Values

If ever you want to know what values an organization holds dear, look at what it takes for that organization to kick someone out..

One of the few fun things about Quakers (Society of Friends) is that belief in God or the lack thereof will not make you unwelcome. Joining the Army will.

Denying God in the Episcopal Church will not get you disciplined if you are a bishop. Expressing a legal opinion contrary to the property interests of the Presiding Bishop may very well.

It's important to have your priorities.

Core of Personal Theology

Currently there are two forms of theology loose in the world.

The first is what I call personal relativism. This is most popular in the US. It can be summed up as "I define who God is, and therefore what the world is like." A lot of the self-help, empowerment crowd seem to believe this.

The second, and this is popular in the modern Episcopal Church, is corporate relativism. "We define who and what God is, and therefore the nature of the world."

My view: "God defines me. What I know about the world is what He has told me."

I'm not humble. But I do know pride is a sin.

The Purpose of Theology

I posted the following as a comment over at Wannabe's.

Modern theology does not consist of valuing modern thought above ancient, rather it values the conclusion first and foremost. Reason, Scripture and Tradition are valued only to the extent they enable the seeker to reach the desired conclusion.

So if Scripture helps you reach the conclusion that man made global warming is the number one priority for the modern church, then Scripture is of value. If modern thought does not help, or hinders, then it is of no worth.

Theology has been reduced to rationalizing decisions reached by other means.

The Manliness of Minivans

James Joyner asks "Can a real man drive a minivan?" and rightly answers that masculinity has nothing to do with possessions. Manliness has to do with responsibility first and foremost.

Which brings up a good point. All too often I hear adolescents equate their self worth with the stuff they own. As we get older most of us figure out just how shallow that is. But I know adults that still derive part of their identity from their possessions. You may tell how sensitive and caring they are by the high percentage of recyclable materials they wear or because their new ride is a hybrid. An aging man may buy a fancy sports car to prop up his self esteem. An aging woman indulges in plastic surgery to prove to herself that she still has it.

I'm conflicted because I'm a huge fan of capitalism. But I am not a fan of its evil twin materialism. The free market has been and remains the single best way to distribute goods and services. Materialism is in its essence the worship of Mammon.

Classic theology tells us that there are no unmixed blessings in this mortal coil. Where there is love, jealousy and envy follow. Where there is honesty, pride and stubbornness accompany. Our villains have great virtues and our heroes have hidden vices. So the question isn't whether the free market is bad (it isn't). The question is how do we wean ourselves away from the desire of material possessions?

The failure to decouple the one from the other is a historical failure of the Church writ large in recent decades by the ubiquity of marxist thought. It is this failure that has resulted in great damage done by the modern church. More on that later.

Before the Common Era

One of the great changes that has swept academia since I was a college student is the switch from AD to CE and BC to BCE in dating history. AD stands for Anno Domini or 'in the year of the Lord (Jesus Christ)". BC, of course stands for 'Before Christ'. There is strong evidence that the dating system gets the advent of Our Lord wrong. BCE stands for 'Before Common Era' and CE therefore stands for 'Common Era'.

I really do not have a problem with non-Christians using the new system. Were I a Muslim or a Jew, I too would refuse to use a Christian dating system. Doing so elevates a mere man to undeserved significance. I am a Christian, so I refuse to use CE and BCE. It introduces a flasity into dating and removes the true meaning from it. In particular AD is a witness to the continued presence of God. I can make a pretty strong srgument that we really should be marking time from the Resurrection, but the possible (but probably erroneous) birth of Christ is acceptable.

Where it really gets interesting is in the case of purported Christians who use the new system. Academia is pretty rough and tumble and I can understand those who, in the quest for employment or tenure, use the new system. I've been unemployed and the uncertainty that brings can sap the courage.

Which brings me to two scholars. One very well known and one who is candidate to be bishop. Both are priests.

The first is Marilyn McCord Adams, who is a doctor of philosophy, expert in my fave philosopher William of Ockham, progressive apologist, and canon. She's very very smart. She just wants God to learn from her wisdom. She also falls into the trap of using the secular system of dating. So much for boldly proclaiming the Gospel.

The second is a candidate for suffragan bishop of Los Angeles, Rev. John Kirkley has written an interesting fusion of Bible story, revisionist theology and gay bodice ripper. He too believes that God has no place in the time business.

It may seem a little thing, but the little things show where your priorities are. It's very similar to discovering who a person is by the way he treats his subordinates. The Reverends Adams and Kirkley have redefined their job description of 'God botherer' to mean that they bother God, not that God should ever bother them.

Post Script, eminent scholar though she is, the The Rev Dr Canon Adams completely misunderstands Ockham. She is right in almost all of the details and completely wrong as to the totality. Some day, I'll explain exactly why her two volume set on Willy O is overpriced for the content.

Kendall Harmon, You Will be Assimilated

Marcus Borg has been appointed as canon theologian at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral in Portland Oregon. The name of his church is of course deeply ironic in light of his beliefs. He remains a layman, which raised my eyebrows. I understood that canons were priests. Apparently that was an error.

The only other canon theologian of whom I am aware is the Rev. Dr Kendall Harmon of South Carolina. The Rev. Dr. Harmon has been known to blog occasionally, in his spare time.

I would pay good money to witness a live theological smackdown (debate) between the two.

Worldliness

I've started reading City of God by St Augustine. Today I read his explanation of why both the Christian and the pagan suffer in the world. The pagans suffer because they are under judgment. The baptized suffer because, being too attached to the world, they fall into sin and so are judged.

This is of course completely contrary to the prosperity gospel preached by Crefio Dollar and his ilk. It also sounds quite harsh to my modern ears. That is probably good. We focus too much on the God of Mercy and forget that He is a God of Righteousness.

In modern America I find it entirely too easy to get caught in the 'keeping up with the Joneses' trap. We all need better, shinier bling.

If nothing else, I think this summer's reading will inspire me to get rid of some stuff.

Augustine firmly holds that the world is evil. I'm not so sure that to follow my Saviour I have to loathe the world. Loathe the Prince of the Air, certainly. But the world? I think we, instead, have to prioritize.

Summer Reading

Back on Monday I posted that I was trying to decide which book to read for the summer. I was torn between The Consolation of Philosophy and The City of God. Per Zana's recommendation I went with the City of God.

I'm reading it slowly, so I'm only in Chapter 2 of Book 1. I can read about 300 pages a day, but in so doing I miss a fair amount. This is going to be more of a reading, meditating and pondering exercise than a race. City of God is a good choice for this because it not only has a compelling back story, but it also requires a fair amount of unpacking.

Also, as Augustine pretty much defines orthodoxy in the Christian context, I'm reading it less defensively and more openly.

On a related note, the autobiography of William Porcher Dubose is available online, for free! Is this a wonderful world or what?

What He Said

Dr. Phillip Turner writes eloquently on the great divide between what the progressives who run the Episcopal Church say and what they do.

Question

Here's a thought experiment:

If everyone who did not believe the creeds left the Episcopal Church, how many would be left? What about the Anglican Church of Canada? Or the Church of England?

And more to the point, would a greater percentage of the laity be left or of the clergy?

Just how many Christians are left in those churches?

And of those who are not Christians, how many know that they are not Christians?

The Point of All This Church Stuff

The only reason I respond to the writings of those who run my former church is to try to reach them with the Gospel.

Here is something I posted over at Stand Firm. It's not the best. But it's what I think.

What the above commenters wrote. When I use the word ‘heretic’ I do not use it lightly. Can you honestly say that Archbishop Cranmer would be in accord with your theology? Or Archbishop Laud?

You see, we’ve read your writings and we’ve heard your talks. We read the HoBD mailing list. Greg’s foray into investigative reporting was not news to me (and no I wasn’t one of the ones who relayed Ann’s post to him).

To be explicit, you are a heretic. You are in a position of leadership of a church that purports to be Christian and that used to be so. That is bad. Most of those who comment at StandFirm do so because we are concerned about that sort of thing.

My ideal resolution to this conflict between the heretics in power and the Christians who are opposing them is that you lot will repent of your sins, confess your errors and convert to Christianity. The very reason I, and others, engage in dialog is to reach that resolution.

Some of us had hoped that the impaired or ruptured communion tat the Episcopal Church is in with a large portion of the world’s Anglicans would have been a wake up call for our leadership. Instead of repentance, we saw self-justification, rage and denial. None of those emotions are the fruits of the Spirit.

You and your fellows have set yourselves up as arbiters of who God is, what He is like and how He operates. You have corrupted the word ‘Love’ to serve your ends, and you presume to tell God that He must change to conform to your vision of the world.

On a more personal level, nothing would make me happy than to know that you have stopped telling God what He is, what His limits are and how He should operate in this fallen world. If you could repent of your pride and ask God what He would of you, and seek to serve Him in humility and charity, then any conflict we might have would end.

We are the unworthy servants, and He is our master. He will not allow any other God before Him. And He loves you and me and all of us too much to allow us to continue in our sin.

I will continue to pray for you, Tom Woodward. I fear for your soul as well as the souls of your fellows.

There is a similar conversation over at Dr. Mabuse's Kraalspace. In fairness, here are the links to Tom Woodward's blog and Lisa Fox's.

Why Theology Matters

The Athanasian creed is still in the prayer book (as an historical document). John Bowen explains why it matters and why it is not as optional as the modern church may like to believe. I mean, do we really want to be more like the JW's?

Some letters of the Archbishop of Canterbury have hit the press and are much commented about elsewhere. I have nothing new to add about them. I generally have little to say about the gay debate in the church. I feel it focuses and feeds their essentially narcissistic nature and distracts and detracts from feeding my essentially narcissistic nature.

However, Fr. Jeffrey Steele has written an excellent essay that starts with the letters and makes some excellent points along the way. He even manages to bring in T S Elliot, which is always a good thing.

The Elliot money quote is "A system of ethics, if thorough, is explicitly or implicitly a system of theology, and to attempt to erect a complete theory of ethics without a religion is none the less to adopt some particular attitude towards religion. "

But the whole post is well worth reading.

A Very Warm Welcome to Church Hell

For all of my Church of England brethren, welcome to the Episcopal Church (or Anglican Church of Canada if you prefer). You currently have a leader of Griswoldian proportions, right down to his surface High-Churchiness. What’s coming next is your very own Katherine Jefferts Schori or Fred Hiltz.

The progression is probable, but not inevitable. So there is still time to decide what to do.

But the main thing to be wary of is bishops who flaunt orthodox credentials. Far too many Canadian and American bishops found that when the rubber hit the road, they preferred being a bishop to serving Christ. There’s an exquisite sense of betrayal when you are a member of a diocese that has chosen heresy over schism.

In evaluating bishops, I have found it useful to ask the question “What would Athanasius do?” I commend that to you.

Just do not expect charity. Learn from our mistakes.

From a comment I made over at StandFirm.

Reflection on GAFCON

The Global Anglican Future Conference is going on in Jerusalem. Many people, most of whom are smarter and better educated than I am, have commented at great length about it.

The question I keep asking myself about the future of my church is "What would Athanasius do?" The problem is that his situation was not exactly on all fours with ours. On a related topic, Deacon Phil asks the valuable question of "who are the schismatics?"

At this point, I really wish there was a handy desert nearby to which I could retire for some meditation. As it is, a long car drive will have to substitute for an anchorite pillar.

Bertie and the Anglican Crisis.

Jack White is channeling P G Wodehouse. Hilarity is ensuing and all that.

Calisthenics in Church

Episcopal Life has a lovely article about an exercise down by the Rev. Tom Woodward out in Santa Fe. His congregation said the Nicene Creed and each person sat during the bits they didn't understand or believe in.

The now rudderless Episcopal Life thinks the exercise was a wonderful celebration of the diversity that is the modern Episcopal Church. Hills of the North hits closer to the mark in terming it an exercise in heterodoxy. I think it's a damning indictment of the Episcopal church's total failure to teach the Gospel and the Christian faith.

It also makes me wonder why we say creeds in church that no one believes in. I don't mind saying them because I do believe. But why recite something you disagree with or don't feel to be true?

The Presbyterian Doctrine of Purgatory?

The funeral yesterday was at St. Andrews, Mount Pleasant. St Andrews was and is an Episcopal Church, although like a great many successful churches they do not publicize the fact. The place was packed and the priests and staff could not have been more gracious at having a sudden event swamp them on a Friday morning. There was a semi private Eucharist at 10 am in the chapel, followed by the public funeral at 11 in the main church.

Part of the latter was a sermon by a Baptist preacher who said many comforting words to the widow and her two children. He was quite eloquent and actually quoted a good deal of poetr, which impressed us all.

However, a Presbyterian minister was supposed to reminisce about my cousin and relate the sort of person he was. He did do some of that, but he also expostulated that my cousin would likely have to wait for admittance to Heaven until the final coming and Jesus passing of judgment upon this sinful planet. There was a great deal of talk on his part along these lines with some removal and rejection of sinful nature thrown in for good measure.

While I think it shocking that this man in some way thought this would comfort the family. And my cynical nature could not help but notice that we got two sermons for the price of one. But the kicker was when my elder brother, the baptist preacher and graduate of Dallas Theological pointed out that the Presby was apparently discussing Purgatory.

Imagine my amazement when I saw this article this morning. The Presbyterian doctrine of Purgatory, who knew?

An Experiment in Theological Comprehension

I was reading this. By chance my winamp randomizer played two different versions of Don't Fear the Reaper back to back, one without cowbell and then one with.

I found that my comprehension was lowest without any music. Add in the straight version of the song, and I was aided tremendously. Throw in cowbell and I'm understanding stuff on the first reading.

I gotta fever and the cure is more cowbell.

Rambling, Old School

Three Episcopal churches in the Diocese of Tennessee have seen their members leave the denomination en masse this year. The Bishop of Tennessee is John Bauerschmidt. From all accounts is personally amiable and theologically orthodox. His last name struck a chord with me and I started digging.

Back when I was in college (University of the South, 1982), I knew a Fritz Bauerschmidt. Fritz was two years behind me. He had a religious bent and was popular with the girls. He's very smart and at the time I knew him could have been a stand in for the platonic ideal of "laid back". Somehow I doubt that has changed, even though he is now married with children.

Some very quick Googling showed me that John and Fritz are in fact brothers. What I learned about Fritz has proven most intriguing. He apparently converted to Catholicism right after I graduated. He continued to be interested in religion, got his doctorate and is now an assistant professor of theology at Loyola in Baltimore.

Several of the people I knew in college have gone on to religious greatness, as it were. But of them Fritz is the only one I thought that would happen to. I never would have pegged Shannon Johnston nor Jim Mathes for being dog-collar bound. Mark Lewis, apparently, has changed little since college. I never thought of him as the priestly type, but when I heard he was, I wasn't surprised. The same holds true for David Dearman, but in a much less spectacular way.

Irregardless of my reminiscences, Fritz has apparently achieved great things in the world of Catholic theology. He has written an intro to Aquinas that is well thought of. And he has written a popular interest book entitled Why the Mystics Matter Now. As soon as I can scrape the appropriate number of shekels together, I intend to order it.

Now you might ask why am I not getting the Aquinas book? Bottom line, I already own the Summa Theologica, have read the Summa Theologica and am not convinced by the Summa Theologica. I became a nominalist in college and remain one, however lapsed and inert, to this very day.