The Archbishop’s Question: What can we learn from our enemies?

A few days ago I listened to the Archbishop of Canterbury answering questions about the Anglican Communion and its fragile unity. In this he invited us, amongst other things, to ask: What can we learn from our enemies/opponents in the Anglican world? He seemed to imply that facing and answering this question would help in some way to maintain the fragile unity, at least in the short term. I doubt that he is right but let us proceed.

“Enemies” is a dramatic word but this is what he said! I have reduced it to “opponents”.

I take it that at least he means (a) that those who support the rights of homosexual persons and the agenda of the LesBiGay lobby should ask: What can we learn from the African Bishops and the Evangelical Lobby in their relentless and fierce opposition to the blessing of homosexual partnerships and the ordaining of active homosexual persons? (b) And, on the other side: What can we, homosexual activists and the LesBiGay lobby, learn from the resolute stand of the Evangelical Lobby to protect sexual relations only between a male and a female and only in marriage?

Let us begin by observing that in war it is possible to admire aspects of the strategy, equipment, training, and courage of the armed forces of the enemy. And one can so admire even as one determines to oppose that which they aim to do – e.g., invade and conquer your country. Further, in war it is possible – sometimes necessary – to learn from the enemy so that one can do what they do or better. This learning can cover items from the whole spectrum of the waging of war, from strategy to the clothing worn. However, all this being said and freely admitted, it can still be the case that the cause of one side is just while the other is unjust.

What can homosexual activists and their supporters learn from the African bishops and the western opponents of “gay” marriage and the like? Here are a few suggestions as a starter to thinking and discussion.

First of all, they can have confirmed all kinds of things that they know already – e.g., that these people claim to be standing on the sure and clear teaching of Holy Scripture concerning sexual relations, sexuality and sexual sins; and that these people believe that common sense, basic biology, psychology and church tradition support their interpretation of the Bible.

But what can they learn from their opponents that is “new” or not commonly stated in the controversy? I suggest the following as a starter:

• that while the Evangelicals have, like most church people, adopted the language and claims of modern civil and human rights, they are prepared to put some limits on the adoption of these rights in the churches and to claim to do so on the basis that a specific human right cannot negate a biblical command. Thus there is a limit to the extension of human rights in a people who are under the Lord of lords.



• that most Evangelicals are passionate about their “relationship” with Jesus and the “Faith” and wish to share him/it with others, and thus their emphasis upon the Great Commission and on church planting and on experiential religion. However, they are not strong on adhering to “the classic Formularies” of the Anglican Way.



• that Evangelicals seem blind to obvious historical and contextual connections between the present push for the claim for human rights and dignity expressed by the LesBiGay lobby and previous & recent innovations in the church doctrine, order and worship (e.g., the right to a second marriage if the first failed; the right of a woman to practical equality with a man in church polity; and the right of a woman to address Deity in names that she finds acceptable as a woman). That is, there is a kind of uniqueness for them in the particular claimed rights of LesBiGay persons and they do not see the earlier innovations arising from claimed human rights as containing principles which prepared the way for later ones.



• that Evangelicals would be more dangerous opponents if they were consistent in their opposition to all innovations in the realm of sexual relations in the life of the Church and did not merely oppose those which they found repulsive. It is relatively easy to take on an enemy that does not have in-depth resources and a well-planned strategy.

Now, let us turn in the opposite direction and ask what the Evangelical lobby can learn from the LesBiGay lobby. Here are a few starters:

• That the homosexual activists are using methods of translating the Bible and of interpreting the Bible which were pioneered by Evangelicals themselves in their
  desire to be relevant and to have the Bible ready by all kinds and types of people. That is, the post 1960s method of “Dynamic Equivalency”, rendering “thought for thought”, rather than “word for word” in translation into English from Hebrew and Greek, can provide any activist group with a claim to be “biblical” through the use of “dynamic equivalency”, wherein the original text supports what could never be supported by the “word for word”, the essentially literal rendering. The Biblical case of the Evangelicals for sexuality depends ultimately upon the “word for word” essentially literal method of translation!



• That the homosexual lobby has developed and perfected methods of communication and advertising which appeal to a western society. It has learned how to gain entry to the hearts of a population that is easily swayed by certain images and sincere stories of personal privation and need.



• That the homosexual lobby has developed ways of incorporating both traditional and semi-traditional liturgy, music, ceremonial and symbolism into its total offerings. Thus it is not seen as abandoning what is best and highest in the received Tradition but as using it virtually in full and placing within it, its own emphases and themes.



• That the homosexual lobby is seeking to be consistent in its adapting of the received doctrines of God as The Trinity, Jesus as the Son of God Incarnate, sin, salvation and so on. It is taking seriously the task of providing a total theology, with a whole liturgy, that (on its premises) is consistent with their innovative doctrines of sexuality.

Now let us offer some concluding observations to encourage further thought.

First of all, as noted above, it is sometimes the case that in war one side has justice on its side. However, for it to have justice on its side in a general way does not mean that everything that it does is just and right. For example, some of its soldiers may commit atrocities and some of its plans may cause dreadful and unnecessary loss of life.

Secondly, therefore, it is possible (necessary) to say in this “war” within the Anglican (and other) Churches that the Evangelicals (and those who side with them) are substantially right, that the Christian position (based on Bible, Tradition and Theology) totally rejects the blessing of homosexual couples or the ordaining of homosexually active persons. And at the same time, it is possible (necessary) to say that the Evangelicals are not fighting the war as they ought to do. Why? Because certain basic inconsistencies in their defenses, thinking, strategy and attacks make it difficult for them to win and especially to gain general approval in the Churches (of the West).

Thirdly, put simply, it would appear that the Evangelicals would more obviously have a just cause if they would recognize that in their fight for Truth & Orthodoxy they must see that the enemy is not only the ideology of the LesBiGay agenda but, perhaps moreso, that which lies behind this agenda in the innovations introduced since the 1960s – innovations that made “Truth” to be a second order reality. Further, they need to remove from their own armies and weapons that which and those which actually betray their cause (by treating the homosexual innovation as the only real problem with the ECUSA and other liberal Churches).

Finally a few questions to answer: What is the relation between (a) the abandonment of the classic Formularies by ECUSA in 1976/79; (b) the failure of marital discipline in the ECUSA since the 1960s; (c) the ordination of women and the introduction of inclusive language for God and man by ECUSA; (d) the making of human rights language into the dominant moral language in ECUSA; (e) the cultivation in ECUSA of the self-worth, self-realization and self-fulfillment culture; (f) the use of Bible and Liturgies based on the theory of “dynamic equivalency” in translation; (g) the casual attitude to worship – in dress, in quality of words and music etc in ECUSA; --- to the advocacy and reception of the LesBiGay agenda in the ECUSA?

The Rev’d Dr. Peter Toon September 6 2004

Facing the Truth within the ECUSA

An attempt to move forward genuine reform and renewal in The Network.

I have been accused, by an earnest supporter of “The Network” in the ECUSA, of “hav[ing] swallowed the revisionist charge that the orthodox coalition of Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals is simply hung up about sex”. And he continues, “ Dr. Toon, we are not standing together because we are homophobes and sexually obsessed bigots. We stand together and will not be moved precisely because the validity and the authority of divine revelation has been and is being denied, not in an isolated and impotent way by a few renegade bishops, but officially and legislatively by the ordained leaders of an entire province.”

Several people have defended me and my many writings [for some of them visit www.american-anglican.fsnet.co.uk ] and have emphasized – as I do consistently -- that what seems to be avoided by The Network is this: that the innovation of the blessing of homosexual partnerships – though most offensive to the holy Lord and wholly repugnant to the authentic Anglican Way – is neither the first nor the most serious of the innovations introduced by the ECUSA into its corporate life since the 1950s. And this innovation would not now be in place if other innovations (some embraced over the years by current leaders of The Network) had been opposed and expelled by “the orthodox” [I prefer “would-be orthodox”] of the ECUSA during the last thirty to forty years.

Let us be clear. As Anglicans we do not only seek to be wholly conformed to and subject to biblical teaching, to the authority of Divine Revelation written in Scripture, but we also are conformed to what we call Formularies, from Creeds to the classic BCP, Ordinal & Articles of Religion. For by these Formularies we confess before God and to the whole Church what is the nature of the Anglican jurisdiction – a reformed Catholic Church. Thus it is extremely important that we treat both Scripture and its translation reverently and wisely and also give due emphasis and respect to the Formularies.

To use a badly translated English version of the Bible does great harm to our souls and the life of the Church.

To change a received Formulary of the Anglican Way causes the ECUSA and each of us to go astray.

As far as I can tell, The Network (together with the Anglican Communion Institute and related groupings) as a body has not publicly repudiated major innovations and has not expressed regret, penitence and shame for them. True enough, doctrinal Statements that have the appearance of confessing classic orthodoxy have been produced; but they are so worded so as to avoid facing up front to those innovations which apparently The Network as such embraces and feels no shame for.

Further, essays by the intellectual leaders of The Network avoid facing these innovations, passing over them as though they do not exist or as though they are of minimal importance compared with the issue of blessing homosexual partnerships.

Innovations officially entered the ECUSA because the General Convention of this Province exercised its autonomy in ways which (a) deliberately rejected the inter-dependency that is supposed to be present in the Anglican Communion of Churches; (b) deliberately abandoned the doctrinal and liturgical Tradition of the Anglican Way, and (c) self-consciously brought It into line with contemporary secularist thinking and practice.

We are all aware that the second half of the twentieth century was a period of powerful secular movements which found every open door and window in the churches to enter and to make their presence felt. One result of all this is that the language of rights has now virtually become the basis for the moral language of the churches. Thus the Commandments are hidden behind rights. Another result is that there is now much less respect for Tradition in terms of worship, doctrine, discipline, dress, manners and so on. We tend to use the past selectively, to justify what we do in the present.

Let us take as an example of innovation the Title of the Prayer Book of the ECUSA which the General Convention approved in 1976 & 1979. I deal only here with the title – I have dealt with the content in other places (see e.g., the book, Neither Orthodoxy nor Formulary – call 1 800 727 1928 for a copy).

As far as I can tell, The Network, does not seem to care about this matter in the least! BUT…

Did the General Convention have the right and authority as a Christian institution called to be truth-telling to co-opt the title of a specific form of liturgy, a form established in various editions from 1549 through 1662 in England and from 1789-1928 in the USA, for a totally new type of liturgy? Did it, in the name of justice and honesty, have the right to do what no other Province was doing or intended to do? Is there a limit to the autonomy of a Province as it stands before God and in communion with its brethren overseas?

If a business in the secular world, with standards below that of the Church, appears to take the title or name of an already existing brand or product in the commercial field, there is usually a court-case by the original holder of the title/name in order to prevent the other using it. Would any of us call a Ford automobile by the name of a General Motors automobile or Hershey’ chocolate by the name of Cadbury’s chocolate?

Do any of us feel guilty when we steal?

The Liturgical Commission & the House of Bishops of the ECUSA knew in 1976 that in other places where new books of liturgy were being produced the new was being carefully kept separate from the received content of The Book of Common Prayer and was being called by such a name as “A Book of Alternative Services”. Yet instead of maintaining inter-dependency and fellowship in truth with other Provinces, the General Convention deliberately called its own collection of totally new services (for all those taken from the traditional BCP and called Rite I for inclusion were doctored and changed and thus had a new shape & revised content) by the ancient name of “The Book of Common Prayer.” Because of the separation of church and state it was not possible to challenge this act of piracy by the ECUSA in the secular courts and there was and is no court in the Anglican Communion to take up this case!

The approval of this title and the publication of the varied services under this title were deliberate acts and as such became the incorporation of lies and falsehood into the very life, the very worship, the very heart of the ECUSA. No wonder the ECUSA from this time went deeper into apostasy with each succeeding Convention! And in 1979 seemingly the whole Episcopate set to work to persuade all churches to use this new Book and to put their copies of the traditional BCP into storage or the furnace. From those days millions of lies have been told, as much by “the orthodox” as the “liberals”, as this Prayer Book has been named with its false title in canon law, diocesan rules, church bulletins, talks, sermons, essays, conversations and so on. (With others, I consistently call it the 1979 American Prayer Book to avoid sharing in this multiplication of a lie, but every member of the ECUSA shares in this corporate sin and will do so until it is cleansed.)

But there is more. Once the lie is in place there are consequences. What a man sows he shall also reap…

This new Book became the Formulary of the ECUSA, that is became its primary standard of Faith, for the classic BCP (latest edition being 1928) was relegated to the archives. It is therefore also the Formulary of The Network and the American Anglican Council and the Forward in Faith North America, unless they deliberately and clearly repudiate it as such. Merely to place it alongside the authentic editions of The Book of Common Prayer (e.g., 1662 & 1928) as though it is purified by association will not do. This is to avoid facing the truth. The 1979 Book is not an authentic edition of the BCP and all attempts to make it look so are further acts of dishonesty. BUT it is the Formulary of the ECUSA and therefore, on this basis alone, the ECUSA is not “orthodox” and neither is anyone who uses it – that is unless they use it as a book of varied services under the doctrinal standards of the classic BCP & Ordinal.

How can there be genuine reform, renewal and the recapturing of the authority of Divine Revelation when truth-telling is avoided at the very center, in the public worship of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, A Unity in Trinity, and the God of all Truth?

But there is more!

The Network needs also to consider repentance for the influence of ECUSA’s Prayer Book abroad. The example of not being truthful at the very center of its corporate life has spread from the ECUSA to other Provinces, most notably to the West Indies where in 1995 a book of varied services, much commended by Archbishop Gomez, was falsely called “The Book of Common Prayer”. And this very year, 2004, the small Province of Ireland, led by the liberal Primate Dr Eames who is heading the Commission charged to find ways of healing the wounds of Anglicanism, has done the very same thing! Amazingly, the leader of the commission seeking to bring unity and truth to the Communion in 2004, has led his own church into a major act of dishonesty!

A final word…merely restoring officially the classic Formularies and calling the 1979 Book by a name appropriate to its content and shape is not sufficient, it has to be accompanied by hearty repentance for all the innovations, together with fervent commitment to the will of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and to the cause of his Church in the world.

Kyrie Eleison.

------------------------------------------------------

P.S. If the Ordination of Women is to be accepted as a possibly appropriate innovation by The Network then it must be and can only be on the basis of the doctrine of reception, as set out by the Reports of the Eames Commission from the 1980s – see my large booklet on this topic , Reforming Forwards? The Process of Reception and the Consecration of Woman as Bishops, London, 2004 (www.latimertrust.org)
According to this doctrine the discerning and testing of the ordination of women, whether it be of God or “of man/woman” is in process still!

The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon September 4 2004

"Father-God" - Who is He?

In 2004 it is common to hear the Deity addressed as "Father-God" in ex tempore prayer by evangelicals and charismatics (this expression was often heard at the recent Anglican Conference in Ottawa, August 30 - September lst). I do not raise any question about the sincerity of those who so begin a prayer; but, I do raise a question about its legitimacy, where legitimacy here is established and fixed by the language of the Bible and of the classic Christian dogma of the Holy Trinity (e.g., as found in the Nicene Creed & the Quicunque Vult [The Athanasian Creed].

In my reading of the Liturgies of the East and West and of classic Protestantism of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries I have not encountered this form of address. This sets off alarm bells!

I am not sure who first used it and then who popularized it. It may have belonged originally to what we may call the sub-culture of popular evangelicalism and thus be propagated through example and imitation. Then from this sub-culture it finds its ways into sermons, popular books, choruses and hymns. It seems to have the aim of making God close, friendly and kind.

Let us examine it.

According to the clear words of Jesus the full name of God is provided in his commission to preach the Gospel and baptize converts. "In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28). The "Name" is One Name, which in the Old Testament is revealed as YHWH [Jehovah, Yahweh, LORD] and in the New Testament is further unfolded by Jesus as "the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost" one God.

In the New Testament the word "God" refers almost exclusively to "God the Father" (as may be determined by the context). Only rarely is it used of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son, and of the Godhead, the divine Nature.

In the writings of the Fathers of the Church "God" was used both of the One Godhead, One Deity, One Divinity possessed by all Three Persons and also of the first Person of the Trinity, God the Father. The Nicene Creed begins, "I believe in One God the Father Almighty" and then goes on also to declare belief in the only Son of this Father and the Holy Ghost who proceeds from this Father. Thus in the Nicene Creed, God is the Father who is always together with his only-begotten Son and his Holy Spirit. Further, each of the Three possesses in totality the one divine nature, Godhead and Divinity, so there is One God and Three Persons.

In the Quicunque Vult [Athanasian Creed], the word "God" is used primarily of the One Godhead, Divinity, Divine Nature and Deity which is wholly possessed by each of the Three Persons. "The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods but one God."

Therefore, the Church has spoken through the centuries of "the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost [Spirit]", one God, and has understood the Three Persons as Equal but yet in holy Order, that is the Father is first, the Son is second and the Holy Ghost is third in Order. So they are named in Revelation and Liturgy in this Order and prayer is offered "to the Father through the Son and with the Holy Ghost". Such prayer is itself in response to the Revelation and Salvation --from the Father through the Son and by the Holy Ghost?.

The Father is a proper name. The First Person of the Blessed, Holy and Undivided Trinity is "the Father". He is also "God". Thus the Church has addressed him as either "O God, the Father" or simply as "O God" (see the many examples of this in the collects of The Book of Common Prayer, 1662 & 1928).

One of the persistent heresies faced by the Church is that of "Arianism" or "Tritheism" (the Athanasian Creed was composed to deal with this heresy in its fifth century form). In one way or another, according to context and time, this heresy assumes and teaches that there is one Supreme God (Father) and then two less than supreme Gods -- the Son and the Holy Ghost. Usually those who hold to this heresy think that they hold to classic orthodoxy for they speak of the Three as distinctly Three Persons. They do not realize that they are separating the Father from the Son and seeing them on different levels of eternal being and divinity.

"Father" is not a word like "Almighty" or "Eternal" or "Gracious" to place before the noun "God". No it is a proper name, the real, revealed and true title and name of the First Person of the Holy Trinity. He is "the Father" and "God the Father", not "a Father" or "a fatherly God". He is addressed by the Son (see John 17) as "the Father" and so also by the Early Church. We pray "Our Father" not "our father God".

To pray "Father-God" is to reduce two Proper Names into one Name with an adjectival form attached (where Father is like "Almighty") and then to cause the Son and the Holy Ghost to become inferior even "Gods", or not even "Gods" at all. It could be described as a kind of evangelical Unitarianism where the real God is "Father-God" and the lesser but vital Gods are Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.

Let us in our style and language of prayer be guided by the Sacred Scriptures and by the Liturgy of holy tradition, not the popular tradition of evangelicalism.

The Revd Dr Peter Toon September 3 2004.

Exclusion of the ECUSA from the Anglican Communion?

Yes says The London Times of September 2nd page 16

Ruth Gledhill, the religion correspondent of The Times, claims to have learned from someone in, or closely connected with, the Archbishop's Commission on the Gene Robinson affair in the U.S.A. of a major proposal to be placed before that Commission concerning what to do with the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. The commission meets at Windsor Castle, England, next week, for its final meeting where the content and style of its Report to the Archbishop of Canterbury will be finalized.

Ruth has been at her job for a long time and usually leaks given to her turn out to be substantially true, even if the whole context is missing from the leaked information.

She claims that a proposal on the table will effectively exclude the Episcopal Church from the institutions and meetings of the Communion, until such time that Bishop Gene Robinson retires, resigns or is removed and, further, that the ECUSA has not any other bishops of the same "commitment" in place and has not nationally passed canons allowing the blessing of same sex couples or the ordaining of persons in same-sex active partnerships.

In other words, the proposal is not to exclude permanently but only temporarily in the hope that the exclusion will cause a change of mind and restore the ECUSA to where it was before the summer of 2003 in terms of its approval of "gay" bishops and "gay" partnerships.

Something similar, but less demanding, is being proposed for the Anglican Church of Canada, but she does not know the details of this.

Let us assume that this proposal will be in the final Report, and reflect upon it for a while.

1. The Proposal is only a proposal within a long Report.
   
2. After being received by the Archbishop of Canterbury, copies of it will be sent to the Primates of the other 37 Provinces and to members of the Anglican Consultative Council.


3. The only real authority that the Archbishop of Canterbury has in relation to the ECUSA is a negative one -- not to invite its Bishops to the next Lambeth Conference in 2008. His "moral" authority to date has proved powerless to slow down the ECUSA agenda.


4. Each Province of the Anglican Family is autonomous and each one will need to debate and either pass or not pass this proposal for it to be effective for that Province. No Province can legislate for any other Province.


5. Whatever the Primates' Meeting and the Meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council may decide by a majority vote only has moral authority, for no Primate and no Representative can speak for his Province unless the Province has already addressed the matter, voted and given him the authority.


6. It is highly unlikely that such a Proposal will be passed by a majority vote in the Provinces of South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, and even England. Thus any discipline imposed will be only by part of the Communion.
7. There will be free movement of clergy and people in the "West" and "North" and ECUSA and Canada will be fully a part of this movement for it will be in large part business as usual, even as traditionalist exclaim with horror.


8. Therefore, the effort to implement such a proposal will probably lead to a major division within the Anglican Communion and even, in the cases of some provinces, division within them.


9. It is highly probable that there will be a growing number of parishes in the ECUSA applying to be part of dioceses in Africa or South America. This is already the case now but the stream will become a flood. And thus determining what is the Anglican Way or Anglicanism in north America will need great discernment and wisdom.

And a final comment:

Singling out from all its innovations that of consecrating a homosexual man and making that into the basis of temporary exclusion (not, we note, full blooded excommunication) has the effect of giving a sense of approval, or at least "an OK", to the other most serious innovations of the ECUSA since the 1960s ( innovations that effectively laid the foundation of the acceptance of the LesBi Gay agenda) -- e.g., its general approval of the divorce and remarriage culture with virtually no marriage discipline in place now; its incorporating a falsehood into the title & name of its chief Formulary [that is the calling of a Book of Varied Services, "The Book of Common Prayer" in 1976/79]; its rejection of the Eames Report on Reception and its making acceptance of women's ordination into part of the required creed of church officers; its excessive use of inclusive language for Deity and humankind in its post 1980 liturgies; its making of the language of rights into its primary moral talk; and so on.


If Ruth Gledhill is right, and if the Commission makes this proposal, then it seems that the Communion of Churches will be split in deeper ways than it is now, and further, and most seriously, the innovation of approving homosexual partnerships as blessed of God will have become the major heresy. Thus people who are heretics according to the old definitions, that is in terms of the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation of the Son of God, will be accepted and acclaimed as orthodox because they simply oppose this innovation in sexual relations. Let it not be forgotten that from a fully Christian perspective, one needs to be genuinely Trinitarian in mindset in order to see why homosexual and heterosexual sins of fornication are wrong and why chastity is right in the sight of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, one God, who made man in his own image and after his likeness, and further made man as "male and female" (Genesis 1:27).

The Rev'd Dr Peter Toon September 2nd 2004

SEXUALITY & LOVE: (IN ANSWER TO A QUESTION)

Hello Peter,

The other day I heard someone say:"I take a liberal view of homosexuality
because, if Christianity is about anything, it is about love. Sexuality, as an
expression of love between two people (even if of the same gender), is therefore
surely a good thing."

Of course you have heard it all before; but I am interested
in 'unpacking' this particular argument, and am interested in your
thoughts.

---

Let us unpack it:

There is the assumption that Christianity is all about love.

Certainly in the Christian doctrine of God, God is Love – that which is of the very essence of what unites the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as One God, A Trinity of Persons, is Love.
Certainly, what causes this Trinity of Love first to create and then to redeem the world is Love – “God [the Father] so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son …”
Certainly, this Trinity of Love in the saving and redeeming of man has the aim of calling forth from redeemed man, the response of love – “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and soul and mind and strength…”.
Certainly in his living of his human life the Incarnate Son, Jesus Christ, both provided an example by word and deed of genuine love to God and to man and he also left commandments requiring his disciples not merely to love one another but also to love their enemies.
Therefore, Christianity is all about love, but the love that seeks, wills and performs for the other what is for his true good. The Greek word most often used in the New Testament of this love is AGAPE – see e.g. 1 Corinthians 13.

2. There is the assumption that sexuality is an expression of love between two people.

In English we use the word “love” to cover a vast range of meanings, which in
other languages would be covered by other words. So if we take a married couple we expect them to love one another in the sense of desiring and willing the true good of each other and of their children, as we also expect them to engage in sexual intercourse for procreation (and for mutual pleasure). In Hebrew the verb for sexual intercourse is “to know” (i.e., to know intimately) and it is well known that in Greek EROS refers to erotic feelings and relations between persons.

Sexuality used to refer to the biological make up of one’s body – male or female – and to the feelings and drives associated with this. These days it is often used to refer to the “orientation” of a person, which it is said may even be “towards a male” even when the biology of the desirer is that of a male, and likewise with a female towards a female.

So if any two persons feel a sexual drive or passion for one another and they also feel they have a certain desire to be together more than in terms of “a one night stand”, then it is asserted that they have the right to know each other in the intimate sense through sexual gratification. They have love one for the other and this is seen, it is said, in their “committed relationship” involving sexual interplay. In a culture dominated by rights, it is assumed by many that each of us has a right to self-fulfillment and this includes sexual gratification with a willing partner. And with the use of contraception and the like it is said that no-one is harmed and no-one is procreated and so what is the problem!

3. There is the assumption that any expression of “love” is a good thing.

Let us be clear. It is a good thing, a worthy and commendable thing, when AGAPE is shown between persons, that is when the true good of the other person is sought, even at great cost. The more AGAPE there is in the world the better for everyone. Further, the more AGAPE there is in families (here we may call it PHILIA, brotherly/sisterly love) the better for families, tribes and nations. Most human beings at least secretly admire the person who genuinely seeks to do good to others and societies reward those who in courage save others. In fact part of the very basic commandment of God is “love thy neighbour as thyself”.

However, if the love in question is EROS, then unless it is intimately related to AGAPE it is usually a bad thing and belongs (in Christian teaching) to the realm of lust, or immorality, or fornication or adultery or other sins.

In conclusion

The Christian way of looking at sexual relations is not by beginning on the horizontal plane where sociology and psychology flourish. It is to begin with the primary doctrine of Christianity, the Holy Trinity.

The Holy Trinity has made man, as male and female, in his image and after his likeness. Male and female in their union and complimentarity are called by God to mirror the unity of the Trinity, a unity of AGAPE. Thus the union of man and women in holy matrimony, in AGAPE, is the sphere wherein EROS has its proper sphere, and even here it is not an unbounded & unlimited sphere for it is subject to AGAPE.

In this light, all other relations between persons are to be governed by chastity not by a claimed right by any to self-fulfillment or self-realization. In the modern world this is a hard saying, and because it is very hard, many churches and many Christians have tried by all kinds of means and methods to get around it!

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)

How to maintain the Faith in the context of heresy and immorality – Wisdom from St Jude

It is relatively easy to throw up one’s hands in holy horror and shout words of protest at those whose innovations are changing the character of the Anglican Way in the Episcopal Church U.S.A. and the Anglican Church of Canada. But is this response appropriate or right or sufficient?

St Jude faced some real heresy and immorality (known as Gnosticism) within the churches he watched over and he had to offer advice to the faithful -- to those who had not embraced the powerful message and antinomian behaviour of Gnosticism. They had to know how to hold The Faith and also how to relate to those who spread the poison of heresy and immorality in the name of Jesus within the churches.

He wrote these words in verses 20-23:

But you, beloved, build yourselves up in your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life.

And have mercy on those who doubt; save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh. ESV

But you, beloved, you must build yourselves up on the foundation of your most holy faith; you must pray in the Holy Spirit; you must keep yourselves in the love of God; while you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, which will bring you to life eternal.

Some of them you must argue out of their error, while they are still wavering. Others you must rescue by snatching them out of the fire. Others you must pity and fear at the same time, hating the garment stained by the flesh. Barclay.

Characteristics of Faithfulness and Consecration.

1. Genuine Christians base their lives and doctrine upon the foundation of “the Faith” (see Jude 3 – “contend for the Faith once delivered to the saints”) which Faith is most holy for it is the truth of God set apart by him from all other forms of knowledge and philosophies of life. Thus they are zealous to know the content and meaning of the Scriptures and the Christian Creed.
2. Genuine Christians pray in the Holy Spirit, that is they pray to the Father in the Name of the Son and in/with the Holy Spirit, who indwells them and leads them into true prayer, real prayer that is an aspect of communion with God.
3. Genuine Christians keep themselves within the sphere of the love of God, the love of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; the love that cares for the neighbour and for the enemy, the love that reaches out to the pagan and the heretic in mercy and kindness. And this love of God is not eros, emotional passion, but it is love that is in the will based upon the knowledge in the mind and which causes the raising of the affections to seek noble and beautiful ends.
4. Genuine Christians not only pray and love but they also watch and wait in expectation of the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus in glory to judge the living and the dead. They seek to be found nowhere and to be saying and doing nothing of which they will be ashamed at his appearance.

Relating to the Heretics and Antinomians.

St Jude appears to single out three main types of people infected with error and for each type he suggests a different approach:

1. Those who are flirting with error, that is playing with fire. Here is the opportunity for the use of carefully presented arguments in favour of the truth and against error. In each case of course the evidence offered and the arguments made will be of such a kind as likely to move the hearer. And all such talking would be soaked or wrapped in prayer.
2. Those who are actually in the fire. Here the only way is to snatch them from the fire. The methods will differ according to the age, sex and nature of each person but in each case the whole act of rescue will be prepared for by prayer and fasting, done carefully and prayerfully and followed by earnest prayer for the person rescued.
3. Those who in being rescued will probably cause great harm to those attempting their rescue. He who would cure an infectious disease runs the risk of being infected. He who enters the fire runs the risk of being burned. (The reference to the garment is probably based on Leviticus 13:47-52 where it is required that a garment worn by a person discovered to have a contagious disease is to be burned by fire.) Therefore, there are some heretics whose rescue should only be attempted by those of maturity and spiritual strength and even they run the risk of being harmed by the effort.

Comment

The call to faithfulness and consecration, though much easier to say then to do, is reasonably easy to comprehend. It is something that committed Anglicans can seek to follow and take seriously – and ought to do so. In contrast, the saving of heretics is difficult to envisage for it is an enterprise in which few engage in the West in these days. The Church has become so tolerant that virtually any opinion is acceptable if its owner is “nice”.

But until mature Christians begin to follow Jude’s advice on removing heretics and heresy and in compassion devise ways to implement it, there will be no improvement in the situation in the Anglicanism of the West, where heresy and heretics prosper, and where the LesbiGay agenda, in particular, gains ground rapidly. In following Jude’s advice mature Christians will have to keep in mind that civil law protects people in their opinions and immoralities (unless they actually harm others in a tangible way) and so will devise means of “snatching from the fire” that are within the law. They will need to be empowered by the Holy Spirit and filled with discernment and wisdom.
--------------------------
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)

St Jude addresses the Blatantly Immoral – and the rest of us – in Anglicanism

If a devout Episcopalian in the ECUSA or a pious Anglican in the Canadian Diocese of New Westminster is looking for a description or prophetic word about what has been happening around them, then perhaps Jude 4 fits the bill.

There are certain men who have crept in unawares, who were foreordained for this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. KJV

Certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. ESV

Certain men have wormed their way into the church – long before this they were designated for judgment – impious creatures they are – who twist the grace of God into a justification of blatant immorality, and who deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Barclay.

Here we have a description of heretics, of how they enter the church, of how God regards them, and of what they do and say.

First, let us note how they got into the church – “crept in unawares”, “crept in unnoticed”, and “wormed their way in”. The Greek word is pareisduein – and it is used of the specious and seductive words of a clever attorney seeping gradually into the minds of judge and jury; also it is used of an outlaw slipping secretly back into the country from which he is excluded; and it is use of the slow and subtle entry of innovations into the life of a state, which in the end undermine and break down the ancestral laws. Thus it always indicates a secret, stealthy, and subtle insinuation of something evil into a society or a situation. The heretics (Gnostics) entered the church with fine testimonials and speaking the language of Zion but they had a secret agenda.

Who would have imagined at the end of the 1960s that the new entrants into the Episcopal Church from the new middle class would have amongst them, and amongst those whom they soon attracted and recruited, those who were intent on making the Episcopal Church reflect the mores and values of the new left of center moral and political standards of America? They cried “Peace and Justice” and called for civil and human rights for all. They even got their philosophy into the “Baptismal Covenant” of the new liturgy of the ECUSA. Gradually, this minority got control of the House of Bishops and the General Convention as they sang lustily, “Peace and justice for all”.

Secondly, let us note how the heretics of the first century made use of the Gospel and the Grace of God. “They turned the grace of God into lasciviousness”; “who pervert the grace of God into sensuality” and “who twist the grace of God into a justification for blatant immorality”. In other words, they got control of the preaching and teaching and catechising and communications and they introduced what was later called practical antinomianism – “let us sin that grace may abound”; “let us celebrate our sexuality in sensuality in God’s presence for God affirms us in our orientation”.

The Greek word, aselgeia, is a word full of punch and grim reality. It points not merely to immorality, but the open show of it, the flaunting of it – blatant, flamboyant sensuality and immorality! The heretics flaunted their immorality and false teaching.

Who would have imagined in 1970 that by the end of the century the LesBiGay agenda would be a high priority for the Episcopal Church; that there would be the celebration of “same-sex commitments” and the blessing of “same-sex partnerships” and the ordaining of actively homosexual men and women? Who would have imagined that the attention of the whole Anglican Communion would be focused on the ECUSA and the Diocese of Westminster in 2004 because they happily justified and flaunted their immorality?

Of course the celebration of same-sex sensuality did not come out of nowhere for it needed the right context to make sense and to be acceptable within Episcopalianism and Anglicanism. And the context was there from the 1960s onwards in terms of the general divorce culture, the emphasis on personal fulfillment through sexual experience, the prevalence of the assertion of human rights, the talk of human sexual “orientation” as being part of the image of God in man, the changing of the language of theology into that of psychotherapy, and so on.

Thirdly, let us note that the heretics denied the true identity and nature of Jesus of Nazareth – “they deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ”. Perhaps they recited an orthodox creed and used familiar language; but, in reality in their preaching and teaching and in their behavior they denied that Jesus of Nazareth is the Master, who gives the commandments for all disciples to obey. They denied that he is the Lord, who rules over us at all times. They made Jesus into one amongst others, a unique supporter of them in their heresy and immorality. They separated the flesh from the spirit and believed that anything goes with the flesh as long as the spirit is free! They were in fact what were later called “Gnostics”.

Again, who would have imagined forty years ago that ornate liturgies and sung masses would be offered now in the Episcopal Church, by, and for, LesBiGay persons? Who would have imagined that the hymn, “Just as I am…” would become a favorite in such circles as they celebrated their particular “orientation” as being no longer any barrier to having a special relationship with Jesus?

But, it maybe asked, Who is the Jesus who is being named and called upon in such religious services, situations and circumstances? Is he Lord of lords and the Master of servants? Is he the One who gave us the Sermon on the Mount and who fulfilled the Law and the Prophets? Is he the Incarnate Son of God, by whom God the Father will judge the world? Or is he the Jesus of human creation and imagination, formed to justify human sin?

Fourthly, let us note how God sees the heretics. “Long before this they were designated for judgment”, “who long ago were designated for this judgment” and “who were foreordained for this condemnation”. God not only has foreknowledge of what shall be upon earth and in his Church, he also foreordains. That is, God knew that these persons would enter the church and in a vital sense he decreed it; however, he also decreed that they would be judged at the last day according to their deeds. Like all heretics they had the opportunity to reject their heresy (“Gnosticism”) and embrace the true message of the Gospel in the church, but they chose to stay with and multiply their heresy. God knew and decreed in advance their condemnation.

What was true in the first century is true of God’s foreknowledge, predestination and judgment of all centuries. The ungodly heretics of today are in the same position as those against whom Jude wrote this letter.

Conclusion: The description provided by St Jude of antinomianism and heretics should not make those of us who oppose both antinomianism and the LesBiGay agenda think that we are better or superior and that we are free from the chastisement and judgment of God. The questions we must ask is: Who ploughed the field in which the heretics could sow their seed? Who provided the lax sexual context in which the LesBiGay agenda could thrive? Who took chastity out of the church’s vocabulary? Who encouraged the wholesale adoption of the language of human rights and of inclusive language in church services and affairs? Who lowered the standards of the rule of Faith? And so on.

If we are to condemn the LesBiGay persons and their agenda in God’s name with Jude, we absolutely need to do so with humble, contrite hearts and with tears of penance in our eyes. For we who condemn shall only be saved by grace!

=========
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)

Contending – IN ANGLICANISM -- FOR THE Faith once for all delivered

“Beloved I found it necessary to write appealing to you TO CONTEND FOR THE FAITH THAT WAS ONCE FOR ALL DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS” (Jude 3)

I invite you to meditate with me upon the advice of St Jude given long ago.

When there is a falling away from the true worship, doctrine and discipline of Christianity because of false teaching and immoral behavior then the genuine Christian leader must act. So did Jude. He found it necessary as a slave of Jesus Christ to call upon fellow Christians to be true to the Lord Jesus Christ and to God the Father, and not merely to guard but to contend for “the Faith”.

The Faith, not “a Faith”

He asserts:

1. That there is to commend not “a Faith” but “The Faith”. There are certain facts and with these facts certain meanings that are the content of “the Faith”, which is a set of truths about God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. The central facts and meanings are (1) the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ and his death as an Atonement for the sins of the world, and (2) the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead and his Exaltation to heaven to the right hand of the Father, as the Lord of lords, and to make intercession for his disciples, so that they are reconciled to God as his adopted children. Surrounding these facts and their meanings are of course others such as those later put together in what we call the Apostles’ Creed.


2. That “the Faith” was delivered “once and for all”. It was not given in bits and pieces or given once and modified later. No! It was delivered as a whole unit and that once only in the history of the world. “The Faith” is the basic message and teaching of the first Apostles, which arose directly from the facts of the death, resurrection and exaltation of Jesus, the Messiah and his sending to them the Holy Spirit as the Paraclete.


3. That the apostles proclaimed “the Faith”, and handed it over as “the living Faith” to the churches which they planted – that is, to the fellowships of consecrated believers, the saints, the baptized called to be holy and righteous as a people indwelt by the Holy Spirit.


4. That the saints, the consecrated people of God under their elders, are to contend for “the Faith” that has been handed over to them. They are entrusted with the living Tradition, the dynamic Faith, and this they are not merely to propagate but also to defend it with all their powers. They are actively to look for opportunities presented by divine providence to engage in the struggle to defend and commend “the Faith”.

Of course, there is no separation in Jude’s mind between, on the one hand, the personal union of the believer and the whole body of Christ with the Lord Jesus Christ in faith, hope and love, and, on the other, the commitment to holding those truths that together make up “the Faith”. In calling the doctrinal truths “the Faith”, Jude is not in any way forgetting “faith” as the act of believing in and trusting the Lord Jesus Christ as the Lord, the Christ and the Saviour.

The New Testament

Over time, as we see actually happening in this Letter of Jude, “the Faith” came to be written down by other Apostles and Evangelists, in a variety of forms and contexts in what we now call the “Books of the New Testament” (of course many more letters and exhortations and treatises were written than are in the N T and there was a sifting and discerning process in the churches before the final content [canon] of the N T was agreed and fixed). So, whereas the “saints” of the congregations to whom Jude wrote had only the living Tradition, passed on and handed over by the apostles to them, we today have the written Canon of the New Testament.

Contending today in Anglicanism for “the Faith” that was once delivered means defending, explaining and propagating the basic message and content of the books that make up the New Testament (against of course the background of the Old Testament). In general western Anglicans are ignorant of the content of the Scriptures and so this contending may require, in fact does require, first of all an encouragement to Anglicans really and truly to get to know what is inside the covers of the N T.

Further, the Early Church, which did the sifting of the variety of documents to come up with the final List, the Canon of the N T, had by this time produced its own summary of the central core of “the Faith” in what we call “Creeds”. Of these the two that have stood the test of time and are still much used are The Apostles’ Creed (once the baptismal Creed in the church of Rome) and The Nicene Creed (approved by the Council of Constantinople in 381).

Therefore, today, the Christian who reads the Bible to learn “the Faith” is greatly helped by knowing already “the Creed” and this knowledge serves as a kind of basic skeleton on which to hang the further details learned from the content of the N T. In fact to begin with the Creed in the mind helps the reader and student of the N T to keep to the facts and to avoid majoring on minors (e.g., getting caught up in speculation as to the details of the Second Coming or of the destiny of the nation of Israel).

Enter dogma

However, in using the Nicene Creed in approaching the reading and the study of the New Testament, the Christian becomes aware of a new reality in this Creed, which is not in the Apostles’ Creed and which is hardly there, if at all, in the N T. This is the use of the Greek [philosophical] technique of answering questions through the use of what is usually called “ontology”, the getting behind and below the common sense use of language and thought. In the description of Jesus Christ in the Nicene Creed there occurs a phrase, which is one of the most important theological statements ever made by the Church. It is in Greek - homoousion to patri, and in Latin - omousion patri. The traditional English translation is “of the same [identical] substance as the Father” or “consubstantial with the Father” [consubstantialem Patri]. That is, Jesus Christ in his divine nature possesses the very same, the identical, Being, Deity, Godhead or Divinity as does the Father himself. Therefore, he is really and truly “God” as is the Father; thus Jesus Christ is “very God of very God”.

Once the Church, at the Ecumenical Council of Nicea (325) and confirmed in later Councils, had introduced dogma (as we now call it) into its Creed, it had taken a step which could not be reversed. In order to contend for the Faith, and especially to contend for the truth concerning the real identity of Jesus as the Christ, the Church had to use – not Greek philosophy as such – but the well established and tried Greek technique of stating truth and answering questions using ontology. Thus what is called “the homoousion” became part of “the Faith” and the Church mastered the art of speaking and writing not only in the common sense mode but also, when required, in the specialist mode, and it required all God’s children to try appreciate this from the fourth century onwards, for it was in the Creed.

Contending today

Thus today in contending for the Faith in the secularist West and in a religious situation where “dumbing down” and attempts to be “relevant” are the order of the day, church leaders and committed members have to seek to know thoroughly not only the common sense kind of language and thought-forms of the N T but also the added reality of the nature of dogma (concerning especially [a] the Identity of Christ Jesus as the Incarnate Son and [b] the One God being The Trinity of Persons – for which for illuminating clarity see the Third Creed, the Western Quicunque Vult or Athanasian Creed).

Regrettably, and something not fully grasped by some of those who heartily desire to contend for “the Faith” once handed over, is that today the task is made the more difficult because of the abundance of versions of the Bible, versions based upon the post 1960s theory of “dynamic equivalency”. By this theory the supposed needs of the modern situation can so easily dictate to a large extent what the original text is held to state! To be safe, we need the Greek text and also we need to stay with the traditional versions which use the older way of translation, the essentially literal approach, so that we get at what was actually written for our instruction.

Further, for Anglicans in the West, the situation in which to content for “the Faith” is even worse because much of the material in their post 1960s Prayer Books is also taken from sources which have also employed the theory of dynamic equivalency as well as the theory of inclusive language, together with aspects of modern liberal theology. Thus everything in these Books and Booklets has to be tested before it can be used in defense of “the Faith” since to use it – as it is in its raw state – is to risk commending “a Faith”.

So, tragically, we have to record a situation all over the West where modern Anglicans, who call themselves “orthodox”, and who think that they are doing what St Jude called us to do; are, in fact, doing nearly the opposite. Why? Because in using inadequate versions of the Bible and of Liturgy they are sincerely defending “a Faith” rather than “the Faith” Let it be crystal clear, I do not say that they do not have a living belief and trust in God the Father through our Lord Jesus Christ. By grace they do so and often an exemplary one. I speak only of their relation to “the Faith” as a body of living truth that is handed on from generation to generation within the One Body of Christ.

Perhaps, in this context, the value of knowledge and use of the classic Anglican Formularies, and the writings of the standard Anglican divines (wherein “the Faith” is presented in traditional style and language) can be appreciated in the struggle for true worship, doctrine and discipline for today – and appreciated even by those who believe that the use of modern language is necessary in order rightly to content for “the Faith” once delivered to the saints.

August 30, 2004 The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon

A Return to the Female Biblical Role

Mary Ellen Bork on God's Call to Modern Women

McLEAN, Virginia, AUG. 22, 2004 (Zenit.org).- A recent Vatican document criticized the "distortions" and "lethal effects" of feminism, calling for "active collaboration between the sexes" and the "authentic advancement of women."

Mary Ellen Bork couldn't agree more.

The writer, lecturer and wife of retired federal judge Robert Bork shared with ZENIT the need for modern women to reclaim their God-given role in society, and to reject the defective anthropology and misguided ideas of feminism.

Q: Why do you encourage women to embrace a more traditional, biblical role in the secular age?

Bork: Radical feminists and others have denigrated the traditional roles of women as partner, wife and mother in their effort to promote women as individuals whose fulfillment is to be found almost exclusively in the workplace.

Most women are trying to find a balance between responsibilities to family and children and using their gifts in the workplace. They will be happier if they have a conscious appreciation of their irreplaceable role as feminine persons with a special gift for affirming the life of other persons. Women need encouragement from other Christian women and the support of a Church that needs to be better versed in theology of the body.

As Pope John Paul II has taught, women have a key role in returning dignity to the sacrament of marriage and in preserving a culture that is worthy of the human person. These enormously important cultural tasks can be better served by women who are well formed in Christian values and well informed about the cultural battles in the policy arena.

It is as if women hold in their hands the threads that form the basic fabric of society and their efforts to weave these together in a unity will result in a stronger fabric that can resist the centrifugal pull of the culture.

The key to helping women of faith today is to help them to deepen their appreciation of their feminine gifts and their impact on society. Without their gifts the world will be a cold and uncivilized place. Without their specific gifts society will lose its balance because it will lack the cultural environment in which persons thrive best.

The Holy Father has often said the deepest cultural crisis today is the human person, understanding how to live and what life means. Many have settled for a superficial answer to the meaning of life through ignorance and confusion about their sexuality and the spiritual dimension of life.

Women of faith can find support in many new movements in the Church, especially the theology of the body. I want to encourage them to understand their unique dignity and to not be swayed by the cultural pressures that would rob them of a deeply feminine experience of life.

Q: How does the U.S. culture in particular challenge women who want to pursue holiness?

Bork: Our culture is super-affluent, highly technical, wired, secular, over-sexed and in a hurry. It is also generous, tolerant, religious and open.

We have to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves to find the path to holiness in this "slough of despond." One basic challenge is the fallacy that we can go it alone, either in our personal or spiritual lives.

Women need a sense of community with others. Spiritual discussion groups and Bible study groups help to overcome a sense of isolation and alienation from the culture. They can also learn how other women balance the pressures of work and family.

A few people gathered in his name to pray and discuss spiritual classics gives breathing space for reflection and prayer with like-minded people. This experience creates a cultural support for a serious pursuit of holiness.

Q: At a time when women have moved into the mainstream of public life, are there any special pressures on them to conform to the wider society?

Bork: There is a lot of cultural pressure to be politically correct and therefore to hold popular positions on moral and social issues, such as abortion as a woman's choice and gay marriage as a fundamental right.

Myrna Blythe, former editor of the Ladies' Home Journal, has written a book explaining the pressure she experienced in the New York publishing world to conform to the liberal ideas of her "spin sisters." She, a successful businesswoman, was ostracized from social gatherings and made to feel an outcast for not agreeing with the accepted liberal creed.

Catholic women of faith will find the same social pressures as they advance in professional circles. They to be single-minded in their conviction that they are bringing their values into the workplace with a feminine presence that can make a real difference. In this environment it is possible to grow in virtue on a daily basis, virtues such as courage, prudence and patience as we face often well-nuanced social pressures. Getting together with a group of like-minded women with whom they can reflect on their cultural experience can be a balm to the soul.

Q: What do you think of the pro-abortion march in Washington, D.C., last spring? How do such publicized displays affect women's perceptions of their role?

Bork: Marches, conventions and dinners promoting and honoring the politically correct views are a way of life in Washington. These displays are intended to bolster the egos and the positions of secular feminists and the cultural left. The presence of Hollywood stars adds glamour and buzz to these events.

The national media cover these events widely to the point that many women could think that everyone accepts these ideas. The dominant culture is very liberal and puts in the shadows, so to speak, those who hold more biblical views.

Women of faith are in a defensive position. Using the sports analogy, we need to live offensively in the sense of understanding cultural pressures, and choosing to actively live our faith and seek ways to use our feminine gifts. We must be prepared, have a good strategy, and go forward fearlessly.

It is an art to speak the truth both to those who do not agree with us as well as to our sisters and friends who are in need of encouragement and support. We know there is no one path for all women and that women who affirm life in all forms present a very attractive face to those who are seeking the truth.

Q: It seems many women are encouraged to support abortion and are told that you can't be pro-life and "pro-woman." Do you see many resisting this mentality?

Bork: Yes. Polls show that many younger women are rejecting abortion and want to see more restrictions on this death-dealing practice. Science is on the side of pro-lifers in such things as the refinements of ultrasound and the detailed pictures of children in the womb. Many women are affirming their own instinctive love of children and are remaining true to this most basic feminine gift.

But science and facts will not stop those cultural leaders with an agenda to promote abortion and sexual license. They have accepted a lie and made it the center of their movement which is now protected by the mantle of the Constitution. But people with any degree of open-mindedness can be led by the visual argument of these pictures to see that life begins at conception. They can be persuaded by women confident of their own femininity.

They need to then make the connection that the woman is the first home of the child and that there is nothing more womanly than having children as the fruit of the marriage relationship.

Q: What steps can women take to reclaim and fortify their special role?

Bork: C.S. Lewis said in his book "Mere Christianity": "If you read history, you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were just those who thought most of the next." Women need to be spiritually alive and develop their capacity for friendship with a wide variety of people. This will enable them to be people who affirm others who may have a different life experience than theirs.

And they must be intellectually well grounded in their faith and able to "give reasons for the faith that is in them." The ability to affirm people in what is good and lead them to the truth is an essential culture-forming role that women can handle very well.

Q: What is the significance of the Vatican recently releasing "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World"? Why is the document necessary in order to correctly understand the authentic advancement of women?

Bork: This concise statement addressed to the bishops reaffirms with precision the vision of human life given in sacred Scripture that is under attack by secular liberalism in advanced Western societies. The letter is not responding to our cultural situation but is setting out a clear statement of the anthropology that must be vigorously affirmed and explained now that it is under attack.

The letter argues that the truth that man and woman are co-equal and that sex differences are part of God's original design for the human person. Cultural trends seeking to wipe out sexual difference in the name of radical equality and experiments in polymorphous sexuality deny God's revelation and can only lead to great personal unhappiness.

The very language of the story of salvation in both the Old and New Testament uses the language of a covenant between bride and bridegroom. Far from being a poetic touch, this language reflects god's plan for human beings and the ordering of society.

The letter envisions femininity, renewed by spiritual life, as a dynamic active gift essential to family, society and the Church. What the Pope calls "the feminine genius" is a gift of openness to another person, the opposite of a self-centered focus on "my rights."

The Church does not hold up "an outdated conception of femininity" but promotes a dynamic and active presence to human persons and encourages women to use these gifts to preserve the family and bring about a more humane society.

Some commentators think talking about feminine presence is not a serious discussion of women's gifts. They do not adequately understand the role of Mary, the epitome of feminine reality and presence in the church. She is a self-sacrificing person, capable of discerning the face of Christ, capable of living the spiritual inheritance of the Church. The Church in America, still suffering from the damage done by the sex scandals, especially diminishing trust, could use a strong feminine presence of some kind to restore trust and a sense of harmony in the community that has been deeply disturbed.

The advancement of women, a legitimate modern priority, is proceeding in some circles with a defective anthropology, one that sees human nature as malleable and sex differences as unimportant. Women and men are seeking the same power and the same functions and are less attuned to real sexual differences, denying the need for feminine gifts and redefining human sexuality by claiming that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality. This path leads to destruction.

True advancement of women must be based on the truth about the human person and human sexuality. We need more expositions like this letter to clarify the nature of feminine gifts so that we never take them for granted.

ADOPTION – ecclesial, Anglican style

Fatherly Bonds between Africa and America

There is a growing trend amongst conservative evangelical and charismatic (and even anglo-catholic) ECUSA and ACC (Anglican Church of Canada) congregations. It is to declare themselves “fatherless” and looking for an adoptive father in Africa who has a black face – looking for an African bishop or archbishop as a “father in God” who is in a province that is part of the Anglican Communion.

Several African bishops seem happy to take on this role as father of mostly white children and in doing so they have caused distress in the House of Bishops of the ECUSA and of the ACC. Emphasizing the Anglican Primates' agreement that "bishops are to respect the boundaries of one another's dioceses and provinces," the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA, Frank T Griswold, recently sent a letter of concern to the Archbishop of the Church of the Province of Uganda, Henry L Orombi, after a third Southern California congregation recently aligned with the Ugandan Diocese of Luweero. Presiding Bishop Griswold also issued the following statement to the media:

"I am saddened by the action of clergy and members of three congregations in
the Diocese of Los Angeles and their desire to separate themselves from the
life of the Episcopal Church. I know how assiduously Bishop Bruno has sought
to be a minister of reconciliation and a pastor to those of all views within
the life of the Diocese of Los Angeles and its 147 diverse congregations.

"I have written to the Archbishop of the Church of the Province of Uganda
expressing my concern that he claims jurisdiction within the boundaries of the
Episcopal Church. The bishops of the Anglican Communion and the Primates in
their statement of last October have made it clear that bishops are to respect
the boundaries of one another'sdioceses and provinces. Living in communion with
one another involves not only the sharing of a common faith in the Risen Lord
but how we treat and respect one another in the Body of Christ."

Technically, Griswold is right. The African bishops of Uganda and elsewhere are breaking the rules and this is especially poignant since the Archbishop’s Commission looking into the sexuality crisis has not yet reported (due October 04). Why could they not wait until November?, it is being asked.

The African bishops justify their action, apparently, on the basis that the ECUSA in general, and specific bishops in the USA and Canada in particular, are encouraging the blessing of gay partners and ordaining persons in gay commitments. And this itself is against the Bible and against agreements at the Lambeth Conference and in the Primates’ Meetings. The promotion of the Gay agenda locally in the USA or Canada leads to a conservative parish in Los Angeles or Vancouver breaking with its local bishop and becoming “fatherless”; and then it looks for “a father in God” from those who are the most outspoken against the LesBiGay agenda of the ECUSA and the ACC, the African bishops of Africa but north of South Africa.

Comments

1. This looking for an adoptive Father in God from Africa will probably continue and if the Archbishop’s Commission (as is expected) says little that is truly practically realistic and helpful, then it will cease to be a few and will become many parishes.

2. We are surely to believe that this Adoption is not permanent but is more like Fostering. Let us think of the African bishops as foster fathers to these congregations, and being so until they find a way in the not too far distant future to integrate into some genuine Anglican diocese in North America with its own local bishop.

3. We have to view this development with some concerns and I list several of them below.

First, the Anglican scene in the USA and Canada is being controlled more and
more by centrifugal forces as it is becomes more divided. There are few
genuinely centripetal forces at work to bring reconciliation, cooperation and
commonality. We can all agree that individual congregations with bishops far
away is not an ideal situation.

Secondly – and here I hope not to be misunderstood – the African bishops are terrific on such themes as biblical authority, evangelization, church extension, joyful service and opposition to active homosexuality. In fact, they tend to see homosexuality as so wrong that anyone who like them opposes it is a friend, whatever his actual views on the Trinity, the Incarnation, Grace and Salvation.
In general, the bishops so point to the Bible that they take for granted that the Prayer Book being used in any Anglican dioceses is fine (the reason for this is that their background is the use of the classic BCP 1662 in English or in a local African language). Thus they see the title “BCP” on the ECUSA Prayer Book and they assume it is doctrinally in accord with the classic BCP of 1662. How wrong they are! They do not realize that this American book has all kinds of deficiencies in terms of
what may be called historic Anglican standards of doctrine of God, Christ and
Salvation (see further Tarsitano & Toon, Neither Orthodoxy nor Formulary.
The 1979 Liturgy , from 1-800-727-1928 or http://www.anglicanmarketplace.com/ ). The African bishops do not seem to be aware just how much the ECUSA was infected with heresy and error before the homosexual agenda prevailed in 2003.

Thirdly – and here I hope once again not be misunderstood – the African
bishops do not realize (and I suspect do not really want to know) just how
deeply the divorce culture has affected even the “conservative congregations” in
North America and also that the clergy serving them are in the same boat. If
they did they would surely call for some obvious moves to turn this around and
to set the churches on a more wholesome view and practice of sexual relations.
Further, they do not seem to see the connection between the presence of the
divorce culture as a preparing of the way for the entrance of the LesBiGay
culture.

Fourthly, there is an over-use of the word “orthodox” used by
the conservatives of their own position in opposition to the local ECUSA or ACC
bishop. They would be better using the word “conservative” for, as I have sought
to demonstrate elsewhere, neither the ECUSA 1979 Prayer Book nor the Canadian
BAS of 1985 are by classical standards “orthodox” and in general the
conservative congregations use these books for their worship and as their
standards of doctrine. Opposing the LesBiGay agenda makes one a conservative not
necessarily an orthodox churchman!

Let us all pray that in God’s providence there will come out of the present huge mess of Anglicanism in North America a unified witness. Happily there are sanctified souls in all of the fragmented parts praying for the revelation of the glory of the Lord and unity in his Name and for his sake.

Let us pray specifically that the Archbishop’s Commission will at this late hour be given heavenly wisdom to offer practical solutions based upon sound principles and which honor the Lord our God.

The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon August 28 2004