One Question for the Lambeth Bishops: “Does It Matter?”

Let me begin by saying that my interest in the Anglican Communion and Lambeth, in particular, is as an outsider. With all of the arguing that is going on, I do have certain sides that I would agree with more than other (and I’d love to grab coffee with any of these bishops, liberal or conservative); however, I have no dog in this fight. I’m on no one’s side. I’m just intrigued by all that’s happening in their world now. That being said, there is much to lament about the Anglican Communion at present. As much as Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, would like us to believe that the center of this decade’s Lambeth Conference is not the issue of homosexual clergy (and the decision of some bishops to boycott the conference because of this), any search for news articles on the once-a-decade conference will prove otherwise. Here are some of the headlines:

“Archbishop of Canterbury: No Gay Sex, Please”

“Bishops at Lambeth Show an Unchristian Attitude to Gay People”

And perhaps one that tells us the most:

“Gay Bishop Defies His Conference Ban”

If the archbishop, indeed if all of the bishops, are not convinced enough yet to say that the issue of sexuality is, indeed,  a prevailing one in their Communion, perhaps they will be comfortable to admit something else. Maybe it’s about time they admitted that even if they did address these issues at Lambeth 2008, and even if they made definitive decisions on the matter, it would make no difference at all. That’s right! No difference at all.

The North American branch of the Communion (ECUSA) has made it perfectly clear, as N.T. Wright has said, that they care little about what the Communion in the rest of the world thinks of their actions, or even what they think about its timing. ECUSA, lead by Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schori, has seen fit to do whatever they please in ecclesial matters. Don’t believe me? Take V. Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire, as a prime example.

Bishop Robison is the first openly gay bishop ordained in the Anglican Church (the entire process of this, itself, was a scandal that should’ve been avoided for much more reasons than because he’s a homosexual). Bishop Robinson is also the only bishop to ever be uninvited from the historic Lambeth Conference. Not only was Robinson supposed to stay away from the conference, churches in the area were instructed not to invite him to preach at their masses, nor give special “talks” in order to preserve unity and avoid fighting during this important moment in time for the Anglican Church. But did that stop him? Absolutely not! If a word from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the senior most official in the church, is not going to keep a single bishop in line, how will it stop an entire branch of the communion from going astray? Of course, Bishop Robinson said he is not attending the conference itself; he is just in the city to remind the other bishops of the gay and lesbian community that is present in their churches. That could be his genuine sentiment. But how is the church supposed to view defiance to an order to remain away, when everyone (especially the newspapers) are quite aware that no one has forgotten the issue of sexuality in the church?

Is the Anglican Church wounded? It certainly seems so. If nothing else, a serious lack of leadership in this century has left the Communion wandering around like a pup without its master. It has no direction, nor does it seem to care that no one has a solid foundation for its future.

Perhaps now is the time that the bishops and archbishops will admit to themselves what everyone else seems to already know: whatever they decide doesn’t matter. No one listening is going to pay attention and obey anyway. Or, maybe they will begin to make their decisions matter. Maybe they will begin to hold up the authority of the church (as their ecclesial tradition demands) and side with or against Scripture and Christ. This way, either the liberals can be put out and proven to be unorthodox, or the traditionalists can be ostracized and forced to leave on account of their “intolerant” views. Surely, these are not the only two options, but some decision must be made. The Anglican Communion has to face the reality that it is being taken as a joke by most right now, especially if it is their desire to do more than merely survive the 21^st Century.

Brian McLaren Visits Lambeth…? This could get interesting

It’s an important time for Anglicans everywhere as the 2008 Lambeth Conference is well underway. I’ve been following the coverage closely, mostly because I’m a bit of a nerd with nothing better to do. Other than that, the news coming from the Anglican Communion regarding Synod votes to ordain female bishops, the GAFCON meeting which led the traditionalists to boycott the once a decade meeting, and the ever swinging debate of homosexuality in the church, there’s plenty of reasons to take notice with what’s happening at Lambeth Palace.

 

Earlier today, at a plenary session, emergent-activist Brian McLaren was invited to speak to the conference on the topic of evangelism. His words seem to have been received well by the Communion, though it’s difficult to say whether or not anything he said has any merit to it, or if it’s just vague enough to mean nothing. McLaren began by suggesting that the problem the church faces is learning how to co-exist with the three worlds that are present today: pre-modern, modern and emerging. As usual, coming from McLaren, these categories mean almost nothing, except that (in his view) the pre-modern church hopped into bed with the modern world in order to make compromises in evangelism, and now the emerging generation is left out in the cold from the church’s evangelism.

 

Episcopal Life Online had this to say:

McLaren said the emerging culture “has been orphaned by religion — religion has stopped answering its questions, it stopped making sense, it was very willing to withdraw into its shell and have the world fall apart.” He said the culture has also been orphaned by science “that promised solution but ended up giving only more deadly weapons. And it turns out that many of yesterday’s solutions caused today’s terrifying problems.” Members of this world have also been orphaned by technology, economic systems and consumerism and by “governments that continually promised them the world and continually deliver pitifully mediocre results.” (Click here for the full story.)

 

There are plenty of reasons to listen to McLaren’s caution. He goes on to say that many of our evangelism techniques have been nothing more than “tourist attractions.” If there’s any doubt about that, I’d encourage many of you to remember “pack a pew night” at te church from your youth. Cotton candy, games and prizes were promised, and we were sure to here a five minute Gospel of Evacuation presentation. That type of evangelism just isn’t going to cut it. He is absolutely right that in many ways the church has stopped making sense, but it doesn’t mean the church is non-existent, nor does it mean that we have to advocate the measures McLaren suggests.

 

His main conern is that, with Lambeth, Anglicans will retrieve into their shell of “internal institutional management.” Again, he says that the big decisions aren’t what we think they are (an obvious reference the controversy over homosexual bishop Gene Robinson). He views this as a serious distraction from the main work of gospel proclamation throughout the word – a gospel he defines as “Jesus’ gospel, the Gospel of the kingdom of God, the message that brings reconciliation, hope, transformation and engagement.” But there are two immediate problems with his assessment.

 

First, in order for a communion, especially one as large as the Worldwide Anglican Communion, to proclaim a gospel like the one he is advocating, certain internal institutional management is necessary. A group that large cannot go out to proclaim the gospel when they do not even agree over what the gospel is. With an ecclesial structure such as the Anglican church, authority is everything. If the authority is in question, the gospel cannot be confidently proclaimed. How could any confidence be placed in their church, God’s instrument of reconciliation, when the church cannot even agree on who its Biblical ministers are. Such internal maintenance is necessary in order to provide stability to gospel proclamation.

 

Second, McLaren’s definition of the gospel is not a definition at all. He says it brings reconciliation, hope and transformation, but we are left asking, “From what, to whom and for what purpose?” We cannot speak in abstracts like this. Answers to these types of questions define the type of gospel we preach. Is it a social gospel? Liberation theology? What gospel is it? It must be a gospel that finds its hope rooted in the effective death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That type of gospel, as it has been shown time and again, inevitably divides certain people. If McLaren intends for evangelism to be our main focus, we had better spend more time in “institutional management” making sure that we know what the gospel is, and that we’re not just telling people the good news of Jesus Christ without even knowing what that means! (More can be found on this elsewhere, so I won’t continue the discussion here).

 

Apart from this, McLaren made his usual comments about liturgy offering beauty, mystery and significance (as opposed to “mean – Spirited Protestant preaching), again without clarifying what he meant. Why? Because the “beauty” of the movement he’s leading is that there is no objectivity; it’s all mystery. There are no final answers, just journeys. Imagine an entire denomination following this move with him – Anglican, Baptist or other. That is a very dangerous road.

 

I know this has been a bit scattered, but I just wanted to leave some general thoughts about McLaren’s talk. The last thing he brought up was in a Q & A session on the issue of sexuality. He suggested the issues be treated “missiologically” for two years to see how we adapt to the situation in different cultures. The answers will differ, he says, depending on the setting. This is, of course, just a fancy way of saying that we can have it both ways. The Bible can say different things in different contexts, and we just have to accept it. I’ll just end by saying, No. No sir, you are definitely wrong.

 

Comments? Questions? Feedback?

 

P.S. Sorry I haven’t blogged in ages. I’ve got no good excuse other than I was busy…. I know. It’s pathetic.

“How a Roman Catholic Anti-Calvinist Can Serve Today’s Happy Calvinists”

John Piper has a great post celebrating the birthday of G. K. Chesterton (which is tomorrow).

For anyone who has been influenced by Chesterton, and even for those who may have never heard of him, I encourage you to read this post and then immediately pick up his book Orthodoxy. I won’t spend much time talking about how Chesterton has influenced my life, because I completely resonate with what Piper says.

What I would like to add is that whenever I read Chesterton, I feel the sense of mystery that should be felt in the Christian life. Too often, we can become too “academically-minded.” Now, I’m not against academics. I’m a seminary student who loves reading technical books that most of my friends back home who find appalling. However, the sad truth is that many of us (myself included) can become so consumed with understanding the depths of the knowledge of God that it becomes a cold scientific method rather than a pursuit.

I read Chesterton for the first time over 6 years ago, and I’ve never been the same. Any time I needed to be reminded of the beauty and romance of the Christian life, I turn to him – even if he should know better than to make some of the comments about Puritans and Calvinists that he does. 

What We Learn from Hannah Montana

Dr. Mike Milton has some insights on “Miley Cyrus and the Disappearance of Childhood.” It’s a must read, especially for parents and anyone involved in ministering to students.

Sunday Quote of the Week

G.K. Chesterton was an early twentieth century writer and philosopher - one of my personal favorites. His most famous work is Orthodoxy, but less known is its prequel Heretics. The opening lines of the book are somewhat haunting as they seem to apply as much today as they did one hundred years ago. If nothing else, his words should cause us to look around and see “how far we’ve come” (?) since the words were first written.

Nothing more strangely indicates an enormous and silent evil of modern society than the extraordinary use which is made nowadays of the word “orthodox.” In former days the heretic was proud of not being a heretic. It was the kingdom of the world and the police and the judges who were heretics. He was orthodox. He had no pride in having rebelled against them; they had rebelled against him. The armies with their cruel security, the kings with their cold faces, the decorous processes of State, the reasonable processes of law - all these like sheep had gone astray. The man was proud of being orthodox, was proud of being right. If he stood alone in a howling wilderness, he was more than a man; he was a church. He was the center of the universe; it was round him that the stars swung. All the tortures torn out of forgotten hells could not make him admit that he was heretical. But a few modern phrases have made him boast of it. He says, with a conscious laugh, “I suppose I am very heretical,” and looks round for applause. The word “heresy” not only means no longer being wrong; it practically means being clear-headed and courageous. The word “orthodoxy” not only no longer means being right; it practically means being wrong. All this can mean one thing, and one thing only. It means that people care less for whether they are philosophically right. For obviously, a man ought to confess himself crazy before he confesses himself heretical. The Bohemian, with a red tie, ought to pique himself on his orthodoxy. The dynamiter, laying a bomb, ought to feel that, whatever else he is, at least he is orthodox.

God and Richard Dawkins

Justin Taylor mentioned a seminary given by John Lennox (Oxford Univ.) on “God and Richard Dawkins.” Lennox is a respected Research Fellow at Oxford in Mathematics and Philosophy. The lecture can be obtained here.

I should warn you that I have not listened to the seminary yet [working during the Kentucky Derby can cause such problems], so I have no opinion on any outcome. I’ve heard Lennox before, and he seems like an intelligent and eloquent speaker, so - in any case - I’m looking forward to listening soon.

I’d also ask that anyone who’s going to listen to the lecture just to confirm their presuppositions (either Christians looking for ammo or atheists looking to “poke holes” in arguments) and then complain and/or comment here shouldn’t waste their time. No one on this blog gave the lecture, nor is supporting it or condemning it yet… so let’s try and keep it civil.

 

Che… looking forward to your insights and responses if you get a chance to check out the seminar.

Personal Reflections on a Personal Response to the “New Atheism”

As some of you know, I have recently become obsessed with studying this phenomenon that many are referring to as the “New Atheism.” Much of my free time has been devoted to listening to lectures online, finding and purchasing debates, and scanning the internet and the blogosphere’s intellegentsia to see what the leaders of this movement and their followers had to say. Most recently, I’ve prepared part of my reading list for this summer, which will begin with readings from Harris, Dawkins and Dennett, respectively, and followed by responses from McGrath and Haught. [Note: I have already worked through Hitchens’ work and D’Souza’s response].

The first piece of literature I have worked through has been Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation, and, to say the least, I found myself outraged by some of the arguments in the book. However, it is not my point here to point out the flaws and/or strong points I saw with Harris’ letter (100+ pages including the afterword), although there is much to talk about, and I will hopefully touch on that soon.

What amazes me most about Harris’ claims and his outright denial of God has almost nothing to do with him. In truth, as a Christian, I expect people to “suppress the knowledge of the truth” (Rom 1:19ff). It should not necessarily surprise me that people react the ways they do to the idea of a Supreme Being, much less the God of Scripture. No. What amazes me most about reading Mr. Harris’ letter is my own response to such a thing. As my roommate and close friends can account for, time and again I found my self uncontrollably upset about some of the arguments being made. I felt they were intellectually lacking in many respects, and the fact that the book had received so much attention was bothersome to me. My immediate response was anger and to call Mr. Harris a pompous jerk. And this afternoon I found my attitude in many ways incompatible with New Testament Christianity.

Hear me out on this. Poor arguments and attacks made against the Christian faith should be addressed, and I intend to address (briefly) Harris’ book later, once my emotions have calmed down. Such attacks cannot go unnoticed and unaddressed. However, the response from a Christian should be one that both represents the seriousness of the message of Christ and expresses the love that only Christ can place in our hearts. What I mean is that while righteous anger is sometimes necessary in responding to arguments like these, the Christian cannot be dominated by an angry spirit and seek to respond to an attack with another mean-spirited attack.

I hope this makes sense.

As I was reading Tom Schreiner’s A New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ this afternoon, I came upon his section on “The Saving Work of God and Christ in Paul.” As I read, the truth of what I expressed above fell on me like a ton of bricks. Here’s the point. My response to such arguments by men like Harris, Dawkins, etc., should not be primarily anger, but sorrow and concern for their attitude towards Christ. My response should not be an attack, but prayer.

I know that any “atheists”, “anti-theists”, “skeptics”, etc., who may read this could find my concern for them uneasy. No doubt, they will respond that they do not need my prayers, nor do they want them. They see my belief as silly as trusting in a fairy-tale wizard or a fairy godmother. Surely, they do not want my prayers, nor will they be moved with gratitude by my desire to do so. They will be unmoved and, perhaps, indignant at my assertions. Still I must pray.

I must pray, not because they want it, but because I am compelled by what I believe to act in this manner. We do, after all, believe that our belief determines our behavior, correct? I must be moved to prayer, because God is the only One who can do anything for them, just as He is the only One who could have ever caused me to see my need for Him. We all are born as those who rebel against God, and only God overcomes our rebellion.

I am not usually fond of these kinds of musings. Indeed, I find them to be cheesy and just plain weird many times, but this is my confession. My response to the claims of this so-called “New Atheism” must be praying for peace, not provoking an attack. Today, Justin Taylor pointed out a transcript from John Piper on humility that I have found very helpful. He points out that we should not marvel that those on the other side are lost, but that we on this side have even been saved [cf. Luke 10:20].

 

N.T. Wright and Bart Ehrman

For those of you who know Bryan, he has already linked to this, but I enjoyed reading their blogging debates so much I thought I’d link to the post as well.

Beleifnet posted a running dialogue (that is now over) between Wright and Ehrman over the “problem of suffering” (theodicy). Each contributor gave three posts, and it was an outstanding debate.

You can view the blogalogue homepage here and access the individual posts from there.

Sunday’s Quote of the Week

One of my favorite books is Cries of the Heart by Ravi Zacharias (who “just so happens” to be one of my favorite speakers and authors as well). I’d strongly recommend this book to everyone. Ravi has a way of taking things that you’ve always thought and/or felt but never been able to articulate, and he puts them on a page. In this particular section of the book, he talks about “The Cry to Know God.” This quote comes on the heels of a discussion of the fearful symmetry of God being both “Holy” and “Father.”

When God is our Holy Father, sovereignty, holiness, omniscience, and immutability do not terrify us; they leave us full of awe and gratitude. Sovereignty is only tyrannical if it is unbounded by goodness; holiness is only terrifying if it is untempered by grace; omniscience is only taunting if it is unaccompanied by mercy; and immutability is only torturous if ther is no guarantee of goodwill. That which God has joined together, let no man put asunder. Thanks be to God, we know with a surety that His grace and goodness and hope and His love underlie all these attributes. How do we know? Follow the face of Christ to the cross, and you will see it.

This is our Holy Father; the One with whom our hearts would remain restless until they found rest in Him.

Brian McLaren & “Serpent-Sensitive Worship”

Dr. Russell Moore has just put up a new blog commentray on a recent youth event at Willow Creek Community Church, where author and speaker Brian McLaren was invited to speak. McLaren’s call to de-emphasize theology was challenged by another “emerging church” speaker, Dan Kimball. The conference shows the elasticity of such terms, but, more importantly, it reinforces the danger that McLaren brings to the modern church and why we should be aware of these things.

 

Read Dr. Moore’s full blog here, where he links to the two original Baptist Press News stories.