To my colleagues who are impressed by Cardinal Vigano’s recent letter to President Donald Trump: How has it escaped your notice that the letter contains a dualistic heresy in which God, by being locked in an “eternal” struggle with evil, is portrayed as merely equal to that evil? If the struggle is eternal, therefore unresolved forever, if Satan is God’s “eternal enemy,” so that God never wins, how can this be the God we believe in? It can’t be! So limited a being isn’t our God. How has this not clued you in to the logical realization that Vigano (a slanderer of note) speaks by another spirit - a spirit of error? So, his letter goes on by teaching you to be wary of human beings as your enemies, “children of darkness,” instead of as sinners in need of the Gospel, and as objects of God’s love, as well as of yours? How does it not flatter your pride to be told that you are “the children of light” not because you are in Christ, but because you back a particular politician?
It is all so very wrong. In the words of Jesus, I tell some of you: You know not what spirit ye are of. I urge you not to respond to me until you have sought God in prayer. If the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness.
Showing posts with label Heresy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Heresy. Show all posts
Thursday, June 11, 2020
Tuesday, July 07, 2015
Love wins - Lust loses
"Charity...rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth." I Corinthians 13:4,6
June 26, 2015 will live on in infamy. Within minutes of the Supreme Court issuing the most arbitrary ruling since Roe vs. Wade, namely Obergfell vs. Hodges, by which it created a national "Constitutional Right" to same-sex "marriage," President Obama tweeted the words, "Love Wins." During that time the Episcopal Church held its General Convention in Utah. it included a service described as follows:
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Episcopalians marked 40 years of advocacy in the Episcopal Church during a Monday night Eucharist characterized by inclusive language, liturgical innovations and prayers for “disordering our boundaries and releasing our desires." Hundreds of Episcopalians at the denomination’s triennial General Convention in Salt Lake City, Utah participated in a festive Eucharist hosted by Integrity USA, the church’s unofficial LGBT caucus. The event took place the same day that bishops gave approval to a new gender-neutral marriage rite which appears likely to be enacted by the end of the week. (Juicy Ecumenism, June 30, 2015)
Present was Louie Crew, longtime advocate of homosexual and lesbian activism in the Episcopal Church, receiving praise as a "prophet" and, apparently, worship as a god:
“And now a word from the Prophet Louie,” a prayer leader introduced, beginning a video on the life of Crew. Following the video, the congregation was led in singing “Louie, Louie, Louie Hallelujah.”
The Episcopalians are not alone among mainline denominations in the United States, accepting and advocating not only "Gay" activism, but also what they have been calling "Marriage Equality" for several years, namely same-sex "marriage." It has been given the status of a Civil Rights issue by its supporters, which serves only to make a mockery of genuine Civil Rights, for which several people were jailed, beaten, fire-hosed, and murdered during my childhood years, concerning which we saw just about nothing on television news back then. Those issues were about a real need for justice, engaging the opposition of evil violent men, including the Ku Klux Klan. In the twenty-first century, for homosexuals and lesbians to demand some "right" to same-sex "marriage," as if it were on the same level as the true Civil Rights struggle, insults our intelligence. For mainline denominations, such as the Episcopal Church, to be part of the LGBT scene, requires some kind of religious rationale.
That is where the religious Left are on board with President Obama and many people on the secular Left; to try and give the whole idea some spiritual meaning, they use the word "Love." It works in English, but would not work in the Koine' Greek of the original New Testament. By love they mean eros, and nothing more, that word from which we get the English word "erotic." "Love" in that limited carnal sense cannot mean the same thing as Phileo and Agape one meaning brotherly love and the other Divine love. Agape was translated into Latin as Caritas, the root word for the English "Charity."
It is good that the King James Bible, in I Corinthians 13 uses the word "charity," because it means love in a specific, in this case Divine, sense. In English one may say, "I love a big juicy steak." One cannot say, "I have charity for a big juicy steak." Sadly, to people in modern English speaking society, the word "Love" covers any relationship that leads, it would seem, to an orgasm. Indeed, the Episcopalians have stated quite accurately that there has been a "disordering [of] our boundaries, and releasing [of] our desires."
In their blasphemous "Eucharist" in Salt lake City, the Episcopalians also celebrated an attack on the family as the basic unit in society, and as created and ordained by God through nature.
“We got to this place of redefining marriage by redefining two other words: home and family,” ["Bishop" Suffragan Mary] Glasspool declared in her sermon.
Clearly, in the "thinking" of such people, a purely emotional appeal either to guilt or ignorance, or both, takes the place of theology. It cancels out God's revelation as known and understood for millennia, as taught by Christ and His Apostles and known to the Church since the beginning. Their use of the word "love" is empty of anything and everything to do with Christ and His cross. Saint Paul wrote:
"For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:6-8)."
The Love of God must be spoken of and understood in the context of Christ crucified. On the cross we see something terribly ugly, so much so that "We hid as it were our faces from Him (Isaiah 53:3)." The sight of the man of sorrows broken, bruised, and bleeding is the very sight of God's judgment on our sin. It is also the historical event in which the love of God has been manifested most clearly for all to see. The sight of God's love is not a smiley face, and would never fit into one of those "Precious Moments" Bibles (with pictures so "sweet" that they might cause diabetes and tooth decay). It is not a new approval of human sin, but judgment on sin. It is not acceptance nor affirmation of sin, but it is the forgiveness of all sins for those who repent and believe. It is where the blood was shed for the remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22).
To use the word "love" in a distorted way is to preach a false gospel of a false Jesus, with the empowering of a false spirit (see II Corinthians chapter 11). Such a false Jesus is now the new "Jesus" of former President Jimmy Carter, as he said on July 7:
"I believe Jesus would. I don't have any verse in scripture. ... I believe Jesus would approve gay marriage, but that's just my own personal belief. I think Jesus would encourage any love affair if it was honest and sincere and was not damaging to anyone else, and I don't see that gay marriage damages anyone else," he said.
Why would any believer speak of what Jesus would approve? The Jesus Christ in whom we believe already told us His standards.
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (Matthew 5:17,18).
And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man
(Mark 7:20-23).
A big lie often buzzing around the internet is that "Jesus said nothing about homosexuality." The Jesus we see in the Gospels has nothing good to say about fornication. The English word can be misleading, because it is often understood in a limited way. But the word in the Greek New Testament is porneia (πορνεία), from which we get not only the word "fornication," but also the word "pornography." It does not mean merely heterosexual intercourse before or outside of marriage. It means every kind of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexual acts, sexual acts with children, sexual acts with animals, etc. This new and different Jesus that former President Carter believes in is a fraud. He is not our Risen lord Jesus Christ Who "came into the world to save sinners (I Timothy 1:15)."
That's right. He came to save sinners, indeed "to save His people from their sins (Matthew 1: 21)." Not in their sins, but from their sins. Jesus Christ came into the world for that, not to make the world safe for porneia. His coming was not to wink at immorality, and give His okay on carnality. Those who are now teaching that He did, or "would" are false prophets, for a Jesus who "would" do this or that, rather than the real Jesus Who did speak very clearly, is a false Jesus indeed, one who can be controlled by sinful imaginations.
What would you say of a doctor who, seeing that you have brought yourself to a fatal condition that will end your life in six months max, failed to tell you his diagnosis, and that you could live a long and healthy life by changing your habits immediately? We would consider him most unprofessional to say the least, unethical to say more, and criminal to say much more. But, what if he failed to tell you how to save your life because, in his words, to deprive you of temporary pleasures just wouldn't be loving? What judgment awaits clergy who fail to preach repentance, because of "love?"
The new liturgical declaration of Episcopalians in the Salt Lake City General Convention is utterly Satanic. A modern pagan religion, "The Law of Thelema," invented by Aleister Crowley, an English magician, in the 1900s, declares, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law, love under will." This was taken also by modern Satanism in 1966, and promoted by Anton Szandor LaVey, founder of the "Church of Satan." That is the same mentality that the LGBT supporting Episcopalians were expressing in their new liturgy: "Disordering our boundaries and releasing our desires."
Against that spirit and mind stands the Cross of Christ, demonstrating God's judgment on sin while saving sinners because of Divine love - the real love.
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Episcopalians marked 40 years of advocacy in the Episcopal Church during a Monday night Eucharist characterized by inclusive language, liturgical innovations and prayers for “disordering our boundaries and releasing our desires." Hundreds of Episcopalians at the denomination’s triennial General Convention in Salt Lake City, Utah participated in a festive Eucharist hosted by Integrity USA, the church’s unofficial LGBT caucus. The event took place the same day that bishops gave approval to a new gender-neutral marriage rite which appears likely to be enacted by the end of the week. (Juicy Ecumenism, June 30, 2015)
Present was Louie Crew, longtime advocate of homosexual and lesbian activism in the Episcopal Church, receiving praise as a "prophet" and, apparently, worship as a god:
“And now a word from the Prophet Louie,” a prayer leader introduced, beginning a video on the life of Crew. Following the video, the congregation was led in singing “Louie, Louie, Louie Hallelujah.”
The Episcopalians are not alone among mainline denominations in the United States, accepting and advocating not only "Gay" activism, but also what they have been calling "Marriage Equality" for several years, namely same-sex "marriage." It has been given the status of a Civil Rights issue by its supporters, which serves only to make a mockery of genuine Civil Rights, for which several people were jailed, beaten, fire-hosed, and murdered during my childhood years, concerning which we saw just about nothing on television news back then. Those issues were about a real need for justice, engaging the opposition of evil violent men, including the Ku Klux Klan. In the twenty-first century, for homosexuals and lesbians to demand some "right" to same-sex "marriage," as if it were on the same level as the true Civil Rights struggle, insults our intelligence. For mainline denominations, such as the Episcopal Church, to be part of the LGBT scene, requires some kind of religious rationale.
That is where the religious Left are on board with President Obama and many people on the secular Left; to try and give the whole idea some spiritual meaning, they use the word "Love." It works in English, but would not work in the Koine' Greek of the original New Testament. By love they mean eros, and nothing more, that word from which we get the English word "erotic." "Love" in that limited carnal sense cannot mean the same thing as Phileo and Agape one meaning brotherly love and the other Divine love. Agape was translated into Latin as Caritas, the root word for the English "Charity."
It is good that the King James Bible, in I Corinthians 13 uses the word "charity," because it means love in a specific, in this case Divine, sense. In English one may say, "I love a big juicy steak." One cannot say, "I have charity for a big juicy steak." Sadly, to people in modern English speaking society, the word "Love" covers any relationship that leads, it would seem, to an orgasm. Indeed, the Episcopalians have stated quite accurately that there has been a "disordering [of] our boundaries, and releasing [of] our desires."
In their blasphemous "Eucharist" in Salt lake City, the Episcopalians also celebrated an attack on the family as the basic unit in society, and as created and ordained by God through nature.
“We got to this place of redefining marriage by redefining two other words: home and family,” ["Bishop" Suffragan Mary] Glasspool declared in her sermon.
Clearly, in the "thinking" of such people, a purely emotional appeal either to guilt or ignorance, or both, takes the place of theology. It cancels out God's revelation as known and understood for millennia, as taught by Christ and His Apostles and known to the Church since the beginning. Their use of the word "love" is empty of anything and everything to do with Christ and His cross. Saint Paul wrote:
"For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:6-8)."
The Love of God must be spoken of and understood in the context of Christ crucified. On the cross we see something terribly ugly, so much so that "We hid as it were our faces from Him (Isaiah 53:3)." The sight of the man of sorrows broken, bruised, and bleeding is the very sight of God's judgment on our sin. It is also the historical event in which the love of God has been manifested most clearly for all to see. The sight of God's love is not a smiley face, and would never fit into one of those "Precious Moments" Bibles (with pictures so "sweet" that they might cause diabetes and tooth decay). It is not a new approval of human sin, but judgment on sin. It is not acceptance nor affirmation of sin, but it is the forgiveness of all sins for those who repent and believe. It is where the blood was shed for the remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22).
To use the word "love" in a distorted way is to preach a false gospel of a false Jesus, with the empowering of a false spirit (see II Corinthians chapter 11). Such a false Jesus is now the new "Jesus" of former President Jimmy Carter, as he said on July 7:
"I believe Jesus would. I don't have any verse in scripture. ... I believe Jesus would approve gay marriage, but that's just my own personal belief. I think Jesus would encourage any love affair if it was honest and sincere and was not damaging to anyone else, and I don't see that gay marriage damages anyone else," he said.
Why would any believer speak of what Jesus would approve? The Jesus Christ in whom we believe already told us His standards.
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (Matthew 5:17,18).
And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man
(Mark 7:20-23).
A big lie often buzzing around the internet is that "Jesus said nothing about homosexuality." The Jesus we see in the Gospels has nothing good to say about fornication. The English word can be misleading, because it is often understood in a limited way. But the word in the Greek New Testament is porneia (πορνεία), from which we get not only the word "fornication," but also the word "pornography." It does not mean merely heterosexual intercourse before or outside of marriage. It means every kind of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexual acts, sexual acts with children, sexual acts with animals, etc. This new and different Jesus that former President Carter believes in is a fraud. He is not our Risen lord Jesus Christ Who "came into the world to save sinners (I Timothy 1:15)."
That's right. He came to save sinners, indeed "to save His people from their sins (Matthew 1: 21)." Not in their sins, but from their sins. Jesus Christ came into the world for that, not to make the world safe for porneia. His coming was not to wink at immorality, and give His okay on carnality. Those who are now teaching that He did, or "would" are false prophets, for a Jesus who "would" do this or that, rather than the real Jesus Who did speak very clearly, is a false Jesus indeed, one who can be controlled by sinful imaginations.
What would you say of a doctor who, seeing that you have brought yourself to a fatal condition that will end your life in six months max, failed to tell you his diagnosis, and that you could live a long and healthy life by changing your habits immediately? We would consider him most unprofessional to say the least, unethical to say more, and criminal to say much more. But, what if he failed to tell you how to save your life because, in his words, to deprive you of temporary pleasures just wouldn't be loving? What judgment awaits clergy who fail to preach repentance, because of "love?"
The new liturgical declaration of Episcopalians in the Salt Lake City General Convention is utterly Satanic. A modern pagan religion, "The Law of Thelema," invented by Aleister Crowley, an English magician, in the 1900s, declares, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law, love under will." This was taken also by modern Satanism in 1966, and promoted by Anton Szandor LaVey, founder of the "Church of Satan." That is the same mentality that the LGBT supporting Episcopalians were expressing in their new liturgy: "Disordering our boundaries and releasing our desires."
Against that spirit and mind stands the Cross of Christ, demonstrating God's judgment on sin while saving sinners because of Divine love - the real love.
Wednesday, December 03, 2014
Who needs Canterbury?
Was there any doubt that the Church of England would vote to have women "bishops" from now on? How is the C of E really any different from the Episcopal "Church" here in the United States, other than certain particular cultural traits of the English and the C's Establishment (i.e., as the State Church)? Nonetheless, we see the phenomenon of some people in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) openly trumpeting communion with Canterbury as some sort of advantage, as if it provides a superior status of some kind, making them the authentic Anglicans. We see the phenomenon of the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) apparently delighted finally, since its birth in the 1870s, to have a connection to the See of Canterbury.
Continuing Anglicans did initially seek to begin their venture hoping to be in communion with Canterbury. In the Affirmation of St. Louis, back in 1977, we find this:
"The Continuation of Communion with Canterbury
We affirm our continued relations of communion with the See of Canterbury and all faithful parts of the Anglican Communion. WHEREFORE, with a firm trust in Divine Providence, and before Almighty God and all the company of heaven, we solemnly affirm, covenant and declare that we, lawful and faithful members of the Anglican and Episcopal Churches, shall now and hereafter continue and be the unified continuing Anglican Church in North America, in true and valid succession thereto."
Then Archbishop of Canterbury, Donald Coggan, strongly opposed the new Continuing Church, and gave it no recognition. As a result, the Continuers went ahead without any official status as part of the Anglican Communion. Frankly, forced to choose between orthodoxy and Anglican Communion membership, it was clear that genuine fidelity to Christ required the willingness to forego that membership. After a while, it became obvious that this estrangement was beneficial to the Continuing churches. The Anglican Catholic Church even went so far as to add this note to the original Affirmation of St. Louis:
"[Note: Because of the action of General Synod of the Church of England, Parliament, and the Royal Assent, the College of Bishops of the Anglican Catholic Church is obliged no longer to count the See of Canterbury as a faithful part of the Anglican Communion.]"
The operative word is "faithful," both in the original and in the note. To preserve Church order and the validity of Holy Orders, the separation proved necessary. Perhaps there exists a failure of communication between us and the ACNA. You see, we are glad not to be in communion with Canterbury. If we were offered communion with Canterbury we would decline it, as in "Thanks, but no thanks."
The ACNA, on the other hand (which still has Priestesses in the Church, though we hope, and pray, not for long), has held communion with Canterbury as worth having. And this comes at a time when the Anglican Communion is falling apart, due largely to the refusal of African churches to participate in future Lambeth Conferences. For most of those African Anglicans, the final straw has been the liberal acceptance of homosexual acts, something very clearly revealed to be sin in the Scriptures.
Perhaps, under political pressure, someday in the future, the Church of England will go the way of the Church of Sweden, where the clergy are required by law to perform same-sex "weddings." I have no doubt that right here, in my adopted state of North Carolina, the local Episcopalians will be performing same-sex "weddings" and feeling all warm and fuzzy about how liberal and advanced they have become. The See of Canterbury has watched for years the Episcopalians, trailing only slightly behind them into heresy and apostasy.
Back in the beginning, the Continuers saw that ordination of women was simply the latest symptom, and one that required separation to protect sacramental validity. The arguments that were used for women's ordination were not merely similar to the arguments for acceptance of homosexual acts, leading to same-sex "blessings" and now "weddings," but largely the very same arguments. Just substitute a word here and there, and it all boils down to the same reasoning. Where did it begin? By believing that a person's sex (not "gender"- the word is "sex"- as in male and female) was totally irrelevant to anything sacramental. So, it went from ordination to marriage. The confusion of seeing a woman "priest" at the altar, portraying the heavenly Bridegroom, and seeing two people of the same sex get "married" to each other, may be different in degree, but it is the same in kind. The C of E, with its priestesses and bishopettes, is just a little behind the Episcopalians here in America. It is only a matter of time, as always.
What is the Anglican Communion anyway? Was the Episcopal Church part of something called the Anglican Communion in the late eighteenth century? How about during the War of 1812? Historically, the Anglican Communion is a very recent thing.
I would urge my friends in the ACNA, including those in the REC, to cut themselves free from the weight of it. Of my charity, I wish they would take several pages from our book. One of those pages says we don't need communion with the See of Canterbury. No orthodox church body does. In fact, no orthodox church body can afford the price that comes with it.
Continuing Anglicans did initially seek to begin their venture hoping to be in communion with Canterbury. In the Affirmation of St. Louis, back in 1977, we find this:
"The Continuation of Communion with Canterbury
We affirm our continued relations of communion with the See of Canterbury and all faithful parts of the Anglican Communion. WHEREFORE, with a firm trust in Divine Providence, and before Almighty God and all the company of heaven, we solemnly affirm, covenant and declare that we, lawful and faithful members of the Anglican and Episcopal Churches, shall now and hereafter continue and be the unified continuing Anglican Church in North America, in true and valid succession thereto."
Then Archbishop of Canterbury, Donald Coggan, strongly opposed the new Continuing Church, and gave it no recognition. As a result, the Continuers went ahead without any official status as part of the Anglican Communion. Frankly, forced to choose between orthodoxy and Anglican Communion membership, it was clear that genuine fidelity to Christ required the willingness to forego that membership. After a while, it became obvious that this estrangement was beneficial to the Continuing churches. The Anglican Catholic Church even went so far as to add this note to the original Affirmation of St. Louis:
"[Note: Because of the action of General Synod of the Church of England, Parliament, and the Royal Assent, the College of Bishops of the Anglican Catholic Church is obliged no longer to count the See of Canterbury as a faithful part of the Anglican Communion.]"
The operative word is "faithful," both in the original and in the note. To preserve Church order and the validity of Holy Orders, the separation proved necessary. Perhaps there exists a failure of communication between us and the ACNA. You see, we are glad not to be in communion with Canterbury. If we were offered communion with Canterbury we would decline it, as in "Thanks, but no thanks."
The ACNA, on the other hand (which still has Priestesses in the Church, though we hope, and pray, not for long), has held communion with Canterbury as worth having. And this comes at a time when the Anglican Communion is falling apart, due largely to the refusal of African churches to participate in future Lambeth Conferences. For most of those African Anglicans, the final straw has been the liberal acceptance of homosexual acts, something very clearly revealed to be sin in the Scriptures.
Perhaps, under political pressure, someday in the future, the Church of England will go the way of the Church of Sweden, where the clergy are required by law to perform same-sex "weddings." I have no doubt that right here, in my adopted state of North Carolina, the local Episcopalians will be performing same-sex "weddings" and feeling all warm and fuzzy about how liberal and advanced they have become. The See of Canterbury has watched for years the Episcopalians, trailing only slightly behind them into heresy and apostasy.
Back in the beginning, the Continuers saw that ordination of women was simply the latest symptom, and one that required separation to protect sacramental validity. The arguments that were used for women's ordination were not merely similar to the arguments for acceptance of homosexual acts, leading to same-sex "blessings" and now "weddings," but largely the very same arguments. Just substitute a word here and there, and it all boils down to the same reasoning. Where did it begin? By believing that a person's sex (not "gender"- the word is "sex"- as in male and female) was totally irrelevant to anything sacramental. So, it went from ordination to marriage. The confusion of seeing a woman "priest" at the altar, portraying the heavenly Bridegroom, and seeing two people of the same sex get "married" to each other, may be different in degree, but it is the same in kind. The C of E, with its priestesses and bishopettes, is just a little behind the Episcopalians here in America. It is only a matter of time, as always.
What is the Anglican Communion anyway? Was the Episcopal Church part of something called the Anglican Communion in the late eighteenth century? How about during the War of 1812? Historically, the Anglican Communion is a very recent thing.
I would urge my friends in the ACNA, including those in the REC, to cut themselves free from the weight of it. Of my charity, I wish they would take several pages from our book. One of those pages says we don't need communion with the See of Canterbury. No orthodox church body does. In fact, no orthodox church body can afford the price that comes with it.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Sydney Anglicans and Other Oxymorons
A Facebook friend named Mark Talley wrote something in a group called "The Society of Archbishops Cranmer and Laud" (which also happens to be the title of another blog I've posted on). He said there:
"When I asked the present Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, when he was Principal of Moore College, why the College no longer used the Book of Common Prayer in worship (although it was studied as an historical document then - I'm not sure if it even has that precarious status now), he replied that there was no longer a place for the Prayer Book in living worship.
"Furthermore, he said, it would be an obstacle to the preaching of the Gospel, rather than an aid."
That sounds like Archbishop Peter Frederick Jensen. He is the one who allows lay members to celebrate the Eucharist as if they were ordained to the priesthood. I have written about that before, as readers of The Continuum may recall.
"When I asked the present Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, when he was Principal of Moore College, why the College no longer used the Book of Common Prayer in worship (although it was studied as an historical document then - I'm not sure if it even has that precarious status now), he replied that there was no longer a place for the Prayer Book in living worship.
"Furthermore, he said, it would be an obstacle to the preaching of the Gospel, rather than an aid."
That sounds like Archbishop Peter Frederick Jensen. He is the one who allows lay members to celebrate the Eucharist as if they were ordained to the priesthood. I have written about that before, as readers of The Continuum may recall.
How does anyone recognize Anglicanism without the Book of Common Prayer? "Sydney Anglicanism" is an oxymoron. You know what an oxymoron is: Jumbo Shrimp, for example, is an oxymoron. A famous oxymoron is Grape Nuts. Actually, it is more than an Oxymoron, because it is not just a case of a second word standing in opposition to a first word. In truth, it is a double misnomer. Grape Nuts is a cereal that is neither grapes nor nuts. It has been used to explain "Christian Science," a cult with beliefs that make it neither Christian nor science.
Sydney Anglicanism, however, is merely an oxymoron. The Sydney part is accurate. They really are in that part of Australia. But, they are not Anglicans in any recognizable way.
To reject the Book of Common Prayer as having no place in "living worship" is to suggest that our worship is dead. We do not say that the Book of Common Prayer is essential to living worship, because Christians worship God with other forms of liturgy. But we do know that anyone who cannot worship the Father in spirit and in truth (John 4:23) using the Book of Common Prayer, simply has no understanding of what worshiping God is. Anyone who considers the Book of Common Prayer to be "an obstacle to the preaching of the Gospel, rather than an aid," simply has no knowledge of what the Gospel is.
Worshiping God in spirit and in truth is best accomplished with the truth revealed in the Bible. It has been said rightly, that the classical editions of the Book of Common Prayer are the Bible as prayer. Indeed, in the genuine Prayer Book tradition, everything is drawn out of Scripture. If the truth revealed in Scripture seems dead, it is because people have itching ears rather than ears to hear (II Tim. 4:3, Mat. 11:15, etc.).
The Gospel is preached by words that proclaim its content. The liturgy of Holy Communion, in every classical and genuine edition of the Book of Common Prayer, cannot be celebrated without the preaching of the Gospel taking place during the very act of prayer and worship. It is rehearsed fully each and every time. For this reason, I caution against distractions during the celebration, and against long delays and silence. It must flow in order to be the people's sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and so that each mind absorbs the full truth of the Gospel.
Spontaneous prayers have their place. But those who would cast off so fine a liturgy have nothing worthwhile to say about living worship or the preaching of the Gospel, except to itching ears.
Thursday, July 07, 2011
What of Sydney?
The question of Sydney Anglicanism has come up in recent comments. Sadly, the extremists in that diocese are being allowed to redefine the meaning of "Evangelicalism" among Anglicans. We must not allow this to take hold, or it will further the confusion of Babel against the blessings of clarity. In 2009 I posted my thoughts on the subject. I have edited the original to fit this current moment of history more acutely than the original. Here it is, a bit updated.
Sydney "Anglicanism" - the other innovation
Probably, most of our readers are aware of an innovation that had arisen in the Diocese of Sydney before the end of the last century. That innovation is called "Lay Administration," which means Lay Celebration of the Eucharist. It has never seemed necessary from my home in America to spend much time and effort combating the Sydney
However, some of the Sydney "Anglicans" have begun showing up in other spots, including America
The Reapparaisers have no concept of Antiquity, and would have to look up the term "Universal Consensus." They have a Bible, and they have modern teachers through whom they see as much of the English Reformers as those modern teachers care to let them see. Their spiritual and doctrinal epistemology jumps from the close of the first century (just the Bible), to the 16th century with a very brief stay, lest they gather more than they want, directly to the modern era (and, in some ways they have picked up more from the Anabaptists than from the English Reformers). For absolute authority they have a new version of Sola Scriptura, and it is not the kind first mentioned by Thomas Aquinas, or trumpeted by 16th century Reformers. The new Sola Scriptura is an absolute sola, in the sense of something destitute. In that sense, the Reappraisers finally have no Bible, at least not the Bible recognized by the Church.
The Bible, in their view, is subject to a process of reduction to an original or autographa, an actual manuscript produced by the writers. That is because those who hold to what we shall call Scriptura Egenus (i.e. Destitute) cannot trust even so much as the scribes who copied Scripture, inasmuch as discovery of a better manuscript has, theoretically, the power to overthrow the Bible as we know it. If you doubt this, consider that Dr. Wayne Grudem actually wrote that if a book were found, and verified to be the work of an Apostle from the First Century, we would have to recognize it as Scripture (apparently, without regard to its content).1 The logic of this must lead, as well, to the opposite conclusion: If a book could be shown not to be the work of an Apostle (Grudem's own dubious standard, inasmuch as no one knows who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews) it would have to be scratched from the Canon. An obvious problem with Grudem's view is that it places recognition of Scripture in the hands of modern day scientists and their methodologies, not in our trust that the Church has recognized the Master's voice as guided by the Holy Spirit with universal consensus in Antiquity (John 16:13, I Cor. 2:16).
Jensen vs. the Church
How does this relate to the Sydney
Once again, this presents the difference between Sola Scriptura, and this new Scriptura Egenus or Destitute. We all know Article VI, which opens, "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." The Article lists the Scriptures with the words, "the Canonical Books." Here we run into the genuine Anglican doctrine, because only the Church could have determined the Canon. Anyone who even so much as uses the expression "the Canon of Scripture" has already acknowledged what we call, in Hooker's terms, the Church with her authority, in which both Right Reason and Tradition are, actually, one.3
Here we see that by having a Canon of Scripture, rather than merely a Recommended Reading List, we may invoke the real meaning of the Vincentian Canon (in its original context, where it is perfectly harmonious with the correct meaning of sola scriptura): Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est ("That which has been believed always, everywhere and by all" – which, admittedly, requires poetic license). In determining doctrine, the teaching of the Church from earliest times and the Bible are interdependent and inseparable. To understand the Biblical doctrine on Eucharistic Celebration, we must see the apparent silence of Scripture on this one point as answered by the universal consensus of the community in which and to whom the New Testament was written; by whom it has been handed down with the rest of Scripture, and its various books recognized.
Here we see that by having a Canon of Scripture, rather than merely a Recommended Reading List, we may invoke the real meaning of the Vincentian Canon (in its original context, where it is perfectly harmonious with the correct meaning of sola scriptura): Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est ("That which has been believed always, everywhere and by all" – which, admittedly, requires poetic license). In determining doctrine, the teaching of the Church from earliest times and the Bible are interdependent and inseparable. To understand the Biblical doctrine on Eucharistic Celebration, we must see the apparent silence of Scripture on this one point as answered by the universal consensus of the community in which and to whom the New Testament was written; by whom it has been handed down with the rest of Scripture, and its various books recognized.
Archbishop Jensen has named Cranmer, Hooker and others, and quoted from the Articles, to try to strengthen his case, which he sets forth clearly:
"It is commonly suggested that the development of lay administration of the Holy Communion is contrary to the very being of Anglicanism. Certainly it would have to be agreed that non-priestly administration would be quite contrary to some expressions of Anglicanism. But the assertion that it is contrary to the ethos of the Anglican Church really speaks for one side of the Church only. It suggests that one particular view of priesthood and of communion, and one only, is of the essence of the Eucharistic theology. Without going into the question of whether there is only one valid opinion, it is empirically true that at least two views have been evident in the Church for a very long time. According to the thinking of one such view, lay administration is impossible. Accordingly to the other view it is possible, although opinions differ as to whether it is advisable."
Whether or not what the Ordinal presents within "the ethos of the Anglican Church really speaks for one side of the Church only," must be weighed by the Rites of Ordination that have been a part of the Church of England and Anglicanism since 1550, with the clarifications of the later editions. 4 So, does he mean that only "one side" believes the Preface to the Ordinal?
"It is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Which Offices were evermore had in such reverend Estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as are requisite for the same; and also by publick Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, were approved and admitted thereunto by lawful Authority. And therefore, to the intent that these Orders may be continued, and reverently used and esteemed in the Church of England, no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, in the Church of England, or suffered to execute any of the said Functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the Form hereafter following, or hath had Episcopal Consecration, or Ordination."
About the Ordinal, does only “one side” accept what is clearly stated by the imperative Form (or Accipe Spiritum Sanctum) in the Ordering of Priests? To "execute" the office of priest certainly includes Eucharistic celebration. But, to get around "which Offices were evermore had in such reverend Estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, except..." etc., Jensen makes this argument:
3 "The priestly role is above all that of pastor of the congregation and cannot be handed over to someone else.
4 Delegation of the various elements of the role is possible, however, and given developments in ecclesiology, desirable.
"5 The retention of administration of the Lord’s Supper as the only element which cannot be delegated detaches word from sacrament and confuses the congregation about the nature of the sacrament and the priestly role."
Earlier, he had quoted a report by the Australian House of Bishops called Eucharistic Presidency:
"As far as the English Reformation was concerned, the Report says: ‘we find the same heavy stress on the Ministry of the Word in relation to ordination, in line with the continental reformers. In the pre-Reformation Sarum rite, the candidate for priesthood was handed the chalice and/or paten as symbols of priestly office with the words, 'Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God', whereas in the 1552 English Ordinal, the Bible alone is given, accompanied by the words, 'Take thou authority to preach the Word of God, and to minister the holy sacraments in the congregation.’ (para 4.42)"
On which he builds his case further:
"That is to say the two dominical sacraments depend for their life upon the explicit word of Christ and upon the fact that they visibly proclaim the gospel. In particular, the Lord’s Supper focuses us on the death of Christ with the assurance of God’s favour towards us. It is a 'Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death' (Article 28).
“There is an indissoluble connection, therefore, between the word of God and the sacraments indicated by the necessity of the sermon in the service of Holy Communion. It is not 'Anglican' to equate word and sacrament. A non-preaching communion service is a contradiction in terms, where the taking of bread and wine is removed from the context of the preaching of God’s word. It is the word of God which warrants the sacrament and explains it. The communal eating of bread and wine is the outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace, namely the grace of God towards us in Christ and at work in our lives. Despite the current emphases of Eucharistic theology, the emphasis of the Book of Common Prayer (including the Catechism thereof) dwells on the Lord’s Supper as spiritual union with Christ (the refreshment of our souls by the bread and blood of Christ) and the faithful remembrance of what Christ has done on our behalf. What is required of those who come to the Lord’s Supper is that they 'examine themselves, whether they repent them truly of their former sins; steadfastly purposing to lead a new life; have a lively faith in God’s mercy through Christ, with a thankful remembrance of his death; and be in charity with all men' (Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer). Not surprisingly, the ordination service published with the Book of Common Prayer emphasises the priestly role of preaching and living the word of God rather than the administration of the sacraments"
The obvious, glaring problem with his reasoning is that he ignores what the bishop says in even the earliest Ordinal, when Ordering a man to the priesthood:
"Receive the holy goste, whose synnes thou doest forgeve, they are forgeven: and whose sinnes thou doest retaine, thei are retained: and be thou a faithful despensor of the word of god, and of his holy Sacramentes. In the name of the father, and of the sonne, and of the holy gost. Amen... Take thou aucthoritie to preache the word of god, and to minister the holy Sacramentes in thys congregacion[, where thou shalt be so appointed]."
In this earliest Ordinal it is sacramental ministry that identifies the specific Order of "priest" with the words of Scripture, "whose synnes thou doest forgeve, they are forgeven: and whose sinnes thou doest retaine, thei are retained."5
The later editions say the same thing, adding only these words to clarify, for those untrained in the use of Scripture, the specific Order , "... for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God Sydney
As has been stated on The Continuum, more than once, efforts by some Anglo-Catholics (following an alleged Roman Catholic lead) to reduce the priestly office to its sacramental role, and thereby to under-emphasize the pastoral and teaching responsibilities and gifts inherent in that Order, is quite wrong. This I have stated in clear terms more than once, summarizing my arguments with the words of E.J. Bicknell (from a footnote):
"As we have said, the English word priest by derivation simply means 'presbyter'. But it has acquired the meaning of 'sacerdos'. The Christian presbyter in virtue of his office is a 'priest'. Priesthood is one of his functions."6
We must turn neither to the right hand nor to the left, but walk within a via media that avoids extremes, following the advice of St. John Chrysostom not to endorse by accident one error through the effort of refuting the opposite error.7 In this manner we must refute Jensen's view. Archbishop Jensen argues that the laity may preach, and that, of necessity, along with preaching is Eucharistic Celebration; if they may do one they may do the other. 8 We may explore the argument itself presently, but first we must note that he tries to pin Sydney
“Is it a small office to despise the Church of God
Hooker upholds not only the teaching of the Church, but also, what he calls “her ecclesiastical authority,” not to be redundant, but to extend the meaning to include all aspects of polity.
No one doubts that some sort of Lay Preaching is permissible under certain conditions, and certainly no one should silence a member of the laity who can, by writing and teaching, edify and instruct us in the ways of holiness and in theology, or who may be a very effective evangelist. Indeed, and without any dispute, Deacons may preach from the pulpit if licensed by the Bishop. But, the Anglican Ordinal, in the Ordering of Priests, lays specific and particular emphasis on the authority, responsibility and the gift through Ordination to be a minister of God's word in a new way that he had not been heretofore as a Deacon, and does so in a line that includes as well his sacramental role. Surely this teaches us something of substance. The priest has a duty and a charism to be that minister of Word and Sacrament, and this answers Jensen's argument on the connection between preaching and celebrating the Eucharist. Furthermore, it answers it according to the only practice ever permitted in the Church, both before and after the English Reformation.
Archbishop Jensen and the Sydney "Anglicans" quite rightly reject women's "ordination." But, they employ the same method of Scriptura Egenus used by its advocates. In so doing they reject both the particular teaching of Anglicanism, and how that teaching is one of fidelity to Scripture as understood since the beginning in Antiquity, through the Right Reason of Tradition by “the Church with her authority.” The result is, in the Diocese of Sydney, though they are for the moment free from the error of women’s “ordination,” they promote an innovation every bit as rebellious and heretical.
____________________________
1. Grudem, Wayne: Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Zondervan Publishers, 1995 Van Nuys.
2. It is entitled Theological reflection on lay administration.
3. “Be it in matter of the one kind or of the other, what Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after this the Church succeedeth that which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason overrule all other inferior judgments whatsoever.” (Richard Hooker, The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity,Book 5.VIII.2)
4. That is, clarification of what the Rites always had meant.
5. From an earlier Latin Ordinal translated by Cranmer, the first English Ordinal used verses of Scripture to identify respectively the three Orders.
6. E.J.Bicknell, A Theological Introduction to The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. See Pastoral Priesthood, andThe Elders that Rule Well.
7. St. John
8. What does he make, then, of Cranmer's rubric from the 1549 Book of Common Prayer? "When the holy Communion is celebrate on the workeday, or in private howses: Then may be omitted, the Gloria in excelsis, the Crede, the Homily, and the exhortacion, beginning..."
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Lessons from the Proto-Council of Jerusalem
In order to justify their own brand of Doctrinal Development, modern (or post-modern) revisionists have invented a story that is not in the Bible at all, even though they insist that they find it there.
The story goes like this: During the early years of the Church a great controversy raged about how to include Gentile converts. The Church was not sure whether or not they needed to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses, or if they could be admitted simply by baptism. The two parties in the controversy were represented by St. Paul for the baptism party and his opponent, St. James for the circumcision party. This division, disagreement and controversy was settled after many years at the Council of Jerusalem, where the Apostles finally came to some agreement. Furthermore, the years of controversy are a precedent for contemporary Christians to struggle through a "period of reception" about new leadings of the Holy Spirit, for example, women's ordination and Blessings for same sex unions. Just as God did a new thing with the Gentiles, while Peter and James learned to adjust, so he is doing now with priestesses and with conjugal blessings for Adam and Steve, Frankie and Johnnie, etc. We see from the controversy that raged in the Book of Acts that this is normal, just the way the Spirit works.
But, as a matter of fact, there was no controversy about what to do with Gentiles. There was, rather, a settled doctrine, and it was the only Tradition of the Church regarding Gentile converts. When this settled Tradition and dogma of the Church was challenged, the challengers were not treated as equals whose opinion deserved consideration. Rather they were seen to be heretics (the first heretics), and were told, frankly, to shut up, sit down and accept the authority of the Apostles. They were told to stop, and those who persisted were labeled false teachers, and warnings were sent to the churches not to heed them. The Council of Jerusalem is the prototype for the Ecumenical Councils, presenting defense of the Faith against heretical innovation that was contrary to the received doctrine of the Church as based on revelation.
Let us look at the record of Scripture.
And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them. But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying, I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me: Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat. But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth. But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven. And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me. And the spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house: And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. (Acts 11:1-18)
Certain things must be noticed in this account. Peter likened the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the house of Cornelius to the Day of Pentecost ("...the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us..."). Unlike the usual laying on of the Apostle's hands, these Gentiles were Confirmed directly from heaven, even before Baptism. The message was clear; the Pentecost experience was exactly duplcated, or rather, extended to Gentiles. Later, Peter would say, "And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:8,9). The words "no difference" were because of the Divine action that repeated what happened on Pentecost itself.
Established doctrine
The other thing we must note from the discussion between Peter and the other Apostles and brethren is how quickly they accepted his words. There was no controversy at all once they heard what happened from Peter's own mouth: "When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." There it is: The unanimous declaration by the Apostles that they received this revelation from God about how the Gospel would be received by believers among the nations of the earth. They knew that it would be done, and now God revealed how. This was now the teaching of the Church, the doctrine of the Apostles.
Later, during a brief episode Peter would lapse into his old way of treating Gentiles, giving in to some embarrassment at Antioch (Gal. 2:11f), and receiving a rebuke from his brother Apostle, St. Paul, for failing to live by the very doctrine that he, Peter, had himself first proclaimed, and which he still professed. This episode mentioned in the Epistle to the Galatians bears no resemblance to what followed. The sudden appearance of the "Judaizers" comes as a shock in the Book of Acts, a disruption of the Church's teaching and order. "And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question." (Acts 15:1,2)
The Council of Apostles and Presbyters in Jerusalem were not there to reconsider the revelation given to Peter all those years earlier; they did not come with an open mind considering some possibility that they may have been mistaken in their recognition that God had poured out his Spirit on the Gentiles. Neither did James come there holding out after many years and resisting the new movement of the Spirit during a "period of reception." James, as the local Apostle (bishop) appears to be presiding over this Council as its host, joining his voice to that of the all the other Apostles in defending the teaching that the Church received on that day, years earlier, when Peter was given the revelation. As for Peter (based on the part I quoted above from this same 15th chapter), it seems he must have read Paul's Epistle to the Romans, or perhaps, simply had always taught the same doctrine (imagine that).
The lesson of Acts chapter 15 is not that the Church is slow to catch on when the Spirit moves, and that we need a "period of reception" on those occasions when "time makes ancient good uncouth." There was no controversy or misunderstanding on the part of the men who held the offices of authority to teach in the Church.
And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name...Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God. (14, 19)
The clearest language is employed to describe the authority with which these men sent out their unanimous defense of the revelation that had been unanimously received years earlier, which Tradition they now asserted once more.
"For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things." (v.28)
The revisionists will have to come up with something better to defend their innovations. Their tale of a long drawn-out controversy over "a new thing" simply is not what the Bible says.
The story goes like this: During the early years of the Church a great controversy raged about how to include Gentile converts. The Church was not sure whether or not they needed to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses, or if they could be admitted simply by baptism. The two parties in the controversy were represented by St. Paul for the baptism party and his opponent, St. James for the circumcision party. This division, disagreement and controversy was settled after many years at the Council of Jerusalem, where the Apostles finally came to some agreement. Furthermore, the years of controversy are a precedent for contemporary Christians to struggle through a "period of reception" about new leadings of the Holy Spirit, for example, women's ordination and Blessings for same sex unions. Just as God did a new thing with the Gentiles, while Peter and James learned to adjust, so he is doing now with priestesses and with conjugal blessings for Adam and Steve, Frankie and Johnnie, etc. We see from the controversy that raged in the Book of Acts that this is normal, just the way the Spirit works.
But, as a matter of fact, there was no controversy about what to do with Gentiles. There was, rather, a settled doctrine, and it was the only Tradition of the Church regarding Gentile converts. When this settled Tradition and dogma of the Church was challenged, the challengers were not treated as equals whose opinion deserved consideration. Rather they were seen to be heretics (the first heretics), and were told, frankly, to shut up, sit down and accept the authority of the Apostles. They were told to stop, and those who persisted were labeled false teachers, and warnings were sent to the churches not to heed them. The Council of Jerusalem is the prototype for the Ecumenical Councils, presenting defense of the Faith against heretical innovation that was contrary to the received doctrine of the Church as based on revelation.
Let us look at the record of Scripture.
And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them. But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying, I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me: Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat. But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth. But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven. And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me. And the spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house: And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. (Acts 11:1-18)
Certain things must be noticed in this account. Peter likened the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the house of Cornelius to the Day of Pentecost ("...the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us..."). Unlike the usual laying on of the Apostle's hands, these Gentiles were Confirmed directly from heaven, even before Baptism. The message was clear; the Pentecost experience was exactly duplcated, or rather, extended to Gentiles. Later, Peter would say, "And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:8,9). The words "no difference" were because of the Divine action that repeated what happened on Pentecost itself.
Established doctrine
The other thing we must note from the discussion between Peter and the other Apostles and brethren is how quickly they accepted his words. There was no controversy at all once they heard what happened from Peter's own mouth: "When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." There it is: The unanimous declaration by the Apostles that they received this revelation from God about how the Gospel would be received by believers among the nations of the earth. They knew that it would be done, and now God revealed how. This was now the teaching of the Church, the doctrine of the Apostles.
Later, during a brief episode Peter would lapse into his old way of treating Gentiles, giving in to some embarrassment at Antioch (Gal. 2:11f), and receiving a rebuke from his brother Apostle, St. Paul, for failing to live by the very doctrine that he, Peter, had himself first proclaimed, and which he still professed. This episode mentioned in the Epistle to the Galatians bears no resemblance to what followed. The sudden appearance of the "Judaizers" comes as a shock in the Book of Acts, a disruption of the Church's teaching and order. "And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question." (Acts 15:1,2)
The Council of Apostles and Presbyters in Jerusalem were not there to reconsider the revelation given to Peter all those years earlier; they did not come with an open mind considering some possibility that they may have been mistaken in their recognition that God had poured out his Spirit on the Gentiles. Neither did James come there holding out after many years and resisting the new movement of the Spirit during a "period of reception." James, as the local Apostle (bishop) appears to be presiding over this Council as its host, joining his voice to that of the all the other Apostles in defending the teaching that the Church received on that day, years earlier, when Peter was given the revelation. As for Peter (based on the part I quoted above from this same 15th chapter), it seems he must have read Paul's Epistle to the Romans, or perhaps, simply had always taught the same doctrine (imagine that).
The lesson of Acts chapter 15 is not that the Church is slow to catch on when the Spirit moves, and that we need a "period of reception" on those occasions when "time makes ancient good uncouth." There was no controversy or misunderstanding on the part of the men who held the offices of authority to teach in the Church.
And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name...Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God. (14, 19)
The clearest language is employed to describe the authority with which these men sent out their unanimous defense of the revelation that had been unanimously received years earlier, which Tradition they now asserted once more.
"For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things." (v.28)
The revisionists will have to come up with something better to defend their innovations. Their tale of a long drawn-out controversy over "a new thing" simply is not what the Bible says.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
The Name of God - Revelation and Imagination
From New Directions, March 2002
Robert Hart on inclusive language
Lex Orandi Lex Credendi, ‘The law of prayer is the law of belief.’ New forms and versions of Christian liturgy become a danger to right belief to the extent that the language of such prayer is a departure from the language of revelation. Setting aside ‘what has been believed everywhere, always and by all’ (St Vincent of Lerins), creative liturgists have set about giving us new services and prayers that reach even beyond ‘inclusive language’ to call God by the unrevealed name of ‘Mother.’ This equates mere imagination with what the Church believes by revelation. The message is that God has revealed a new thing contradicting the previous revelation, making him arbitrary, confused or capricious; or, that the Christian religion is not revealed. If not revealed, then we must conclude it to be a product of that same capacity of imagination which has created religions throughout the history of man. We must conclude that all religion is merely idolatry.
‘Inclusive Language’ about God and God as ‘Mother’
‘Inclusive language’ is nothing but an ideology, based upon the false notion that ‘Man’, adam, anthropos, homo, has lost any meaning inclusive of the entire human race, making it and all related words – him, his or he – into exclusive language.1 Hence, the promise of salvation given to each individual in John 6.40 (‘I will raise him up on the last day’) becomes subject to ideological imposition of a plural to replace the singular. There is no substitute for the individual use of ‘him’, and so the Lord is misquoted as saying, ‘I will raise them up on the last day.’(1982 Hymnal) The havoc that is wrought on theology is this: the promise now appears to be made to a group, in which group not every individual, even though a faithful believer, is given any assurance of the resurrection. Or, when men are spoken of in a genuinely exclusive sense, we lose, as in the NRSV, the very much needed use of ‘fathers’ in Malachi 4.6, at a time when society’s need for men to take their paternal role has become a crisis. This unjustified rendering of av’yot as ‘parents’ instead of ‘fathers’ is just one example of many.
We can no longer speak of God as ‘Father,’ or ‘Lord.’ ‘Son’ is also unacceptable. The argument is that a God who is Father, or Son, or Lord must be inaccessible to women. The logical answer to this problem is to meet the needs of women by the elimination of ‘the Father,’ or, more boldly, by introducing ‘God the Mother’. And why not? Is it not helpful to fashion a new image of God based upon a perceived need? And, besides, we are told, the Bible gives us feminine names for God and images of God. This ideology requires a misunderstanding of the concept of names in Biblical literature, as well as a complete ignorance of the scriptural prohibition against attempting to make images of the Divine Nature. It denies revealed religion, preferring an image.
Feminist writers have ‘discovered’ a feminine meaning to such words as ruach, shadai, or shekinah, etc. Never mind the fact that there is no factual basis for these assertions, they fit the need of the ideology even despite their being fictitious. Fraudulent translations have been invoked, such as a ‘translation’ of the Hebrew word rawchem as ‘motherly compassion’, even though the ‘motherly’ part was dishonestly inserted. Be warned: this is not what it appears to be. They are not looking for authority in the revelation of scripture, but only to market their idea. Their entire system has nothing to do with revelation, and in the end must negate it.
The Revelation: what is in a name?
To the ancient Hebrews, a name represented the very person. After Israel returned to their land from Babylon, they ceased to pronounce the holy ineffable Name of God. In place of the mysterious YHVH they would say the word Adonai, which was translated into Greek as Kyrios, and into English as ‘Lord.’ From this we see that the New Testament proclaims Jesus as God by calling him Lord (and also the Holy Spirit 2 Corinthians 3. 17). Also, we see that the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) pronunciation has been lost, perhaps providentially. We do not need the ineffable Name; a far greater revelation shines in the brilliant light of the New Covenant.
The first mention of prayer is ‘Then began men to call upon the Name of the Lord (Genesis 4.26).’ In the greater glory of the New Covenant revelation, he teaches us: ‘In this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father Who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy Name’ (Matthew 6.9). When uttering what is called the High Priestly Prayer, he addresses God with that same Name, ‘Father.’ He says: ‘I have manifested Thy Name unto the men whom Thou gavest Me out of the world’ (John 17.6). Whether we ever again can say the ineffable Name, we have this greater revelation by which we call God ‘our Father’ – the gift of the Father’s love.
After rising from the dead, the Lord fully revealed the Divine Name by commanding us to baptize ‘in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost’ (Matthew 28.19). We see that ‘The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost’ is the Name of God. The revelation of the Trinity did not come as an abstract proposition; it came in the life of Jesus Christ, intricately bound up in his salvation. So it is that the Creeds teach us the truth of the Trinity and also of our redemption in Christ; for the revelation of one is intimately tied up in the revelation of the other. And, only in this Person, our salvation himself, is God revealed and known (John 17.3). This is not an image created by human imagination, but rather the saving revelation.
The Idolatry
At the end of the First Epistle of St John, is a very simple commandment: ‘Little children, keep yourselves from idols’ (1 John 5.21). It would have been very unlikely that people once enlightened by Christ, possessing knowledge of the true God, would be so easily deceived as to bow down before images made of wood or stone. The context of the Epistle is that it contrasts the truth of the Gospel against heresy, false teachings by which people are drawn to worship images of God that, though not ‘graven’, are nonetheless idols of the mind and heart.
One major characteristic of the feminist theology by which God’s Fatherhood is denied, and in which God is called ‘Mother’, is that the apologists for this sort of religion never use the word revelation. It is not in their vocabulary. Instead, they endorse their view of God by telling us of our need to have new and improved ‘images’ of the Divine; in this way, and by this method, they regard the revelation of God in Christ as though it is nothing but an ‘image’ as well.
Two kinds of images exist in religion: idols and icons. These two are opposites. Christ himself is called the Icon (εἰκών) of the Father in the Greek New Testament, for in his Incarnation we see that iconography exists by God’s own initiative, and is an echo of the revelation. And it is the very fact that it stems from the revelation of God that makes a written picture an icon instead of an idol. In a sense, the first icon of God was Adam; the perfect such icon is the Incarnate Christ (2 Corinthians 4.4, Colossians 1.15). We are transformed into the icons of Christ by the Holy Spirit (Romans 8.29, 2 Corinthians 3.18). ‘The Word was made flesh … and we beheld his glory’ (John 1.14). Therefore, the Church regards iconoclasm as a heresy; it was not the destruction of idols, but rather a subtle denial of Christ’s having taken human nature into his Person, and thus into the Godhead. So, the difference between iconography and idolatry is, above all else, the source; it is also the intention. Icons are based upon divine revelation, and are themselves sacramentals.
But, idols are not based upon God’s revelation. The English word image is related to the word imagination; and only understood as a product of imagination do we see religious images as idols. The human imagination, I believe, with the aid of the demons creates images as it creates gods and goddesses. People who would not worship the work of their own hands will nonetheless worship the work of their minds. The feminist theologians actually are saying that their image of a Mother God is at least equal (and I think they believe it is superior) to the revelation of the Father in Christ. Put another way, they are saying that Christianity is a form of idolatry; in fact that is their view of all religion. By this construct, there was no difference between worshiping the Lord and sacrificing to the golden calf. One was as much a mere image as the other. They want to worship their goddess, and call this pagan idolatry a form of Christianity.
But all in stages, like any strategy. First comes the ‘inclusive language’ stage. The baptismal formula has been substituted at times with ‘In the name of the Creator and the Redeemer and the Sanctifier’ – such is no true baptism. It is in three designations instead of the one Name of the Undivided Trinity. At this first stage we are told that our faith is simply the worship of an image, the product of human imagination (I would suggest that human imagination can only tend to shy away from such a mystery as the Trinity, and could not, therefore, have created it. But, that is a subject for another day). The second stage is the introduction of the new image: Mother God, the goddess, the Ashteroth, an image from the fallen mind for pagan adoration. And so, the revelation of God in Christ is rejected by being denied; the message is that it was no revelation, just an image of the divine which is outdated as a relic of the age of male dominance.
This is subtraction by addition. Christianity is based upon belief that the revelation is real and therefore true. The attempt to join a religion of human imagination to revealed religion causes not only a denial of the truth of revelation, but also of the fact of revelation. As a result there is nothing left in which to believe. The equation is simple. Idolatry plus revealed religion equals zero. Pagan idolatry can exist on its own, and revealed truth on its own. To wed the two is impossible as they must cancel each other out. Finally, it produces atheism.
Holding fast
St Paul told the Corinthian Church that they were being saved if they remembered the Gospel he taught them, lest they believed in vain (1 Corinthians 15.1f). We are commanded in scripture to ‘earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3). Our liturgies must not be the latest fad, the newest style, but the Tradition in which we pray to the God who revealed himself in Christ. Our Creeds must be the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene (Constantinopolitan) Creed, by which we rehearse the truths of our God and his salvation. We must baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and worship only this One undivided God who has, for our salvation, revealed himself to all men only in Christ. We must worship him only as he has made himself known by revelation, and never worship the images fashioned in our own minds. We must keep ourselves from idols.
1 See Jesus, Son of Humankind? By Paul Mankowski, S.J. in Touchstone, A Journal of Mere Christianity, vol. 14, num. 8, October, 2001.
Robert Hart on inclusive language
Lex Orandi Lex Credendi, ‘The law of prayer is the law of belief.’ New forms and versions of Christian liturgy become a danger to right belief to the extent that the language of such prayer is a departure from the language of revelation. Setting aside ‘what has been believed everywhere, always and by all’ (St Vincent of Lerins), creative liturgists have set about giving us new services and prayers that reach even beyond ‘inclusive language’ to call God by the unrevealed name of ‘Mother.’ This equates mere imagination with what the Church believes by revelation. The message is that God has revealed a new thing contradicting the previous revelation, making him arbitrary, confused or capricious; or, that the Christian religion is not revealed. If not revealed, then we must conclude it to be a product of that same capacity of imagination which has created religions throughout the history of man. We must conclude that all religion is merely idolatry.
‘Inclusive Language’ about God and God as ‘Mother’
‘Inclusive language’ is nothing but an ideology, based upon the false notion that ‘Man’, adam, anthropos, homo, has lost any meaning inclusive of the entire human race, making it and all related words – him, his or he – into exclusive language.1 Hence, the promise of salvation given to each individual in John 6.40 (‘I will raise him up on the last day’) becomes subject to ideological imposition of a plural to replace the singular. There is no substitute for the individual use of ‘him’, and so the Lord is misquoted as saying, ‘I will raise them up on the last day.’(1982 Hymnal) The havoc that is wrought on theology is this: the promise now appears to be made to a group, in which group not every individual, even though a faithful believer, is given any assurance of the resurrection. Or, when men are spoken of in a genuinely exclusive sense, we lose, as in the NRSV, the very much needed use of ‘fathers’ in Malachi 4.6, at a time when society’s need for men to take their paternal role has become a crisis. This unjustified rendering of av’yot as ‘parents’ instead of ‘fathers’ is just one example of many.
We can no longer speak of God as ‘Father,’ or ‘Lord.’ ‘Son’ is also unacceptable. The argument is that a God who is Father, or Son, or Lord must be inaccessible to women. The logical answer to this problem is to meet the needs of women by the elimination of ‘the Father,’ or, more boldly, by introducing ‘God the Mother’. And why not? Is it not helpful to fashion a new image of God based upon a perceived need? And, besides, we are told, the Bible gives us feminine names for God and images of God. This ideology requires a misunderstanding of the concept of names in Biblical literature, as well as a complete ignorance of the scriptural prohibition against attempting to make images of the Divine Nature. It denies revealed religion, preferring an image.
Feminist writers have ‘discovered’ a feminine meaning to such words as ruach, shadai, or shekinah, etc. Never mind the fact that there is no factual basis for these assertions, they fit the need of the ideology even despite their being fictitious. Fraudulent translations have been invoked, such as a ‘translation’ of the Hebrew word rawchem as ‘motherly compassion’, even though the ‘motherly’ part was dishonestly inserted. Be warned: this is not what it appears to be. They are not looking for authority in the revelation of scripture, but only to market their idea. Their entire system has nothing to do with revelation, and in the end must negate it.
The Revelation: what is in a name?
To the ancient Hebrews, a name represented the very person. After Israel returned to their land from Babylon, they ceased to pronounce the holy ineffable Name of God. In place of the mysterious YHVH they would say the word Adonai, which was translated into Greek as Kyrios, and into English as ‘Lord.’ From this we see that the New Testament proclaims Jesus as God by calling him Lord (and also the Holy Spirit 2 Corinthians 3. 17). Also, we see that the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) pronunciation has been lost, perhaps providentially. We do not need the ineffable Name; a far greater revelation shines in the brilliant light of the New Covenant.
The first mention of prayer is ‘Then began men to call upon the Name of the Lord (Genesis 4.26).’ In the greater glory of the New Covenant revelation, he teaches us: ‘In this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father Who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy Name’ (Matthew 6.9). When uttering what is called the High Priestly Prayer, he addresses God with that same Name, ‘Father.’ He says: ‘I have manifested Thy Name unto the men whom Thou gavest Me out of the world’ (John 17.6). Whether we ever again can say the ineffable Name, we have this greater revelation by which we call God ‘our Father’ – the gift of the Father’s love.
After rising from the dead, the Lord fully revealed the Divine Name by commanding us to baptize ‘in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost’ (Matthew 28.19). We see that ‘The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost’ is the Name of God. The revelation of the Trinity did not come as an abstract proposition; it came in the life of Jesus Christ, intricately bound up in his salvation. So it is that the Creeds teach us the truth of the Trinity and also of our redemption in Christ; for the revelation of one is intimately tied up in the revelation of the other. And, only in this Person, our salvation himself, is God revealed and known (John 17.3). This is not an image created by human imagination, but rather the saving revelation.
The Idolatry
At the end of the First Epistle of St John, is a very simple commandment: ‘Little children, keep yourselves from idols’ (1 John 5.21). It would have been very unlikely that people once enlightened by Christ, possessing knowledge of the true God, would be so easily deceived as to bow down before images made of wood or stone. The context of the Epistle is that it contrasts the truth of the Gospel against heresy, false teachings by which people are drawn to worship images of God that, though not ‘graven’, are nonetheless idols of the mind and heart.
One major characteristic of the feminist theology by which God’s Fatherhood is denied, and in which God is called ‘Mother’, is that the apologists for this sort of religion never use the word revelation. It is not in their vocabulary. Instead, they endorse their view of God by telling us of our need to have new and improved ‘images’ of the Divine; in this way, and by this method, they regard the revelation of God in Christ as though it is nothing but an ‘image’ as well.
Two kinds of images exist in religion: idols and icons. These two are opposites. Christ himself is called the Icon (εἰκών) of the Father in the Greek New Testament, for in his Incarnation we see that iconography exists by God’s own initiative, and is an echo of the revelation. And it is the very fact that it stems from the revelation of God that makes a written picture an icon instead of an idol. In a sense, the first icon of God was Adam; the perfect such icon is the Incarnate Christ (2 Corinthians 4.4, Colossians 1.15). We are transformed into the icons of Christ by the Holy Spirit (Romans 8.29, 2 Corinthians 3.18). ‘The Word was made flesh … and we beheld his glory’ (John 1.14). Therefore, the Church regards iconoclasm as a heresy; it was not the destruction of idols, but rather a subtle denial of Christ’s having taken human nature into his Person, and thus into the Godhead. So, the difference between iconography and idolatry is, above all else, the source; it is also the intention. Icons are based upon divine revelation, and are themselves sacramentals.
But, idols are not based upon God’s revelation. The English word image is related to the word imagination; and only understood as a product of imagination do we see religious images as idols. The human imagination, I believe, with the aid of the demons creates images as it creates gods and goddesses. People who would not worship the work of their own hands will nonetheless worship the work of their minds. The feminist theologians actually are saying that their image of a Mother God is at least equal (and I think they believe it is superior) to the revelation of the Father in Christ. Put another way, they are saying that Christianity is a form of idolatry; in fact that is their view of all religion. By this construct, there was no difference between worshiping the Lord and sacrificing to the golden calf. One was as much a mere image as the other. They want to worship their goddess, and call this pagan idolatry a form of Christianity.
But all in stages, like any strategy. First comes the ‘inclusive language’ stage. The baptismal formula has been substituted at times with ‘In the name of the Creator and the Redeemer and the Sanctifier’ – such is no true baptism. It is in three designations instead of the one Name of the Undivided Trinity. At this first stage we are told that our faith is simply the worship of an image, the product of human imagination (I would suggest that human imagination can only tend to shy away from such a mystery as the Trinity, and could not, therefore, have created it. But, that is a subject for another day). The second stage is the introduction of the new image: Mother God, the goddess, the Ashteroth, an image from the fallen mind for pagan adoration. And so, the revelation of God in Christ is rejected by being denied; the message is that it was no revelation, just an image of the divine which is outdated as a relic of the age of male dominance.
This is subtraction by addition. Christianity is based upon belief that the revelation is real and therefore true. The attempt to join a religion of human imagination to revealed religion causes not only a denial of the truth of revelation, but also of the fact of revelation. As a result there is nothing left in which to believe. The equation is simple. Idolatry plus revealed religion equals zero. Pagan idolatry can exist on its own, and revealed truth on its own. To wed the two is impossible as they must cancel each other out. Finally, it produces atheism.
Holding fast
St Paul told the Corinthian Church that they were being saved if they remembered the Gospel he taught them, lest they believed in vain (1 Corinthians 15.1f). We are commanded in scripture to ‘earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3). Our liturgies must not be the latest fad, the newest style, but the Tradition in which we pray to the God who revealed himself in Christ. Our Creeds must be the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene (Constantinopolitan) Creed, by which we rehearse the truths of our God and his salvation. We must baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and worship only this One undivided God who has, for our salvation, revealed himself to all men only in Christ. We must worship him only as he has made himself known by revelation, and never worship the images fashioned in our own minds. We must keep ourselves from idols.
1 See Jesus, Son of Humankind? By Paul Mankowski, S.J. in Touchstone, A Journal of Mere Christianity, vol. 14, num. 8, October, 2001.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)