Taking Care When Proclaiming "God is Love"

How many people heard a sermon this past Sunday based on the reading from 1 John 4:7-21 ?

Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love. God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins. Beloved, since God loved us so much, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us.By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and do testify that the Father has sent his Son as the Saviour of the world. God abides in those who confess that Jesus is the Son of God, and they abide in God. So we have known and believe the love that God has for us.God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them. Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness on the day of judgement, because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love. We love because he first loved us. Those who say, ‘I love God’, and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen. The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also.

I don't know about you, but I sure have heard a whole lot about "God is love" in past sermons. I sometimes was left wondering if the preacher was talking about "Love" with a capital "L" or not.  God as love is actually a bit harder to get your mind around than it would seem. Our typical frame of reference when thinking about this subject is based on our peculiar human experience, but there is another frame of reference, and that is found when we consult the witness of Scripture as to "the why" we come to the conclusion that God is Love. John Charles Ryle (10 May 1816 - 10 June 1900) was the first Anglican bishop of Liverpool, and he gave a warning to those who might preach on this matter,   

 H/t Erik.

"Let us proclaim to all the world that God is love. But let us carefully remember that we know little or nothing of God's love which can give us comfort, excepting in Jesus Christ. It is not written that God so loved the world that He will take all the world to heaven—but that He so loved it, that He has given His only begotten Son. He who ventures on God's love without reference to Christ—is building on a foundation of sand!" ~ J.C. Ryle Tract: Do You Believe?

Playing the Holy Spirit Card

Ever since the arrival of our new priest, the Sunday bulletin no longer prints the rubric, "All baptised Christians are welcome to recieve Communion" (or something to that effect). Our new priest now verbally instructs those in attendance that "All are welcome" to come up for Communion. Knowing that the Episcopal left is leaning toward Communion of the unbaptised or Communion without Baptism (CWOB), and that many of them believe this to be the next great move of the Holy Spirit, one that is sure to bring boatloads of people streaming into the Church, and that a resolution to the Episcopal General Convention will be proposed this year in favor of CWOB, I have been waiting to hear some hints from our new priest about how we should view the matter.

While not directly taking on the challenge of CWOB today, our priest laid the groundwork for what I foresee to be a future assault on the issue. The reading from Acts 8:26-40 was about Philip's conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch, a story which makes no mention whatsoever about CWOB, but might have been used to prep us for the subject. We heard all about Philip being guided by an angel, by the Holy Spirit into a new thing, inclusion, radical departures from the norm, all of which might be appropriate when talking about Jesus' call for us to repent, to be healed, and to be baptized, but then our priest included the story of a certain Sara Miles, an Episcopal priest who our priest considers to be a Theologian, and I started getting worried. The story itself was about a rather unusual baptism Sara Miles performed in San Francisco, but the name "Sara Miles" rang a bell. I afraid it was my CWOB alarm bell.

Last year there was a posting on ReliousLeftLaw.com about the CWOB controversy. That is where I first saw the name "Sara Miles." You see, our priest's "theologian" claimed that an initial CWOB led her, an atheist, to later be baptized. So why drag her into the sermon? Maybe to get us to blindly accept her as a reference. Maybe not, but at least I know what our priest is reading. Here is a sample:

"My first communion (at St. Gregory of Nyssa in San Francisco) was an entirely unexpected experience of the risen Christ in bread and wine: it knocked me upside down and drew me inexorably toward baptism. While my own conversion might not represent the way things are supposed to happen, it's the way they did happen.

"I hesitate to draw broad conclusions about what that experience means for others, and I agree that individual experience is not the point here. But as someone who's been baptized now for ten years, and continues to share communion with unbaptized people, I'd like to offer some observations.

"I completely agree that the secular rhetoric of "inclusion" or "welcome" is inadequate to explain what's happening sacramentally during communion. Offering communion in order to be friendly, polite, or socially broadminded toward the unbaptized quickly reduces a mystery of God to being about our niceness.

"The pastoral reason for offering communion to everyone without exception strikes me as being far more about the spiritual health of the baptized partakers––we who say repeatedly that we're not worthy to receive the meal, and yet frequently pretend that we're somehow prepared for it. I think it's good for Christians to eat bread and wine alongside people who incarnate the truth that nobody gets communion because she deserves it––or, for that matter, understands it. It's good for Christians to see that we can't control who is going to hear the good shepherd's voice, or when. It's good for Christian churches to feel themselves hungry and in need of something they cannot manage.

"It's one thing to pride myself that, from a privileged position of correct belief, I'm generously sharing communion with unbaptized outsiders to make them feel "welcome." It's a very different thing to have to witness God's extravagant love for the unprepared, the unworthy, the laborers who show up at the 11th hour...to learn that God might be using foreigners, the unclean, the Gentiles and even the wicked to save me and my tribe, and to show us something about the wideness of his grace.

"Grace is not sequential. It frequently shows up at the wrong time, to the wrong people. It doesn't follow the logic of the world. I'm not sure how we will discern the movement of the Spirit in our present struggles over communion before baptism. But I'm pretty sure it's a mistake to imagine the Spirit tidily walks everyone through a ladder-like curriculum of spiritual development before she decides to blow."

Never mind that she has been breaking the rules of the Church for ten years and has not been disciplined, but consider what may become of the highly touted 1979 BCP Baptismal Covenant.

But before that consider a little history.
In Jesus' day, He himself was baptised, preached repentance and forgiveness, baptised others as did his followers, Jesus healed, forgave sins, and gave up His body and blood for us.

The apostolic order as illustrated by Philip and the eunuch was inquiry, instruction, acceptance, repentance, baptism, and new life as a member of the Body of Christ.
The pre-1979 BCP  Episcopal order of business was Baptism (usually as an infant), instruction and acceptance followed by Confirmation as teenager, and then Communion.

Post 1979 the order was Baptism, Communion, and maybe Confirmation later.

The new proposed order is inquiry, Communion, and hoping the Spirit will "take". I guess baptism will be optional.

The argument our priest used for Philip's breaking of the norm and his baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch was the action of the Holy Spirit.

I am afraid that the argument for CWOB will be similar. I call it "playing the Holy Spirit card."

The problem I have with playing the Holy Spirit card for novelties such as CWOB is that once the card is played, anyone who has a different opinion is automatically cast as being opposed to the Holy Spirit, non-inclusive, and un-welcoming. Most passive Episcopalians would rather let those led by a new spirit go ahead and row their own boat as long as nobody drowns in the process. The problem is that by letting the misled row the boat, a whole lot more people may get lost than initially imagined.

Imagine what happens if an opponent of the new thing stands up and claims that they are the ones being guided by the Holy Spirit.

Mexican standoff right? That would certainly seem like the time to stop rowing and do the necessary theological work.

Well, that did not happen with the debate over homosexual behavior in the priesthood, same sex blessings, and it is not going to happen here.

Sound, theologically based arguments can never prevail in today's Episcopal church against the religious left's ace in the hole.









 

Is There a Right to Sexual Self Gratification? Adding Letters to LGBT

At Bishop Waldo's recent "Preparation for General Convention" I listened as people testified to the need for blessings of same sex relationships. I heard the voices of those who believed that only when this was accomplished would they feel gratified, fully accepted, and fulfilled.

Since we humans seem to jump from one desire to the next, and each desire is something we honestly believe will lead to us being self-fulfilled, I wondered with a silent shrug how the approval of same sex blessings would make someone's life complete.

What about those with other sexual orientations? What would help them to feel fully accepted? Don't they have a right to "full inclusion" if they attest that they are in a committed monogamous relationship?

I give you an extreme example.

There was a story from last year in the Detroit News via Gawker: An inmate in the Macomb County Jail accused of bank robbery filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court in Detroit against Gov. Rick Snyder and the state of Michigan, so that he and other prisoners may,

"possess erotic/pornographic materials along with personal televisions, video game consoles and radios."

You have to understand that this man suffers from

"chronic masturbation syndrome and severe sexual discomfort,"

and that

"Sexual deprivation has been used against plaintiff in a way as to both sexually frustrate the plaintiff, deprive the plaintiff of any sort of sexual gratification, and deny the plaintiff his right to sexual reproduction."

I am not sure how the lack of pornography denies one of the "right to sexual reproduction." I was also unaware of another form of human reproduction other than sexual reproduction. Cloning isn't legal... yet.

The lawsuit went nowhere because this guy ignored the basic lessons to be learned from church politics.

First of all, he needed to find a scientific or pseudo-scientific paper to support the idea that his particular syndrome was being mislabeled as a disorder when it was actually a normal and healthy behavior. Then he could have painted anyone who did not go along with the researcher's point of view as close-minded and onaniphobic. Once he had set himself and those like him up as members of an oppressed group, he could then use the fact that there is only one debatable verse in the Old Testament that might speak about his "issue" and garner the support of those liberal clergy who are out there looking for a cause. He could even recruit a certain former Surgeon General's support as well. Thus armed, he could set out to right the terrible wrongs done to him by the Church and society.
Pressure from the streets could lead to anti-discrimination laws being passed, and eventually this guy would be properly understood to have a "right" to sexual gratification. In order to atone for our corporate guilt, he would be given a private cell, access to those cable channels that you and I won't pay for when we go to a hotel, and a place in "Holy Men, Holy women"... oops I was not being politically correct, it is "Holy Women, Holy Men."

Someone might even propose to bless this sexual orientation.

And once he got out of jail, he would not have to go back to robbing banks. I bet he would be invited to appear in movies, speak to collections of bishops at Kanuga retreats, be in photo shoots, and he might get to stay at a certain unnamed mansion, all in order that he live into his authentic self.

Bishop Gene Robinson, whom you may recall once said it was time to move beyond speaking simply of "GLBT" (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered) orientations: "there are so many other letters in the alphabet," he said; "there are so many other sexualities to be explored." He did not elaborate as to what those other sexualities and other letters of the alphabet might be. Little did he suspect that the letter "O" might be his missing vowel.
We haven't fallen that far have we?

Disunity: Two Worlds, Two Gospels in Tension

In last Wednesday's reading from Ephesians 4:7-8,11-16, the Apostle Paul speaks of the unity of the Church, of individuals, all as part of the body of Christ.

 "But each of us was given grace according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore it is said,
‘When he ascended on high he made captivity itself a captive; he gave gifts to his people.’ The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ. We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knitted together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love."

Can people, the Church, or any of those who profess to be Christians ever hope to see the body of Christ "grow in building itself up in love" as St. Paul writes? What ligament is strong enough to hold together two different worlds travelling in opposite directions as the Anglican Communion appears to be trying to do?

As evidence that the Anglican Communion is, in its most polar opposites, made up of two different Gospels led by two very different types of leaders I present the following recent quotations from two types of Anglican spiritual leaders who are trying to guide us. You will see their differing visions of the future of the Church and how to get there.

#1) "We believe that the future of our Communion relies on adherence to Scriptural authority, faithful and Christ-centred preaching of this word, the blessing of God’s Holy Spirit, godly leadership and the spiritual commitment of God’s people." (From here)

Compare that with this,

#2) "That spirit is inviting us to let go of what is dead and embrace the new life that’s emerging. We’re looking toward a church that is more varied and less rigidly controlled, more networked and less directed. This new church is going to be more organic, more profoundly a body with uniquely gifted parts, each one honored and blessed for the service of God’s mission. It’s going to need different kinds of communication and responsiveness. We are already beginning to live into some of those ways, and others are still waiting to be discovered. None of us knows exactly what this church is going to look like – and that scares some folks to death, even more than the dying that has already been. I don’t know what is coming, none of us knows exactly what’s coming, this body doesn’t know what the next shape will be. We are being invited into a more truly communal process of discernment, a listening to the spirit that is patient and alert enough to help us all embrace that green blade rising." (From here)

In the first example we see the confidence and assurance that comes from surrender to and trust in the Lord and his Holy Word.

In the second example we see the doubt and uncertainty that comes from the shaky foundation built upon disassemby and constant revisioning of Scripture, Earthly centered preaching, following the spirit of the age,  leadership that does not acknowledge its fallen nature, trying to lead an ill informed and Biblically illiterate people.

Two different worlds, two different leaderships, two different visions...

I do not see where unity is possible between these two worlds as they drift farther and farther apart unless they both cling to the same ligament, the only thing strong enough to bind us together.

Unfortunately for the writer of quotation #2, it looks like she needs to let go of her doubts, and grab hold of the same ligament to which the writers of quotation #1 have already been bound.

Chesterson: Feeling Homesick at Home, the Basis of Christian Optimism

The subjects of pessimism and optimism have always interested me. I enjoyed G.K. Chesterson's take on the matter when I found it in his "Orthodoxy." The first paragraph of the sample below may not seem to be all that important, but if you go back and re-read it after digesting the whole thing you might appreciate the analogies a little more. The second paragraph gives me hope that my occasional feelings of being in the wrong place at the wrong time are not causes for despair but are indeed indicators of the joy we have in Christ.

I hope it brings you some hope.

"The fancy that the cosmos was not vast and void, but small and cosy, had a fulfilled significance now, for anything that is a work of art must be small in the sight of the artist; to God the stars might be only small and dear, like diamonds. And my haunting instinct that somehow good was not merely a tool to be used, but a relic to be guarded, like the goods from Crusoe’s ship—even that had been the wild whisper of something originally wise, for, according to Christianity, we were indeed the survivors of a wreck, the crew of a golden ship that had gone down before the beginning of the world."

"But the important matter was this, that it entirely reversed the reason for optimism. And the instant the reversal was made it felt like the abrupt ease when a bone is put back in the socket. I had often called myself an optimist, to avoid the too evident blasphemy of pessimism. But all the optimism of the age had been false and disheartening for this reason, that it had always been trying to prove that we fit in to the world. The Christian optimism is based on the fact that we do NOT fit in to the world. I had tried to be happy by telling myself that man is an animal, like any other which sought its meat from God. But now I really was happy, for I had learnt that man is a monstrosity. I had been right in feeling all things as odd, for I myself was at once worse and better than all things. The optimist’s pleasure was prosaic, for it dwelt on the naturalness of everything; the Christian pleasure was poetic, for it dwelt on the unnaturalness of everything in the light of the supernatural. The modern philosopher had told me again and again that I was in the right place, and I had still felt depressed even in acquiescence. But I had heard that I was in the WRONG place, and my soul sang for joy, like a bird in spring. The knowledge found out and illuminated forgotten chambers in the dark house of infancy. I knew now why grass had always seemed to me as queer as the green beard of a giant, and why I could feel homesick at home." G.K. Chesterson "Orthodoxy", Chapter V

 

Spock Comes To Coffee Hour

In honor of Earth Day 2012, I thought about how our religion might appear to someone visiting Earth for the first time. The following dialog might have been used to create a cartoon scenario if I weren't too cheap to pay for the upgrade to my cartoon maker account.

Parts of this conversation were inspired by some of the comments I overheard at Bishop Waldo's "Preparation for the General Convention" held yesterday.


Jean: Hello. Welcome to coffee hour. My name is Jean.

Mr. Spock: Spock here.

Jean: Are you new?

Spock: I am actually quite old.

Jean: I meant, is this your first visit to our Episcopal church?

Spock: This is my first visit to your world.

Jean: Well, I hope you enjoyed the service.

Spock: Joy is an emotion that interferes with logical thought. I am here to study your religion.

Jean: So, you want to know more about our church?

Spock: That is correct.

Jean: Well... for one thing, we are an inclusive church.

Spock: Explain the term "inclusive church".

Jean: It means that everyone is welcome regardless of race, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Spock: Looking around the room, it would appear that not all races have accepted your welcome.

Jean: Oh, well people do tend to stick to their own kind, but they are welcome to come to our church anyway. We try to engage diversity.

Spock: I could not determine the diversity of all those discriminatory characteristics to which you alluded. Please explain the term "gender identity."

Jean: Well.. . Er... um... you know... male or female, transgender, or some other combination that you have decided is your gender.

Spock: On Vulcan, gender is determined by the combination of phenotype and genotype. Tell me about this other thing you call sexual orientation.

Jean: I think that refers to the object of one's sexual attraction. We are either heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.

Spock: On Vulcan, males mate with females, and females mate with males. Anything else is illogical.

Jean: The Episcopal church is more welcoming than your logic.

Spock: We shall see about that.

Jean: We believe that Hooker's three legged stool of scripture,  tradition, and reason leads us to welcome and to bless any committed, loving, monogamous relationship.

Spock: I have studied your scriptures, your traditions, and your reasoning, and I have concluded that you do not have a single leg to stand on.

Jean: You are from a different planet aren't you?

Spock: How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Jean: I think it was the ears.

Spock: Does your church not welcome those of us with Vulcan ears?

Jean: No, that is not it. We just don't welcome close minded people with Vulcan ears who do not agree with us.

Spock: Thank you for all of the data that I needed to complete my study of your church.

Jean: You're welcome. Would you like some coffee?

Spock: If I had feelings, I would say that I do not feel all that welcome, but I do feel like a cup of coffee.

Jean: I really would like to know more about how you felt about today's gathering.

Spock: (With a sigh) Humans...

The Mighty Move of the Spirit is Headed to the UMC

The "mighty move of the Spirit" is a phrase that our revisionist friends came up with once to explain their political scheme to swing a vote (I think it was a Bishop election) at an Episcopal convention.


From MethodistThinker.com comes a commentary by Riley B. Case, associate executive director of the Confessing Movement Within the United Methodist Church that illustrates the tactics behind the spread of theological revisionism through denominations other than the Episcopal church. Riley Case is up against the political tactics of those who try to change church doctrine through legislation. There are interesting parallels between what he is seeing and what we in the Episcopal church have been through.

"The United Methodist Church is the last of the mainline churches to hold to the biblical view on marriage and the practice of homosexuality, and the pro-homosexual lobby knows that getting the UMC to alter that stand would greatly advance the homosexual agenda. To that end hundreds of thousands of dollars — much of it from outsiders not connected with the UM Church — have been poured into an effort to overturn United Methodism’s present stance."

Outside money... That sounds familiar. Recall that the Episcopal Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music got a $404,000 grant from the Arcus Foundation to support the development of resources for same-sex blessings. Arcus money has been spread around a number of "mainline" groups (as well as the Catholic Church) for this purpose.

Riley Case's commentary echoes another of the things we Episcopalians have had foisted upon us over the years,

"A vocal group in the church — those who call themselves progressives — agrees with the secular world. As one person said: 'Society around us is leading the way about accepting of homosexual practice and the church is lagging behind.'"

The use of the term "progressive" tends to give the false impression that those opposed to their new ideas might be "repressive." 

Whenever I read or hear that society is leading the way and the church must catch up, I shudder. Our leader is not the ever changing wind of society and its temptations. We are called to follow Jesus. Religious "progressives" who wish to follow society's lead have learned to bend Jesus and the words of scripture into pretzels in order to get the Church to follow their lead.

Once people are sufficiently confused about what is actually written in scripture, politics comes into play. The UMC is going to have a "General Conference." Petitions can be brought there much in the same way that "resolutions" are brought to the Episcopal "General Conventions."

"So we come to General Conference 2012. While there are many petitions seeking to change the church’s historical stance in regard to human sexuality, three groups of petitions bear special watching.


1) Petitions that would have the church redefine marriage so that it is no longer a covenant between 'a man and a woman' but between “two persons” (see an example here—PDF).


...The main religious argument is an inclusion/exclusion argument — i.e., we should not deny two men or two women who love each other the privilege of marriage because to do so is judgmental and restrictive..."

I think the religious argument is "how can the modern Church redefine something that Jesus and the Apostles understood to be between one man and one woman?" The moral argument is "inclusion/exclusion" based on the human experience of love between two persons. How we formulate our moral arguments about the appropriateness of all types of sexual behaviors as well as same sex attraction is a serious question for all Christians and is not something that can be changed by petition..

2) Petitions from several annual conferences would place disclaimers in the preamble to the Social Principles (see an example here—PDF).


These petitions want the preamble to state that unanimity of belief, opinion, and practice has never been characteristic of the Church. Therefore when there are significant differences of opinion in the church (such as around the practice of homosexuality), these differences should not be covered over with false claims of consensus, but embraced with courage as the people of God continue to discern God’s will.
The important thing is “celebrate our differences” and stay together.

Ah yes, agree to disagree as long as the agenda moves forward. The actual conclusion reads,

"In that confidence, we pledge to continue to be in respectful dialogue with those with whom we disagree, to explore the sources of our differences, to honor the sacred worth of all persons, and to tell the truth about our divisions as we continue to seek the mind of Christ and to do the will of God in all things."

That sounds like a variation of something we Episcopalians called "The Listening Process." It winds up being a process that only serves the progressive cause.

3) At least two petitions direct the church and the world to refrain from judgment regarding homosexual persons and practices “until the Spirit leads us into new insight” (see pages 273-276 of this PDF file).

As long as that insight helps to move the agenda forward. This is another way to play "kick the can down the road" when you are actually playing games with the Holy Spirit. The Church got it wrong, and when we finally do see the change we want we will give credit to the mighty move of the Spirit which as we all know when talking about church politics is the mighty move of political machinations.

Discerning what is and what is not an authentic movement of the Holy Spirit is made more challenging for us when outside money, politics, and secular moralism enter into an equation that is supposed to involve the prayerful study of God's Holy Word by believers in that Word. When a spirit of the age is in conflict with scripture, it is the new spirit that is to be revised, not Holy Scripture, but when powerful forces want a new spirit to be legalized, and the Church has been sufficiently weakened in its confidence of what we used to call the "Gospel truth," the progressive strategy works amazingly well.

We are also easily misled when people talk about the "movement of the Spirit."  We forget that ever since the ancient days of sacred poles, altars in the high places, and the golden calf, that we are more likely to be moved by a wrong spirit than by the Holy Spirit.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. - Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr