Subversive Christian Unity

We're just monkeys, only more so Full of folly, dust to dust When our folly brings us sore woe We'll just say it's because we must Evolution, evolution! Thank Thee for the gift of lust! When we hear the antique preaching Saying what we ought not do That sets bands of monkeys screeching Altogether we fling our poo Evolution, evolution! We are we because we must! There's no difference, saint or sinner All alike shall find their grave All that matters: what's for dinner There is no one you need to save Evolution, evolution! Evermore our hope and trust!

It is now evident that Christians unhappy with Christian progressivism will "walk apart," as one catchphrase puts it, separating themselves in worship and in polity from what they see as heresy. The heresy they see is an antinomian view of gay marriage and abortion, along with other symptoms of an ugly syncretism of culture and church that imports the culture's unbiblical ethics into the church. These conservative Christians see in their opponents a rejection of scripture's authority and the lessons of tradition. They will walk apart for the foreseeable future, hoping for changed hearts in those on the other side of the controversy, and awaiting the judgment of history. It seems like a solution that will do for the time being, though no one is really happy with it. But the devil is the subtlest creature we meet with. There is a trap. Among those Christians rushing away from antinomianism are some who embrace, instead, a mechanistic and legalistic understandin...

There are two ways Christians talk to each other about the Christian faith. One way is "What Christianity means to me." Archbishop John Sentamu excels at this mode of explanation. Pope Francis's heartfelt if misunderstood forays into new thinking are of the same sort. Indeed, laymen are told and encouraged to "give their testimony," so it is a widely used mode of Christian expression, perhaps the widest. The other is to ask what Christianity timelessly is and requires. C.S. Lewis, Augustine, J.I. Packer and writers of that slant seek to separate the "me" out of it. Such people make everyone uncomfortable by implying that what it means to me might not be right, or at least, that my understanding might not be the central part of the story. One way looks inward. One way looks upward. Before arguing with someone, you should be very sure you know which kind of statement you are arguing with. It is seldom fruitful to inform someone that his interpreta...

Dr. Gavin Ashenden here takes a stab at defining what is beyond the pale of historically orthodox Christianity. Willingness to repent and be remade into someone new he sees as the sine qua non for becoming an authentic Christian. Remaking the faith instead will not work.  Attempts to do so leave you with less than the truth. I think that is a good starting point for discussions of where Christianity's boundaries lie, because it is even-handed toward all of us sinners. 

Western culture's rejection of Christianity is not entirely a bad thing. A certain amount of cultural Christianity was always fake. I do not wholly accept the postmodernist idea that claims of truth are really clandestine attempts to get power over other people. But some percentage of truth claims work like that. The use of religion to manipulate is a danger. Some people try to use it that way. So long as the culture saw adherence to Christianity as a virtue, some people played at Christianity for that reason,  sometimes not even seeing that they had missed the point.  Some, whether cynical or misguided, used Christianity as a road to their own prestige and influence. The point they missed: Christ's kingdom is not of this world and our view of it ought to rise above its secular manipulation to see its higher purpose. Is the purpose of Christianity to make the world a better place? Some adherents of syncretic blends of culture and Christianity would say so. But...

Here is a quick reference sheet outlining the beliefs of Christian denominations. It is from Gordon-Conwell, an intentionally non-denominational seminary. (Baptist.) http://www.gordonconwell.edu/mentored-ministry/documents/denomchart.pdf

Following upon the Anglicanism-related posts I've made lately, I'm pleased to pass along this charming short cartoon about the prayerbook. The cartoon gives what are perhaps overly simple explanations of some points, but this is, after all, a two-minute cartoon, not a history of theology treatise. One of my Catholic friends refers to the Book of Common Prayer as the "un-guided missal," which is clever, but I think it nearer the point to say that the book contains prayers that any faithful Christian can use. All can pray them together. Even some who worship outside the Anglican frame of reference value the beauty, insight and timeless character of the material. This prayer, for example, goes back (in Latin) to the eleventh century or perhaps earlier, was compiled by Cranmer into the prayerbook in the sixteenth, and is fully relevant today: Almighty God, to you all hearts are open, all desires known, and from you no secrets are hid: Cleanse the th...

I find myself agreeing with Archbishop Welby's words in the clip below. But his words elsewhere, and more particularly his actions, dismay me. I feel that what I am seeing is a man filled with good intentions, but lacking a realistic perception of the state of the church he heads.  In the worldwide Anglican Communion, Welby's willingness to cooperate with the church world's most socially progressive and sexually permissive elements is a matter deeply disturbing to traditionalists. Nearer to home, the Church of England's own traditionalists are deeply concerned over the same thing, and with what seems to them abandonment of historical church teachings and practices. They feel, increasingly, that they are offered the right boot of fellowship when they speak up. Tradition-minded Anglicans in the UK and elsewhere are saying that the zeitgeist is too much in control of the church and that as a result, scripture, reason, and tradition get short shrift. Significa...

The video starts with Luther and the Reformed, but soon finds its way to the Elizabethan Settlement, the first event of a process that created Anglicanism's tolerance for diverse religious opinion within the one church. As I have remarked before, Anglicanism is a good model to use if you are looking for a church government that can serve believers who exhibit wide differences in their theological viewpoints. As I have also remarked, some segments of the Anglican Communion are in our time heretical when measured against Anglicanism's own historical standards. Anglicanism needs to figure out how to keep its varying ideas inside orthodox boundaries. That work is in hand, but is far from finished. Here is a look into the past to see where the tradition of the big tent (or broad church) has its roots. You can skip ahead to  https://youtu.be/BP4dtZoWlZg?t=1243 if you don't need the deep background of the story.

I lately came across a really good presentation on why scientific reasoning cannot preclude the miraculous; read the whole thing on the Veritas forum: http://www.veritas.org/can-scientist-believe-resurrection-three-hypotheses/ Snippets from the article: I’m a professor of nuclear science and engineering at MIT, and I believe that Jesus was raised from the dead.  So do dozens of my colleagues. How can this be?... Science cannot and does not disprove the resurrection. Natural science describes the normal reproducible working of the world of nature. Indeed, the key meaning of “nature”, as Boyle emphasized, is “the normal course of events.” Miracles like the resurrection are inherently abnormal. It does not take modern science to tell us that humans don’t rise from the dead. People knew that perfectly well in the first century; just as they knew that the blind from birth don’t as adults regain their sight, or water doesn’t instantly turn into wine... Today’s wi...