Anglican’s the name, downsizing’s the game

People are walking away. 

Conservative Anglicans of any stripe aren’t wondering why.  Compare these two dioceses.  One is in Portland, Maine, and the other is in Asaph, Wales.

According to VirtueOnline, the Right Revd Stephen T Lane, Bishop of Portland (ME) says that (emphasis mine):

several of his congregations face ‘literal bankruptcy’ and that tweaking the system and the budget will no longer work. He argued that what is needed is something he called ‘Adaptive Change’.

Pardon?

‘What we’re always trying to do is tweak the system, tweak the budget, so it works a little better, a little more efficiently. We’re always trying to build a better mouse trap or give ourselves a little more breathing room. We’re trying to make the old system work as well as it possibly can work. But what if things have changed so much that the system itself no longer will serve? What if we’ve squeezed every penny out of every dollar? What if, instead of tweaking the system, we have to adapt to the change? What if we have to build a new system? What if we have to learn a new way to be church? That work is called Adaptive Change.’

Oh, right.  And that means?

‘I think we’ve about run out the string. We can’t continue for long with over 50% of our congregations receiving grants-in-aid …

‘Many of our congregations are struggling with buildings that need a great deal of work and cost far too much to heat. The average age in many congregations continues to rise and the average attendance continues to decline. And people ask me every week, why don’t my children come to church? How can we get young families back to church? How can we bring teenagers into our church? How can we find a new generation to take the load off our backs?

‘How can we get our old church back so we can retire in peace with a good conscience? I think the answer to our questions is beyond a technical fix. I think we need to be a new church.’

As Lisa Simpson would say, ‘Meh.’

Now, let’s look at Bishop Lane in political mode, over same-sex marriages in Maine, recently defeated in a state-wide referendum:

Many faithful Episcopalians are deeply grieved at this decision. They had hoped that they and their families might enjoy the recognition and protections afforded heterosexual couples. The rejection of the law also feels like rejection of them as persons. I join in their grief that the right of same gender couples to enter into a lifelong, monogamous marriage has been denied. At the same time I know there are other faithful Episcopalians who are thankful about the election results. I understand that this matter has been a matter of conscience for them. Although the question of same-gender civil marriage may be settled in Maine for now, I would remind all Episcopalians both here in Maine and across the wider Church that we will continue the conversation about these issues for years to come.

I don’t doubt it for a second.

After Governor Baldacci signed the Marriage Equality law last spring, I began to work on a set of guidelines for our clergy to use with legal same-gender marriage. These guidelines will not be distributed. However, I will continue to work with a small group to consider the ways we may support the faithful, monogamous relationships of faithful gay and lesbian Episcopalians.

Yesterday was a set back to be sure, but we will continue to strive for justice and peace among all people. We are in this for the long haul.

I welcome your comments and your concerns about this development in our life as Mainers and as Episcopalians. Whether you are saddened or thankful, please know that you remain in my prayers.

Is it any wonder his pews are emptying?  Gospel, grace, salvation?  Not a word of it.

Now, let’s look at the Diocese of Asaph in Wales, starting with St Paul’s Church in Craig-y-Don, near Llandudno.  VirtueOnline reports, dateline October 4, 2009:

… a somber looking vicar invites the people to take their seats as the service ends. The church warden has an announcement to make, he says. A grim looking warden rises to his feet and walks down the center aisle of the church to the chancel steps..

He clears his throat, unfolds a piece of paper and begins. ‘We have an immediate financial crisis but we also need to resolve this for the years to come. If we cannot find an immediate way out of this situation, we will, sadly, have to consider very seriously the future use of St. Paul’s Church.’ The deadline, he later reveals, is Oct. 31, 2009 …

The treasurer nods his head. All 39, mostly elderly female, congregants look sadly at the warden, say nothing and slowly file out of the church looking away as they shake the vicar’s hand, refusing even the offer of free coffee.

Later I learn that the church will close and the remnant of aging Welsh Anglicans will move into a rented Christian Science hall down the road. The property is to be sold to a developer who will level it and build high demand condos in the resort town. It is over for this parish and many more like it in Wales.

This is the diocese of the newly installed Bishop Geoffrey Cameron, a refugee from the ultra liberal Anglican Communion Office in London, the fourth instrument of unity in the Anglican Communion. A brainy attorney, priest and close personal friend of Dr. Rowan Williams, he now faces an uphill task of keeping his diocese going and solvent.

He is more conservative and cautious than his boss, the revisionist Archbishop of Wales, Barry Morgan, who is a clone of Episcopal Presiding Bishop Mrs. Jefferts Schori.

Well, it’s not hard to be more conservative than an ally of TEC’s ‘PB’ Schori or the PB herself. Meanwhile, Bishop Cameron had this to say — about the Pope’s ‘ecumenical bad manners’.  According to the Times’s Ruth Gledhill:

It’s ‘not the way we do things,’ he says, focusing in particular on the failure to consult with the leadership of the Anglican Communion …

‘And what we’ve seen, I think, in the case of the Pope in this last couple of weeks is a move which flies in the face of that, which says actually I’m happy to see division and I’m happy to invite Anglicans to join us. So quite worrying.’

Right.  Here’s a chap who can’t even keep churches in his own diocese going and he’s criticising the Pope.

When a guest asked if the Anglican Communion showed loyalty to its members, Cameron replied:

‘Well, I can understand reactions like that. The Anglican Communion is in a great time of change, a great time of tension. What the Church in Wales has said to people … is that there will always be a continuing place for them in the Church in Wales, and even this last couple of weeks the Bishops have been trying to reaffirm that in what they’re saying and doing – not extending to the appointment of a special bishop – but in every other way seeking to be fair.

‘But I suppose there comes a point when if a person feels they can’t give their loyalty any longer to their own tradition then it’s probably better that they’re able to find a home elsewhere. And, in spite of what I was saying earlier, I think perhaps a good thing is that at least the Pope is probably giving them a home to be able to go to.’

Most inspiring, wouldn’t you say? Just go down to your nearest Christian Science hall.  Or join the Roman Catholic Church.

I think I’ll just scamper back to the mousehole for a nice cup of tea and a sit-down.

At the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month

We will remember.

 

Lest we forget.

More on Anglican evangelicals

To add to the nuances of Anglican evangelicals, below are excerpts of an article entitled ‘As Night Follows Day’, which first appeared in Cross+Way Issue Autumn 2009 No. 114, recently reproduced on VirtueOnline.  The author, David Phillips, is General Secretary of Church Society.

Mr Phillips’s premise is that the Anglican Communion began weakening with the ordination of women clergy.  Before you turn off, please have a look at what he has to say and how events affected Anglican evangelicals.

There are many who sincerely believe that it is right for the Church to ordain women as presbyters, and wrong for it to endorse homosexual practice. Although some have argued this distinction forcefully I am convinced that the acceptance of one almost inevitably leads to the acceptance of the other. Some will find this conclusion offensive but I find it rather obvious. The same argument?

Three different evangelical points of view surround women’s ordination and actively homosexual clergy:

- Favouring women’s ordination and opposing actively homosexual clergy: the first is a secondary matter as it has no link to salvation but the second is a primary issue because it concerns salvation as the Bible strictly prohibits homosexual practices.

- Favouring both women’s ordination and gay clergy: the Bible gives many examples of women leaders in the Old Testament and women, such as Mary Magdalene, in the New Testament.  As far as ordaining sexually active gays, the openness and the justice of the Gospel message would deem it correct for the Church to open its priesthood and hierarchy to women and alternative lifestyles.  An Open Evangelical would adopt this point of view.

- Opposing both women’s ordination and gay clergy: it is from this perspective that Mr Phillips develops his argument. There are many in the Anglican Church who find no scriptural basis for either. 

He explains:

I simply cannot see that the passages to which they plead actually support what they claim. For example some use the long list of women who are engaged in the Lord’s work in Scripture to claim that women should be involved in the Lord’s work, but none of these roles are as presbyters. The jump to say that they should be presbyters, when the Bible itself confines it to men is unwarranted. Others sadly seem to set up a straw man. They argue as if only Anglo-Catholics are against women priests and because Anglo-Catholics have a defective view of ministry then the opposition to women as presbyters must be wrong. This conveniently but disingenuously ignores the fact that evangelicals argue from Scripture that women should not be presbyters. It is also unfair to Anglo-Catholics many of whom do also argue from Scripture that women should not be presbyters (priests).

You may say, ‘So what?  Join the 21st century — deal with it!’  Mr Phillips gives his reasons for believing this is tearing the Anglican Communion apart:

There are now too many cases to ignore – national denominations which have embraced the ordination of women which then went on to embrace homosexual practice. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of the US is the most recent casualty …

Secondly, the shift seems inevitable because unbiblical innovation necessarily leads to division. When pretty much all of Christendom has been united in saying that the Bible says one thing and then people start arguing that it says something different there are bound to be some who disagree. Some inevitably will feel unable to remain when a Church seeks to legitimise what they believe to be error…

Thirdly, the pressure from outside the Church increases. My experience, and I think that of others too, is that it is often outsiders who spot the flaws in our cherished ideas.

Fourthly …  evangelicals are not immune to misreading Scripture in order to conform to their own desires or to the spirit of the age. There are increasing numbers of people claiming to be evangelical who are arguing publicly that the Bible has been misunderstood and it really supports homosexual conduct. Whatever the details we have seen an apparent instance of this over the summer.

Fifthly, the nature of the arguments used in favour of both are disturbingly similar. I have already mentioned the trumpeting of justice and equality. It ought to be sufficient to say that it cannot be just to encourage people to disobey the Word of the Lord, but apparently our ideas of justice trump His … The argument is that without this change the gospel we preach will not be taken seriously. Not only is this nonsense, it suggests that the gospel is not the power of God unto salvation and it is exactly the same argument some use in favour of accepting homosexual practice.

Then there are spurious arguments about words.

The interpretation of the word ‘head’ is the most celebrated. People became convinced that ‘head’ did not mean what Christians had previously thought it meant. Indeed I have heard it said that those of us who read it as such are ‘uneducated’. The ‘educated’ view is apparently that there are a couple of readings in ancient Greek where it means something different and therefore these must be the meaning in the Bible.

I find it hard to credit that people can take such an argument seriously yet it seemed to sweep all before it. Now we are seeing the same thing with arguments about words in Romans or Leviticus concerning sexual immorality. Many seem convinced that the real sin of Sodom was anything but Sodomy …

The premise is wrong, the logic is wrong and the conclusion is wrong, but who cares so long as we can make the Bible say what we want it to say? The damage has been done because people have been encouraged to mishandle the Word of Truth.

Mr Phillips shows us the results of these disagreements:

- In the TEC the exodus began in the 1970s, when these high-level conversations started; many low churchmen (whom we would call ‘conservative evangelicals’ today) joined the Presbyterians.

- ‘20 members of the General Synod left the Church of England after the 1992 decision to ordain women as priests’.

- ‘500 clergy left although some later returned and a few may have used it as an excuse to get out with compensation’ — including a number of members of the Church Society.

- The women seeking ordination are ‘more likely to be liberal because a woman who accepts the classical evangelical or Anglo-Catholic position is not going to seek such a role’.

- The Anglican Communion is now ‘weaker and more liberal’ than before women’s ordination — the conservative voice is harder to find.

- Upon Jeffrey John’s appointment as Dean of St. Albans ’some who claimed to be evangelical were not only unconcerned but apparently welcoming of the fact that he teaches that homosexual practice is acceptable’.  This is antithetical to the definition of an evangelical — one follows Scripture and does not reinterpret it.

- ‘A Vicar of a church in Chelmsford Diocese … after only a few months left his apparently evangelical parish after the uproar when he preached that homosexual practice is wrong’.  That parish cannot be evangelical if it does not adhere to the inerrancy of Scripture.

This is very sad, indeed.  Mr Phillips concludes:

Therefore, recognising that many will be far from pleased with the conclusion, I am forced to say that the acceptance of the presbyteral ministry of women within a Church more or less inevitably leads to the acceptance of homosexual practice. I hope this is not so, but I fear it will be. Nevertheless there is still hope, hope that some will see the mistakes and that enough remain to argue the case. But, if other churches are anything to go by, without the Lord’s intervention the outlook is bleak.

We can only hope and pray for the future.  If the Anglican Communion goes the way of the TEC, expect those evangelicals who believe in the primacy of Scripture to go to conservative Reformed or Lutheran churches.  Those staying behind are likely to be subsumed into a leftist, emergent swamp where anything goes.

Anglican nuances: the Evangelicals

Yesterday, I featured a post exploring the different types of Anglicans.  Today’s and tomorrow’s posts will look at the subtlety among the Evangelicals and the Anglo-Catholics.  All is not what it seems.

The Ugley Vicar, the Revd John P Richardson, is examining Anglican Evangelicals in depth.  Broadly speaking, they are in one of two camps — Open and Conservative.  Whilst each group considers itself Anglican, they view women’s ordination and the place of the BCP (Prayer Book) differently. With Anglo-Catholics receiving a targeted invitation from the Roman Catholic Church, Evangelicals are concerned about their ability to stay together as a cohesive grouping in Anglicanism. Here’s the latest, with input from one of The Ugley Vicar’s posts, ‘Goodbye Evangelicalism, hello Church of England‘.

Open Evangelicals support the ordination of women, women bishops and jettisoning historical Anglican teachings such as the 39 Articles and the BCP. 

Conservative Evangelicals (CEs) study the 39 Articles, use the BCP and look to early Anglicans and Anglican Evangelicals as their theological sources for interpreting the Bible and church practice.  In the 21st century liberal Anglicanism — e.g. TEC — views them as an anachronism and something they hope goes away.  CE hopes for episcopal oversight for some added leverage in maintaining a traditional Anglican position in the church.  They have also banded together with similar groups in other countries to share ideas and ways to stand together internationally.  If, however, the broader Anglican Communion continues to view the CEs as inconsequential, in the worst case, they may find themselves on the fringes of the Church.  Mr Richardson recalls the words of the great Anglican bishop, JC Ryle, who said:

… so long as the Church of England sticks firmly to the Bible, the Articles, and the principles of the Protestant Reformation, so long I advise you strongly to stick to the church. When the Articles are thrown overboard, and the old flag is hauled down, then, and not until then, it will be time for you and me to launch the boats and quit the wreck. (Needs of the Times, in Holiness)

We are pretty well there now.  Fewer and fewer Anglicans even know what the 39 Articles are, particularly those under the age of 40.  Many clergy I know said to disregard them and the BCP — they were but an irrelevance.

Another problem is the use of the word ‘evangelical’ with its many negative overtones.  When I think of evangelicals, I think of guys in suits and ties instead of vestments doing a lot of happy-clappy stuff and pushing the established liturgy aside.  Some of them may be Biblically correct and preach well, but, as they say, ‘it’s the way that you do it’. 

Mr Richardson, therefore, advocates an examination of what it means to be Anglican.  And, one should consider oneself Anglican before Evangelical.  (Christian first, of course.)  He explains (emphasis mine):

Historically, the Church of England was once exactly what it says on the tin: ‘the Church of England’. Anglo-Catholics often point out that the Church of England did not come into being at the Reformation. Rather, it was the Church in these isles before and after that event. When the term first began to be used, the only special thing about the ‘Church of England’ was its being in England (hence the Book of Common Prayer generally prints England with italics). Being a ‘particular or national’ church automatically allowed certain variations of outward practice. Variations of belief, however, were positively discouraged.

 

This contrasts radically with the Church of England today, even though it is often asserted that the ‘genius’ of Anglicanism lies in its comprehensiveness. The modern Church assumes a plurality of beliefs, even within its own ranks. But the broader this comprehensiveness becomes, the less the institution is able to take theology seriously.

 

And the less seriously anyone will take the Anglican Communion, Anglicans included.  The hierarchy is not helping itself by:

- having a Clergy Disciplinary Measure (2003) which does not cover anything related to doctrine, rituals or ceremonies. 

- seminary training that appears to exclude training in Anglican doctrines — and, yes, they do exist.

Mr Richardson continues:

… at the time of the Reformation, the Church of England committed itself to the principle that Scripture is its final authority in matters of faith. The formularies of the Church of England (to which incidentally it is bound by the law of the land), declare that the Scriptures are sufficient for salvation (Article 6), and that whilst the Church itself has ‘authority in Controversies of Faith’ it cannot ‘ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written’. It is this commitment, above all, which makes me glad to be a member of that body which bears the name ‘the Church of England’.

In his magnum opus, Bishop Stephen Neill wrote that the theological essence of Anglicanism is this:

Show us anything clearly set forth in Holy Scripture that we do not teach and we will teach it. Show us anything in our teaching or practice is clearly contrary to Holy Scripture, and we will abandon it. (Anglicanism, Pelican Books, 1965, p 417)

Wow — how many Anglicans know that?  Seriously, this is the discovery of the week.

And, there’s more:

Those who know their Thirty-nine Articles, however, will know that the (three) Creeds, ‘ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy Scripture’.

 

Initially, however, the same was clearly felt to be true of the Articles and the Prayer Book. They were not ‘Scripture’, but they were to be received as being ‘Scriptural’. That being the case, therefore, whilst people may wish to disagree with them, they should only do so on the grounds that a better Scriptural case can be made for an alternative point of view. And in the meantime, it should be acknowledged that what the objector says is in disagreement with where the Church of England officially stands.

 

It’s worth reading the comments to see where even CEs stand — different places in the same tent.

Anglicanism and its various strands

Many Christians are confused by the different strands of Anglicanism.  This includes Anglicans.  

To help explain the outlooks that Anglicans have on faith, the Revd Michael Fry of All Saints Anglican Church in Peachtree City, Georgia, has written a helpful guide for Virtue Online entitled ‘Four Strands of Anglican Spirituality’, excerpts of which follow.

In the Anglican world, worship and belief involve one or more of the following, although in a typically Anglican way, no single one holds ’correctness’ over another.  I’ve interspersed some personal observations along with Mr Fry’s.

The Prayer Book Anglican: The Caroline Divines — Anglican clergymen living at the time between the reign of Charles I and the Restoration of Charles II, including Cromwell’s Interregnum (which occurred between the two) – placed a great emphasis on the Bible and the Prayer Book (Book of Common Prayer).  The book is more than a compendium of the various orders of service in the church, although many of today’s clergy would not lead you to believe it.  It also includes the 39 Articles.  The Caroline Divines, so named for the Latin name of Charles — Carolus – believed that the Prayer Book formed the basis for Anglican life. They held it to be every bit as important as the Bible. Mr Fry explains:

To the seventeenth-century layman the Prayer Book was not a shiny volume to be borrowed from a shelf on entering the church and carefully replaced on leaving. It was a beloved and battered personal possession, a lifelong companion and guide, to be carried from church to kitchen, to living room to bedside table.

Every Anglican over the age of 50 of my acquaintance has his own copy of the Prayer Book, although they probably use it less nowadays.  However, they still see it as the definitive Anglican book.

The Evangelical Anglican: Until recently, this type of Anglican was referred to as a ‘low churchman’ but now seems to be known as ‘evangelical’;  personally, I prefer the original terminology.  The Anglicanism of the 18th century continued to place a great emphasis on the Bible and the Prayer Book.  This continued when as the church expanded in North America.  For some, the combination of the Bible, prayer and good works became a highly developed practice;  the most devoted practitioners became known as Methodists.   

Prayer was particularly central to the Evangelical’s understanding of Christianity.  Mr Fry offers these examples of the age:

The Rev. Henry Venn advised his daughter: ‘Rise always by seven. Be sure that you do not omit prayer; and strive to pray in earnest, that you may be of a meek and humble spirit.’ Charles Simeon reportedly rose at four a.m. each day in order to devote four hours to prayer. One scholar noted that ‘if [Simeon] overslept he fined himself a guinea which he threw in the Cam [river which runs through Cambridge, England]; this he had to do only once.’ John Newton, author of Amazing Grace wrote ‘Secret prayer, and the good word, are the chief wells from whence we draw the water of salvation.’

The Anglo-Catholic: The 19th century brought about a newish type of Anglican, Evangelicals who had begun to study the fathers of the early Church.  They believed that Evangelical Anglican practice was missing some of the earlier practice and traditions from these early days.  This group originated in Oxford and is also known as the Oxford Movement, Tractarianism or High Church.  Edward Bouverie Pusey and John Henry Newman were the two principal leaders of the Oxford Movement.  Newman later became a Roman Catholic and a Cardinal. 

They advocated and practiced a return to Holy Communion as the central act of worship (now commonplace today in most Anglican parishes), a devotion to Christ through the sacraments and worship which involved the five senses.  This movement gave us the terms ’smells and bells’ or ‘pongs and gongs’, referring to  the use of incense and the ringing of bells during the Consecration as one would find at a traditional Roman Catholic Mass. Vestments are very much Roman Catholic. Yet, the Book of Common Prayer is generally used for the liturgy. (There are some exceptions.) Some Anglo-Catholics, like Pusey, worked to find a basis for reunion of the Anglican Church and Rome.      

Mr Fry adds:

The services we’re accustomed to during Holy Week are part of the lasting influence of this tradition on our forms of worship as well as the fact that we offer Holy Communion each Sunday. A fair amount of our beloved musical tradition can be traced to the Anglo-Catholic movement as well …

Some Anglicans who have not grown up exposed to Anglo-Catholicism are highly suspicious of it, yet it is a widely-acknowledged part of the Church of England, although the hierarchy is attempting to marginalise it.  The Anglo-Catholics I know are Protestants who worship in a Roman Catholic way using the Prayer Book.  There are many strands of Anglo-Catholicism, too, but that’s for another post.

The Charismatic Anglican: The 20th century brought about another type of tradition, which Mr Fry describes as ‘Biblical spirituality’ relying on charismata or ‘gifts of the Spirit’ which St Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12.   Mr Fry says:

A pioneering leader re-introducing this form of spirituality in the mainline denominations in the 1960’s-80’s was the Episcopal priest Fr. Dennis Bennett. A foundational belief of this form of spirituality is that God’s power is as available to believers today as in New Testament times.

Understandably, there is some mixing of services and styles in many churches to keep everyone happy.  And, for many, this is part of Anglicanism’s appeal.  Mr Fry concludes:

Most Anglicans, whether consciously or not, owe a debt to some combination of the above spiritualities. Some would say ‘I’m a Prayer Book Anglican’; others ‘a Prayer Book Catholic’ or ‘Evangelical Catholic’; perhaps an ‘Evangelical Anglican’ or ‘Charismatic Evangelical’. It’s even possible to be a ‘Prayer Book Evangelical Anglo- Catholic Charismatic’. Any parish that does not include in its life the full diversity of spiritual expressions in our heritage is handicapping itself spiritually and cutting itself off from the fullness of what God has available for them–traditional church order and doctrine; love for the Bible and a zeal for the salvation of all; respect for the fullness of the historical tradition and the sacraments; and a belief in the present and available power of God for our lives today. Sadly, due to pride, fear and naiveté, it is only the rarest and most special of congregations that are blessed with the ability to balance these well.

Forbidden Bible verses: Jude 1

Churchmouse Campanologist presents another post in its Sunday series of Forbidden Bible Verses.  For past entries, click here.  I happened across today’s passage whilst reading one of Kim Riddlebarger’s posts, ‘But you must remember — Jude 1-25′.  Dr. Riddlebarger is senior pastor of Christ Reformed Church in Anaheim, California, and visiting professor of systematic theology at Westminster Seminary California. 

The past few weeks this blog has been covering topics leaving us wondering where we as Christians stand in the great scheme of God’s plan, given the unusual (for lack of a better word) theology and behaviour in our world today.  Jude has a few answers for us — many of which we do not hear from today’s pulpit, unfortunately.  Today’s reading comes from the New International Reader’s Version.

 

Jude 1

 ¹ I, Jude, am writing this letter. I serve Jesus Christ. I am a brother of James.

   I am sending this letter to you who have been chosen by God. You are loved by God the Father. You are kept safe by Jesus Christ.

 ² May more and more mercy, peace, and love be given to you.

A Warning Against Ungodly Teachers

 ³ Dear friends, I really wanted to write to you about the salvation we share. But now I feel I should write and ask you to stand up for the faith. God’s people were trusted with it once and for all time.

 ⁴ Certain people have slipped in among you in secret. Long ago it was written that they would be judged. They are godless people. They use the grace of our God as an excuse for sexual sins. They say no to Jesus Christ. He is our only Lord and King.

 ⁵ I want to remind you about some things you already know. The Lord saved his people. He brought them out of Egypt. But later he destroyed those who did not believe. ⁶ Some of the angels didn’t stay where they belonged. They didn’t keep their positions of authority. The Lord has kept those angels in darkness. They are held by chains that last forever. On judgment day, God will judge them.

 ⁷ The people of Sodom and Gomorrah and the towns around them also did evil things. They gave themselves over to sexual sins. They committed sins of the worst possible kind. They are an example of those who are punished with fire. The fire never goes out.

 ⁸ In the very same way, those dreamers pollute their own bodies. They don’t accept authority. They speak evil things against heavenly beings. ⁹ But not even Michael did that. He was the leader of the angels. He argued with the devil about the body of Moses. But he didn’t dare to speak evil things against the devil. Instead, he said, “May the Lord stop you!”

 ¹⁰ But those people speak evil things against what they don’t understand. They are like wild animals. They can’t think for themselves. They do what comes naturally to them. Those are the very things that destroy them.

 ¹¹ How terrible it will be for them! They followed the way of Cain. They rushed ahead and made the same mistake as Balaam did. They did it because they loved money. They are like Korah. He turned against his leaders. Those people will certainly be destroyed, just as Korah was.

 ¹² They are like stains at the meals you share. They eat too much. They have no shame. They are shepherds who feed only themselves. They are like clouds without rain. They are blown along by the wind. They are like trees in the fall. Since they have no fruit, they are pulled up. So they die twice.

 ¹³ They are like wild waves of the sea. Their shame rises up like foam. They are like falling stars. God has reserved a place of very black darkness for them. He will keep them there forever.

 ¹⁴ Enoch was the seventh man in the family line of Adam. He gave a prophecy about those people. He said, “Look! The Lord is coming with thousands and thousands of his holy ones. ¹⁵ He is coming to judge everyone. He is coming to sentence all ungodly people. He will judge them for all the ungodly acts they have done. They have done them in ungodly ways. He will sentence ungodly sinners for all the bad things they have said about him.”

 ¹⁶ Those people complain. They find fault with others. They follow their own evil longings. They brag about themselves. They praise others to help themselves.

Remain in God’s Love

 ¹⁷ Dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ said was going to happen. ¹⁸ They told you, “In the last days, some people will make fun of the truth. They will follow their own ungodly longings.” ¹⁹ They are the people who separate you from one another. They do only what comes naturally. They are not led by the Holy Spirit.

 ²⁰ Dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith. Let the Holy Spirit guide and help you when you pray. ²¹ The mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ will bring you eternal life. As you wait for his mercy, remain in God’s love.

 ²² Show mercy to those who doubt. ²³ Pull others out of the fire. Save them. To others, show mercy mixed with fear. Hate even the clothes that are stained by the sins of those who wear them.

Praise to God

 ²⁴ Give praise to the One who is able to keep you from falling into sin. He will bring you into his heavenly glory without any fault. He will bring you there with great joy. ²⁵ Give praise to the only God. He is our Savior. Glory, majesty, power and authority belong to him. Give praise to him through Jesus Christ our Lord. Give praise to the One who was before all time, who now is, and who will be forever. Amen.

 

Jude introduces himself as an apostle of Jesus and brother of another apostle, James. In verses 2 and 3, he ensures his audience knows that they are among God’s people through a belief in Jesus Christ and that He will continue to bless them with love, mercy and peace.  God will not forget them.

Jude is writing to Jewish converts who were curious about the end times and were well versed in mysticism. At the time — around 50 AD – they also faced a crisis amongst themselves because of false prophets and heretics who had infiltrated their church.  These men were teaching a heresy, antinomianism, which says that as Christians are already saved, they do not have to obey God’s law.  They told the Christians that they were free to engage in whatever libidinous activity they pleased with no consequences.  These same men said that God spoke to them in dreams and visions.  (Sound familiar — a bit like today’s New Age Emergent Christian leaders?)   

Jude sees that he urgently needed to step in and remedy the situation.  His epistle reminds the new Christians of events from the Old Testament — Moses, Sodom and Gomorrah — in verses 5 through 7.  He reminds the Christians that God has a history of showing mercy and deliverance to His own as well as punishing those who disobey His will.  Note how he cautions them about God ’destroying those who did not believe’ and those who fall prey to sexual sin: ‘They are an example of those who are punished with fire. The fire never goes out.’  Hell, anyone?  When was the last time you heard that in church?   

In verse 8, Jude warns the Christians that because the false teachers have rejected God’s authority and law in their ignorance, they are blaspheming against that which is off limits.  To emphasise the point, he refers to the Archangel Michael. This refers to a Jewish legend concerning Michael’s attempt to bury Moses’s body when Satan steps in and claims Moses for his own. Michael does not curse Satan but instead says that God has already rebuked him (Rev. 12:7, Zech. 3). Because the people understand Jewish mysticism and the lessons from the Old Testament, this reference will resonate with them. Jude goes on to say that the false teachers are a law unto themselves and are encouraging the converts to commit sins of the flesh which the Bible expressly forbids.  There is a difference from being personally tempted into sin and telling people that God came to them in a dream saying sexual sin would be acceptable to Him.  So, in verse 10, Jude says the false teachers are no better than animals relying on base appetites.  And, doing so will destroy them in the end. 

Continuing with references from Jewish history in verse 11, Jude reminds the people of the story of Cain, who killed his brother Abel (Genesis 4); Balaam who led the Israelites into idolatry; and Korah, who led a rebellion against Moses and Aaron until the Lord opened up the ground under Korah and his household into which they were submerged (Numbers 16).  Jude’s point is that those who follow the false teachers will endure an almighty punishment.  

In verse 12, Jude expands on the faults of the false teachers: their gluttony, their shamelessness, their egotism, their lack of conviction.  They go as the wind blows them — physically and mentally. He continues in verse 16.  These men have no roots in God. In verse 13, Jude warns: ‘God has reserved a place of very black darkness for them. He will keep them there forever.’  

In verse 14, he reinforces this by way of the Book of Enoch (1 Enoch 9) — more Jewish history of divine judgment befalling the ungodly.  The warnings can’t get stronger than this.  Jude ties this in with coming Final Judgment of Jesus Christ.  The sins of the false teachers have always been thus, from the time God’s people knew Him up through the present.  That includes our day and age, too.  Note the mention in verse 18 of the ‘last days’ or ‘end times’.  Jude’s audience lived in those times, as do we.  These are the days between Christ’s Ascension into Heaven and His Second Coming.  And, now, just as then, ’some people will make fun of the truth. They will follow their own ungodly longings’. Jude reminds the people in verse 17 that the apostles had said this would happen.  It did in Jude’s day and it continues now.  What ridicule God’s faithful face — privately, publicly — and sometimes with the help of clergy who have followed their own counsel instead of the Lord’s.  In verse 19 Jude cautions that these people will be divisive but, because the Holy Spirit does not work through them, they have no other way of thinking and conducting themselves. 

In conclusion, Jude counsels the new Christians from verse 20 through 25.  We, too, can follow his advice.   It’s quite straightforward: strengthen our personal faith, heed the Holy Spirit’s guidance in prayer, remember that Jesus Christ’s mercy will lead us to salvation and be reminded of God’s love.  Concerning our conduct to others, we should be kind to the doubters, help save others from temptation and for those outside our midst, be kind but cautious.  In any event, avoid temptation and those intent on sinning.

In the final two verses, Jude instructs the people to praise God — He who will prevent us from sin, He who will joyfully bring us to Him on the last day, He who is sovereign over all.  ‘Give praise to him through Jesus Christ our Lord. Give praise to the One who was before all time, who now is, and who will be forever.’     

Please take the time to read Dr Riddlebarger’s essay on Jude here.  

 

 

 

 

 

Sins of online Christianity

And this is certainly true for the Christian blogosphere.  I hope I don’t end up meeting some of these folks.  There would be a real telling-off — ‘mutual, I’m sure’.

Not to go into too much detail, but here’s what’s out there:

Bubblebath Christianity: This seems to be a female affectation.  I’ve run across a number of blogs where women write tripe such as, ‘Oooh, I feel so good after I say that prayer!’ Really? ‘Oh, I think I’ll consecrate myself this weekend — what a great idea!’ How does that work?  ‘I could talk about church all day long!’  Good for you. Then they go off in the next post to criticise someone in need whom they are notionally ‘helping’ — their attire was wrong and they stank.  Yah, right. Think about it — is that what you want an enquirer or seeker to read?  About how doggone holy you think you are?  To these bloggers, I say, pull your head out, will you?

The Judgment of the Combox: This is a principally, though not exclusively, male affectation.  Some comments make the blogger’s divine cut, others don’t.  Why is a mystery.  If you blog on a controversial subject and don’t want a differing point of view, turn the comments off for that post.  People might be writing in with something insightful or at least thought-provoking, so let ‘em on to have their say.  If you can’t hack the feedback, don’t blog on it. 

Shutting down debate: This is what delicate flowers do when they’re on other people’s blogs.  ‘Let’s not talk about it.’ Why? ‘It’s God’s plan — now be quiet.’  So, He communicates with you often, then? ’Hey, everybody, did you see the latest video on … [something stupid]?’  If you’re a Christian, you’re expected to get your hands dirty.  Face the truth.  Jesus, the Apostles and St Paul, like the Old Testament prophets, held a mirror up to their people. They said, ’Look at yourselves, look at your behaviour, look at your society’.  Christianity is not a vehicle for refusing the truth and diverting our attention from it.  If you can’t take it, there are thousands of other Christian blogs to visit.

I’m so much better than you:  This is another thing that seekers and enquirers see.  What must they think?  ‘My denom is miles better than yours.’  I see it all the time, although generally speaking, it only seems to bother two denominations. ’I'm X church, you’re Y church – please stay off my blog.’   I’ll let you figure out which ones they are.  Oh well, I guess it’s honest, although it doesn’t exactly exemplify the ‘God of love’ whom we so enjoy invoking.

Shouldn’t we all be exchanging ideas and discoursing with each other?  No?  Okay, then.  Have it your way.

Working for the Gamaliel Foundation — an insider’s story

Yes, it just may be possible that there are a few honest, helpful community organisers on this earth.  One of them, Rey Lopez-Calderon, appears to be one of the good guys who went into organising to genuinely help the underprivileged.  He’s worked with the United Farm Workers in California and in the Pilsen neighbourhood in Chicago. 

He also worked for the Gamaliel Foundation, recipients of Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CHD) funding.  And that’s where he got a slightly different insight about community organising.  He wrote his story recently for Blogcritics.  It’s called ‘Walking the Edge of Immorality’.  What a picture he paints.

As regular readers of Churchmouse Campanologist know, Gamaliel’s head organiser is a chap named Greg Galluzzo, who is either an ex-Jesuit or went to a Jesuit seminary — reports differ.  Barack Obama also worked for them in the early 1990s.

By way of apology, Rey says:

The idea of an international, faith-based organization that brings together people of all colors and creeds is certainly a noble cause. But the organization’s philosophy was flawed from day one. I worked for Gamaliel in the late 1990s up until 2001…

My former mentors, Greg Galluzzo and his wife Mary Gonzalez, took over the Gamaliel Foundation after breaking with the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), the organization founded by Saul Alinsky. Gamaliel’s leadership system was built on notes obtained from the IAF …

Working life was more Alinsky-oriented than faith-based. It certainly wasn’t Catholic. Rey says:

I have never seen such a strange and warped culture anywhere. Staff were pitted against each other by Galluzzo and Gonzalez.

Galluzzo, in Rey’s words:

wanted organizers to be tough bastards who could build power like the Conquistadors … (no virtù needed at all).

felt that organizers should fight fire with fire.

used to give a cultish advanced training seminar titled ‘Walking the Edge of Immorality’ where he repeatedly stated ‘the ends justifies the means’ and nonchalantly told us that to have an impact on society we had to be willing to ‘lie, cheat, and steal for the greater good’.

… We could be shady to get power but once we had enough power, knowing the Good would be enough for us to make the right decisions.

Rey explains:

Too bad Galluzzo … skipped the course on Aristotle where he would have learned that character is a function of habit — i.e. doing shady things makes you shady whether or not you grasp the Good. The final straw for me was when Galluzzo sent out a weekly report with a reflection that we organizers needed to promote a noble myth to our churches that our work was about justice, God, and peace even though we really knew it was about power.

He knows it’s the wrong way to go about things.  Okay, he’s way, way to the left and works with IAF affiliates — you can read his blog here. I can’t see the point in encouraging victimhood in this day and age. Whatever happened to character and virtue?  However, do note his conclusion:

I left Gamaliel disillusioned and disgusted by what seemed to me to be pure evil.  How could a faith-based organization operate under such a skewed, cynical view of the world? Where was God in that scheme? I should have exposed them then. I had a duty to do so. We can’t content ourselves with feelings of moral superiority while people with corrupt principles are out there building power.  We ignore these bad apples to our own peril.   We have to be willing to shake the tree, letting the rotten ones fall where they may.

Rey would probably disagree with my advocating a boycott of CHD.  Some of that money just might be going to organisations he works for and with.  Nevertheless, we know already that some of the funding goes to the Gamaliel Foundation. 

Please think carefully before giving to the CHD — in fact, please boycott the collection.  It’s not Catholic and it doesn’t support Catholic ideals, no matter what the USCCB or their spokespeople say.

Progressives and US churches — making the connections

Above is a set of progressive connections with American churches.  Blue boxes denote recipients of secular funding.  Green boxes signify active donors.  Pink boxes signify progressive recipients and related connections. 

Part of the reason for my putting this together is to help you understand that Christianity in the US does have progressive connections which may be leading your church down a secular, relativist route.  It’s also to help give Catholics reasons for boycotting the Campaign for Human Development collection later in November. 

Documented sources for the chart:

Archdiocese of Chicago

Campaign for Human Development (CHD)

Saul Alinsky

Arcus Foundation

ACORN and Tides Foundation: The American Spectator, Michelle Malkin

Faith in Public Life

Sojourners and Brian McLaren

This is by no means an exhaustive chart, but it gives you an idea of where some of your donations go and where your church or related institutions may get some of their money.

News in brief: hate crimes

Before we explore new legislation in the US concerning hate crimes, how good is your knowledge of current events in the once-Great Republic?  Pew Research can tell you.  If you’re interested, I scored 10 / 12, along with 4% of the population.  (I missed the geography and unemployment rate questions.) Only 7% of the population got 11 or 12 questions right.  Results so far show that men score higher than women, college grads better than high school grads, older people better than younger, Republicans better than Democrats.  Interested in taking the test?  If so, click here.

Hate crimes legislation passed: As part of a $680 bn defence authorisation bill, the legislation named after the late Matthew Shepard and James Byrd came into law.  It forbids, among other acts, premeditated crimes attacking sexual orientation, disabilities and gender.  Conservative pastors believe it could be the thin end of the wedge — could it discriminate against preaching against homosexual acts (not people)?  The wording is vague and open.  The Revd Pat Robertson has a short video here.  Pastor Manning has just been banned from YouTube for speaking out against homosexual acts by citing the Bible — see what he says here.  

Will hate crimes legislation protect the gang rape victim in California?  On October 26, 2009, a horrific and lengthy gang rape of a 15-year old girl took place near a school dance in Richmond, CA, near San Francisco.  The victim had to be airlifted to hospital!  She left the dance alone and waited for her father to come pick her up.  A group of teens nearby asked her to join them whilst she was waiting.  And, there, her nightmare began.  Some took photos, others laughed.  No one stopped the horror.  What do boys learn at home these days?  This didn’t happen when I was growing up.  Someone in the same town has also set a dog on fire.  Previously, a young lesbian was gang raped not far from where this latest gang rape took place.  You can read more here at The Reclusive Leftist.  We’re supposed to be moving forward in terms of equality, yet women, children and animals seem to be more objectified than ever.  I said 15 years ago that there was less and less regard for living beings — humans and animals.  Of course, everyone laughed.  So, will this be a test of the new hate crimes legislation or will there be some sort of rationalisation of the event: ‘She shouldn’t have put herself in that position’ or ‘Seems she knew her attackers’ or something?  Who knows? Prayers for her recovery, which is likely to take a long time.  May the Lord help her. And may He put almighty fear and repentance into the hearts of the perpetrators and bystanders.

And what about the latest hating on Sarah Palin?  It’s still a big feminist pastime — women hating women with whom they disagree.  Sarah’s book, Going Rogue, launches officially on November 17.  Her haters will premiere their version the same day — similar cover with a similar title.  How many people will be inadvertently buying Going Rouge instead of Going Rogue?  Read more about it at The Reclusive Leftist.  As many comment on the thread, women-bashing became the thing to do with Hillary Clinton’s failed bid for the Democratic Presidential candidate nomination last year.  Then, they went all out for Sarah Palin.  There are loads of great comments on this thread, but the best has to be Genderparity’s: ’The most interesting thing about Palin is her 100% belief in herself. This is feminism.’  Yeah, and that’s what has the likes of ‘feminist’ Naomi Klein and a host of other pundits freaked out.  Imagine — a God-fearing conservative woman who believes in herself and has a supportive husband!  It just goes against the grain.  Listen, here’s a secret: no one is more misogynist than leftist men.

Meanwhile, in the UK, the first woman ‘Beefeater’ has been bullied.  These fine retired military officers who guard the Tower of London and grace the eponymous gin bottles are properly known as yeoman warders.   Moira Cameron is the first female yeoman warder in the history of the 522-year old institution.  She was appointed in 2007 after having served in the Army in Northern Ireland and Cyprus.  Two yeoman warders have been suspended pending investigation. A third is also under investigation.