6.18.2007 | "I am both Muslim and Christian"

Got to love the Episcopal Church. Its members run the gamut from orthodox catholic Christians (yes, this would mean something quite different if "orthodox" and "catholic" were capitalized), all the way to those who not only disagree that Scripture is the rock upon which our faith is based, but twist themselves in knots attempting to prove that black is white and night is day.

Case in point is one "Rev." Ann Holmes Redding, who claims to be both a Christian and a Muslim. Here are the basics, from the Seattle Times:

Shortly after noon on Fridays, the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding ties on a black headscarf, preparing to pray with her Muslim group on First Hill.

On Sunday mornings, Redding puts on the white collar of an Episcopal priest.

She does both, she says, because she's Christian and Muslim.

Redding, who until recently was director of faith formation at St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral, has been a priest for more than 20 years. Now she's ready to tell people that, for the last 15 months, she's also been a Muslim — drawn to the faith after an introduction to Islamic prayers left her profoundly moved.

That movement must have been some brain flush. Taking the position of the proverbial man from Mars, one would have to apply simple logic: one can not hold two or more mutually exclusive beliefs. Ah, says that Martian man: perhaps these beliefs are not, actually, in conflict.

Now what I'm about to write is without prejudice. I have my beliefs, but can't condemn Redding for not sharing them. However, as a Christian, I must, repeat must, believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the only begotten Son of God, and was God incarnate. Also on the short but essential list of "must believes" is that Jesus was fully divine, and fully human, and died to put paid to our sins; that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day, and that those who confess Jesus as Lord and Savior will be saved.

Thousands of years of struggles, including much violence (really Christian...not) has taken place on the details. But these seem to be the basics. Until recently, even the liberal denominations might have agreed. Apparently there are some Piskies who no longer can sign up even to those minimalist creedal-type statements.

Islam does not recognize God incarnate; to them, Jesus was a prophet, and not even the last or most authoritative one. Just a man, in other words. In the simplest of terms, one may not logically be both a Christian and a Muslim, since Muslims can't accept that Jesus was the only begotten Son of God.

Which leads to the conclusion that Redding should not claim any longer to be an Episcopal priest. If she isn't tossed out on her hijab, then all this says is that her bishop, Rt. Rev. Vincent Warner of the Olympia (Washington) Diocese, is just as confused as she is.

Getting back to that man from Mars, the only logical conclusion he might reach is that while Christianity and Islam are incompatible in some core beliefs, Redding, and the Olympia Diocese, are not Christian believers.

6.02.2007 | Do not be conformed to this world

The title is from Paul's letter to the Romans (12:2), and is some of the best advice one can take as a Christian. Many of us, including me, ignore this when it suits us. But that doesn't change its wisdom.

The point is that there are truths that don't just stand the test of time; they were true in the beginning and will be true until the end of time. We evade these truths, often to the point of actively denying that they are true. And then go to great lengths to attempt to justify ourselves.

A case in point is today's article in the Washington Post religion section on how some churchmen live their lives. The comparison could not be starker: an Episcopal bishop in Cleveland who just bought a mansion in a posh suburb for $1.66 million; a Catholic bishop who lives in a rectory with four priests in downtown Cleveland.

The article's author, to his credit, cites what Jesus himself told us to do if we would be his disciple:

If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.(Matthew 19:21)

However, since it is the Washington Post, the absolute authority of Scripture mustn't be acknowledged, let alone treated as normative. Hence this bit of "I'm ok, you're ok" philosophy:

Today, spiritual leaders are challenged by different theological imperatives. At one end is the prosperity theology movement that sees individual wealth as a sign of God's favor. At the other end are theologians who say spiritual leaders should live with their flocks.

"If people are looking for nice, simple, neat formulas, they don't exist," Blomberg said. "It's probably best discerned community by community."

Yes, the author is correct. There are two "ends." Joel Osteen is an example of one who puts forward the gospel of prosperity. Jesus Christ is the standard, however. Not Joel Osteen. And there's not much in the true Gospel about placing any priority on earthly riches. Just the opposite, in fact.

The Episcopal bishop, hardly a servant, justified his choice thusly:

The elements that went into deciding where to live were primarily personal and had to do with finding a home for our young family that had access to schools and proximity to my office and also a place where we could offer hospitality to the diocese," he said.

God will be the final judge on this high churchman, and, given the vanishing nature of the Episcopal Church, perhaps he's the best frontman for its decline.

As for the Catholic bishop, he's doing what any who would claim to be Christ's intermediary on Earth ought to do.

3.29.2007 | Pesky Piskies

The Episcopal Church is easy to make fun of. Easy to do, but it's akin to shooting a tuna in a barrel. Not very sporting. But Episcopalians have brought much of this grief on themselves over the past few decades. Today they are perhaps best known as a collection of guilty but affluent white liberals. Which provides the sharpest possible contrast with the vast majority of the world's Anglicans, who tend to be poor, theologically conservative, and not white.

In different words, there are some good reasons why erstwhile strongholds of Anglicanism such as Truro Church here in Virginia may soon place themselves under the pastoral care of a Nigerian bishop. It's not because they've changed. It's because the "leadership" of the denomination appears to be more interested in making political and social policy points than in preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The new presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori, is what one might consider a liberal's liberal. What does this mean in practice? Let me defer to a voice far greater than mine, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, who, in his at once subtle and not-so-subtle way wrote about Schori thus (linked here; but subscription may be required):

In another interview, with Time magazine...[Schori] is asked, “What will be your focus as head of the U.S. church?” Answer: “Our focus needs to be on feeding people who go to bed hungry, on providing primary education to girls and boys, on healing people with AIDS, on addressing tuberculosis and malaria, on sustainable development. That ought to be the primary focus.” It’s an updated version of Our Lord’s Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20, in a manner of speaking. But perhaps preaching the gospel and saving souls is included in a secondary focus, so to speak.

This is, in a nutshell, the liberal churches' disease: they treat the symptoms, but ignore the root cause. Which is, of course, salvation.

Look, one need not be a Christian, although it is the best available confession. To be a Christian, one must do but one important thing: confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Everything else will flow from this. And, if you are a member of a confessing church, which the Episcopalians claim to be, this is all you should be about as a church.

What, say you? What about charity, helping the helpless? Jesus was quite clear on these things, and they are, of course, what a Christian must do. But they are not sufficient. Any atheist can do good. But churches must not become mere social welfare agencies. The instant they cease to preach the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ is the instant they lose any relevance as a Christian church.

It appears that the Episcopalians are now led by someone who is not, to be gentle, standing in the gap and preaching the gospel to the unsaved.

2.19.2007 | Humility

The Episcopal Church, withering away in terms of numbers of members in this country, is part of the world-wide Anglican Communion, whose spiritual leader is the Archbishop of Canterbury, currently Rowan Williams. The American branch abandoned a certain fealty to Scripture when it not just tolerated, but celebrated, the ordination of a practicing homosexual as a bishop. But, hey, what's Scripture when compared to self actualization and being who you want to be?

Regardless of one's stand on homosexuality, you can't square a circle. Put differently, you can't sustain two mutually exclusive beliefs at the same time. If one is to be a Christian, there are those annoying Scripture verses that condemn homosexual behavior in the strongest possible terms.

Note that all-important word, "behavior." God loves all of us, regardless of our sinful natures. At the same time, God hates the sins we commit. Homosexual behavior is sinful, do the math...We are not entitled to simply ignore inconvenient or politically incorrect Scripture.

Put differently: you don't have to agree with Scripture's black-letter meaning, but you also should not call yourself a Christian if you do not.

Here is where otherwise well-meaning (or, perhaps agenda-driven) Episcopalians want to have it both ways. And, as a result, are seeing more faithful (to Scripture) parishes split, and, in a reversal of historic roles, attach themselves to African churches. You see, the United States has become a missionary field for Scripturally-based African, especially Nigerian, churches.

At the same time, with the elevation of a dedicated liberal, and a woman at that, to be presiding bishop of the American branch, some conservative bishops have had enough. From this AP story, they've even gone to the length of refusing to take communion with the liberals:

Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola, who has called the acceptance of gay relationships a "satanic attack" on the church and who now leads a rival network formed by conservative Anglicans in the U.S.

On Friday, Akinola led seven conservative archbishops in refusing to take communion with [TEC Presiding Bishop] Jefferts Schori.

Well, perhaps Archbiship Akinola is over the top with that "satanic attack" business. And, perhaps, he has not shown what Rowan Williams properly has called "humility." Further, any Christian who refuses to take communion with another he regards as a sinner (clearly Akinola's brief) is, at best, a hypocrite.

As Rowan Williams said, "There is one thing that a bishop should say to another bishop -- 'That I am a great sinner and that Christ is a great savior.'" Jesus, as usual set the standard, and it is relayed in this story from the Gospel of John, chapter 8:

7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her...

9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

The message? All are welcome at Jesus' table. But they must go and sin no more. This is the part that today's Episcopal liberals simply don't accept.

1.05.2007 | "we don't have to water down the Gospel"

A front-page article on those pesky fundie 'piskies appeared in yesterday's Washington Post. It's yet another article in the anthropologic vein, down among the savages type of thing.

The central point is that Episcopalians, especially from the two parishes featured in the article, The Falls Church, and Truro Church, are not usually associated with fundamentalism or pentecostals. At least not in the eyes of those who write for the secular media.

Well, to borrow a phrase, Falls and Truro are not your grandfather's Episcopal church. They are both now independent of the liberal Virginia Diocese, and are both accused of "reading the Bible as the wholly true word of God." And believing that Christ is King, God incarnate, who died on our behalf, and was resurrected from the dead.

All things that would seem to be definitional for a Christian church, if not necessarily for the political activist clubs that many Episcopal churches have become. In fact, this is remarked on, in the negative, by the skeptical authors of the Post article:

Unlike many Episcopal churches nationally, neither Truro nor The Falls Church was active in supporting the civil rights movement or in protesting the Vietnam War.

Oh, the humanity! Were not active in supporting the civil rights movement! Did not protest the Vietnam War! All they seem to do in these churches is thump their Bibles and believe in strange things, like pig farmers in Arkansas or, even, in hideously backward places like Nigeria, whose Anglican primate has taken The Falls Church and Truro Church under his pastoral care.

What has caused these two old-line Episcopal parishes, among several others, to sever their ties? From the Post, a root cause appears to be the lack of Christian belief among the Episcopal Church:

Many say the rift involves something deeper -- whether the Bible is the word of God, Jesus is the only way to heaven and tolerance is more important than truth. When he was a newly ordained priest almost 20 years ago, Wright said, he talked with several other priests about how to respond to a teenager who asked, "Do you really believe in the Resurrection of Jesus?"

"The rest of the priests agreed that it was a sticky question, and they felt that way because they didn't believe in it, but they didn't want to say so," he said. "That's where the Episcopal Church has been for the last 20 years. It's not where we are [Rev. Rick Wright, associate rector, The Falls Church]."

It is incredible to me that a priest of a Christian church, any Christian church, would think that the Resurrection of Jesus was a "sticky question." And, as Rev. Wright said, diplomatically, to say the least, is "It's not where we are."

I should hope and pray not. One may believe as one's conscience dictates. But do not claim to be a Christian if you can't answer in the affirmative to the simplest of articles of your faith. If you don't believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, died for your sins, and was resurrected to join with God the Father, then do not call yourself Christian.

| technorati tag | Christianity|