The Anglican Way is in crisis; the Anglican family is dysfunctional; friends have become enemies; and the Anglican Communion exhibits impaired communion within and between provinces. It seems that there is little time to resolve problems before there are permanent schisms, which will leave the once 38 member Communion fragmented into various (regional) parts. What I want to focus on is the sense that there is a general agreement that there is little time; that the matters causing division are urgent and need to be resolved, not in the distant future but today or the next day, certainly by next year.
Across the Tiber, as it were, is the massive Roman Catholic Church which has a variety of crises all going on at the same time, but where there is nothing like the same sense that they must be resolved immediately or else everything will fall apart. In fact, there is an amazing readiness to be patient and expect a resolution sometime in the future.
Why such a big contrast between the Anglican and the Roman Ways? Are not the issues they face similar – homosexual priests who are not celibate; liturgies whose content and quality of English leaves much to be desired; poor translations of ancient texts for worship; excessive emphasis upon human rights leading to rejection of church teaching in several important areas and so on?
The answer to the question lies in their respective polity, practice of authority, and organization.
Anglicans have a way of resolving problems that works only if everyone in all thirty-eight provinces thinks and behaves calmly, reasonably, patiently and charitably for most of the time. For each province, while committed to interdependence, is in fact self-governing and autonomous and thus not, by canon law, required to take into account what others are doing (a situation that the recent Windsor Report seeks to address and to “tighten up”). So, if any province goes ahead with a controversial innovation then this raises problems not only internally but also in relations with some or all of the other provinces – and this has been demonstrated recently with the innovations of women’s ordination and the blessing of homosexual unions. While there are the so-called “instruments of unity” in place, and while there is an assortment of commissions working on this and that, to facilitate understanding and communion, these varied collections of persons have no authority, except that of moral persuasion.
Thus because there is no sure way in the present, or likely in the near future, to resolve major problems a great sense of urgency descends upon all involved that they must work for resolution today, since tomorrow may be too late. The intense controversy over the consecration of Gene Robinson, a divorced, gay man with a male partner, to the office of bishop is tearing the Communion apart and thus there is heated frenzy to seek to find ways to hold the Communion or the major part of it together and find a way forward. As of now, these efforts seem to have achieved very little. And neither the Archbishop of Canterbury nor the Primates’ Meeting has a sufficient moral authority to cause the warring parties to find some common ground and come to peace with justice.
In contrast, the Roman Church has a central authority and is definitely a hierarchical Church. At its center is the Pope, whose face is usually one of the best known in the whole world. There are long established ways of deciding what is right and wrong, what is orthodoxy and heresy, what is permitted and what is not allowed, how to interpret the Bible, and how to go about resolving issues, problems and controversies. Now these ways and procedures are cumbersome and move slowly; but they do move and people know that eventually they will come to an authoritative word on the subject. Some people will get frustrated and others will get angry but most will recognize that they can hang on even in difficult circumstances for a right resolution will be forthcoming and that this will be the mind of the Church for all to accept.
The genius of the Anglican Way, including within itself both mutual interdependence and responsible autonomy/self-government for provinces, will never be able to handle major crises that spill over provincial borders well, if at all. It is suited to a situation where before a major problem arises it is widely shared, prayed over, and resolution sought in shared wisdom through mutual interdependence and then the right decision can be taken by the local province. It seems that the types of problems arising in the context of a Church situated within post-modernity in the West lead to such emotion and conflict that it is highly probable that the Anglican system will never be able to hand them – even if the recommendations of the Windsor Report which create more centralization are adopted by all.
For committed Anglicans the picture is depressing and provides few signs of encouragement, if one is looking for the maintenance of the Communion as it has been. Optimism is hardly an option but the God who has allowed the present crises to develop is the One who, should He choose, is able by His providence to change the direction of things and thereby cause affairs to look different quickly. Meanwhile, unless we decide to cross the Tiber, we all need to be open to doing all we can to pursue truth in love and orthodoxy in charity, always open to honest dialogue with those with whom we disagree.
petertoon@msn.com November 16, 2005
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Anglican Congregationalism – a new form of the Anglican Way
To put the word “Anglican” (meaning the Christian faith, worship & Church polity emanating originally from the ECCLESIA ANGLICANA – the C of E) and “Congregationalism” (meaning that worship, doctrine, discipline and polity are wholly in the hands of the local congregation) is odd, very odd. But Anglican Congregationalism exists now and will, I expect, exist more and more during the next decade.
As the Episcopal Church of the USA and the Anglican Church of Canada (not to mention the Churches in Britain and Ireland) become more progressive and less orthodox, more innovatory and less traditional, and more earth-bound and less heaven-bound, there will be a continuing exodus of parts and wholes of congregations in order to set up new congregations outside the old borders, seeking thereby to be more faithful to the norms of the historic Anglican Way.
When each one exits it becomes by its own act a congregational church, an independent group, and it has to decide, whether it likes to do so or not, whether or not to join one of the existing jurisdictions or fellowships or links to overseas bishops (of which three possibilities there are probably forty or so options in 2005) or to join none at all. Until it joins and submits to outside rule, it remains congregational and independent in its governance.
As an independent congregation it may decide for a variety of reasons (e.g., waiting for the creation of a new province of the Anglican Communion in North America) that it will stay independent for a season to give the membership time to discern what is the best way forward for this congregation in their place and circumstances/ If it does this then, supposing that it continues to have “Anglican” worship and follows traditions of Anglican churchmanship, spirituality, devotion and activity, it will be participating in the form of church government that we may call “Anglican Congregationalism.”
Now necessity, it is said, is the mother of invention and so in this circumstance creative ways will need to be found, if the leadership and membership are godly and faithful, of preserving the Anglican Way without being under the pastoral care and rule of a Bishop and his assisting officers like archdeacons. After all, the churches in the American colonies before 1790 or so managed without Bishops for their Bishop was in London and did not come to see them. And we may say that not a few Episcopal parishes have functioned practically over the last twenty or more years as congregational churches, because the bishop has not been invited to visit and they have not sought his/her advice or counsel (even though they paid their membership fee to keep her/him away!).
In the present crisis of Anglicanism, with all the divisions in America, it is most important that when an exiting group decides to be independent for a season that they act with wisdom and prudence. In particular, I suggest that such an independent church adopts by majority vote and keeps to the following basics:
As the Episcopal Church of the USA and the Anglican Church of Canada (not to mention the Churches in Britain and Ireland) become more progressive and less orthodox, more innovatory and less traditional, and more earth-bound and less heaven-bound, there will be a continuing exodus of parts and wholes of congregations in order to set up new congregations outside the old borders, seeking thereby to be more faithful to the norms of the historic Anglican Way.
When each one exits it becomes by its own act a congregational church, an independent group, and it has to decide, whether it likes to do so or not, whether or not to join one of the existing jurisdictions or fellowships or links to overseas bishops (of which three possibilities there are probably forty or so options in 2005) or to join none at all. Until it joins and submits to outside rule, it remains congregational and independent in its governance.
As an independent congregation it may decide for a variety of reasons (e.g., waiting for the creation of a new province of the Anglican Communion in North America) that it will stay independent for a season to give the membership time to discern what is the best way forward for this congregation in their place and circumstances/ If it does this then, supposing that it continues to have “Anglican” worship and follows traditions of Anglican churchmanship, spirituality, devotion and activity, it will be participating in the form of church government that we may call “Anglican Congregationalism.”
Now necessity, it is said, is the mother of invention and so in this circumstance creative ways will need to be found, if the leadership and membership are godly and faithful, of preserving the Anglican Way without being under the pastoral care and rule of a Bishop and his assisting officers like archdeacons. After all, the churches in the American colonies before 1790 or so managed without Bishops for their Bishop was in London and did not come to see them. And we may say that not a few Episcopal parishes have functioned practically over the last twenty or more years as congregational churches, because the bishop has not been invited to visit and they have not sought his/her advice or counsel (even though they paid their membership fee to keep her/him away!).
In the present crisis of Anglicanism, with all the divisions in America, it is most important that when an exiting group decides to be independent for a season that they act with wisdom and prudence. In particular, I suggest that such an independent church adopts by majority vote and keeps to the following basics:
- That discussion to review the situation as to any change in status and relations only be allowed once every two years (better every three years) at the annual meeting. (The reason for this is that it is always VERY unsettling for all to keep on discussing what to do next.)
- That it be agreed at the start that independency would not last more than ten years, by which time the future state of Anglicanism would surely be obvious if not very clear. After all, this is an emergency situation not a permanent position and so ten years in these days of fast action seems reasonable.
- That friendly associations be created with similar churches and that there be fellowship regularly. This will help prevent the creation of idiosyncrasies and of majoring on minors in isolationism.
- That from the beginning a small panel of wise persons outside the congregation be set up to give advice from time to time and to keep the people informed about important developments within Anglicanism.
- That the leaders who were influential in leading out the people should stay with them for the duration so that there is stability and continuity. A clergyman or warden should not lead a people out if he does not intend to stay with them!
- That a friendly bishop be invited from time to time in order to do confirmations and any other special ecclesial things. But he come as asked by the congregation and his role be very limited.
- That property only be leased and not bought so that the congregation can experience the presence of the Lord with his people wherever they meet and not be burdened with money- raising for property.
- That the people follow the advice of Rick Warren and be a purpose-driven church, committed to the Anglican Way of keeping the Two Great Commandments and obeying the Great Commission.
And may God heal and revitalize the Anglican Way in North America during the decade of waiting!
petertoon@msn.com November 16, 2005
Sex & the Trinity
A discussion starter for “the orthodox” of ECUSA
The impression has been given by some, including Primates, that getting the doctrine and practice of sexual relations right is more important at this time than believing, teaching and confessing a right doctrine of the Blessed, Holy and Undivided Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and also accepting a right doctrine of the Son as Incarnate, as One Person made known in two natures, divine and human. In fact, there is one book in print by a leader of the Network in the Episcopal Church, which declares that the received Anglican doctrine of the Trinity is both unnecessary and probably wrong! *
The reason for this message of the priority of sexuality is that it is held that what is at stake is the authority of the sacred Scriptures, which, in the evangelical reading of them from within their methods of interpretation, teach that sexual genital relations should only be within holy matrimony of a man and a woman. So the stand taken by the “orthodox” against “gay sex” is really, they believe, a stand for Holy Scripture as God’s Word written.
Often, however, those taking this approach of the priority of correct approaches to sexual relations apparently are not wholly aware:
The impression has been given by some, including Primates, that getting the doctrine and practice of sexual relations right is more important at this time than believing, teaching and confessing a right doctrine of the Blessed, Holy and Undivided Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and also accepting a right doctrine of the Son as Incarnate, as One Person made known in two natures, divine and human. In fact, there is one book in print by a leader of the Network in the Episcopal Church, which declares that the received Anglican doctrine of the Trinity is both unnecessary and probably wrong! *
The reason for this message of the priority of sexuality is that it is held that what is at stake is the authority of the sacred Scriptures, which, in the evangelical reading of them from within their methods of interpretation, teach that sexual genital relations should only be within holy matrimony of a man and a woman. So the stand taken by the “orthodox” against “gay sex” is really, they believe, a stand for Holy Scripture as God’s Word written.
Often, however, those taking this approach of the priority of correct approaches to sexual relations apparently are not wholly aware:
- That the same Scriptures are on a common sense reading just as much against fornication and adultery as they are against sodomy. Thus they are against the co-habitation practiced by many couples who attend evangelical churches today, even as they are against the divorce culture and the serial monogamy which is just as much prevalent in evangelical churches as in “liberal” ones. Yet there is little said about these matters within the churches where these things are common and prevalent. They seem to be not sins at all in comparison with the supposed great sin of sodomy. In fact not a few leaders are divorced and remarried and they are not asked to step down.
- That the new theory of translation of the Bible adopted in the 1960s of dynamic equivalency together with the new methods of interpretation developed also at that time, allowed for (a) the claim that the doctrine of the “headship” of the male in the NT is culturally conditioned and thus (b) the same NT allows for, or even commends, the ordination of women.
- That the presuppositions (e.g., theories of human rights) and forms of biblical exegesis that allowed for good people to be persuaded of the right for divorced persons to remarry in church and of the rightness of female ordination, can serve and do presently serve also to justify the claim not that sodomy is right, but, rather, that faithful, covenant relations between two persons of the same-sex can be not only right but blessed of God and means of grace. It is, one would suppose, clear to all of reasonable mind that the common sense meaning of the NT (as confirmed by canon law for centuries) does not support either any right to serial monogamy or to women being made “heads” (certainly not as the episcopos, or senior presbyter) of the congregation of Christ’s flock. If it can be read to support divorce and remarriage it is in the most restricted of areas and possibilities.
- That the sins of the flesh, though serious, are not the chief of sins before the Holy Lord God. The most serious of sins are those of the heart, mind and will, that is of the soul. One can commit these sins while holding strong views of the sinfulness of same-sex relations and living in a one-flesh relation of matrimony.
- That error and heresy in the teaching of the basic doctrines of the Faith (e.g. Who is God? Who is Jesus? What is salvation?) are far more serious than error in teaching on sexuality. This is because unless one knows who is God and who is Jesus one cannot begin to form a truly Christian estimate of man as male and female. And unless one is informed by God’s self-revelation as to His own Being one cannot begin to think rightly on what it means for man, as male and female, to be made in the image of God.
- That there is within the self-revelation of God to man not a list of truths that are of equal value, but rather a hierarchy of truths wherein the lesser ones are dependent upon the primary ones. Note what the Creed puts first and note also what the first five of the Thirty-Nine Articles state (concerning The Trinity and the Person and Work of Christ Jesus, the Son). This means that sexual relations have to be seen not as the first doctrine but as an important doctrine to be understand within the hierarchy of truth as a unity and as individual truths, and to be taught within this context, and not isolated.
- That those “revisionists” who believe teach and confess that same-sex relations are acceptable to God and are blessed by Christ Jesus do not (when examined carefully) believe the received orthodox dogmas of God as Holy Trinity, as set forth in such places as the Athanasian Creed and the Thirty-Nine Articles. Rather, while they use a form of Trinitarian language, they hold to views which see the Trinity, for example, as a symbol and model of community, of equality between persons. Their real doctrine of God is often, truth be told, that of panentheism or Unitarianism/deism.
Much more could be said! However, the point from all this is that if there is to be reformation & renewal as hoped for by the Network and other groups, this needs to be a recovery of the whole truth of God, his whole counsel, and not merely the winning of a victory over sexual relations within the Episcopal Church USA and Anglican Church of Canada! For a church wherein there is no sodomy may well be a church in which there is much sin both of the heart and of the flesh!
Perhaps, the “orthodox” should refrain from any more condemnation of the doctrine of the rightness of same-sex covenanted partnership until they are sure that they do really and truly confess the whole of the Catholic Faith and that they know why it is (in their pastoral practice) right to remarry divorcees and ordain godly women but wrong to bless same-sex faithful couples. The probability is that if they go into this matter in some depth and with a readiness to learn that they will soon realize that in some way the ordination of women, the marrying in church of divorced persons, and the blessing of same-sex couples rely upon the same doctrines of human rights together with an enlightened and sophisticated use of the Bible as a source of proof texts.
petertoon@msn.com November 16, 2005
Pride in a Name? Cherishing a Title? Why “Episcopal” matters!
-- a discussion starter!
Is there still an underlying – or even an on-the-surface – pride amongst members, even “orthodox” and “evangelical” ones, of the Episcopal Church of the USA in the name “Episcopalian”?
Americans in 1789 followed the example of the tiny Church in Scotland called “The Episcopal Church” and called their secession from the Church of England by the name of “The Protestant Episcopal Church”. They saw themselves as both the heirs of the Reformation of the sixteenth century and of the continuing tradition of the Threefold Ministry of Bishop (Episcopos), Presbyter and Deacon. They were not, certainly not, Presbyterian as was, and is, the National Church of Scotland. Further, in the twentieth century, finding that “Protestant” was an embarrassment, especially socially for it classed this Church with the growing number of [blue-collar?] Protestant members of the supermarket of religions, this word in the title was dropped, and is rarely heard today. So most people do not know that the legal title of the denomination is “the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA.”
The adjective “Episcopal” or the noun “Episcopalian” came to be a means by which the distinctiveness and social standing of this Church/Denomination was preserved and conveyed in the USA. It made a claim both for historical and cultural depth as well as for social standing, with a certain apartness. And, of course, until very recently, this was matched by the presence as communicants of the Church of a significant members of the Supreme Court, Congress, White House and major corporations and educational institutions, not to mention the armed forces.
Unless my discernment is wrong, I see this “pride of name” prevalent amongst members of the Episcopal Church today, even, and regrettably, amongst those who classify themselves as “orthodox” and reckon others to be “revisionists.” “Episcopalian” is used both by the “orthodox” and the “revisionists” to distinguish those who remain in the Episcopal Church from those who have left to form “schismatic” churches. Those who remain are the real thing -- “Episcopalians” -- and those who depart become “Anglicans” and are certainly on no account any longer “Episcopalians”.
“Anglican”, used in a generic sense as if a generic drug, describes a religion emanating originally from the Church of England, that is available most places in the world. It does not have the particularities and distinctive features of the word “Episcopalian” as historically used in American polite society. This said, since “Anglican” is used by the co-religionists of Episcopalians abroad, the name “Anglican” is used by Episcopalians when it is deemed good and right to emphasize the connection with the rest of the world – thus the name “Anglican Communion Network” by the “orthodox” within the Episcopal Church.
Thus, while “Episcopalian” may simply be used as a description of a certain kind of churchgoer, it is often used, as also the adjective, “Episcopal”, by insiders as a form pride in a name, a tradition, a social standing and the like. Maybe they are not wholly aware of this and someone needs to tell them!
I think that this kind of pride was seen at the recent “Hope and a Future” Conference in Pittsburgh. On the first evening, in a crowded program, a two hour Eucharist was held; it included a great “fashion show” of bishops and clergy dressed in their regalia and all in procession and on show. It seemed as though they were saying, “Here we are! We are not the same as others; we are different; we are Episcopalians; no other denomination in the USA puts on a show like this; we have our special characteristics and here they are for all to see and take pride in.”
Now there was a big Eucharist planned for the Saturday morning and thus there was no need for this one after dinner (what about fasting?) on the Thursday in a short conference with an over-loaded program(in a context where local churches were offering early services each morning all the same). Yet, even Evangelicals who organized this Conference and who have never been famous for high liturgy, felt impelled to have this liturgical show. They had to exhibit the distinctives of Episcopaliansm. This is the thing to do even by those who speak of reform and renewal!
The pride is also I suggest seen in the names posted outside the buildings of local parishes and used daily by them in conversation. Instead of naming the parish in this way – St Hilda’s Church, Georgetown, [Episcopal] Diocese of Lafayette – the chosen way, even of the “orthodox” is nearly always “St Hilda’s Episcopal Church”. Why insert “Episcopal” between the name of the saint and what is dedicated in his or her name? The early tradition in the Colonies and then the USA was simply to put the name of the saint (or of Christ) and then the place – as is still the case in the C of E and Europe. But now the “brand” name is all important!
It is interesting that “the Episcopal Synod” of the early 1990s became “Forward in Faith North America” in the late 1990s, as it adopted the generic name from the UK! Before that time, however, its pride in being ‘Episcopal” served as one major factor in its not achieving the goals that its lay membership expected and worked for. Thus now it is a patch of what it was in 1989!
How much pride is there in the name “Episcopalian” amongst the “Evangelicals” who organized the Pittsburgh event?
Are they willing to give up the name wholly and completely and use the generic name only to describe themselves?
Will their clinging to the name, and its association with social acceptability, property, money and retirement benefits, be a means, as it apparently was with the Episcopal Synod in the early 1990s, of making them a people who cannot, by these impediments, be effective leaders of genuine reform, renewal and re-alignment?
Are they more Episcopalian than Anglican, preferring the trade name always to the generic name, except when traveling overseas?
Is one reason for clinging to the name with pride the fact that the Episcopal boat is still regarded as the best boat to fish from by those who place great emphasis on “the great commission”?
What are we all ready to give up for the kingdom of God and the Ecclesia of God?
petertoon@msn.com November 16, 2005
Is there still an underlying – or even an on-the-surface – pride amongst members, even “orthodox” and “evangelical” ones, of the Episcopal Church of the USA in the name “Episcopalian”?
Americans in 1789 followed the example of the tiny Church in Scotland called “The Episcopal Church” and called their secession from the Church of England by the name of “The Protestant Episcopal Church”. They saw themselves as both the heirs of the Reformation of the sixteenth century and of the continuing tradition of the Threefold Ministry of Bishop (Episcopos), Presbyter and Deacon. They were not, certainly not, Presbyterian as was, and is, the National Church of Scotland. Further, in the twentieth century, finding that “Protestant” was an embarrassment, especially socially for it classed this Church with the growing number of [blue-collar?] Protestant members of the supermarket of religions, this word in the title was dropped, and is rarely heard today. So most people do not know that the legal title of the denomination is “the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA.”
The adjective “Episcopal” or the noun “Episcopalian” came to be a means by which the distinctiveness and social standing of this Church/Denomination was preserved and conveyed in the USA. It made a claim both for historical and cultural depth as well as for social standing, with a certain apartness. And, of course, until very recently, this was matched by the presence as communicants of the Church of a significant members of the Supreme Court, Congress, White House and major corporations and educational institutions, not to mention the armed forces.
Unless my discernment is wrong, I see this “pride of name” prevalent amongst members of the Episcopal Church today, even, and regrettably, amongst those who classify themselves as “orthodox” and reckon others to be “revisionists.” “Episcopalian” is used both by the “orthodox” and the “revisionists” to distinguish those who remain in the Episcopal Church from those who have left to form “schismatic” churches. Those who remain are the real thing -- “Episcopalians” -- and those who depart become “Anglicans” and are certainly on no account any longer “Episcopalians”.
“Anglican”, used in a generic sense as if a generic drug, describes a religion emanating originally from the Church of England, that is available most places in the world. It does not have the particularities and distinctive features of the word “Episcopalian” as historically used in American polite society. This said, since “Anglican” is used by the co-religionists of Episcopalians abroad, the name “Anglican” is used by Episcopalians when it is deemed good and right to emphasize the connection with the rest of the world – thus the name “Anglican Communion Network” by the “orthodox” within the Episcopal Church.
Thus, while “Episcopalian” may simply be used as a description of a certain kind of churchgoer, it is often used, as also the adjective, “Episcopal”, by insiders as a form pride in a name, a tradition, a social standing and the like. Maybe they are not wholly aware of this and someone needs to tell them!
I think that this kind of pride was seen at the recent “Hope and a Future” Conference in Pittsburgh. On the first evening, in a crowded program, a two hour Eucharist was held; it included a great “fashion show” of bishops and clergy dressed in their regalia and all in procession and on show. It seemed as though they were saying, “Here we are! We are not the same as others; we are different; we are Episcopalians; no other denomination in the USA puts on a show like this; we have our special characteristics and here they are for all to see and take pride in.”
Now there was a big Eucharist planned for the Saturday morning and thus there was no need for this one after dinner (what about fasting?) on the Thursday in a short conference with an over-loaded program(in a context where local churches were offering early services each morning all the same). Yet, even Evangelicals who organized this Conference and who have never been famous for high liturgy, felt impelled to have this liturgical show. They had to exhibit the distinctives of Episcopaliansm. This is the thing to do even by those who speak of reform and renewal!
The pride is also I suggest seen in the names posted outside the buildings of local parishes and used daily by them in conversation. Instead of naming the parish in this way – St Hilda’s Church, Georgetown, [Episcopal] Diocese of Lafayette – the chosen way, even of the “orthodox” is nearly always “St Hilda’s Episcopal Church”. Why insert “Episcopal” between the name of the saint and what is dedicated in his or her name? The early tradition in the Colonies and then the USA was simply to put the name of the saint (or of Christ) and then the place – as is still the case in the C of E and Europe. But now the “brand” name is all important!
It is interesting that “the Episcopal Synod” of the early 1990s became “Forward in Faith North America” in the late 1990s, as it adopted the generic name from the UK! Before that time, however, its pride in being ‘Episcopal” served as one major factor in its not achieving the goals that its lay membership expected and worked for. Thus now it is a patch of what it was in 1989!
How much pride is there in the name “Episcopalian” amongst the “Evangelicals” who organized the Pittsburgh event?
Are they willing to give up the name wholly and completely and use the generic name only to describe themselves?
Will their clinging to the name, and its association with social acceptability, property, money and retirement benefits, be a means, as it apparently was with the Episcopal Synod in the early 1990s, of making them a people who cannot, by these impediments, be effective leaders of genuine reform, renewal and re-alignment?
Are they more Episcopalian than Anglican, preferring the trade name always to the generic name, except when traveling overseas?
Is one reason for clinging to the name with pride the fact that the Episcopal boat is still regarded as the best boat to fish from by those who place great emphasis on “the great commission”?
What are we all ready to give up for the kingdom of God and the Ecclesia of God?
petertoon@msn.com November 16, 2005
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
“Hope and a Future” at Pittsburg, November 10-12
– reflections from Dr Peter Toon
The “hope and a future” conference was like a political rally, that is a godly rally, where speakers encouraged those present to be faithful as Christians and as Episcopalians or Anglicans. The 2,500 present saw themselves as the “orthodox” standing against the “revisionists” of the Episcopal Church. Most of them were Episcopalians but a few were from jurisdictions outside the Episcopal Church, groups now referred to by the Network, rather patronizingly as the “diaspora”!
They were told from the podium that a new era had dawned and that God was doing a new thing in their midst. They should see themselves as part of a renewal of the Anglican Way leading to re-alignment of the “orthodox” inside and outside the Episcopal Church. So they were as pioneers blazing a new trail for Anglicanism in North America. At the same time they were as conservationists, preserving that which is good in American Anglicanism for the future. Pre-eminently they were the people of the Book, God’s Word written, and they must not look to any other authority (such as contemporary Experience via the social and psychological sciences).
Yet the way ahead for this volunteer, enthusiastic army was not made wholly clear. The goal it is to reach, the route it is to take, the weapons it is to use, the polity it is to assume and the formularies (under the Word of God written) it is to adopt were left (deliberately?) vague or unmentioned. Why? Probably because the US generals of this volunteer army seem to work on the assumption that the goal, the route and the polity, let alone the formularies, cannot be specified until after the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in June 06 and maybe not till after the next Lambeth Conference of 2008. Thus it appears that this army will only ever go on the offensive when its generals in Pittsburgh decide that what they aim to achieve (which plan seems not to have been shared in any detail with the warriors in the army) cannot be gained by the present vague policy of holding their ground, watching and waiting. In other words, they seem to be hoping that God will be present miraculously in judgment and grace at the General Convention and that there will be seen there the beginnings of a turning away from the innovatory sexual agenda and thus “orthodoxy” (as they understand it) will become maintainable in the Episcopal Church again. Then they will not have to march anywhere at all.
Now this situation of an army that stays in barracks to defend what is presently held, contrasts vividly with the powerful message of the guest speaker, the Baptist pastor, Rick Warren, who is well known internationally from his advocacy of the purpose-driven Christian life and the purpose-driven church. He advocates whole-hearted commitment to clear goals, based on the kingdom of God, and consecration to the Lord in the pursuit of them. His army does not stay in camp but is out conquering for Jesus! While much of what he said harmonized with what the Archbishops from Uganda and Nigeria said, it seemed to belong to a different approach and mindset to that of the leadership of “The Network.” While he is bold they are cautious; where he is clear, they are vague, for they are, after all, Episcopalians, who have absorbed some of the compromising doctrine and ethos that they now oppose specifically on one front in its doctrine and practice of sexuality.
I could not help contrasting this Conference with a similar one in Fort Worth in 1989, to which I came from London with the then Bishop of London, Graham Leonard and his chaplain. The Texas one was organized by anglo-catholics and the Pittsburgh one by evangelicals but they were similar. The Episcopal Synod Congress raised high expectations amongst the troops from the parishes but the energy and drive created at Fort Worth in 1989 soon dissipated, primarily, it would seem, because the generals (the anglo-catholic bishops of the Episcopal Synod of the ECUSA) did not lead their army anywhere at all except back to barracks! They allowed the Episcopal Church to determine the agenda and the rules of the warfare and the movement fizzled out! I fear that much the same will happen to this evangelical movement, even though it has the support of overseas archbishops. It is not sufficiently “purpose driven” to inspire, march and win decisive battles for Jesus.
What could the Pittsburgh leadership of this 2005 movement do to let it be known that they intend to be purpose- driven for the recovery of a biblically based and Holy Spirit energized Anglican Way, perhaps even a new Province in North America?
Here are a few starters:
1. All the bishops of this movement could declare that they are not in Eucharistic communion with the Presiding Bishops and all members of the House of Bishops who have clearly adopted the innovatory sexual doctrine and practices. Let them really mean this and do so humbly and graciously but firmly. This will really clear the decks and truly set in motion a godly war and allow a purpose-driven movement to march forward with a clear goal.
2. All the bishops of this movement could declare themselves true Episcopalians and Anglicans by adopting the historic Formularies of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA, and in so doing declare that the 1979 Prayer Book is only a Book of Varied Services and is not and can never be the Doctrinal Formulary of the Network. The Network could without ambiguity declare its genuine Anglican credentials both at the top and amongst the troops/ Whether high church or low church, the worship, doctrine and discipline could become recognizably Anglican (Reformed Catholic) and not (as now) more like a generic Evangelical Charismatic mixture. [To this end the Network could authorize a truly contemporary English form of the classic BCP of the Anglican Way, the BCP of 1662, and while doing this do the extra work to provide the same for the USA 1928 BCP. Let the troops begin to use the military handbook of the Anglican Way, the classic BCP, whether in the traditional English or in a good Contemporary equivalent.]
3. The Bishops could together covenant with each other to stand together and support each other and to commit to clear goals so that the Network is a purpose-driven agency for the Church of God. That is, they could determine not to allow others, “the revisionists”, in General Convention or elsewhere effectively to create an agenda, aim and objective for them. Certainly they could take advice from godly bishops overseas but they could actually get on with the work of godly leadership themselves as they look unto the Lord, forgetting their status and pension plan and retirement expectations.
The evidence suggests that the troops wait to be commanded to go to war! But they need to follow generals who have a strategy and are prepared to fight the good fight. If they are not commanded soon, they will lose heart and return to their former lives and cares.
petertoon@msn.com November 14, 2005
The “hope and a future” conference was like a political rally, that is a godly rally, where speakers encouraged those present to be faithful as Christians and as Episcopalians or Anglicans. The 2,500 present saw themselves as the “orthodox” standing against the “revisionists” of the Episcopal Church. Most of them were Episcopalians but a few were from jurisdictions outside the Episcopal Church, groups now referred to by the Network, rather patronizingly as the “diaspora”!
They were told from the podium that a new era had dawned and that God was doing a new thing in their midst. They should see themselves as part of a renewal of the Anglican Way leading to re-alignment of the “orthodox” inside and outside the Episcopal Church. So they were as pioneers blazing a new trail for Anglicanism in North America. At the same time they were as conservationists, preserving that which is good in American Anglicanism for the future. Pre-eminently they were the people of the Book, God’s Word written, and they must not look to any other authority (such as contemporary Experience via the social and psychological sciences).
Yet the way ahead for this volunteer, enthusiastic army was not made wholly clear. The goal it is to reach, the route it is to take, the weapons it is to use, the polity it is to assume and the formularies (under the Word of God written) it is to adopt were left (deliberately?) vague or unmentioned. Why? Probably because the US generals of this volunteer army seem to work on the assumption that the goal, the route and the polity, let alone the formularies, cannot be specified until after the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in June 06 and maybe not till after the next Lambeth Conference of 2008. Thus it appears that this army will only ever go on the offensive when its generals in Pittsburgh decide that what they aim to achieve (which plan seems not to have been shared in any detail with the warriors in the army) cannot be gained by the present vague policy of holding their ground, watching and waiting. In other words, they seem to be hoping that God will be present miraculously in judgment and grace at the General Convention and that there will be seen there the beginnings of a turning away from the innovatory sexual agenda and thus “orthodoxy” (as they understand it) will become maintainable in the Episcopal Church again. Then they will not have to march anywhere at all.
Now this situation of an army that stays in barracks to defend what is presently held, contrasts vividly with the powerful message of the guest speaker, the Baptist pastor, Rick Warren, who is well known internationally from his advocacy of the purpose-driven Christian life and the purpose-driven church. He advocates whole-hearted commitment to clear goals, based on the kingdom of God, and consecration to the Lord in the pursuit of them. His army does not stay in camp but is out conquering for Jesus! While much of what he said harmonized with what the Archbishops from Uganda and Nigeria said, it seemed to belong to a different approach and mindset to that of the leadership of “The Network.” While he is bold they are cautious; where he is clear, they are vague, for they are, after all, Episcopalians, who have absorbed some of the compromising doctrine and ethos that they now oppose specifically on one front in its doctrine and practice of sexuality.
I could not help contrasting this Conference with a similar one in Fort Worth in 1989, to which I came from London with the then Bishop of London, Graham Leonard and his chaplain. The Texas one was organized by anglo-catholics and the Pittsburgh one by evangelicals but they were similar. The Episcopal Synod Congress raised high expectations amongst the troops from the parishes but the energy and drive created at Fort Worth in 1989 soon dissipated, primarily, it would seem, because the generals (the anglo-catholic bishops of the Episcopal Synod of the ECUSA) did not lead their army anywhere at all except back to barracks! They allowed the Episcopal Church to determine the agenda and the rules of the warfare and the movement fizzled out! I fear that much the same will happen to this evangelical movement, even though it has the support of overseas archbishops. It is not sufficiently “purpose driven” to inspire, march and win decisive battles for Jesus.
What could the Pittsburgh leadership of this 2005 movement do to let it be known that they intend to be purpose- driven for the recovery of a biblically based and Holy Spirit energized Anglican Way, perhaps even a new Province in North America?
Here are a few starters:
1. All the bishops of this movement could declare that they are not in Eucharistic communion with the Presiding Bishops and all members of the House of Bishops who have clearly adopted the innovatory sexual doctrine and practices. Let them really mean this and do so humbly and graciously but firmly. This will really clear the decks and truly set in motion a godly war and allow a purpose-driven movement to march forward with a clear goal.
2. All the bishops of this movement could declare themselves true Episcopalians and Anglicans by adopting the historic Formularies of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA, and in so doing declare that the 1979 Prayer Book is only a Book of Varied Services and is not and can never be the Doctrinal Formulary of the Network. The Network could without ambiguity declare its genuine Anglican credentials both at the top and amongst the troops/ Whether high church or low church, the worship, doctrine and discipline could become recognizably Anglican (Reformed Catholic) and not (as now) more like a generic Evangelical Charismatic mixture. [To this end the Network could authorize a truly contemporary English form of the classic BCP of the Anglican Way, the BCP of 1662, and while doing this do the extra work to provide the same for the USA 1928 BCP. Let the troops begin to use the military handbook of the Anglican Way, the classic BCP, whether in the traditional English or in a good Contemporary equivalent.]
3. The Bishops could together covenant with each other to stand together and support each other and to commit to clear goals so that the Network is a purpose-driven agency for the Church of God. That is, they could determine not to allow others, “the revisionists”, in General Convention or elsewhere effectively to create an agenda, aim and objective for them. Certainly they could take advice from godly bishops overseas but they could actually get on with the work of godly leadership themselves as they look unto the Lord, forgetting their status and pension plan and retirement expectations.
The evidence suggests that the troops wait to be commanded to go to war! But they need to follow generals who have a strategy and are prepared to fight the good fight. If they are not commanded soon, they will lose heart and return to their former lives and cares.
petertoon@msn.com November 14, 2005
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Orthodoxy – realistic, sound and generous
An attempt to provoke helpful thinking, resolutions and actions
Speaking of American churches, we are all familiar with the contrasts made between:
Liberal and Conservative (whatever that means in any given context – e.g., within Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism; or within Protestantism in general!)
Progressive and Orthodox (whatever that means in any given context –e.g. in Episcopalianism or Methodism; or in Roman Catholicism or Protestantism in general!);
And also between: Catholic and Protestant; Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic;
Eastern Orthodox and Protestant; emerging churches and churches; and so on.
In this context,
Let us consider the general use of “orthodox” rather than its unique use by the ancient hierarchical and liturgical Churches attached to the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople & Moscow.
Usually in popular speech & in reporting by journalists, “orthodox” is contrasted with “progressive” or “liberal” and refers to those in any given denomination or tradition who actually seek to preserve intact some or all of the foundational positions and doctrines of that particular grouping. So orthodoxy becomes in any given denominational context not only the basic doctrines of Christianity which all conservative Christians hold in common, but also the extra denominational distinctives (e.g., a doctrine of the Lord’s Supper or of Baptism or of Spiritual Gifts) which make that grouping unique or at least different from others.
Furthermore, for the sake of clarity in communication orthodoxy refers only to dogmas, doctrines and positions held and professed, rather than to exemplary or right behavior (for which ortho-praxis or other like words are used).
Experience teaches that it is often difficult for any given grouping internally to make a distinction in value and importance between the doctrines that they hold in common with others (e.g., that Jesus is the Christ and Savior) and what are called their [denominational] distinctives (e.g., their doctrine of how Jesus is present in the Lord’s Supper).
Would it be a great advance towards Christian charity and unity if the so-called “orthodox” of the churches could agree on what they all actually hold in common, and believe to be essentials, call this common doctrine orthodoxy, and then recognize their own distinctives as being important to them but not of the same ultimate importance and thus ought never to be a barrier to fellowship between them? Yes, it would, but in many cases this “advance” would prove impossible because some would not be able to separate in value or importance what they hold in common (e.g. that God is Holy Trinity) with what they hold in difference (e.g., that the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ on earth; or that the local congregation is sovereign and autonomous).
We may observe that it is probably impossible to create a local church, even a house church, that is founded only and simply upon an orthodoxy which is simply basic Christianity (e.g. the Apostles’ Creed), for in the necessary acts of worship, of organization, of mission and evangelism, distinctives are adopted and developed by the congregation. These arise not out of ill-will but in the reality of being a Christian congregation. Once they arise it is then difficult to prize them apart from what was originally thought to be basic Christianity.
Each of us, as an enfleshed human being, needs to belong to a congregation which has form and is embodied in cultural expressions (we cannot just belong to an idea)! Yet also we need to realize that there is difference between true orthodox doctrines, or essential doctrines, on the one side and, on the other, the local distinctives, be they ways of expressing the essentials in worship or behavior, or means of being Christians as a group which does things together. The differences will often be a fine line which requires spiritual discernment to see.
Now this task of discernment and differentiation, when taken on by those who see themselves as orthodox, is made the more difficult for not only is there within American Christianity a massive variety of groupings and thus also of distinctives, but there is a “progressive” or “liberal” camp which is often near to the “orthodox” camp and thus its agenda (e.g., blessing of same-sex couples) deeply affects the “orthodox” in one way or another. [And of course, and this is a big topic, there is the general influence of politics and culture, economics and social settings, upon churches and their teachings and agendas.]
The more one thinks about these things, the more one may be inclined the more intensely to pray for the Parousia, “Lord Jesus come quickly,” for one senses one lives in a big mess and that the unity of the Church of God will never be a visible unity this side of the Second Coming.
Or, one may take comfort from the American doctrines of capitalism, freedom, competition and individualism and savor the great variety as a true reflection of the American way and the best way for the churches to be this side of the Final Judgment.
Or perhaps one may be attracted away from the variety and confusion to either or both of those two Churches, the Orthodox and the Roman, which have been around since the apostolic age and who claim to be the real and true Church of Jesus Christ!
Or one may go off to read G.K. Chesterton’s book, Orthodoxy, and then try to forget all the problems.
Or one may live and serve humbly and faithfully within one of the “streams” (e.g., Lutheran or Anglican) recognizing that all baptized believers, who are united by the Holy Spirit in faith and love to the Lord Jesus and thus to the Father, are actually children of God and members of the Body of Christ, the Household of God.
Well motivated people of sound mind continue to respond differently to the search for Orthodoxy in the USA! One cannot, unless one is God himself, be sure as to which of the alternatives is even best, let alone right! Or can one?
November 8, 2005 The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Speaking of American churches, we are all familiar with the contrasts made between:
Liberal and Conservative (whatever that means in any given context – e.g., within Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism; or within Protestantism in general!)
Progressive and Orthodox (whatever that means in any given context –e.g. in Episcopalianism or Methodism; or in Roman Catholicism or Protestantism in general!);
And also between: Catholic and Protestant; Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic;
Eastern Orthodox and Protestant; emerging churches and churches; and so on.
In this context,
Let us consider the general use of “orthodox” rather than its unique use by the ancient hierarchical and liturgical Churches attached to the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople & Moscow.
Usually in popular speech & in reporting by journalists, “orthodox” is contrasted with “progressive” or “liberal” and refers to those in any given denomination or tradition who actually seek to preserve intact some or all of the foundational positions and doctrines of that particular grouping. So orthodoxy becomes in any given denominational context not only the basic doctrines of Christianity which all conservative Christians hold in common, but also the extra denominational distinctives (e.g., a doctrine of the Lord’s Supper or of Baptism or of Spiritual Gifts) which make that grouping unique or at least different from others.
Furthermore, for the sake of clarity in communication orthodoxy refers only to dogmas, doctrines and positions held and professed, rather than to exemplary or right behavior (for which ortho-praxis or other like words are used).
Experience teaches that it is often difficult for any given grouping internally to make a distinction in value and importance between the doctrines that they hold in common with others (e.g., that Jesus is the Christ and Savior) and what are called their [denominational] distinctives (e.g., their doctrine of how Jesus is present in the Lord’s Supper).
Would it be a great advance towards Christian charity and unity if the so-called “orthodox” of the churches could agree on what they all actually hold in common, and believe to be essentials, call this common doctrine orthodoxy, and then recognize their own distinctives as being important to them but not of the same ultimate importance and thus ought never to be a barrier to fellowship between them? Yes, it would, but in many cases this “advance” would prove impossible because some would not be able to separate in value or importance what they hold in common (e.g. that God is Holy Trinity) with what they hold in difference (e.g., that the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ on earth; or that the local congregation is sovereign and autonomous).
We may observe that it is probably impossible to create a local church, even a house church, that is founded only and simply upon an orthodoxy which is simply basic Christianity (e.g. the Apostles’ Creed), for in the necessary acts of worship, of organization, of mission and evangelism, distinctives are adopted and developed by the congregation. These arise not out of ill-will but in the reality of being a Christian congregation. Once they arise it is then difficult to prize them apart from what was originally thought to be basic Christianity.
Each of us, as an enfleshed human being, needs to belong to a congregation which has form and is embodied in cultural expressions (we cannot just belong to an idea)! Yet also we need to realize that there is difference between true orthodox doctrines, or essential doctrines, on the one side and, on the other, the local distinctives, be they ways of expressing the essentials in worship or behavior, or means of being Christians as a group which does things together. The differences will often be a fine line which requires spiritual discernment to see.
Now this task of discernment and differentiation, when taken on by those who see themselves as orthodox, is made the more difficult for not only is there within American Christianity a massive variety of groupings and thus also of distinctives, but there is a “progressive” or “liberal” camp which is often near to the “orthodox” camp and thus its agenda (e.g., blessing of same-sex couples) deeply affects the “orthodox” in one way or another. [And of course, and this is a big topic, there is the general influence of politics and culture, economics and social settings, upon churches and their teachings and agendas.]
The more one thinks about these things, the more one may be inclined the more intensely to pray for the Parousia, “Lord Jesus come quickly,” for one senses one lives in a big mess and that the unity of the Church of God will never be a visible unity this side of the Second Coming.
Or, one may take comfort from the American doctrines of capitalism, freedom, competition and individualism and savor the great variety as a true reflection of the American way and the best way for the churches to be this side of the Final Judgment.
Or perhaps one may be attracted away from the variety and confusion to either or both of those two Churches, the Orthodox and the Roman, which have been around since the apostolic age and who claim to be the real and true Church of Jesus Christ!
Or one may go off to read G.K. Chesterton’s book, Orthodoxy, and then try to forget all the problems.
Or one may live and serve humbly and faithfully within one of the “streams” (e.g., Lutheran or Anglican) recognizing that all baptized believers, who are united by the Holy Spirit in faith and love to the Lord Jesus and thus to the Father, are actually children of God and members of the Body of Christ, the Household of God.
Well motivated people of sound mind continue to respond differently to the search for Orthodoxy in the USA! One cannot, unless one is God himself, be sure as to which of the alternatives is even best, let alone right! Or can one?
November 8, 2005 The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Commitment to Christianity Depends On How It Is Measured
November 8, 2005
(Ventura, CA) – Four out of every five adults in the United States consider themselves to be Christian. How committed are they to the Christian faith? It depends on how you measure commitment. That’s the conclusion of a new report from The Barna Group, based on nationwide surveys with a random sample of 4015 people conducted this year. The research explored eight different measures of people’s commitment to their faith and found that the outcomes ranged from a low of 16% to a high of 72%.
Eight Measures of Commitment
The indicators of commitment that showed the broadest attachment were those that assessed people’s psychological commitment to their chosen faith. Those types of measures included the following:
· “Have you ever made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in your life today?” (72% said “yes”)
· “Your religious faith is very important in your life today.” (71% strongly agreed)
· “Would you describe yourself as deeply spiritual?” (60% said “yes”)
The research found that more demanding involvement in practical forms of Christianity generated lower scores. Those measures included the following:
· “The single, most important purpose of your life is to love God with all your heart, mind, strength and soul.” (62% strongly agreed)
· “Would you describe yourself as a full-time servant of God?” (53% said “yes”)
· “How committed are you to the Christian faith?” (42% said they are “absolutely committed”)
The lowest scores were recorded for the pair of indicators that required the most intense level of participation in the Christian faith.
· 29% had attended a church service, prayed to God and read from the Bible during the past week.
· 16% said the highest priority in their life was their faith.
Who’s Most Committed?
A demographic analysis of the eight measures of commitment showed highly consistent trends in relation to gender, age, region, ethnicity and faith subgroups.
Women were more likely than men to express a higher level of commitment to the Christian faith for all eight of the factors studied. On average, women were 36% more likely to register commitment regarding the factor in question. A majority of women expressed commitment in relation to six of the eight factors; in comparison, a majority of men noted personal investment in their faith in relation to just three of the eight measures.
Adults who were 40 or younger – i.e., those in the Baby Bust or Mosaic generations – were less likely than older adults to indicate commitment to their faith in relation to each of the eight measures. In addition, the survey found that the older a person was, the more likely they were to be committed to the Christian faith in connection with six out of the eight measures tested.
Residents of the South were the most likely to express significant commitment on seven of the eight measures. Adults residing in the Northeast and West were the lowest on the commitment scale for seven of the eight measures.
Blacks emerged as the ethnic group most likely to be committed to Christianity. They had the highest score of any of the four major ethnic groups in relation to seven of the eight measures tested. On average, Blacks were 39% more likely to register commitment than were whites, and 53% more likely than Hispanics. Asians were lowest on the commitment continuum in relation to seven of the eight measures. In fact, there was only one measure for which a majority of Asians exhibited commitment: 52% said their religious faith is very important to them, lagging the 68% among whites, 72% among Hispanics, and 89% among African-Americans.
Out of more than sixty subgroups studied in this research, evangelical Christians were the top-ranked people group for each of the eight measures of faith commitment. The most dramatic differences were found in relation to making their faith the highest priority in their life (55% of evangelicals claimed to do so, versus 16% of the population at-large) and demonstrating an active faith (73% had attended church, read the Bible and prayed during the preceding week, compared to 29% nationally).
Protestant adults had higher scores than did Catholics on all eight measures of commitment. On average, Protestants were 66% more likely than Catholics to say they were committed to their faith in the manner posed by the survey question.
Interpreting the Findings
George Barna, whose company conducted the research, believes that the findings reveal several insights about America’s faith. “For starters, it appears that most Americans like the security and the identity of the label ‘Christian’ but resist the biblical responsibilities that are associated with that identification. For most Americans, being a Christian is more about image than action. Further,” he continued, “researchers and those who use research data must be careful how they portray people’s spiritual commitment. Such descriptions are greatly affected by the way in which commitment is measured.”
Barna also encouraged Christian leaders to reflect on the implications of the relative lack of commitment among young adults and key ethnic groups. “Hispanics and Asians are the fastest growing ethnic groups in the country, but they are also substantially less committed to Christianity than are Caucasians relative to six of the eight measures tested. Add to that the widespread complacency toward Christianity among people under 40 and we have what amounts to a crisis of commitment facing the Church of the future.”
Source of This Information
The data reported in this summary are based upon telephone interviews with a nationwide random sample of 4015 adults conducted in 2005. The maximum margin of sampling error associated with the aggregate sample in each of these surveys is ±1.5 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All non-institutionalized adults in the 48 contiguous states were eligible to be interviewed and the distribution of respondents in the survey sample corresponds to the geographic dispersion of the U.S. adult population. The data were subjected to slight statistical weighting procedures to calibrate the survey base to national demographic proportions. Households selected for inclusion in the survey sample received multiple callbacks to increase the probability of obtaining a representative distribution of adults.
“Evangelicals” are a subset of born again Christians in Barna surveys. In addition to meeting the born again criteria, in which people say they have made “a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today” and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, evangelicals also meet seven other conditions. Those include saying their faith is very important in their life today; contending that they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians; stating that Satan exists; maintaining that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; asserting that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; saying that the Bible is totally accurate in all it teaches; and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today. Further, respondents were not asked to describe themselves as “evangelical.” Being classified as “evangelical” is not dependent upon any church or denominational affiliation or involvement. Evangelicals represent 7% of the adult population.
The “Baby Bust” refers to the generation of people born from 1965 through 1983. The “Mosaic” generation includes all people born from 1984 through 2002. In this study, only those Mosaics born from 1984 through 1987 were included – that is, those who were 18 or older.
The Barna Group, Ltd. (which includes its research division, The Barna Research Group) is a privately held, for-profit corporation that conducts primary research, produces audio, visual and print media, and facilitates the healthy spiritual development of leaders, children, families and Christian ministries. Located in Ventura, California, Barna has been conducting and analyzing primary research to understand cultural trends related to values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors since 1984. If you would like to receive free e-mail notification of the release of each new, bi-weekly update on the latest research findings from The Barna Group, you may subscribe to this free service at the Barna web site (www.barna.org). © The Barna Group, Ltd, 2005.
(Ventura, CA) – Four out of every five adults in the United States consider themselves to be Christian. How committed are they to the Christian faith? It depends on how you measure commitment. That’s the conclusion of a new report from The Barna Group, based on nationwide surveys with a random sample of 4015 people conducted this year. The research explored eight different measures of people’s commitment to their faith and found that the outcomes ranged from a low of 16% to a high of 72%.
Eight Measures of Commitment
The indicators of commitment that showed the broadest attachment were those that assessed people’s psychological commitment to their chosen faith. Those types of measures included the following:
· “Have you ever made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in your life today?” (72% said “yes”)
· “Your religious faith is very important in your life today.” (71% strongly agreed)
· “Would you describe yourself as deeply spiritual?” (60% said “yes”)
The research found that more demanding involvement in practical forms of Christianity generated lower scores. Those measures included the following:
· “The single, most important purpose of your life is to love God with all your heart, mind, strength and soul.” (62% strongly agreed)
· “Would you describe yourself as a full-time servant of God?” (53% said “yes”)
· “How committed are you to the Christian faith?” (42% said they are “absolutely committed”)
The lowest scores were recorded for the pair of indicators that required the most intense level of participation in the Christian faith.
· 29% had attended a church service, prayed to God and read from the Bible during the past week.
· 16% said the highest priority in their life was their faith.
Who’s Most Committed?
A demographic analysis of the eight measures of commitment showed highly consistent trends in relation to gender, age, region, ethnicity and faith subgroups.
Women were more likely than men to express a higher level of commitment to the Christian faith for all eight of the factors studied. On average, women were 36% more likely to register commitment regarding the factor in question. A majority of women expressed commitment in relation to six of the eight factors; in comparison, a majority of men noted personal investment in their faith in relation to just three of the eight measures.
Adults who were 40 or younger – i.e., those in the Baby Bust or Mosaic generations – were less likely than older adults to indicate commitment to their faith in relation to each of the eight measures. In addition, the survey found that the older a person was, the more likely they were to be committed to the Christian faith in connection with six out of the eight measures tested.
Residents of the South were the most likely to express significant commitment on seven of the eight measures. Adults residing in the Northeast and West were the lowest on the commitment scale for seven of the eight measures.
Blacks emerged as the ethnic group most likely to be committed to Christianity. They had the highest score of any of the four major ethnic groups in relation to seven of the eight measures tested. On average, Blacks were 39% more likely to register commitment than were whites, and 53% more likely than Hispanics. Asians were lowest on the commitment continuum in relation to seven of the eight measures. In fact, there was only one measure for which a majority of Asians exhibited commitment: 52% said their religious faith is very important to them, lagging the 68% among whites, 72% among Hispanics, and 89% among African-Americans.
Out of more than sixty subgroups studied in this research, evangelical Christians were the top-ranked people group for each of the eight measures of faith commitment. The most dramatic differences were found in relation to making their faith the highest priority in their life (55% of evangelicals claimed to do so, versus 16% of the population at-large) and demonstrating an active faith (73% had attended church, read the Bible and prayed during the preceding week, compared to 29% nationally).
Protestant adults had higher scores than did Catholics on all eight measures of commitment. On average, Protestants were 66% more likely than Catholics to say they were committed to their faith in the manner posed by the survey question.
Interpreting the Findings
George Barna, whose company conducted the research, believes that the findings reveal several insights about America’s faith. “For starters, it appears that most Americans like the security and the identity of the label ‘Christian’ but resist the biblical responsibilities that are associated with that identification. For most Americans, being a Christian is more about image than action. Further,” he continued, “researchers and those who use research data must be careful how they portray people’s spiritual commitment. Such descriptions are greatly affected by the way in which commitment is measured.”
Barna also encouraged Christian leaders to reflect on the implications of the relative lack of commitment among young adults and key ethnic groups. “Hispanics and Asians are the fastest growing ethnic groups in the country, but they are also substantially less committed to Christianity than are Caucasians relative to six of the eight measures tested. Add to that the widespread complacency toward Christianity among people under 40 and we have what amounts to a crisis of commitment facing the Church of the future.”
Source of This Information
The data reported in this summary are based upon telephone interviews with a nationwide random sample of 4015 adults conducted in 2005. The maximum margin of sampling error associated with the aggregate sample in each of these surveys is ±1.5 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All non-institutionalized adults in the 48 contiguous states were eligible to be interviewed and the distribution of respondents in the survey sample corresponds to the geographic dispersion of the U.S. adult population. The data were subjected to slight statistical weighting procedures to calibrate the survey base to national demographic proportions. Households selected for inclusion in the survey sample received multiple callbacks to increase the probability of obtaining a representative distribution of adults.
“Evangelicals” are a subset of born again Christians in Barna surveys. In addition to meeting the born again criteria, in which people say they have made “a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today” and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, evangelicals also meet seven other conditions. Those include saying their faith is very important in their life today; contending that they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians; stating that Satan exists; maintaining that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; asserting that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; saying that the Bible is totally accurate in all it teaches; and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today. Further, respondents were not asked to describe themselves as “evangelical.” Being classified as “evangelical” is not dependent upon any church or denominational affiliation or involvement. Evangelicals represent 7% of the adult population.
The “Baby Bust” refers to the generation of people born from 1965 through 1983. The “Mosaic” generation includes all people born from 1984 through 2002. In this study, only those Mosaics born from 1984 through 1987 were included – that is, those who were 18 or older.
The Barna Group, Ltd. (which includes its research division, The Barna Research Group) is a privately held, for-profit corporation that conducts primary research, produces audio, visual and print media, and facilitates the healthy spiritual development of leaders, children, families and Christian ministries. Located in Ventura, California, Barna has been conducting and analyzing primary research to understand cultural trends related to values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors since 1984. If you would like to receive free e-mail notification of the release of each new, bi-weekly update on the latest research findings from The Barna Group, you may subscribe to this free service at the Barna web site (www.barna.org). © The Barna Group, Ltd, 2005.
Monday, November 07, 2005
A Treasure in Modern Format – with extras!
In 1999 the famous Everyman’s Library published in modern format and in hardback the whole text of THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER (1662) in a book of over 500 pages.
This is the classic edition of the Anglican Prayer Book and has been translated into over 150 languages.
Within the covers of this new edition is also an Introduction by Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch, the leading authority on Archbishop Cranmer and his biographer.
Also there are in Appendices significant portions of the first edition of the Prayer Book, that of 1549, along with other notable historical Commemorations.
The Prayer Book Society has obtained a limited number of copies of this book. Please note that they cannot be bought on the web at www.anglicanmarketplace.com but must be ordered directly by sending a check for $20.00 (plus $2.50 for post) to
The Prayer Book Society (attention Mrs D Remenyi)
100 East Avon Road,
Parkside
PA. 19015-3306.
THERE ARE SIX COPIES LEFT AS OF November 7, 2005
TO RESERVE ONE CALL 1 800 727 1928 and speak to Debbie BEFORE POSTING A CHECK.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
This is the classic edition of the Anglican Prayer Book and has been translated into over 150 languages.
Within the covers of this new edition is also an Introduction by Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch, the leading authority on Archbishop Cranmer and his biographer.
Also there are in Appendices significant portions of the first edition of the Prayer Book, that of 1549, along with other notable historical Commemorations.
The Prayer Book Society has obtained a limited number of copies of this book. Please note that they cannot be bought on the web at www.anglicanmarketplace.com but must be ordered directly by sending a check for $20.00 (plus $2.50 for post) to
The Prayer Book Society (attention Mrs D Remenyi)
100 East Avon Road,
Parkside
PA. 19015-3306.
THERE ARE SIX COPIES LEFT AS OF November 7, 2005
TO RESERVE ONE CALL 1 800 727 1928 and speak to Debbie BEFORE POSTING A CHECK.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Revolution is occurring, says George Barna
George Barna is the head of a social research unit, which has specialized recently in the study of American evangelicals. In his book, Revolution (Tyndale House, 2005), Barna is no longer the social scientist describing what careful research has shown about the changing ideals and pursuits of evangelicals, but he has become the advocate for a particular movement in the USA that he obviously believes is important, very important. In fact he appears to have joined it and wants to do all he can to help this movement, especially the “revolutionaries” on their journey. So at time it is not clear where his social science research is speaking and where as the preacher of “revolution” is speaking.
To understand what he has found and what he supports, it is important that we recognize what he means by “church/Church.” He states: “I use the words church (small c) and Church (capital C) in very different ways. The distinction is critical. The small c church refers to the congregation-based faith experience, which involves a formal structure, a hierarchy of leadership, and a specific group of believers. The term Church, on the other hand, refers to all believers in Jesus Christ, comprising the population of heaven-bound individuals who are connected by their faith in Christ, regardless of their local church connections or involvement. Some hail this as the Church universal, as opposed to the church local. As you will see, the Revolution is designed to advance the Church and to redefine the church” (page x).
The revolutionaries are usually people who are dissatisfied with the local church or with local churches because they cannot find in them, however hard they try, an authentic pursuit of and commitment to a genuine Christianity, wherein there is a vital relationship with God through Jesus, and a consecrated life of obedience and holiness. They find in Scripture descriptions of the Church and of Christian living that cause them to look for and desire much more than the restrictions of the local church allow. And they are obsessed with the idea of being much better and more useful to God than they are now.
So mini-movements have been generated of people seeking to find alternative ways of serving God then in the local church with its limited and restricting agenda and activity. Thus there are cells, home fellowships, cyberspace meetings and the like, as well as “groups” within the local church, wherein serious people seek to become better Christian disciples of Jesus the really true “Revolutionary.”
So the Revolution has begun and, Barna predicts, will intensify, affecting America from the bottom up, as it were, as local groups function as “the salt of the earth” and “the light of the world” in their own communities. The number of committed Christians will grow but the number and size of local churches (of the old kind) will diminish, for the vital Christians will be in all kinds of loose organizations and groupings. Yet the moral and spiritual health of the nation will improve through their presence. Further, this Revolution will qualify as one of the great spiritual “awakenings” within the USA.
Comment.
I do not know how seriously to take the contents of this book. This is because so much of it is Barna the preacher and advocate commending his view of “church/Church”, and, in proportion, so little is actually basic research material/facts that the reader can consider in their own right.
His use of the New Testament to describe the Church seems to be limited virtually to the early chapters of the Acts of the Apostles. But are not the teachings of Paul, James and John in their epistles also important for understanding what is the local church and what is the universal Church?
His confidence in human nature within the revolutionaries seems to be much higher than history and experience would recommend. Even the committed revolutionaries suffer from original sin, from the temptations to individualism and idiosyncrasies, from the possibility of many sins of omission and commission, and so on. How can Barna be sure that they will not simple add to the vastness of competitive Christian groups within the present supermarket of religions in the USA? How does he know their energy will go into the pursuit of holiness and the service of man in the name of Jesus?
And what about the connection or relation of these emerging mini-movements of revolutionaries to the variety of groups, house-churches, cells and the like which already exist and are associated with, for example, the “generous orthodoxy” movement (which seeks a kind of non-denominational form of Christianity that is missional locally, seeking to show practical love, especially to the poor).
Overall, my judgment tends to be that Dr Barna has gone much too far in his claim that there really is a Revolution, and in his predictions of what this Revolution will soon become and achieve. Let us remember that there have always been those, whom we may call the remnant, within the existing churches or synagogues who have longed for a deeper, richer and more substantial expression of Christian faith within themselves as persons and within the larger structure of the churches. He has discerned such within the American evangelical churches and appears to have made too much of his discovery because of what is his own personal desire for Christian growth in the USA.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
To understand what he has found and what he supports, it is important that we recognize what he means by “church/Church.” He states: “I use the words church (small c) and Church (capital C) in very different ways. The distinction is critical. The small c church refers to the congregation-based faith experience, which involves a formal structure, a hierarchy of leadership, and a specific group of believers. The term Church, on the other hand, refers to all believers in Jesus Christ, comprising the population of heaven-bound individuals who are connected by their faith in Christ, regardless of their local church connections or involvement. Some hail this as the Church universal, as opposed to the church local. As you will see, the Revolution is designed to advance the Church and to redefine the church” (page x).
The revolutionaries are usually people who are dissatisfied with the local church or with local churches because they cannot find in them, however hard they try, an authentic pursuit of and commitment to a genuine Christianity, wherein there is a vital relationship with God through Jesus, and a consecrated life of obedience and holiness. They find in Scripture descriptions of the Church and of Christian living that cause them to look for and desire much more than the restrictions of the local church allow. And they are obsessed with the idea of being much better and more useful to God than they are now.
So mini-movements have been generated of people seeking to find alternative ways of serving God then in the local church with its limited and restricting agenda and activity. Thus there are cells, home fellowships, cyberspace meetings and the like, as well as “groups” within the local church, wherein serious people seek to become better Christian disciples of Jesus the really true “Revolutionary.”
So the Revolution has begun and, Barna predicts, will intensify, affecting America from the bottom up, as it were, as local groups function as “the salt of the earth” and “the light of the world” in their own communities. The number of committed Christians will grow but the number and size of local churches (of the old kind) will diminish, for the vital Christians will be in all kinds of loose organizations and groupings. Yet the moral and spiritual health of the nation will improve through their presence. Further, this Revolution will qualify as one of the great spiritual “awakenings” within the USA.
Comment.
I do not know how seriously to take the contents of this book. This is because so much of it is Barna the preacher and advocate commending his view of “church/Church”, and, in proportion, so little is actually basic research material/facts that the reader can consider in their own right.
His use of the New Testament to describe the Church seems to be limited virtually to the early chapters of the Acts of the Apostles. But are not the teachings of Paul, James and John in their epistles also important for understanding what is the local church and what is the universal Church?
His confidence in human nature within the revolutionaries seems to be much higher than history and experience would recommend. Even the committed revolutionaries suffer from original sin, from the temptations to individualism and idiosyncrasies, from the possibility of many sins of omission and commission, and so on. How can Barna be sure that they will not simple add to the vastness of competitive Christian groups within the present supermarket of religions in the USA? How does he know their energy will go into the pursuit of holiness and the service of man in the name of Jesus?
And what about the connection or relation of these emerging mini-movements of revolutionaries to the variety of groups, house-churches, cells and the like which already exist and are associated with, for example, the “generous orthodoxy” movement (which seeks a kind of non-denominational form of Christianity that is missional locally, seeking to show practical love, especially to the poor).
Overall, my judgment tends to be that Dr Barna has gone much too far in his claim that there really is a Revolution, and in his predictions of what this Revolution will soon become and achieve. Let us remember that there have always been those, whom we may call the remnant, within the existing churches or synagogues who have longed for a deeper, richer and more substantial expression of Christian faith within themselves as persons and within the larger structure of the churches. He has discerned such within the American evangelical churches and appears to have made too much of his discovery because of what is his own personal desire for Christian growth in the USA.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Sexuality: Where should the line be drawn?
A discussion starter from Peter Toon
Few would disagree with the observation that the Church in the West in this post-modern culture has a very different estimate of what are right goals and necessary principles of sexuality than did the Church in former times, especially the patristic era, but even the Victorian era.
Few also would disagree with the observation that the approach to sexuality in today’s Church is profoundly affected by the therapeutic culture which is now endemic in western thought and feeling. For most of us a primary purpose of life is to be happy. Happiness is an end in itself, rather than a product of something else (e.g., of doing what is right, or good, or one’s duty and vocation). Self-fulfillment and self-realization are seen as important ends in connection with happiness.
The Early Church and Sex
Few also would disagree with the point that the ideal in the Early Church was that of chastity, and thus the virgin (female and male) was the symbol of purity. People today find it hard to understand why married love was not the symbol for the Early Church. Their difficulty is in part because they live in a therapeutic culture.
The only sure way that the Church in a self-indulgent, immoral society could present the Christian sexual ethic to itself and to the world in a positive and dynamic way was to emphasize, as the ideal of what the Lord loved to see, the way of purity, chastity and virginity. This kept the mind and vision focused and gave moral energy to the resisting of temptation. It did not mean that marriage was sinful but it did mean that those who by grace were enabled to do so should be virgins and be united as it were to the Lord in purity and service. By this ideal and with this standard, the Church could declare with integrity that fornication, sodomy and adultery were sins, which if not repented of, would keep even baptized persons out of the kingdom of heaven. Further, the Church was able to make Christian marriage sacramental as a one flesh union of a man and woman until that union was broken by death. Further, the purpose of holy matrimony was mutual comfort and procreation, as well as the avoiding of fornication.
Of course, there were many failures and there were multiple scandals and there was hypocrisy, for human beings are not only sinners but sinful; BUT there was also the divine offer of forgiveness to those who were penitent. Importantly, forgiveness did not reduce standards but it lifted up those who had fallen. And there was a penitential system in place to deal with this pastoral problem of the weak and the fallen in a way which did not compromise the ideal.
So there was no compromise. The Church preached and asked for the highest of standards and believed the grace of God sufficient to help people reach them. In this context, it made sense to proclaim that adultery, fornication and sodomy were sinful and to deal with them as such in the penitential system.
Contemporary Liberal Denominations
Today, the Church, especially the main-line liberal denominations like the Episcopal, asks for the lowest standards and expects even less then these! Deeply affected by the therapeutic culture, the Church accepts in practice if not in doctrine all sexual unions which claim to be seeking self-fulfillment and based on “love” and “faithfulness’ – e.g., in serial monogamy, opposite sex and same-sex partnerships. The ideal now is not virginity and chastity but rather self-realization, self-fulfillment and happiness therein. Any “love” that leads in this direction is acceptable for is not God as God “Love”? What is wrong and sinful today is “loveless” sexual intimacy and relationships!
The Evangelical Stance
However, there are those within the liberal denominations (e.g., the Network in the ECUSA) who believe that a line can be drawn and maintained in the contemporary churches at homosexual practice (not homosexual orientation as such).
That is, the Church proclaims the ideal of marriage between a woman and a man as a life-long partnership and teaches that all other forms of sexual intimacy are wrong. However, this ideal is not taught as a divine command or real standard but as that to which the faithful should strive and if they reach it, then congratulation! If they fail there is divorce and remarriage, even serial monogamy, for their right to fulfillment of their sexual drive and desires is paramount in a therapeutic culture.
In this system, wherein there is not any kind of penitential system or the hope of one, but only local therapeutic “counseling”, the inevitable result is that it is very difficult to teach against and prevent the widespread living together of men and women in short-term or long –term partnerships either before marriage or as a substitute for marriage. After all, they only seek personal fulfillment and happiness in a loving relationship. It is less difficult to argue against same-sex partnerships for they appear to be contrary to nature and to gut feelings of what is decent and right, not to mention biblical commands. Yet as same-sex unions are increasingly recognized by law and by culture, opposing them, specially when nice people are involved, gets more difficult day by day for the conservative Christian to do.
Conclusion
It would appear that only the Church which has the ideal of Virginity, together with a penitential [not a counseling] system, has any hope in the therapeutic culture of the West of maintaining a Christian doctrine and practice of biblical sexuality and sexual relations! A modern denomination, or part thereof, which has lowered the bar to lifelong marriage as an ideal (but has not made the ideal a true standard and divine requirement) and works with counseling will, like the city of New Orleans, see its walls continually broken by the floodtide of the modern sexual culture.
November 7, 2005 The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Few would disagree with the observation that the Church in the West in this post-modern culture has a very different estimate of what are right goals and necessary principles of sexuality than did the Church in former times, especially the patristic era, but even the Victorian era.
Few also would disagree with the observation that the approach to sexuality in today’s Church is profoundly affected by the therapeutic culture which is now endemic in western thought and feeling. For most of us a primary purpose of life is to be happy. Happiness is an end in itself, rather than a product of something else (e.g., of doing what is right, or good, or one’s duty and vocation). Self-fulfillment and self-realization are seen as important ends in connection with happiness.
The Early Church and Sex
Few also would disagree with the point that the ideal in the Early Church was that of chastity, and thus the virgin (female and male) was the symbol of purity. People today find it hard to understand why married love was not the symbol for the Early Church. Their difficulty is in part because they live in a therapeutic culture.
The only sure way that the Church in a self-indulgent, immoral society could present the Christian sexual ethic to itself and to the world in a positive and dynamic way was to emphasize, as the ideal of what the Lord loved to see, the way of purity, chastity and virginity. This kept the mind and vision focused and gave moral energy to the resisting of temptation. It did not mean that marriage was sinful but it did mean that those who by grace were enabled to do so should be virgins and be united as it were to the Lord in purity and service. By this ideal and with this standard, the Church could declare with integrity that fornication, sodomy and adultery were sins, which if not repented of, would keep even baptized persons out of the kingdom of heaven. Further, the Church was able to make Christian marriage sacramental as a one flesh union of a man and woman until that union was broken by death. Further, the purpose of holy matrimony was mutual comfort and procreation, as well as the avoiding of fornication.
Of course, there were many failures and there were multiple scandals and there was hypocrisy, for human beings are not only sinners but sinful; BUT there was also the divine offer of forgiveness to those who were penitent. Importantly, forgiveness did not reduce standards but it lifted up those who had fallen. And there was a penitential system in place to deal with this pastoral problem of the weak and the fallen in a way which did not compromise the ideal.
So there was no compromise. The Church preached and asked for the highest of standards and believed the grace of God sufficient to help people reach them. In this context, it made sense to proclaim that adultery, fornication and sodomy were sinful and to deal with them as such in the penitential system.
Contemporary Liberal Denominations
Today, the Church, especially the main-line liberal denominations like the Episcopal, asks for the lowest standards and expects even less then these! Deeply affected by the therapeutic culture, the Church accepts in practice if not in doctrine all sexual unions which claim to be seeking self-fulfillment and based on “love” and “faithfulness’ – e.g., in serial monogamy, opposite sex and same-sex partnerships. The ideal now is not virginity and chastity but rather self-realization, self-fulfillment and happiness therein. Any “love” that leads in this direction is acceptable for is not God as God “Love”? What is wrong and sinful today is “loveless” sexual intimacy and relationships!
The Evangelical Stance
However, there are those within the liberal denominations (e.g., the Network in the ECUSA) who believe that a line can be drawn and maintained in the contemporary churches at homosexual practice (not homosexual orientation as such).
That is, the Church proclaims the ideal of marriage between a woman and a man as a life-long partnership and teaches that all other forms of sexual intimacy are wrong. However, this ideal is not taught as a divine command or real standard but as that to which the faithful should strive and if they reach it, then congratulation! If they fail there is divorce and remarriage, even serial monogamy, for their right to fulfillment of their sexual drive and desires is paramount in a therapeutic culture.
In this system, wherein there is not any kind of penitential system or the hope of one, but only local therapeutic “counseling”, the inevitable result is that it is very difficult to teach against and prevent the widespread living together of men and women in short-term or long –term partnerships either before marriage or as a substitute for marriage. After all, they only seek personal fulfillment and happiness in a loving relationship. It is less difficult to argue against same-sex partnerships for they appear to be contrary to nature and to gut feelings of what is decent and right, not to mention biblical commands. Yet as same-sex unions are increasingly recognized by law and by culture, opposing them, specially when nice people are involved, gets more difficult day by day for the conservative Christian to do.
Conclusion
It would appear that only the Church which has the ideal of Virginity, together with a penitential [not a counseling] system, has any hope in the therapeutic culture of the West of maintaining a Christian doctrine and practice of biblical sexuality and sexual relations! A modern denomination, or part thereof, which has lowered the bar to lifelong marriage as an ideal (but has not made the ideal a true standard and divine requirement) and works with counseling will, like the city of New Orleans, see its walls continually broken by the floodtide of the modern sexual culture.
November 7, 2005 The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)