of lots of things I haven't said, and of other points
of view -- and that's good and right, and so you should: I know there's
a lot more to be said. Any lecture or view can only be partial. But I
also hope that I will say a few things
which will help you in your thinking about difference, and thus help to
change what you may do for the better -- which is the outcome which
every good lecture or sermon should have: not just to understand the
world better, but by God's grace to change the world including
ourselves. The subtitle of this
lecture is addressed to everyone in this room: how liberal can you be?
And that's not just a question about the limits of our own love and
generosity: it's also a question about the relationship between love and
justice for others, and how we defend those who are vulnerable from
being abused by others --
and perhaps abused by ourselves.
1. What are the wider human issues around difference?
We have to start with the history of humanity -- tribes competing to
survive in a hostile world full of predators and other groups. Our
animal and humanoid ancestors learned that co-operation is a good
survival strategy, up to a point: the herd, the flock, a pride of lions,
all competing with other groups for
resources -- too many of one kind leads to over-use of resources and a
collapse in population (which may be what's facing our human world in
due course).
It's in this context that we've learned to form our identity: we relate
to a manageable number but avoid being overwhelmed: our community sizes
are something like this, with the church equivalent as an example:
- family/kin/close friends ? home group/leadership group
- village of around 100 neighbours we can know with strong shared
interests
church
- town of hundreds more acquaintances like us ? deanery/groups of
churches
- city of different groups including different identities ? local
ecumenical/interfaith relationships
- country with weaker shared identity but in stronger sub-regions
denominations/faiths
- world of competing countries/groups ? other religions/subsets of own
religion
- universe of one shared equal and common humanity: which we may or may
not believe in theory (so racists may deny our equal humanity); and may
or may not practice in how we treat others ('I love humanity, it's
people I can't stand').
Here are seven particular features of why this makes handling difference
difficult for human beings:
1.1. We are naturally Tribal and NOT inclusive: Them and Us is built
into our DNA. We define ourselves over against others, as different but
not equal
('who is my neighbour?'); we regard ourselves as explicitly or
implicitly better (and implicit and hidden is harder to deal with).
Tribes have to define themselves by having boundaries, by excluding
others: so exclusion is a normal part of our inherited humanity, and our
identity is formed through it, not through relating to all humanity: an
inclusive identity is unnatural, and an inclusive rather than tribal
church is pretty difficult.
1.2. Community versus individual: when the survival and cohesion of the
community is threatened, the will and rights of the individual matter
little. Hence the use of external war and conflict as a tool for
compliance and internal unity by threatened rulers: e.g. emphasising the
threat from republican Napoleonic France was part of the late eighteenth
century ruling classes' strategy for staving off revolution in England,
along with putting heroic statues in St Paul's for the lower orders to
emulate (you'll see some of them on your way out).
1.3. Community thinking is nearly always conservative -- 'it's worked in
the past', 'we keep together', 'change is difficult'. But change in
response to changes in the environment has to happen if a community
isn't to become extinct -- leading to the phenomenon of changing while
insisting that we're really not changing -- cf attitudes to
contraception since the early 20th century. And a way of coping with
change when we don't think we should be changing is to see our changes
as the appropriate application of consistent principles in changing
circumstances, as climate and culture and science and populations
change: as the Church of England puts it rather elegantly, we proclaim
the unchanging gospel afresh in each generation; or as both Brexiteers
and Remainers have it, we are going to do what is consistent with us
being truly British, even if that is interpreted in completely
contradictory terms.
1.4. Uncontrolled individuality is seen as a threat by tribes and
communities, and potentially as a betrayal of the group. On the other
hand, creative individuality and non-compliance (e.g. Moses, Jesus,
Mohammed, Galileo, Luther, Lenin) can bring alternative solutions and
possibilities which can
enhance the survival chances of the community or tribe. At some point
the tribe has to choose between keeping the traditions of the past and
so dwindling or dying out unless conditions revert to what they were
before (think of the Amish, and how many Shakers have you met?), or
adapting to the future but losing some of what has up till then made
them distinctively themselves by changing their identity (think of the
Jewish people in the diaspora). And because individual people change at
different speeds and
have different attitudes to change, there is always an instability in
tribes and communities, which if not being expressed in open conflict is
nonetheless lurking below the surface as a constant source of anxiety.
1.5. The community needs a common ideology and a shared story around
which to coalesce. Commitment to a shared goal or god, to divine
kingship or democracy, to liberty, fraternity and equality or to British
values of pragmatism and tolerance, to an army or a sports team, gives
us a sense of
common identity. The question at stake for inclusion and exclusion is
how tightly those community ideologies and stories are defined: for
example, more of the United Kingdom could come together around the
Olympics in 2012 despite them being in London (which is regarded as out
of touch and 'other' by many in other parts of the country) because it
was a truly national team in the Olympics, and it did well, which
helped; whereas trying to bring people together around rugby or cricket
appeals to a more limited section of the population. The more the common
story and beliefs are shared, the stronger
the sense of community.
A particular issue here is how much leeway is given to non-compliance
with the common ideology and story of the group. The British have always
prided themselves on their tolerance and their acceptance of
eccentricity and individualism: but there are limits, often subtly
controlling ones -- you can play the fool, but you mustn't threaten
social class and manners; you can busk next to a queue, but woe betide
you if you try to jump it; you can be a republican, but you must love
the Queen; you can come from a different
ethnic group, but don't get above your station. Where are the
community's non-negotiable values and beliefs and attitudes, and what
happens to those who question or go beyond them?
1.6. There's a built-in emotional tension in human beings between the
drive to belong, to be part of a group, and the drive to discover your
individual identity, which is an often overwhelming tension in
adolescence, and which forms the plot of countless stories, novels and
films. The son or daughter
rebels against their parents, the dissident or prophet stands up against
social norms. You will have your own experiences and memories of the
conflicts which you went through in order to balance fitting into the
group and finding your own identity. Many of them may be painful: but
that's a normal if not
universal human experience.
1.7. The handling of difference within and between communities is
generally regarded as a zero-sum power game. If I get my way, you won't
get yours: my gain is your loss, and vice-versa. The concept of justice
and its handmaid equality (before the law) is in theory the way to
address this. But the question
there is: where does your justice come from? Each year the deans of the
Church of England have a very hard-working and gruelling conference
after Easter.
In 2013 it was in Westminster, and we had a visit to the Supreme Court
when we asked the law lords that question: where do your values in
making judgements come from, and how do you know what is right and
reasonable when looking at social questions such as the role and status
of women, abortion or gay rights? And the answer was that they listen to
what people are saying and thinking, and take that as their guide to
what people in our society think is reasonable justice. That's realistic
-- we know how people's views have changed, so for example sentencing
people to be transported because they stole a loaf of bread to feed
themselves is no longer thought to be reasonable: but the danger is that
justice becomes a matter of power not principle, with the supposed
majority or the articulate minority imposing their will on others.
We know this too in our personal relationships and our own communities.
One person's beliefs, choices, identity and lifestyle can conflict with
those of another: how free are we to find and live out our own lifestyle
or identity? The boundaries between what the individual sees as good for
themselves, what a
group sees as good for its members, and what is society's common good,
are continually contested, and always will be. Sexuality, abortion,
euthanasia, paying taxes, religious observance, the grey vote and the
pink pound, political creeds, Brexit and many more -- how do we survive
as a country and a world
in the midst of so many competing interests and cultures?
Secular and religious responses to these power problems of difference
have over history included:
- open conflict, conquest, persecution or genocide to eradicate
difference,
assimilate it, or deny it and drive it underground;
- separate development based on a relatively narrow view of nationalism,
culture or creed: leading to the growth of nation states, apartheid, or
limited self-government from Roman satraps through Ottoman millets and
tribal reservations to devolved government as in Wales and Scotland; and
maybe linked with the religious sphere, for example in the Reformation,
with
theologies going different ways in partnership with political and
national differences;
- protection for minorities by legislation within a broad conception of
a commonwealth, as in the vision for the European Union;
- with two world wars and the rise of economic and social globalisation,
the realisation of a common human interest in the whole planet, which is
in tension with the competing interests of more tightly defined groups
(hence the rise and decline of the League of Nations/United Nations).
2. Those are seven general features of difference, inclusion and
exclusion: how does the situation faced by Inclusive Church relate to
these?
2.1. Tribalism: if Them and Us is a normal default position, where is
Inclusive Church? You are presumably the Us who also includes the Them.
But if Them don't want to be Us, does that leave Us as yet another tribe
with its boundaries and exclusions? And of course you're not the only
group that
sees itself as being Us and open to Them -- so what makes you different?
The way I put it for St Paul's is that we are the Cathedral Church for
both the first Church of England priest to marry his husband, and the
Rector of St Helen's Bishopsgate who regards the Cathedral as a place of
false teaching.
Our commitment at St Paul's is to include everyone in the Diocese of
London, of whatever view, indeed to be the Christian cathedral for
people of all faiths and none in the Diocese. But that doesn't mean
compromising our witness to Jesus Christ. Nor does it mean we have no
boundaries: like St Paul, we can be all things to all people for the
sake of the gospel within the limits the gospel sets -- or else we have
no gospel to share. The view of conservative evangelicals and catholics
may be that we have gone beyond the limits of the gospel; and my view is
that some of the beliefs and practices of conservatives go beyond the
limits of the gospel and include erroneous teaching. But I'm not going
to stop being in fellowship with them, even if they decide not to be
with me.
I'll come back in the final section with a further thought on this: just
to note here that Inclusive Church must be just that, inclusive, and
avoid any temptation to be Us over against Them, however tempting and
self-righteous it may feel.
2.2. Community versus individual: groups that feel under threat pay much
less attention to the needs of individuals, whether inside or outside
them. For Inclusive Church, I suspect that the sense of threat to you as
a group is not that strong, and therefore you can allow yourselves to be
more generous to
those who disagree with what you stand for. But the corollary of that is
that threatened groups in the Church not only see you as an organisation
as more of a threat than before, but will tend to bear down on
individuals in their group who are also members of Inclusive Church or
sympathetic towards you.
Debates within the Evangelical Group on General Synod (EGGS) are linked
with this, with a move towards a harder line on true evangelical
identity which is in tension with the wish to include all evangelicals
of different views within EGGS. Quite how keeping EGGS in one basket
will play out we don't yet know, but your contribution can be to support
individuals who are under pressure to conform to a harder line than they
would accept, to stay in and witness to alternative validly scriptural
and gospel views within an evangelical or catholic context.
And you will also need to keep supporting gay and other Christians who
are involved in groups and cultures outside the Church which point to
the failings and inadequacies of the Church as evidence as to why those
Christians should give up on being followers of Christ, and support them
in their witness
and work for the love of God in Christ in the world outside the Church.
2.3. Conservative thinking: groups facing change resist it as long as
possible, and then try to do change with the minimum of appearing to be
different. There are two ways to help groups change: one is to look for
continuity with the past, in particular affirming as much as possible
the basic principles which those groups uphold, in order to help break
the hold of past over present culture. We'll come back to this again
later: but it means in scriptural debates, for example, concentrating
not on particular culturally oriented behaviours but on the underlying
theological principles, in the way that the radicalism of Paul in 1
Corinthians 7 and Galatians 3.28 undergirds the ordination of women and
the outlawing of slavery, as opposed to Paul's culturally related
practical instructions in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14.
The other way to help groups manage change is to pursue the truth:
because God is found in reality, in what is true, and not in our partial
views and self-serving constructions of the truth. What is the reality
of our present situation? Honesty about who we are, about how the Church
in various ways has colluded to hide the truth about its human
sexuality, about the evidence from science, history and cultural
studies, is all important in helping us -- all of us, including us in
this room -- to come to clearer understanding of God's will for our
lives. Hence the importance of the work proposed by the bishops over the
next few years, and the need for it to be done with rigorous honesty,
and monitored by as many groups as possible to ensure that it is
honestly truthful, rather than a fudge which tells us or others what we
already think or want to hear rather than what is the case.
2.4. Individuality, tension and change: these will be issues within
Inclusive Church as in other groups. How do you stay together and decide
what you're going to do? How do you cope with different ideas and strong
personalities and nuances of belief? What does someone have to do to get
thrown out of
Inclusive Church? And what do you do if someone walks away? The
commitment to the group can be in tension with a person's sense of their
own integrity: particularly in a group with Inclusive in its title,
seeking to include others also means those who are members of the group
accepting the disciplines that go with being included, and making space
for others.
Acknowledge any underlying anxiety about different views, and it will
make handling disagreement easier; pretend such anxiety is not there,
and it will come out in unhealthy ways. The other thing to note under
this heading is the concept of Good Disagreement. Some in conservative
groups have attacked the whole idea as unchristian, because one side in
an argument must be right and the other wrong -- more on that in a
moment. But Good Disagreement isn't about content but about process: how
do we disagree well, without rancour or aggression, whatever the
disagreement may be about? Good disagreement is important, and not only
in dialogue with those coming from other positions: you will need it in
your own group life together as well.
2.5. Common ideology and shared story: in his wonderful book The Dignity
of Difference published 15 years ago, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks sets out the
western paradigm of what he calls Plato's Ghost: the idea that there is
one view of reality with which all must agree, or be wrong. And despite
having four gospels, the Church has tended to follow that view that
truth is monolithic, rather than paradoxical. The Church has tended to
see truth as self-consistent and dogmatically coherent, and that there
are eternal principles which define and shape it: depending on your
emphasis this might be scripture, holiness, submission, tradition or
something else. The key feature is that this view of truth enables the
division of humanity into right and wrong. Which is what gets us into
difficulties with handling difference: if truth is
dogmatic and you're right or wrong, then you can't have good
disagreement because one side must be right and good and the other side
wrong and bad. And if Inclusive Church or its members see truth as
dogmatic, and those who think differently as wrong, then it will end up
in the same bind.
The answer for us of course lies in the Christian revelation: of God
revealed as the creator of one human race; of the scriptures revealed as
the messy story of part of God's untidy interaction with humanity, where
there are more loose ends than neatly tied-up certainties; and, above
all, God's self-disclosure
in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. The truth is not propositional, but
relational; the Word of God is not a book, but a Person. To be Inclusive
Church means to have a common ideology of God and humanity and a shared
story which includes everyone else, even if some of them don't include
you or me -- because even if they don't like it they are still part of
the same story. So when in dispute with others, don't argue the toss
over dogma (such argument is noted as fruitless in the letters to
Timothy, for example, so
it's scriptural to avoid it) but point rather to how we build loving
relationship with God and neighbour in Jesus Christ, in the holiness of
love.
2.6. Emotional tension between belonging and individual identity: one of
the main reasons you exist as a group is in my view to give people space
to be loved and to belong and thus to find ourselves and our identity as
we are in Jesus Christ -- not to subsume who we are into a prior
construct of what the Church expects us to be, but to keep becoming the
Christ-like Spirit-filled whole and holy person that God has made each
of us to be, as witnesses to God's endless capacity for difference and
for love.
Christians who are changing their minds about what they think about the
role and ordination of women or gay people find it hard to say so
because they fear that they will be ostracised and expelled, whether
formally or informally, from the group to which they belong which
maintains a different corporate view, whether it's Forward in Faith or
EGGS or Evangelical Alliance.
And could that also possibly be true of Inclusive Church? Are you
completely a safe space for others? For you are a group like other
groups, and will have similar attitudes and pathologies lurking under
the surface of commitment to generosity to all. The Diocese of London is
fairly united around a commitment
to generous orthodoxy, but the amount of emphasis given to 'generosity'
or 'orthodoxy' differs markedly between different groups: what are your
own limits as Inclusive Church, and what is your orthodoxy? We'll come
back to that shortly.
2.7. Power and justice: the reports of General Synod two weeks ago and
responses on "both sides" indicate that we fall into the trap of seeing
what goes on in the Church as a power game which we seek to win. I spoke
earlier under this heading about the problem of defining what is just
and reasonable
in a society which doesn't look to God for its values; and to be fair,
even when the Law of God has been part of the law of the state, power
has manipulated justice and religion. Which is why the role of prophets
is always important: to proclaim the values of God over against the
practices of society. That matters, all ways round. For prophecy is not
just what I do to confront injustice and wrong: it's also what other
people do to confront my collusion in injustice and wrong. You can't
have your prophetic cake and throw it at others -- like Ezekiel and John
of Patmos, you have to eat it and think it's sweet, when it will make
your stomach bitter. The only way to exercise power well is to do so
with humility, not only seeking to know what God looks for in how we
live, but also admitting our own fallibility and need to listen to
others.
In 2012 I was coming down the steps of St Paul's during the Olympics in
my cassock and heard an American preacher with a megaphone slagging off
St Paul's for telling lies about him, and telling the innocent passersby
and stepsitters, 'If you've had an abortion, God hates you'. I took
issue with him on the basis of his unchristian words and unchristian
gospel. He almost hit me. But I was reminded of that in General Synod
when we considered the motion on the unethical nature of so-called
'conversion therapy': there was nothing to fear from the motion if you
were doing ethical client-centred exploratory
therapy, but everything to fear if you were seeking to impose something
onto someone else to satisfy your own view of what is right. People were
muddling up conversion as a free choice to come into relationship with
Christ and allow Christ to change you into who you truly are, with
conversion as a change imposed from outside by other people to the
essence of what makes you who you are.
The commonality in these two things is that the person who thinks they
have the truth expects the other person to pay the cost of that truth.
Does God hate women who have had abortions? Is God that exclusive?
Doesn't God hate the men who got them pregnant too? Of course the
ethical issues are
complex, and that's the point: there is no easy answer, and those who
say there is only one principle -- to preserve life -- expect girls and
women to pay the price for their principle. So although part of your
witness as Inclusive Church is to the power of love and acceptance, it
also has to be to the importance of prophecy and humility.
We must confront injustice, while acknowledging our own failures to be
just; we look for what builds up others for their benefit, rather than
what makes us feel better at their expense. A mark of unacceptable
exclusivity is making other people pay the price for your conscience: do
we bear the cost, or do we
make others bear the cost, of justice, truth and love?
3. Reflections on handling difference constructively.
I want to conclude with seven theses on aspects of handling difference.
3.1 Difficulty with difference is rooted in fear.
Fear of the other, fear of being wrong, fear of not belonging, fear of
condemnation by God or others. That's one reason why people look for
certainty, the security of being in a system that tells them who and
what they are and what to do, the security of knowing that God will save
them from what they fear if they keep their side of the bargain, the
assurance of power.
There's also the fear that being inclusive will legitimate ungodly
conduct and threaten proper Christian morality. Arguing with fear won't
make much impact. Nor will an appeal to reality. The mindset is that, if
you're not healed, it's because you have hidden sin or insufficient
faith -- so you must try harder, or give up, or convince yourself that
reality isn't what it really is. What will make an impact on fearful
people is
love: love that accepts and allows a person to be who they really are,
and begin to come out of their fear into the light of reality: the love
of God in Jesus Christ, and that love lived out in our lives. 'We have
known and believe the love that God has for us... there is no fear in
love, but love casts out fear, for fear has to do with punishment, and
whoever fears has not reached perfection in love.' (I John 4.16ff). So
the task of Inclusive Church is to love people into the kingdom of
Christ, without fear or favour, and to share that love with one another.
3.2 God is untidy, and we have to be comfortable with it.
One of my definitions of clergy is 'the people who go round tidying up
the mess that God leaves behind', and much of the time we need not to
worry about it -- we should simply name the mess so people can
understand and accept it, and stay with people in it. Jesus shows us how
to be creative lovers
of God and neighbour, while our role models the Pharisees are too busy
tidying it all up: the parable of the weeds in the harvest field
(Matthew 13.24-30) pictures God caring for all the harvest, and doing
the sorting out at the end of all things. It's not our job to judge
people, but God's.
3.3 Because truth is relational, Jesus and people must be our focus.
It's interesting that the basic conservative evangelical model of
atonement is penal substitution, the paying of a penalty of
condemnation, avoiding punishment; when in the New Testament there are
more in the way of personal pictures of atonement, such as dying for us,
reconciliation of a relationship, buying us out of slavery, becoming
part of God's family. It's that security of being received by the
prodigal father, loved into family relationship, that allows us then to
be challenged and changed: the Gospel begins with love, not fear.
3.4 Relationships with others are rooted in our accountability to God.
In Romans 14 Paul explores the issue of eating meat, and in so doing
says that we should not pass judgement on one another, but live in
honour of the Lord in whom we live and to whom we give account. Whether
it's EGGS or Inclusive Church, the ability to encompass people who
disagree sincerely as followers of Jesus needs to be part of our
Christian DNA. Relationships can be uncomfortable, but don't thereby
have to be broken.
3.5 Walking away from each other as Christians is unreal.
Having a split can preserve my sense of purity, it can restore my
security and my boundaries, it puts me back in control, so I think, of
my faith. But not only will further splits come along as we make church
in our own image: we're not really split at all. As the Papal preacher
said at the opening service for General Synod in 2015, terrorists don't
ask whether you're Catholic or Protestant or Exclusive Brethren, but
kill you as a Christian. Not only do we stand or die together for our
faith, but we have the same Lord, and we meet round the Lord's table in
the Eucharist -- it's the Lord's table not ours. Even if we think we're
doing the right thing by excluding the wrong people from our altar,
Jesus doesn't -- he's with the other lot just round the corner in their
service too, uniting us all together. Hence the importance of Open Table
as a witness to the untidiness of God and the inclusive love of Christ.
3.6 The Church is a bonfire not a box.
The creeds and the dogmas which defined the Church over against the
pagans and heretics in the fourth century, and defined the Church of
England against Roman Catholic and Reformed Churches at the Reformation,
are boundaries around a mystery, not an IKEA manual for how to be a
faithful follower of Jesus Christ. At the heart of the Church is the
burning love of God in Jesus Christ our Lord: and like a bonfire, the
heat and light don't stop at a boundary, but spread out a long way
around so that people can be drawn inwards and warmed up and lit up for
Christ. If we burn with the love of God, people will be drawn in. If we
burn with zeal for defining the boundary definitions, we have missed the
point of the Gospel.
3.7 God's burning love is inclusive and challenging.
When the Chapter of St Paul's published our vision and values statement
in 2013, two clergy linked with the cathedral took me aside in some
concern at having the word 'inclusive' in the statement. Their worry was
that this was aligning St Paul's with the liberals in the church: the
word 'inclusive' was, like
'godly' or 'traditional' or 'orthodox', the buzz-word of a partisan
churchmanship, and it wasn't their party, so they felt excluded. I
understood their concern, but pointed out that this was in the context
of encouraging diversity (which meant for us particularly ethnic,
gender, age and disability diversity in a diverse London, as we already
had diverse sexuality which they might not be aware of); and also that
the Chapter statement used a phrase, rather than a single word, in order
to clarify that this was about substance not party membership. The last
of our values reads, 'to foster and encourage diversity, being inclusive
and challenging to ourselves as well as others'.
Inclusive and challenging. That's how God works with us. It's being
loved that roots us enough to be challenged. And that challenge works
for all: as conservatives will argue, the spirit of the age does indeed
need challenging; and so does the Victorian culture of a bygone age that
conservative churchmen mistake for the true church, and the patriarchal
culture of the early church and its scriptures that blunted the radical
and burning love of Jesus.
As Richard Niebuhr noted in his book Christ and Culture, no culture is
fully Christian, and Christ challenges all cultures -- including the
culture of Inclusive Church.
Inclusive Church has done much to open up Christian faith to those on
the margins, and support those who struggle with the exclusive attitudes
of some inside and outside the Church. And in my dreams you would change
your name to Inclusive and Challenging Church, as you pursue your role
of promoting and sharing love and justice in Christ's name, pursuing the
burning love of God.
I want to conclude with some words from a little known but profound
ascetic theologian, hung up on sex as most monks were, yet with a
wonderful appreciation of the power of God's love and inclusion which
stretches even to hell, where souls turning their backs on God are
tormented, not by demons, but by receiving the burning love of God when
they have rejected it -- for God can never stop loving anyone.
Isaac the Syrian wrote in the late 600s in what's now northern Iraq, and
this is some of what he said:
'As is a grain of sand weighed against a large amount of gold, so, in
God, is the demand for equitable judgement weighed against his
compassion. As a handful of sand in the boundless ocean, so are the sins
of the flesh in comparison with God's providence and mercy. As a copious
spring could not be stopped up with a handful of dust, so the creator's
compassion cannot be conquered by the wickedness of his creatures.' 'Do
not say that God is just... God's own son has revealed to us that he is
before all things good and kind. He is kind to the ungrateful and the
wicked. How can you call God just when you read the parable of the
labourers in the vineyard and their wages? How can you call God just
when you read the parable of the prodigal son who squanders his father's
wealth in riotous living, and the moment he displays some nostalgia his
father runs to him, throws his arms around his neck and gives him
complete power over all his riches? It is not someone else who has told
us this about God, so that we might have doubts. It is his own son
himself. He bore this witness to God. Where is God's justice? Here, in
the fact that we were sinners and Christ died for us.'
END
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:25:00 -0400
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: Church of England 'withdrew emotional support for abused'
Message-ID:
<1501244700.2246320....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Church of England 'withdrew emotional support for abused'
Ecclesiastical's John Titchener says having a member of clergy on the
executive board is not problematic
By Martin Bashir and Callum May
BBC Victoria Derbyshire programme
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40668079
21 July 2017
Victims of abuse by clergy have criticised the Church of England's close
relationship with the insurer advising it on compensation claims.
They said the Church had cut contact and emotional support from them on
the advice of Ecclesiastical - which has a senior clergy member on its
board.
An independent reviewer said in one victim's case "financial interests
were allowed to impact practice".
The Church said it aimed to separate pastoral care from insurance
issues.
'Moral responsibility'
Gilo - a middle-aged man who lives in the south-west of England - told
the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme he had been raped in the early
1970s by a City of London clergyman, the Reverend Garth Moore.
Gilo - whose surname he has asked us not to use - said he had made more
than 20 attempts to contact senior members of the Church after his
decision to report the assaults, but often received no reply.
When the Church finally examined his claim, it agreed it was at fault
and reached a financial settlement with him of ?35,000 on the advice of
Ecclesiastical.
But the Church then cut contact, including emotional support - or
pastoral care - with Gilo, for which he blames the insurer.
The company insists this was not a result of its advice.
Gilo told the BBC: "I think because of the relationship that the Church
has with the insurers, the pastoral response is so fused with the legal
response it's really effectively led by the insurers.
"When that insurer has got such significant presence of senior clerics
on its board across the years, then you're into an area of moral
responsibility."
Ecclesiastical has had a string of senior members of clergy on its board
of directors.
The company said this was normal business practice because the Church of
England was one of its major customers, and the clergy were
non-executive directors.
Child safeguarding specialist Ian Elliott says there is a conflict
between the insurer's advice and the responsibilities of the Church
Ian Elliott, a child safeguarding specialist who conducted an
independent review of Gilo's case, echoed the victim's criticism of
Ecclesiastical.
He said the insurer's advice had "directly conflicted" with the pastoral
and compassionate responsibilities of the Church.
"That's not the direction or advice that is compliant with a
compassionate pastoral response which is the stated policy of the
Church," he added.
But Ecclesiastical's compliance director, John Titchener, said he had
not been asked to contribute to Mr Elliott's review of Gilo's case.
He said: "The report is based on factual inaccuracies and we have been
absolutely clear, before and after, that pastoral care and counselling
can and should continue in parallel with an insurance claim which is a
separate matter."
The Church of England, which accepted the criticisms in Mr Elliott's
review in full, said it disagreed with the company.
"The Archbishop [of Canterbury] has very clearly... accepted all those
recommendations," the Bishop of Bath and Wells, the Rt Rev Peter
Hancock, said.
Abuse victim Teresa Cooper says the Church is "without a doubt fully
involved" in Ecclesiastical
Ecclesiastical has also been criticised over the settlement of claims by
former residents of Kendall House, the Church of England children's home
in Kent where girls were drugged and abused in the 1960s, 70s and 80s.
A former resident, Teresa Cooper, told the programme she wanted an
investigation into the involvement of Church figures in settlements.
"Even if they're not legally part of it, the Church are without a doubt
fully involved in the Ecclesiastical insurance company," she added.
Mr Titchener said the settlement of claims relating to Kendall House
would be looked at as part of the long-running Independent Inquiry into
Child Sexual Abuse.
The Church of England's responses to complaints of historical abuse have
provoked some calls for responsibility for safeguarding to be removed
from its ruling bishops, and instead given to an independent
organisation.
A Church of England spokeswoman said: "The Church of England is
absolutely committed to its pastoral response to alleged victims and
survivors and published new guidance in 2015 emphasising that this needs
to be separated as far as possible from the management processes for the
situation, and from legal and insurance responses.
"That superseded all previous advice and ensures that the pastoral needs
of survivors must never be neglected and pastoral contact can continue
whatever legal issues exist. "
END
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:25:17 -0400
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: Conservative Anglicans are close to despair. Is the CofE
about to split?
Message-ID:
<1501244717.2246393....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Conservative Anglicans are close to despair. Is the CofE about to split?
As an Anglican, I used to think theological liberalism was on the wane.
Not any more
FOTO: Attendees at the Church of England's first General Synod of the
year in February (Getty)
By Andrew Sabisky
http://catholicherald.co.uk/
July 20, 2017
Anyone with a lick of sense can see that the Church of England is in
serious trouble. Congregational decline, child abuse scandals, and
financially desperate cathedrals are just the most obvious symptoms of a
very broad disease. As an Anglican, I have been confident that the
Church would manage to turn things around in a few decades. After the
most recent meeting of General Synod, however, I am no longer so
confident.
On the face it, the Synod's changes were all fairly minor. For all the
fuss, the proposal to write official liturgies affirming the new gender
identity of transgender people may well be ignored even by Church's own
bishops; and the changes on regulation of vestments merely rubber-stamps
what already takes places across swathes of the Church.
But the most significant thing about the Synod was the manner in which
it was conducted. The bishops stayed largely silent as Synod did
theology by endless anecdote. The only notable episcopal contributions
came from the liberal northern prelates (especially Paul Bayes of
Liverpool). An outburst of anti-capitalism from the Archbishop of York
provided comedy value amongst the general dour air of neo-Puritanism.
The monotonous drumbeat of socialism and sexual liberalism was only
broken by the ecumenical contribution of Bishop Angaelos of the Coptic
Orthodox Church, who warned Synod that it's bad for PR and the soul to
spend so much time talking about sex. His plea fell on deaf ears.
Leading conservative Synod members seem to have left in a state of mind
verging on despair. They have suffered no major defeats, but seem
confident that it's only a matter of time. The general consensus is that
the "middle third" of Synod has no more appetite for gruelling fights or
media uproar, and will quietly acquiesce to liberal demands for church
blessings of same-sex marriage, to be shortly followed by same-sex
marriage itself.
Nor does anyone think that this will meet with any more than token
resistance amongst the Church's bishops, who seem to have largely
abolished their own traditional role in developing doctrine, and handed
it over to Synod. The Church selects bishops largely on their ability to
avoid controversy and act as (at least nominal) figures of unity, a
near-impossible role in a Church marked out by so many theological
divisions. They are very carefully chosen so as not to have strong
opinions on matters of faith. Consequently the ranks of the episcopacy
are packed full of weak men. The chronic cowardice is part of the reason
why their instinctive response to child abuse is cover-up, not rigorous
public investigation.
Previously I was convinced that church liberalism would shortly hit its
high-water mark and decline rapidly, simply because it is so bad at
reproducing itself: the liberals would give way to the more orthodox
younger clergy. In reality, though, it seems as though the Church of
England is more likely to simply wind up going down the same path as The
Episcopal Church in America, where it has dramatically fragmented as it
liberalized. The orthodox either went to the various Continuing Anglican
churches -- most notably the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) --
or became Roman Catholics. The seeds of such fragmentation are already
being laid in the UK via the consecration by ACNA of a missionary bishop
for the UK and Europe, who will operate outside the structures of the
Church of England.
In another possible scenario, the Church of England will not formally
break up, but will radically de-federalize into a series of "churches
within a church". All meaningful power would devolve to various bodies
representing the various theological traditions. The Society of St
Wilfrid and St Hilda is already well-set to take on this role for the
traditionalist Anglo-Catholics, and no doubt a similar umbrella body
could easily be set up for the more conservative evangelicals. These
bodies could select their own priests, instead of training and
ordination being managed by the diocese. Parishes would routinely
affiliate with their favoured national umbrella body; the "Church of
England" label would be limited to a strictly secondary place in their
branding.
This would relieve the various factions of the apparently intolerable
burden of having to tolerate one another. It would also end the
ludicrous situation where bishops are tasked with being figures of unity
in dioceses where no unity is possible. The Church would, in effect,
have consciously uncoupled itself, achieving a peaceful separation
without going through the expensive bother of formal divorce.
However, such a separation would leave the historic sees of Canterbury
and York in the hands of the unsound. When governments try again, over
the next several decades, to push through some form of legalised
euthanasia or liberalised abortion, they will find willing accomplices
governing over the husk of the Church of England, useful chaplains to
the culture of death. The price for abandoning the fight for the centre
of the Church will ultimately be paid in lives.
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:25:36 -0400
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: An Open Letter to Anglicans of Great Britain
Message-ID:
<1501244736.2246387....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
An Open Letter to Anglicans of Great Britain
July 18, 2017
Many will share our dismay at the recent decisions of the General Synod
of the Church of England and the pursuing principles, values and
practices contrary to Holy Scripture and church Tradition.
Given the persistent failure of the majority of the House of Bishops to
fulfil the God-given duties which they have sworn to discharge these
tragic developments were, sadly, not wholly unexpected.
Accordingly, and in preparation for such eventualities we, as some of
those committed to the renewal of biblical and orthodox Anglicanism have
already started to meet, on behalf of our fellow Anglicans, to discuss
how to ensure a faithful ecclesial future.
We now wish that we have done so to be more widely known.
Our number is drawn from bishops, clergy and laity, from across Great
Britain and from a breadth of traditions. Much more importantly,
however, we meet joyfully united by a shared endorsement of the terms of
the Jerusalem Declaration.
We will meet again, as planned and with external facilitation, mediation
and episcopal advice, in October.
It is our intention to welcome on that occasion an even greater
diversity of contributors.
We would value your prayers and any expressions of interest from those
who feel they might be able to make a valuable contribution to our
deliberations.
Anyone desiring to contact us can do so through any of the organisations
or churches listed.
Revd Dr Gavin Ashenden, Former Chaplain to the Queen
Mrs Lorna Ashworth, General Synod of the Church of England, Archbishops'
Council
Revd Nigel Atkinson, Vicar St John's, Knutsford and Toft
Revd Andrew Bawtree, Chair of the House of Clergy, Diocese of Canterbury
Revd Mark Burkill, Chairman of Reform
Rt Revd John Ellison, Anglican Mission in England Executive
Rt Revd John Fenwick, Bishop Primus, Free Church of England
Rt Revd Josep Miquel Rossello Ferrer, Free Church of England
Ven Dr Amatu Christian-Iwuagwu, Vicar St Mary's Harmondsworth & PiC
Anglican Igbo Church of the Holy Trinity, London
Rt Revd Paul Hunt, General Secretary, Free Church of England
Canon Nigel Juckes, Incumbent, Llandogo, Monmouth
Mr Daniel Leafe, Gafcon UK
Mrs Susie Leafe, Director of Reform
Rt Revd Andy Lines, ACNA Bishop with Special Mission
Revd David McCarthy, Coordinator of the Scottish Anglican Network
Revd Lee McMunn, Mission Director, Anglican Mission in England
Revd James Paice, Trustee, The Southwark Good Stewards Trust
Rt Revd Jonathan Pryke, Senior Minister Jesmond Parish Church, Anglican
Mission in England Executive
Revd Dr Peter Sanlon, Convenor of Anglican Partnership Synod
Ven Dr Will Strange on behalf of the Evangelical Fellowship in England
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:26:06 -0400
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: Anglican leader in Jamaica breaks ranks by calling for
legalisation of sodomy
Message-ID:
<1501244766.2246449....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Anglican leader in Jamaica breaks ranks by calling for legalisation of
sodomy
By James Macintyre
https://www.christiantoday.com/
July 25, 2017
The head of the Anglican Church in Jamaica and the Cayman Islands,
Bishop Howard Gregory, has broken ranks with many fellow Christian
leaders in the region and urged for the removal of the offence of sodomy
from the law.
Bishop Gregory has also recommended a widening of the definition of rape
and the recognition of marital rape.
In a written submission to the committee examining the Sexual Offences
Act and related laws in which he emphasised that his views were
personal, Gregory likened his position to that of the executed German
Christian leader Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who had argued that the aim of the
Church is not 'that the authorities make Christian policies, Christian
laws and so on, but that they be proper authorities in the sense of
their special commission'.
The Jamaica Gleaner reported that Gregory believes that the State should
not waste time with a referendum on the sodomy law, and instead should
simply strike it from the books.
According to The Gleaner, Gregory said that Christians should be
cautioned against believing in the view that they must be the
gatekeepers of the law against sodomy in order to prevent the
legalisation of same-sex marriage.
'This submission does not accept the cause and effect relationship which
is being introduced into this matter, neither is it advocating
homosexual marriages,' the bishop said.
Section 61 of the Offences against the Person Act of 1864 criminalises
the 'abominable' act - consensual or otherwise -- and the maximum
punishment is 10 years' imprisonment.
However, Gregory argued: 'Sexual activity engaged in public spaces is
illegal and should continue to be so, whether of an heterosexual or
homosexual nature.
'Beyond that, what happens in privacy between consenting adults should
be beyond the purview of the Government.'
Jamaica's prime minister Andrew Holness promised before his party won
the 2016 general election that the removal of the sodomy law would be
put to Jamaicans in a referendum. But since the victory, Holness has
said that while the referendum will take place, it is not a priority for
his government.
The chair of the parliamentary committee, Delroy Chuck, said earlier
this year that the law should be scrapped and the church lobby ignored.
But after facing criticism, he reverted to the referendum position.
Gregory, in his submission, said: 'The promise of a referendum on the
issue is at best a way in which those responsible for governance are
postponing the issue in order to avoid taking controversial decisions.'
According to surveys, most Jamaicans have historically been opposed to
homosexuality. A Gleaner-Bill Johnson poll in 2014 found that 91 per
cent of Jamaicans believe lawmakers should make no attempt to repeal the
sodomy law.
Six church groups and the conservative Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy
Society made submissions to Parliament, urging the lawmakers to retain
the sodomy law for the health of the nation and in line with Christian
principles.
Separately, Gregory argued that there can be rape in marriage, a view
that also breaks ranks with the position of church groups, including the
growing group, Jamaica Union of Seventh-day Adventists.
'Non-consensual sex accompanied by threat, intimidation and violence
ought to be characterised as rape,' Gregory said.
The parliamentary committee completed oral submissions last week. Its
report is expected to be completed by November and submitted to the
House of Representatives for debate.
------------------------------
Message: 17
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:26:18 -0400
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: Gay marriage opened the door to the trans madness
Message-ID:
<1501244778.2246508....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Gay marriage opened the door to the trans madness
By Laura Perrins
http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/
July 26, 2017
What do you do when you realise you are on a one-way, non-stop train to
Lefty Land? Why you try to get off, of course. Sadly, for many, it is
about to dawn on them that they are on this train with the doors and
windows locked and bolted.
Graeme Archer, who is a gay man NOT LGBTQ+, wants out. In response to
Justine Greening and the Conservatives Party's latest attempt to
re-write reality and trash the culture by permitting people to choose
their sex (you can no more choose your sex than choose your race) he
tells us, "I can prove my same-sex orientation -- and its congruence
with, not opposition to, my gender -- but the statement "I am the wrong
gender, regardless of my biological sex", like the 'LGBTQ+' label, is an
assertion. There's no scientific observation which could support or deny
such a claim." Very true Graeme, very true.
Even Matthew Parris, has announced that he wants to leave the LGBT clubs
as it is an 'artificial union.'
Helen Lewis, the feminist and deputy editor of the New Statesman, says
in The Times, 'a man can't just say he has turned into a woman.' Oh, but
soon he can say this. And what is more you will have to agree with him,
and if you do not, thanks to the Equality Act, you could wind up in
court.
Lewis points out sensibly: What the government proposes is a radical
rewriting of our understanding of identity: now it's a question of an
internal essence -- a soul, if you will. Being a woman or a man is now
entirely in your head. In this climate, who would challenge someone with
a beard exposing their penis in a women's changing room? That's why
feminists have raised the alarm over the move to self-identification,
along with some older trans people who fear that "trendsters" will erode
the goodwill they have worked hard to acquire.
This is a radical rewriting, a bit like when the government radically
redefined marriage. So this radical rewriting has precedent, you know,
when Cameron and the rest of the hipsters such as Archer, Parris and
Lewis said the millennia-old institution of marriage is malleable and if
the State wants to redefine it thoroughly then it can. It is all too
late now to bang and scream and demand to be let off the train. You are
on a one-way journey to crazy town and there is no escape.
Listen up people and listen good. This Conservative Party is as
authoritarian and leftist as any communist outfit you would have seen in
the old USSR. They care nothing, absolutely nothing, for tradition,
Christian values or protecting the vulnerable. All they care about is
power and looking 'nice.' Nothing short of a total clear out is going to
change that.
Archer tells us, accurately, "To proclaim that psychology drives
biology, rather than the reverse, is to say that political will can
trump scientific reality. Let the government get away with that, and
you're not at the top of a slippery slope, but careering fast towards
the wall of cultural oblivion, foot hard on the pedal, screaming "the
wall doesn't exist if I say so."
Let the Government get away with what? Forming an alliance with Labour
and Liberal Democrats to push through radical social change and
redefinition that will lead to cultural oblivion? I think it is all a
bit too late to be dictating to this crazy bunch of Tories what they can
and cannot do, especially when you were so happy with them redefining
marriage.
Redefining marriage to include same sex couples declared that biological
sex and the profound differences between men and women were irrelevant;
'it is one bloody chromosome' after all.
This transgender revolution also says biological sex does not matter. We
have been careering down this slope for years. Enjoy
------------------------------
Message: 18
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:26:32 -0400
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: The Religious Left's Abortion Gospel
Message-ID:
<1501244792.2246508....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
The Religious Left's Abortion Gospel
By Andrew E. Harrod
https://juicyecumenism.com/2017/07/21/religious-left-abortion-gospel/
July 21, 2017
"The compassionate aspect of Christianity is what compels me to act,"
stated Dr. Willie Parker concerning his abortion practice while
presenting at the Center for American Progress' (CAP) conference room on
July 12 in Washington, D.C. He and other panelists spoke at the event
"At the Intersection of Faith and Reproductive Justice," which pleased
the largely leftist, overflow audience of over 100 people and gave
disturbing insight into the Religious Left's bizarre support for the
abortion gospel.
Many might wonder how the often physically brutal extermination of
unborn life qualifies as compassion for Parker, yet would presumably
make little impression upon his inverted morality and belief in the
abortion gospel. As CAP Senior Fellow Jocelyn Frye noted in introducing
Parker, he flaunts obscene awards bearing the names of the racist
eugenicist Margaret Sanger and the murdered late-term abortionist George
Tiller (the "Killer"). Conversing with his fellow African-American Frye,
Parker incongruously referenced Martin Luther King, Jr.'s comments on
the Good Samaritan to support abortion, even though King and many other
civil rights leaders were pro-life.
To "call evil good" also characterized Toni Bond Leonard, a "Founding
Mother of Reproductive Justice," under whose leadership abortion's
euphemism of "reproductive justice got birthed."
"At the heart of reproductive justice is this intersectional analysis,"
she stated while invoking the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for
the injustice of the abortion gospel. "All of these various inalienable
rights are central to women's existence," including apparently the right
to sex-selective abortions of girls.
Mirroring Parker's illogic on the abortion gospel, Leonard stated that
"my Christian tradition is grounded in a code of love" that somehow does
not include the unborn. Her abortion-affirming version of Jesus seemed
more of a Social Justice Warrior than Savior. "Jesus walked amongst the
disinherited, Jesus was poor, Jesus ministered to those who were
dispossessed and had their backs up against the wall and who lacked
access to healthcare."
Contrary to Jesus' concern for the "least of these," Leonard appeared to
suggest that "quality of life" criteria determined a life's value. "It
is not just about bringing children into the world, they have to do more
than survive, they have to thrive and flourish." Political activist
Katey Zeh similarly mentioned the "ability to create the family of your
desires."
The panelists like CAP's Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative Vice
President LaShawn Warren dismissed any Judeo-Christian objections to
abortion advocacy. "There are conservatives who will raise a few
biblical passages primarily from the Book of Jeremiah and Job about
reproductive healthcare," yet the "Bible has very little to say about
abortion." The "trained theo-ethicist" Leonard concurred that the "Bible
didn't say anything about abortion," despite numerous Biblical passages
indicating that the Bible's concern for innocent human life included the
unborn. Such passages helped inform Christianity's longstanding
opposition to abortion, even before modern science made clear that human
life begins at conception.
Surprising many Bible readers, Zeh announced that "there aren't any
stories in the Bible about abortion, but there are plenty of stories
about reproductive repression." She thereby discussed Hebrew midwives
saving Hebrew babies from the pharaoh in Exodus and Abraham's use of
Hagar as a concubine surrogate mother, but failed to link these
narratives to support for abortion. "Those are some of the most powerful
narratives that we never talk about in church that I want to shout from
the rooftop," Zeh stated, as if these Bible stories were obscure.
Zeh also entertained bizarre conspiracy theories about "justifications
for upholding patriarchy and white supremacy" that imputed evil motives
to pro-lifers. She alleged pro-lifers promoted a "narrative of women,
white women, ought to stay home and to raise lots of children, that is
about replenishing a generation of white males who will then come into
political power." Leonard similarly decried that women's "fertility has
been controlled according to whatever the economic goals have been of
this country at any given time." Parker referenced the "patriarchal
custom of controlling women's lives by primarily controlling their
reproduction."
Such stern censure contrasted with the relativism of panelists like
Leonard who applied a "womanist, theo-ethical lens" to the Bible that
recalled the Left's fungible "living constitution." She stated that the
"beauty of the text is that the text is a living text, those of us from
the Christian tradition call it a living text, and it is applicable to
everyday lives," a hermeneutic that ignores Galatians 1:8. Parker
meanwhile advocated for Christians a public-private moral duality (salt
and light?): "Christians in general are morally and socially
conservative, but that doesn't necessarily translate into a big 'C'
politically conservative."
Putting the Bible aside, Leonard emulated the New Age philosophy of the
nonsensical "mystery clause" penned by Supreme Court Justice Anthony
Kennedy to defend the abortion gospel. "All human beings have a moral
capacity and the moral authority to make decisions about their bodies,
their autonomy, and that has been given to us by our Creator."
Accordingly she embraced the anarchic assessment that "we all have our
internal moral codes or value systems, and that those should not be
legislated."
Parker likewise answered with relativism an audience question about his
"ideal community of faith that was supportive of reproductive justice."
This would be a community that was definitive but not narrow, that they
were clear about the religious and spiritual framework and orientation
that they held, but that they were clear that it was unique to their
lived experience and that it was not one that stood in superiority to
other faith traditions.
Critics of CAP's George Soros-funded abortion gospel should beware that
CAP's moral relativism ironically encompasses an absolute refusal to
countenance any reservations about abortion in public policy. National
Women's Law Center President and CEO Fatima Goss Graves dismissed "some
vague understandings of moral objections" against abortion contained
within a leaked Trump Administration religious liberty memorandum. Like
many Leftists, CAP Executive Vice President for External Affairs Winnie
Stachelberg ominously diluted religious freedom from a principle
encompassing all of life to a mere matter of personal worship.
"Authentic religious liberty maintains that everyone has the right to
worship and believe according to their conscience but does not insure
that they can use those beliefs to harm or discriminate against others."
END
------------------------------
Message: 19
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:26:46 -0400
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: The Tyranny of Hurt Feelings
Message-ID:
<1501244806.2246523....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
The Tyranny of Hurt Feelings
By Rick Plasterer
https://juicyecumenism.com/2017/07/18/tyranny-hurt-feelings/
July 18, 2017
To those who can remember the world beyond the current zeitgeist, what
now passes with the general public for mainstream sensibilities seems
bizarre. These include the displacement of the natural family of man,
woman, and their offspring as the normal human condition, the acceptance
of homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage -- indeed decreed by the
courts rather than consented to by the public -- and the appearance of
"gender identity," or self-defined sexuality and identity as the new,
compelling cutting edge, backed by much of the American establishment.
All these things that would have been considered outlandish just ten to
twenty years ago. However, much of the power of the revolution against
common sense and traditional morality has been due to the ability of the
revolutionaries to dominate the language used; specifically, "hurt
feelings."
Who would have thought, just a few years ago, that hurt feelings would
count as legal harm, especially hurt feelings at the conscience
convictions of others? And yet this is exactly what is being seriously
advanced as a legal standard today. Simply by replacing a term -- hurt
feelings -- that refers to personal pain at someone else's adverse
judgment, which in a free society ought to be a personal matter rather
than a matter of public concern, with a high sounding legal term,
"dignitary harm," today's sexual revolutionaries have managed to make an
injury that people would historically have been ashamed to advance and
would have been considered foolish into a claim that has to be taken
seriously and engaged if we want to avoid its devastating consequences.
And the consequences will be -- indeed already are -- devastating. They
are devastating because what millions of religious Americans continue to
consider absolute, non-negotiable obedience to God in all of their lives
will prevent them from participating in a wide range of business
opportunities and professions where they may be required to accommodate
homosexual behavior.
Many cases in which this has already happened were outlined last month
in the Family Research Council's latest edition of its report on
hostility to religion in American life. After reviewing the older,
twentieth century type of attacks on religion in the public square
(e.g., public prayers and monuments, private prayer and religious clubs
in public schools and universities), the report then extensively reviews
cases during the last twenty years in which religious believers are
required to accommodate what they understand to be sin. These include
lawsuits against bakers, florists, and photographers for not
facilitating homosexual behavior, legal attacks against non-profit
organizations such as adoption agencies, employers objecting to the HHS
contraceptive/abortifacient mandate threatened with ruinous fines,
religious hospitals sued for declining to perform abortions, religious
schools and their morality codes for students and faculty under attack,
legal problems for counselors declining to facilitate homosexual
behavior or transgenderism, penalties for marriage registrars declining
to perform same-sex weddings, churches facing legal requirements that
they hire and retain persons who violate or disagree with their sexual
standards, and restrictions against the expression of the Church's
message concerning sexual morality.
Albert Mohler, in an article for the Gospel Coalition late last month,
identified "dignitary harm" as "the biggest single threat to religious
liberty ... in our immediate future." It likely is the greatest threat,
but to understand the magnitude of the threat, which is indeed great, we
need to remember it involves nothing more than making hurt feelings an
important consideration in law. Sherif Girgis, one of the authors of the
new book on the current legal attack on religious freedom reviewed by
Mohler and discussed in this writer's most recent article, also
discussed the concept of "dignitary harm" in two articles from the first
half of 2016.
Girgis maintains that "dignitary harm" flows from a Gnostic view of the
person, which holds that people are not embodied selves, but bundles of
"desire and consent" that possess a physical body for whatever purpose
they choose. Individuals give their own life meaning. Anything
contradicting that meaning is violence, a denial of the proper self.
Behavior is now understood as part of identity. Whereas in the past
people were understood as agents responsible for their personal
behavior, which could be criticized, now personal behavior is understood
as part of an inviolable personal identity. The public must therefore
accept the self-defining self on its own terms. The obvious problem with
this is that accommodating the self-defining self over considerations of
external reality necessarily must favor some self-definitions over
others.
Girgis points out making hurt feelings a legal harm will require people
to cooperate in and even voice approval of things they consider immoral,
lest others be offended. Also, actions taken against behavior deemed
immoral, however indirect, will be held to be violence in the social
fabric, an effort to prevent people from realizing themselves. The
concept of "dignitary harm," making hurt feelings into a legal harm,
would "shut off the springs of moral and political reform right at the
source." Girgis believes that key to attacking this threat to conscience
-- which by its nature should be the most important consideration in
life -- is attacking the new Gnosticism, and its dualistic doctrine of
human nature, with a Biblical doctrine that people are "embodied selves"
made in the image of God.
In a second article for the Yale Law Journal, Girgis asserts what should
be obvious, and Americans until the last decade would have recognized as
obvious, that "a claimant's moral or religious integrity matters in
itself." This is obviously so, however badly anyone is pained. But
Girgis also points out that freedom for disfavored consciences spurs
society on to reconsider unquestioned assumptions and perhaps to reform
on the basis of that reconsideration.
Girgis also importantly notes the common liberal assertion that
conscience exemptions "enforce" traditional morality on society. Yet it
is service providers, not customers or clients, who are being coerced.
He also notes as well that the concept of "dignitary harm" says people
are harmed by conscience refusals with the message that their activities
are immoral. But the generation of stigma is a two way street. Providers
are as much stigmatized as being oppressors by denials of the right of
conscience as customers are stigmatized as being sinners by refusals to
provide an objectionable service. Further, he notes, freedom to give
offense is as central to freedom of worship, religious education, and
evangelism as it is to the public provision of services. This writer
would also observe that denying liberty of conscience because of the
stigmatizing message that it sends is really an attack on freedom of
expression, which liberals, at least in this country, concede cannot be
abridged.
Another article from the first half of 2016 in the libertarian blog Pro
Libertate illustrated the lunacy of making hurt feelings a legal harm.
In discussing the dangers of punishing intangible harm, the article
references the case of an Oregon school teacher having undergone a
mastectomy and now identifying as a man who was not called by her
desired masculine pronouns at work. She won a $60,000 settlement against
the school district simply by threatening to take her case the Oregon
Bureau of Labor and Industries, which had fined Christian bakers Aaron
and Melissa Klein $135,000 for declining to bake a cake for a homosexual
ceremony. Essentially, the hurt feelings of persons deemed oppressed is
being made the supreme legal consideration. The religious conscience
claims a transcendent basis, as well as the obvious realities of human
sexual nature; those who attack it claim nothing more than hurt feelings
with no appeal to reality.
The same source also cites Christina Carmody Tilley of Northwestern
University for an academic treatment in favor of the idea of "dignitary
harm." Tilley claims that self-defined identity must be affirmed by
others, or grievable harm has been inflicted. She appeals to Ninth
Amendment, which provides that rights not mentioned in the Constitution
are in fact guaranteed by it, to find a right to personal dignity that
is infringed by the adverse judgment of others. But as this writer noted
in an article in 2015 citing Justice Hugo Black's dissent from the
decision in Griswold v. Connecticut (which made exactly this appeal) the
Ninth Amendment simply says that the federal government does not possess
all the powers not denied it by the Bill of Rights. It is not a blank
check from which courts may find new individual rights.
An ominous possibility for the future is the election of a Democratic
president and majority in Congress, who would likely enact legislation
along the line of the proposed Do No Harm Act. This was proposed in
response to the Hobby Lobby decision, which relied on the federal
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to protect Hobby Lobby from
having to pay for abortifacients for its employees. The proposed
legislation would prohibit appeal to RFRA for any conscience claims that
caused "dignitary harm." In real terms, it would prohibit use of RFRA to
protect religious consciences against the hurt feelings of those
traditional sexual morality condemns.
The likely principal goal of requiring people to violate their
consciences is to change beliefs by requiring action one believes is
immoral. But it is also true that while the desire not to be told that
one is immoral may not be proof, it is certainly an indicator of a
guilty conscience, that one in fact agrees with the accusation. As this
conflict progresses, we should use the expression "hurt feelings" as
often as possible, and avoid as much as possible the left's term,
"dignitary harm." And in all cases we should emphasize that is wrong to
require action believed sinful or evil.
This writer is convinced that the current crisis of conscience resulted
from declining faith in God, and thus religious duty. People focus on
their own happiness, and how the state can best accommodate their
happiness, not on their duty to God or at least some other metaphysical
reality. In this regard, Girgis quotes legal scholar Michael McConnell
in his second article to the effect that it is from the division of
spiritual and temporal authority advanced by the early Christian church
that ideas of liberty of conscience and limited government developed.
Girgis says that "religious freedom is the root and civil society the
outgrowth" that protects private association. We cannot expect great
sympathy for the religious conscience if many people do not have
religious consciences, and indeed think the religious conscience is
harmful. But they must be made to understand, both through argument and
noncompliance with sinful requirements, that their moral intuition
should not be binding for all society.
------------------------------
Message: 20
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:27:00 -0400
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: Spin of The Year
Message-ID:
<1501244820.2247072....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Spin of The Year
FOTO: The Very Rev. Katherine Ragsdale, lesbian cleric and then
president and dean of Episcopal Divinity School, delivers 2009 ?abortion
is a blessing? address (National Organization for Women/Flickr)
By ROD DREHER
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/
July 21, 2016
Via the Episcopal News Service, a press release revealing that the
ultramegaliberal Episcopal Divinity School is winding things down:
Episcopal Divinity School will cease to grant degrees at the end of the
upcoming academic year, the seminary?s board of trustees decided July 21
on a 11-4 vote. During the next year, the board will explore options for
EDS?s future, some of which were suggested by a specially convened
Futures Task Force to make plans for EDS?s future.
?A school that has taken on racism, sexism, heterosexism, and multiple
interlocking oppressions is now called to rethink its delivery of
theological education in a new and changing world,? said the Very Rev.
Gary Hall ?76, chairman of the board, in introducing the resolution.
?Ending unsustainable spending is a matter of social justice.?
Translation: ?Having abandoned anything to do with orthodox
Christianity, we find that we have made ourselves completely irrelevant.
If we spin our theological and financial bankruptcy as a sign of our
virtue, maybe we won?t look so bad.?
A sampling of courses from the current EDS catalogue:
HB CS 4152 Liberating Bible Interpretations, Antiracist, and White
Identity: Approaches to Reading Scripture
What makes an interpretation of the Bible liberating? For whom? When?
Where? We will explore how various stages of racial identity development
and awareness present challenges to our reading of the texts and each
other, in order to develop antiracist and other anti-oppression
strategies for preaching and teaching from scripture. Critical Race
Theory and Critical White Studies shall inform our primary focus on
racial identity of ?white? readers while also looking at other
culturally dominant features of identity in the interpretive process of
biblical texts. G
PT L 1420 Unleashing Our Voices: Voice, Identity, and Leadership
A course for the courageous, who wish to explore first-hand the
liberatory [sic] and transformative power of their voices in community.
Using the classroom community as a laboratory, the course will combine:
(1) practical work on voice production and the body/mind/soul as human
instrument with (2) in-class discussion and small team exploration of
readings on voice, identity/community membership, and leadership. Voice
work will include group exercises for freeing the body and voice, as
well as individual work in front of the group using prepared spoken
texts and/or sung pieces. Readings will be drawn from writings on the
physical voice and voice as an element of social location from womanist,
feminist, anti-white supremacist, and other anti-oppression
perspectives. Participants will engage questions of voice and power in
pastoral, liturgical, theological, educational, and spiritual contexts.
L 3020 Challenging the Liturgical Traditions, Postcolonial, and Queer
Perspectives
A critical exploration of intersections between a cluster of
contemporary theologies?for example, feminist, queer, postcolonial,
?child theology??and liturgical theology and practice.
T PT 2165 Mission, Ministry, and Sacraments: Re-visioning the Church
Inside-Out
This course seeks to construct a theology of the church the essential
nature of which is its ?inside-turned-outness? for the life of the
world. In the light of this basic stance of a church as a
people?externally focused and God?s- Reign oriented?a theological
re-visioning of the central elements of the church?s sacramental life,
worship, wit- ness, and ministry is undertaken. A central question is
how we can recover the basic calling of the church to be a sign and
instrument of a God-intended ?alternative humanity? and an agent of
transformation in a world characterized by oppressive, exclusivist, and
fragmenting forces. Faith-filled resistance, compassionate solidarity,
and creative hope shall serve as significant categories in such a
re-visioning. Participants will explore the practical and pastoral
implications of such a re-visioning for the empowerment of local
congregations as change agents.
T CS 1710 Feminist Theories and Theologizing
This course introduces the student to varieties of feminist and gender
theories and theorists, e.g., liberal feminism, radical feminism,
Marxist feminism, post-colonial feminism, womanist theorists, and Asian
American feminism, in order to provide a theoretical foundation for
theologizing on behalf of women. is course fulfills the feminist theory
requirement for the MATS student concentrating in FLT. G
T 2010 Contemporary Christologies
Who is Jesus Christ for us today? is course will explore a number of
contextual christologies, including the Black Christ, the feminist
Christ, the womanist Christ, the Asian Christ, the Asian feminist
Christ, the Latina Christ, the queer Christ, and the disabled Christ. is
course will also explore the intersections of postcolonial and queer
theory with contemporary christological reflection.
T 2160 Third World Feminist Theology
A critical study of the challenges and the contributions of ird World
feminist theology to the theological discipline. The works of Mercy Amba
Oduyoye, Elsa Tamez, Ivone Gebara, Chung Hyun Kyung, and Mary John
Mananzan will be studied. G
T PT 2323 Spirituality of Healing
This course explores the spiritual foundations of healing, including
mind and body connections, breaking the cycle of violence, and
developing life-affirming spiritual practices. Particular emphasis will
be on healing from internalized racism, homophobia, and other forms of
structural oppression. There will be opportunities to study Chinese
approaches to healing.
Gosh, I cannot imagine why they can?t sustain enough interest among the
faithful to stay open. Last year, EDS?s president, an abortion rights
activist and lesbian who married her partner at Boston?s Episcopal
cathedral, resigned. She once stood outside an abortion clinic and
saying that ?abortion is a blessing.?
If I were a billionaire, I would buy the EDS buildings in Cambridge,
Mass., and turn them over to the Anglican Archbishop of Nigeria. After
an exorcism, naturellement.
------------------------------
Message: 21
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:27:13 -0400
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: When men stop believing in God, they believe anything
Message-ID:
<1501244833.2247065....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
When men stop believing in God, they believe anything
By Rev Jules Gomes
http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/
July 23, 2017
'Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.' Rousseau's
celebrated slogan heralding the French Revolution has mutated into a new
slogan heralding the final frontier of the Sexual Revolution. Babies are
born genderless, but everywhere they are enslaved by the binaries of
male or female genders.
It is Canada, not France, where the world's first "genderless" baby has
been born. Searyl Atli (is that a genderless name?) is 'born free, as
free as the wind blows, born free to follow their heart.' More likely,
Searyl Atli is born enslaved to follow the translunatic fantasies of a
transgender parent.
Searyl Atli, an eight-month baby, has been issued with a health card
that does not specify the child's sex. The public authority of British
Columbia has done this at the insistence of "parent" Kori Doty, a
non-binary transgender activist who identifies as neither male nor
female. Kori Doty is campaigning to omit the baby's sex from all other
official records including the birth certificate. Doty (or should it be
Dotty?) conveniently ignores the scientific reality that only women can
be mothers and therefore she is a woman.
The health card issued to Baby Atli is marked with a "U" in the space
where a child's sex is normally specified. "U" does not stand for
Unicorn or Unidentified Flying Genitalia. "U" stands for unspecified or
undetermined. Unspecified, I can understand. Undetermined, I cannot
fathom.
Going by the rules of common sense and human sexuality, a quick look for
the right bits (or lack of them) in the right place, is enough to
determine whether "U" is "M" or "F." Not in Canada, though, where
sentimentality trumps logic, caprice conquers common sense, mysticism
overpowers clarity, and insanity bludgeons truth to pulp fiction.
Last month, another Canadian province, Ontario, passed a law that allows
the government to kidnap your child if you, as a parent, use the child's
biological gender's pronoun, rather than their preferred one. An
overwhelming majority of 63 to 23 legislators in the Ontario legislature
voted in favour of this absurdity. It was given the grand title of "The
Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act," when it should have be
labelled "The State Sponsored Child Abuse Act."
This is child abuse of the most surreal kind and the Canadian government
is sponsoring it. Kori Doty, the parent of the genderless baby is aware
that his/her actions are termed child abuse. 'I know that I'm being
discussed in men's rights activist forums, I know that there are
articles written about me and the way that my parenting practices are
tantamount to abuse,' says Doty.
Even Camille Paglia, feminist goddess and lesbian university professor,
condemns the imposition of the new trans-insanity on children as child
abuse. 'Parents are now encouraged to subject the child to procedures
that I think are a form of child abuse,' she said in an interview on
Brazilian television. 'I think that the transgender propagandists make
wildly inflated claims about the multiplicity of gender. Sex
reassignment surgery, even today with all of its advances, cannot in
fact change anyone's sex, okay. You can define yourself as a trans man,
or a trans woman, as one of these new gradations along the scale. But
ultimately, every single cell in the human body, the DNA in that cell,
remains coded for your biological birth,' she added. That's fact, isn't
it? Facts give a damn about feelings.
Refusing to let Searyl Atli identify with his or her biological gender
is child abuse. Even though Atli is born a normal child, Atli's parent
is laying the foundations for the mental illness of gender dysphoria in
the child, when presumably none exists. Doty, the transgender mother, is
unleashing an excruciating form of cognitive dissonance on a vulnerable
child. Atli will suffer the mental torture experienced by a person who
simultaneously is exposed to two or more completely contradictory
positions--my penis means I am male; other sane people are telling me I
am male, but my parent is telling me that I am not male.
Unless Doty plans to imprison her child in an incubator funded by the
Canadian taxpayer, Atli will be surrounded by other children who will be
aware that they are boys or girls. Of course, the Canadian government
can prevent this cruelty if Justin Trudeau turns his country overnight
into a Thought Prison and bans all parents from defining all children as
boys or girls.
Doty is also poisoning her child with a completely unrealistic view of
life. If you can choose your gender, you can choose almost anything!
Piers Morgan (who has an equally unrealistic view of the world when it
comes to Islam), asked Doty what would happen if the child 'wanted to
identify as a monkey.'
'We will probably have some important conversations about beasties and
science and things that are appropriate,' Doty replied, trying to keep a
straight face. 'They are a human being I'm raising them as a human
being.' Doty's awful grammar--the use of third person plural instead of
the second person singular masculine or feminine--is probably allowing
his child yet another possibility. If baby Atli decides that it has
multiple identities "it" can call itself "they!"
Doty's "science" is as about credible as Pope Leo XIII arguing for a
geocentric universe and insisting that the earth was flat and when all
Galileo was asking him to do was to look through his telescope and let
the facts speak for themselves. But Galileo was convicted of heresy and
imprisoned and anyone who challenges the new religion of transgenderism
must be prepared to face a similar fate.
Transgenderism is a religion. Psychotherapist Nell Gibbon Daly who spoke
to the transgender parent reported that the parent had told her: 'This
child is a spiritual being having a human experience not a human being
having a spiritual experience.' Daly affirms this religious dimension
and adds, 'It's actually a very spiritual endeavour.' So what is this
new religion we are dealing with?
The transgender spirituality takes a bastardised form of the Hindu
doctrines of reincarnation and Maya (illusion) and blends it with the
ancient cult of Gnosticism. You may have been a man in your previous
life; you are now a woman in this life, says Hindu reincarnation. Forget
multiple lives, says the new religion of transgenderism. You can have
multiple genders in this life! You can reincarnate yourself in a
polymorphous parade of genders depending on how you feel and what you
choose without having to wait for the next life.
Maya is the delusion human beings suffer when we identify with the
material rather than the spiritual and claim that matter is real. After
all, everything is an illusion! This is akin to Gnosticism. Gnosticism
denigrates matter and privileges my "inner light" over matter. It does
not matter if in my flesh, I am a man with male genitalia. If my inner
light tells me I am a woman, my subjective feelings matter more than
objective facts. Matter does not matter.
The West progressed as a civilisation only when the Judeo-Christian
worldview overthrew the anti-science fallacy of Gnosticism. In the book
of Genesis, God creates the world of matter and creates humans as man
and woman. In the gospel of John, the Word becomes flesh. Matter is
good. Matter matters. God loves matter. God redeems matter.
But expect the insanity of the sexual revolution to snowball as we
rapidly regress into what Paglia calls 'an eruption of the
never-defeated paganism of the West.' The new Gnostic paganism blended
with bastardised Hinduism proves G. K. Chesterton's great maxim to be
prophetically precise: 'When a man stops believing in God he doesn't
then believe in nothing, he believes anything.'
The Rev'd Dr Jules Gomes is pastor of St Augustine's Church, Douglas, on
the Isle of Man.
------------------------------
Message: 22
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:27:27 -0400
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: Leaving the denomination
Message-ID:
<1501244847.2247107....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Leaving the denomination
By Edward Lobb
http://anglicanmainstream.org/leaving-the-denomination/
Jul 27, 2017
In 2012, the Tron Church in Glasgow City Centre, to which I belong, took
the difficult decision to leave the Church of Scotland. In this short
article I hope to describe something of the experience our congregation
went through, and something of what it feels like five years on, in
2017. My own background is that I was ordained in the Church of England
in 1976, and served in regular parish ministry (two curacies and two
incumbencies) until 2005, when I moved to Scotland to set up and run the
Scottish Cornhill Training Course. I still teach at Cornhill, and serve
as an honorary associate minister at the Tron under the leadership of
Willie Philip, who has led the church since 2004.
The Church of Scotland [Presbyterian], much infected by liberal theology
like the Church of England [Anglican], had been moving towards the
sanctioning of same-sex relationships for years; and when its General
Assembly made certain clear decisions, we decided that we could no
longer remain in fellowship with it. Willie Philip had been preparing
the congregation over several years with clear teaching from the Bible,
so that throughout the congregation there was a great unity of
understanding of the issues involved. This meant that when we took the
decision to depart from the Church of Scotland, ninety-nine percent of
the congregation remained together: only a handful of people dissented.
It was a painful business: the CofS authorities put intense pressure on
us and expressed fierce antagonism, and not a few people from other
evangelical congregations strongly opposed our decision. But our
departure has been an enormous blessing to us: we feel like the Ancient
Mariner when the albatross finally dropped from his neck.
Overwhelmingly, our departure has brought us a sense of relief. We are
no longer attached to and supervised by a presbytery (rather like a
diocesan synod) in which we had to "work together" with
non-evangelicals. There is no more battling over money and staff
allocations and buildings; no more paying large sums into central
denominational funds for the purpose of sustaining churches where no
gospel work is done. No more is there the depressing knowledge that we
are serving a great bureaucratic money-consuming structure which is much
corrupted by liberal theology and bad behaviour. We are now free to get
on with our proper work, the kind of work exemplified in the New
Testament: evangelism, preaching and teaching the Bible, caring for the
church family, supporting good overseas work. We are still involved in
battle of course! -- battle with the world the flesh and the devil in
our hearts and in other people's; but the draining, depressing struggle
with a structure whose aims we do not share is over.
It was surprisingly painless to leave our church building, a fine early
19th century church in an excellent position in the city centre. We had
very recently refurbished it beautifully at a cost to the congregation
of nearly 2 million pounds, but we decided to walk away from it rather
than fight a legal battle over it with the Church of Scotland, a battle
which we would probably have lost and which would have soaked up much
energy and created bitterness in our own hearts.
And the gospel work has been blessed since our departure from the
denomination: in 2016 we were able to open two new centres of activity
in two previously existing church buildings, one about a mile to the
west of our central building, the other in the southern suburbs of the
city. We also have more than 150 Iranians with us every Sunday and have
baptized many dozens of them in the last couple of years. Looking after
them is a stretching challenge, and about 30 of our members now work
together as a team, teaching and discipling them and helping many with
asylum and residence applications.
We're well aware of the dangers involved in becoming an independent
congregation: the dangers of unaccountability, isolation, and pride in
what we have done. To guard against all this, we have a Council of
Reference consisting of about six senior men (from Scotland, England and
further afield) who keep an eye on us lest we should misbehave; and we
are constantly and actively cultivating good relationships with a number
of evangelical churches in the fairly new West of Scotland Gospel
Partnership. In addition, Willie Philip and others have recently started
a connection for churches like our own which have left the CofS. This is
known as the Didasko Fellowship, and its purpose is to enable our
churches to offer each other some mutual oversight: regular meetings of
ministers and their wives to provide loving support, and opportunities
to help each other in various ways, including identifying future leaders
and providing training for them. But we are not starting a new
denomination, nor setting up any kind of mutual financial arrangements.
To do that might be to create a new albatross.
Doctrinally, we have adopted a constitution very similar to that of the
Church of Scotland, with the Bible as our rule of faith and the
Westminster Confession of Faith our subsidiary standard. We think of
ourselves as fundamentally Presbyterian, and express this identity in
the setting up of the new Didasko Presbytery. On the pressing
contemporary questions concerning sexuality and transgenderism, our
stance is determined and non-negotiable: we stick with the Bible's
teaching and are unashamed of it.
We're grateful to God that ours is a happy, united and active church. We
had to make the break, and it has been a great blessing to the gospel
work at the Tron Church.
------------------------------
Message: 23
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:28:06 -0400
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: 6. PATIENCE: What Does it mean to be a Mature Christian
Disciple? - 2 Peter 3:5-18
Message-ID:
<1501244886.2247168....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
6. PATIENCE: What Does it mean to be a Mature Christian Disciple? - 2
Peter 3:5-18
By Ted Schroder
www.tedschroder.com
July 30, 2017
Dallas Willard, when asked, "What is the key to happiness?" replied,
"Eliminate hurry from your life." The mark of a mature Christian
disciple is patience, someone who is not in a hurry, who has time for
you. Was Jesus ever in a hurry? Being patient is the character of God.
In 2 Peter 3:5-9 we read that the patience of God is to be seen in
creation: "long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was
formed out of water and by water." The more we know about the universe
the older it appears to be. "Long ago" literally means billions of years
ago. God is taking his time to create the world and to carry out his
purposes of creation and salvation. Just as God is taking his time, and
waiting for life to develop, we must also.
In the meantime we must recognize the relativity of time with eternity.
"With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are
like a day." Our lifetime can be seen to be but a day in the Lord's
economy: "You sweep men away in the sleep of death; they are like the
new grass of the morning -- though in the morning it springs up new, by
evening it is dry and withered" (Ps.90:5). What seems an eternity to us
-- days and years of waiting impatiently -- is but a moment in God's
time.
That is why impatience is a mark of immaturity. Children do not like to
wait. Impatience is life seen from the human rather than the divine
perspective. Impatience is wanting to speed things up, to our human
timetable. But if we got our way, in our impatience, we would
precipitate the destruction of the world. God is patient because he has
a plan to fulfill that includes the salvation of his creation. "The Lord
is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is
patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to
repentance." God is moving slowly to give everyone the opportunity to
turn to him and change their lives. He doesn't want to lose anyone. He
doesn't want anyone to be destroyed -- to perish -- so he is patient
with each person, giving us enough time to come to him.
St. Peter counsels us to "Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means
salvation." (2 Peter 3:15). By waiting for us, by not being impatient,
God gives us an opportunity to change and be saved. Helmut Thielicke
entitled his book on the parables of Jesus, The Waiting Father. It is
his interpretation of the parable of the prodigal son. He sees the
father waiting patiently for the return of his rebellious son. This is
what God is doing: "our Lord's patience means salvation."
If God is like this for our sake, then this is how we will be for
others. His love enables us to be patient, for the sake of others. His
love enables us to be patient with ourselves, for our own salvation (God
has not finished with us yet), and for the salvation of others.
God has given us enough time to complete his purpose before he comes for
us. Our mortal life is all that we need in order to do what he wants us
to do. James 5:7-11 instructs us to "Be patient.... until the Lord's
coming. See how the farmer waits for the land to yield its valuable crop
and how patient he is for the autumn and spring rains. You too, be
patient and stand firm, because the Lord's coming is near."
Our life is like the seed sown. We need to be patient like the farmer,
who cannot hasten the growth of his crops. He is totally dependent on
the natural moisture, and the earth's richness to bring forth his crop.
In our lives we must wait on what the Lord is doing in and around us. We
cannot speed up what the Lord has planned. We must learn to live at the
rhythm of God's seasons for our lives. We must be willing to do the work
of preparing the soil, sowing the seed, weeding the field of our lives,
and watering the plants of our souls. All this takes time in us and in
the lives of others. Just as we cannot birth a baby and speed up its
growth before its time, we cannot move ahead of ourselves or God's plans
for us. We cannot force others to grow at the rate we prefer. We must
wait on the Lord.
Jesus said that the kingdom of God is like: "A man scatters seed on the
ground. Night and day, whether he sleeps or gets up, the seed sprouts
and grows, though he does not know how. All by itself the soil produces
grain -- first the stalk, then the head, then the full kernel in the
head. As soon as the grain is ripe, he puts the sickle to it, because
the harvest is come." (Mark 4:26-29) God is producing his crop. We
cannot speed it up. We must surrender our need to be in control, and
recognize that God knows what he is doing, and what his timetable is for
it. We are not responsible for all the conditions that are necessary for
the growth. Our part in the process is minor. Recognizing this enables
us to relax and wait, to be patient.
So much impatience is the result of dissatisfaction with the timetable.
We think we know better, how and when a thing should happen. We believe
that, if we were in control, all things would be more efficient. We
think we are more important than anyone else, and that we should have
priority with others. So we criticize family and friends whom we feel
are dragging their feet, and are not pulling their weight. We get
irritated at service people who take too long to do their jobs. We
complain about workers who do not turn up when they say they will. We
don't understand when people don't return our calls when we think they
should. We hate waiting in line. We are used to microwave efficiency,
instant internet access, fast cars, news alerts, and text messaging. We
hate to wait for documents and software updates to download.
Patience is also translated 'longsuffering.' It is the willingness to
suffer long when we are tempted to cut and run. It is to take the long
view. It is the willingness to wait and not have to have it all right
now.
When we have the patience to accept ourselves, to accept our future in
life, in the face of deep loss or persistent frustration, we are living
in love's power. When we have learned to believe that our lives have
meaning, when we have opened our hearts to some feelings of joy, when we
have seen some rays of light that make us glad, we are longsuffering.
(Lewis Smedes, Love Within Limits, 8)
We are to note the example of patience in the face of suffering -- take
the prophets. They persevered in the face of opposition and calamity.
Job persevered despite his troubles. He had to patiently endure much
suffering, the loss of all things, temptation to despair, and the
betrayal of friends. He could not short-circuit what he had to endure.
He could not avoid what was part of his salvation. We cannot pick and
choose what part of life we can skip. It is all part of our curriculum.
All of life is required and not optional. We cannot dismiss what seems
to hinder us, slow us down, or interrupt our plans.
Oswald Chambers wrote:
Patience is not indifference; patience conveys the idea of an immensely
strong rock withstanding all onslaughts....Patience is more than
endurance. A saint's life is in the hands of God like a bow and arrow in
the hands of an archer. God is aiming at something the saint cannot see,
and He stretches and strains, and every now and again the saint says --
'I cannot stand any more.' God does not heed, He goes on stretching till
His purpose is in sight, then He lets fly. Trust yourself in God's
hands. For what have you need of patience just now? Maintain your
relationship to Jesus Christ by the patience of faith.
God, You keep us waiting.
You, the God of all time, want us to wait for the right time in which to
discover who we are, where we must go, who will be with us, and what we
must do. So thank you for the waiting time.
You keep us looking.
You, the God of all space, want us to look in all the right and wrong
places for signs of hope, for people who are hopeless, for visions of a
better world which will appear among the disappointments of the world we
know. So thank you for the looking time.
You keep us loving.
You, the God whose name is love, want us to be like you -- to love the
loveless and the unlovely and the unlovable; to love without jealousy or
design or threat; and, most difficult of all, to love ourselves. So
thank you for the loving time.
And in all this, you keep us.
Through hard questions with no easy answers; through failing where we
hoped to succeed and making an impact when we felt we were useless;
through the patience and the dreams and the love of others; and through
Jesus Christ and his Spirit, you keep us. So thank you for the keeping
time, and for now, and for ever, Amen.
(Iona Community Worship Book)
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
VirtueOnline Weekly News Digest
http://www.virtueonline.org/listserv.html
------------------------------
End of VirtueOnline Digest, Vol 17, Issue 28
********************************************
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages