Worldview Theater: The Shawshank Redemption

January 20, 2007

Servants Quarters 2007 is in full swing.  We convened last night for the third time to continue our year-long dialogue exploring the implications of biblical stewardship principles for living in a culture captive to materialistic ideals.  During this latest gathering, we planned to discuss the worldview perspectives reflected in a specific product of American culture:  the critically-acclaimed and highly popular film, The Shawshank Redemption.  God had other plans. 

I hope and trust we were following His lead, as we shelved our Shawshank examination in favor of a spirited discussion concerning the crisis facing The Episcopal Church (TEC).  In particular, we explored what it means for The Falls Church (and other parishes who only recently disaffiliated from TEC) to be wise and faithful stewards of the property with which they have been blessed – as the Diocese of Virginia and TEC press headlong into litigation aimed at reclaiming that property.

Given the dynamic and volatile nature of the situation, I abstain, at this time, from sharing my specific thoughts on the matter.  What I will say is that we are striving to approach the situation with not just a Christian ethic and Christian spirituality (which no doubt are important) but also a Christian mind.  We are striving to help each other “think christianly” – “to accept all things with the mind as related, directly or indirectly, to man’s eternal destiny as the redeemed and chosen child of God” (Harry Blamires, The Christian Mind:  How Should a Christian Think? p.44).  We are striving to “set[ ] all earthly issues within the context of the eternal, . . . see[ing] all things here below in terms of God’s supremacy and earth’s transitoriness, in terms of Heaven and Hell” (id. at 4).  In one sense, that’s the primary business of Servants Quarters.

Because of that fruitful detour, we’ve decided to hold our Shawshank discussion here in this forum.  All are welcome to pose questions, share observations or take issue with what I’ve written previously.  (In short, I observed that (1) Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) reflected in important ways the biblical notion of how important it is to maintain an eternal perspective, while living here and now;  and (2) the redemption of Andy’s best friend, Red Redding (Morgan Freeman) was suggestive of a Christian-like process of repentance.) 

If you prefer specific to open-ended questions, let’s begin the discussion with the subject of beauty.  What is attractive in the film?  What people, places, behavior or ideas?  To whom?  How is it made attractive?

How Far Is Too Far: When Is It Time To Leave A Church?

January 19, 2007

John Yates and Os Guinness discuss the decision of The Falls Church to disaffiliate from The Episcopal Church on the Albert Mohler Radio Program last Friday.

Bishop Schori on Evangelism: Let’s Assume for the Moment that She Does Believe that Jesus Is “the” Way

January 12, 2007

In a brief New Year’s Day essay, Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, shares her perspective on how Christians ought to “reach the unchurched.”  As a Christian, I think it’s great that Bishop Schori is seeking to teach the importance of not just evangelism but effective methods for it.  I agree that “to begin in listening” can be effective.  And I agree more generally, to some extent, that “we must learn new words and ways to tell our story” to “reach the unchurched” in this postmodern culture.  That said, Bishop Schori’s essay begs the question:  what exactly is “our story?”  Moreover, it raises the question:  might some “new words” that we use to reach the unchurched actually undermine “our story?”

Continue reading "Bishop Schori on Evangelism: Let’s Assume for the Moment that She Does Believe that Jesus Is “the” Way" »

Bigotry or Obedience?

January 11, 2007

Not surprisingly, Chuck Colson can grasp why I and many others have left the Episcopal Church.  

This is not front-page news because the New York Times editors are concerned about church splits. I doubt they would have covered Martin Luther if the Reformation were going on today. This is front-page news because the Times can use it to make Christians look bigoted.  . . .  What I . . .  take issue with is the Times and other critics telling us we are bigots. I have been in those prisons and seen our people ministering to AIDS victims over the years. I don’t see these critics there. I see our people doing this day in and day out.

In any event, it’s telling that the Times would choose to draw attention to something like this rather telling you what is really behind it. In leaving the Episcopal Church, many of these congregations are enduring public scorn and potentially devastating financial loss—including the loss of their church buildings, pastors’ pensions, and so forth. Why? Because, in conscience, they must remain true to Scripture and their convictions. The issue is orthodoxy, not homosexuality.

Read it all.

Why We Left the Episcopal Church

January 08, 2007

Today’s Washington Post carries an essay by The Rev. Dr. John Yates, rector of The Falls Church (TFC), and Os Guinness, Christian author, speaker, apologist and sociologist and TFC parishioner.  In it they explain why they left the Episcopal Church.

Fundamental to a liberal view of freedom is the right of a person or group to define themselves, to speak for themselves and to not be dehumanized by the definitions and distortions of others. This right we request even of those who differ from us.  . . .  The core issue for us is theological: the intellectual integrity of faith in the modern world.  It is thus a matter of faithfulness to the lordship of Jesus, whom we worship and follow.  The American Episcopal Church no longer believes the historic, orthodox Christian faith common to all believers.  Some leaders expressly deny the central articles of the faith -- saying that traditional theism is “dead,” the incarnation is “nonsense,” the resurrection of Jesus is a fiction, the understanding of the cross is “a barbarous idea,” the Bible is “pure propaganda” and so on.  Others simply say the creed as poetry or with their fingers crossed.

Read it all.

Apostles Creed

January 01, 2007

A video demonstration of the Apostles Creed

Full of Grace and Truth

January 01, 2007

In an uncommonly great Christmas sermon, Bishop N.T. Wright addresses the arrival of grace and truth in the incarnation. 

The great revolution of thought which happened in Europe over three centuries ago, associated with Descartes in particular, was the attempt to grasp truth as it were from scratch: by doubting everything, we would see what we could be sure of and build out from there. We would know the facts, and the facts would set us free – free from God, free from any responsibility except to our own self-interest. There’s a straight line from Descartes to Dawkins: we can doubt God, but we can’t doubt the facts, the empirical evidence. And the results of that arrogant attempt to possess truth are all around us, etched in the horrors of the twentieth century and now already the multiple follies of the twenty-first, as we in the West blunder blindly on . . . .  And meanwhile the worm in the apple has hollowed it out more or less completely: the ‘truth’ which we thought we knew has been eaten away not just in theology and philosophy but in its heartland of physics, by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, and in its deeper heartland of the human being, where Descartes began. We have become a society paranoid about truth: so we make each other fill in more and more forms, and set up more cameras to spy on each other, to check up on one another because we want the truth, we want an audit trail, we want more and more Enquiries and Judicial Reviews and Investigations, but we can’t get at truth because Descartes’ experiment has itself made it impossible, has generated a world of suspicion and smear and spin.

But if the world has tried to have truth without grace, the church has often been tempted towards grace without truth – as Dietrich Bonhoeffer put it, ‘cheap grace’. God has become a benevolent old softie, ready to tolerate everything, to include everyone, to throw away all those unpleasant old moral standards and say it’s all right, do your own thing, if it feels good it must be OK.

Read the entire sermon.

The Son of God Enters Human History

December 25, 2006

[God] is no longer distant.  He is no longer unknown.  He is no longer beyond the reach of our heart.  He has become a child for us, and in so doing he has dispelled all doubt.  He has become our neighbour, restoring in this way the image of man, whom we often find so hard to love.  For us, God has become a gift.  He has given himself.  He has entered time for us.  He who is the Eternal One, above time, he has assumed our time and raised it to himself on high.  Christmas has become the Feast of gifts in imitation of God who has given himself to us.  Let us allow our heart, our soul and our mind to be touched by this fact!  Among the many gifts that we buy and receive, let us not forget the true gift: to give each other something of ourselves, to give each other something of our time, to open our time to God.                        – Pope Benedict XVI, December 24, 2006

Luke 2

The Birth of Jesus

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.  (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.)  And everyone went to his own town to register.

So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.  He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.  While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

The Shepherds and the Angels

And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night.  An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified.  But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people.  Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord.  This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger."

Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,

"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests."

When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let's go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about."

So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger.  When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them.  But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart.  The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.

“Jailing Gays” in Nigeria: My Answer to Charges of Bigotry

December 23, 2006

Dubious accusations abound in the wake of the decision of many Virginia churches, including mine, to sever denominational ties with the Episcopal Church.  The harshest criticism has been saved for those churches’ simultaneous decision to affiliate instead with the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), a mission of the Church of Nigeria.  The critics’ objection:  the Primate of the Church of Nigeria, Archbishop Akinola, is an alleged “advocate of jailing gays.”  In particular, he allegedly “threw his prestige and resources behind” proposed Nigerian legislation that would criminalize same-sex marriage and “make it illegal for gay men and lesbians to form organizations, read gay literature or eat together in a restaurant,” says the New York Times.  By choosing to affiliate with CANA, critics contend, these Virginia churches have implicitly endorsed jailing homosexuals for exercising freedoms of speech, association, expression, assembly, and religion.  (The full text of the legislation is reproduced here.)

As someone who voted in favor of separating from the Episcopal Church and affiliating with CANA, the critics’ sweeping accusations include me within their aim.  Harold Meyerson accuses me of deciding that not “all men were created equal.”  A writer for the Diocese of Washington has hypothesized that I may have been motivated by “naked bigotry,” and he seeks an explanation of why I “favor--or, at the very least, acquiesce--in depriving Nigerians of rights that Americans enjoy.”  Father Jake says that I “probably” am a bigot and issues the following challenge:  “Please explain how ordaining gays and lesbians can trouble your conscience, yet throwing them in jail does not.”

I suspect that these gentlemen would prefer to hear a response from someone in a position of formal leadership at my church.  I am in no such position.  As is true with respect to all I write but bears emphasizing at a time like this, I speak only for myself – not for CANA, The Falls Church (TFC), my friends, or my wife – just me. 

To characterize my vote to leave the Episcopal Church and affiliate with CANA as an act of bigotry is to miss the point entirely.  The overriding purpose of the vote called by my parish leadership, as I understand it, was to hold a referendum on the state of the Episcopal Church – to decide whether the denomination has so parted ways with biblical Christianity that we, in turn, must part ways with the denomination.  As explained in Part I of this essay, my vote in favor of leaving the Episcopal Church is my witness to the supreme authority of Scripture for all of life and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the one and only Mediator between God and humankind.  Choosing to leave, of course, raises the ancillary and less important question of where to go.  My parish leadership thoroughly reviewed the options, recommended that we affiliate with CANA as a transitional entity, and presented to the congregation the question of where-to-go in the same resolution as the question of whether-to-go.  Part II explains why I voted for this package resolution, despite concerns about the Nigerian bill.  In short, these concerns were insufficient to overcome my concerns about the Episcopal Church’s leadership’s abandonment of core tenets of the Christian faith. 

I.  Whether-to-go:  Why I voted to sever ties with the Episcopal Church

Before implicating me and the great majority of my fellow parishioners in a parade of horribles, let’s consider the specific resolution put before us by TFC leadership.  It stated, in relevant part, that:

[1] The Episcopal Church has departed from the authority of the Holy Scriptures and from historic Christian teaching on the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the only Lord and Savior of humankind; [and thus 2] The Falls Church shall sever its denominational ties with The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia and [3] affiliate with [CANA].

As I briefly explained in another essay, I accept the premise:  there is plentiful, sobering evidence that the denomination’s leadership not only has effectively abandoned Scripture as the supreme authority for life, but seems to have no reservations about denying the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.  These are not inconsequential matters at the edges of Christian doctrine about which the church – even those of us from the Anglican tradition – can agree to disagree.  Reflecting the biblical understanding that “All Scripture is inspired by God” (2 Timothy 3:16), all Christians confess, through the Nicene Creed, that the Holy Spirit has spoken through the prophets.  For the same reason, our Book of Common Prayer repeatedly refers to the Bible as the “Word of God” or the “Word of the Lord,” and the Episcopal catechism (BCP p.853) teaches that Scripture – not man – defines truth:

Q. How do we recognize the truths taught by the Holy Spirit?

A. We recognize truths to be taught by the Holy Spirit when they are in accord with the Scriptures. 

See The Falls Church, Can Two Walk Together, Except They Be Agreed?, pp.3-4.  Nonetheless, the Episcopal Church’s 2003 and 2006 General Conventions rejected resolutions that would have affirmed that Scripture is the Church’s supreme authority.  See id. at 12;  The Falls Church, I Will Welcome You: Finding a New Home in the Anglican Communion, p.2.

From its outset, Anglican teaching has clearly accepted the biblical understanding that Jesus Christ is the only Lord and Savior of humankind.  Affirming the words of Jesus (John 14:6 and Matthew 11:27) and the teachings of Paul (1 Timothy 2:5; Romans 3:21-22) and Peter (Acts 4:12), Article XVIII of the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles proclaimed:

They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.

Even so, the Episcopal Church’s 2006 General Convention rejected a resolution that would have declared a “commitment to Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the only name by which any person may be saved,” and would have “acknowledge[d] the solemn responsibility placed upon us to share Christ with all persons when we hear His words, ‘I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.’”  See I Will Welcome You, p.9.  In two subsequent interviews (summarized here), the denomination’s recently elected leader certified the convention’s rejection of this non-negotiable tenet of the Christian faith. 

I understand that many sincere people of faith disagree with my assessment of the evidence.  But for those of us who have concluded that the leadership of the Episcopal Church has unrepentantly forsaken core matters of Christian faith, separation from the denomination becomes imperative.  We are not to “be yoked together with unbelievers” (2 Corinthians 6:14). 

About those who depart from “the teaching of Christ,” we are warned: “Do not receive into the house or welcome anyone who comes to you and does not bring this teaching; for to welcome is to participate in the evil deeds of such a person.”  (2 John 10-11.)  The Apostles’ instruction is eventually to keep away from him and have nothing to do with him.

Can Two Walk Together, p.16 & n.14 (citing Romans 16:17;  2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14;  2 Timothy 3:5;  Titus 3:10).  Yet there are those, including Bishop Lee of Virginia, who would have us ignore this teaching as well, all in the name of maintaining unity in the church.  See, e.g., Statement from Bishop Lee, Unity through Diversity, Dec. 10, 2006 (urging congregations contemplating leaving the diocese to preserve, defend and maintain unity within and through diversity), available at the diocese’s press room;  Letter from Bishop Lee to Truro Parishioners, Dec. 6, 2006 (“ vote for the unity and mission of the church, therefore remaining one with your diocese . . . .  Until the Day of Judgement, the wheat and the weeds will grow together as Jesus promised in the Gospel”).  A resource published and commended by the Diocese of Virginia claims that: 

A great variety of interpretations of Scripture has coexisted in the Anglican Communion.  Unity has been based rather on common discipline, common worship, common prayer, shared reverence for and discussion of Scripture, and common allegiance to the Bishop.

This notion bears little resemblance to the unity in Christ of which Paul spoke – “unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God” (Ephesians 4:13), unity with “one faith” (v.5).  As the leaders of The Falls Church put it, the unity envisioned by the diocese – “unity through the ‘yoke’ of denominational affiliation – without regard to shared belief, and even in the face of obvious disbelief”:  

is neither Anglican nor Christian.  It would transform the Church into a less-than-Christian organization, which we perceive that the national Episcopal Church has now become . . . (I Will Welcome You, p.15).

To remain affiliated with the denomination is to be complicit in its serious doctrinal error.  It is to submit to, if not endorse, teaching that rejects Scripture as supremely authoritative.  It is to submit to leadership that denies Jesus Christ as the one and only Mediator between God and humankind.  For evidence of complicity, one only need look at the accusations of bigotry that triggered this essay.  Critics explicitly or implicitly accuse those of us leaving the Episcopal Church for CANA with complicity in every word uttered and deed done by the Archbishop of Nigeria.

Consider also the denomination’s response to news of our votes to disaffiliate.  “This is a handful of congregations of a total of nearly 7,200, the vast majority of which are engaged in healthy and vital ministry,” said Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.  Paragraph two of the Episcopal News Service press release highlighted the fact that Sunday’s defection involved “eight of Virginia’s 195 congregations” and “about 8,000 of the diocese’s roughly 90,000 Episcopalians.”  The implication invited by the presiding bishop and her news service:  the other 187 Virginia congregations and 82,000 Episcopalians support the denomination’s leadership and teaching.  I refuse to be counted in this way as one of the denomination’s supporters.

II.  Where-to-go:  Why concerns about CANA were insufficient to lead me to vote to remain a part of the Episcopal Church

This discussion may seem like the long way around to answering accusations about my vote to affiliate with CANA, but it is the only way around to the question.  There really is no other way to provide an accurate account.  This is the context in which the decision to affiliate with CANA was made.  This was the source and urgency of my conviction to dissociate from the Episcopal Church.  The issue of where-to-go, while not unimportant, was minor compared to the issue of whether-to-go and why.  Issues of sexuality and civil rights, while important, are lesser than questions concerning the nature and authority of Jesus Christ and the Holy Scriptures.

Contributing to the lesser importance of where-to-go is the fact that our destination, by nature and design, is impermanent.  Regardless whether The Falls Church were to affiliate in the immediate term with Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda, etc., that relationship will be temporary, lasting only until a new US province of orthodox Anglicans can be formed.  See Mary Springmann, Vestry Registrar, Truro Church, Why CANA? (describing CANA as a “transitional entity with built-in flexibility to move to a permanent orthodox American structure”).  TFC’s rector, John Yates, paints this picture:

Ages ago, before the world was born, the great battle began when the Prince of Darkness rebelled against the one, true king.  It has raged ever since.  Among the many vessels commissioned by our glorious king to engage in this holy war, was our own good ship “Episcopalian.”  Not nearly as large or conspicuous as many, still we have admired her beauty and been proud to serve in her crew.  

Tragically, now, she is sinking.  Great leaks have developed, she has rusted and rotted.  The captain and officers seem unaware.  “All is well,” they cry as the waters rise, the ropes give way and the rudder comes loose.  . . .  Now, look!  Other ships in the great Anglican fleet have noticed our perilous condition and sent little lifeboats with supplies and fresh materials – little rafts from the ship Rwanda (A.M.i.A.), Nigeria (C.A.N.A.), Bolivia, Kenya, Uganda, and elsewhere.  Their ships are led by strong and able captains.  “We will help you,” they shout to us.  “Let us carry you for a brief time to a sheltered place where we will help you build a new ship that will bring great joy to our king.  Bring whatever tools and supplies you can, but don’t be encumbered.  This is a moment for courage and faith!”

In evaluating the available lifeboats, my parish leadership considered ten or so factors similar to those set forth in this summary by Truro’s vestry registrar.  Our senior warden’s explanation of the leadership’s rationale for seeking shelter in CANA, the lifeboat offered by the Church of Nigeria, was thorough and reasonable.  I do not repeat his explanation or defend their decision in this essay, which is intended to provide my perspective as a member of the congregation of The Falls Church.  Although the accusations against Arbishop Akinola gave me serious pause, I ultimately found those accusations to be an insufficient basis to reject my leadership’s recommendation.

I am disturbed by the Nigerian bill’s proposals to curtail the freedoms of speech, association, expression, assembly, and religion – freedoms so critical to the health of a democracy.  Governments ought not restrain their citizens’ freedom to advocate in favor of – or against – homosexual practices – in Nigeria, Britain, Sweden, Canada or elsewhere.  After our congregational vote, Archbishop Akinola explained that the Church of Nigeria, likewise, believes that “there are genuine concerns about individual human rights that must be addressed both in the framing of the law and its implementation.”

Even without the benefit of this later clarification, I was not convinced, at the time of my vote, that Archbishop Akinola supports such restrictions.  Claims that he does originate from two reports of the Church of Nigeria’s Standing Committee (here and here), each of which contains one line generally supporting the proposed bill.  It is true that the archbishop signed these reports.  It is also true that the reports fail to qualify the church’s support for the legislation in anyway.  Before condemning the man, though, let’s consider what else we know about him that might enhance our understanding of the situation.

We know that Archbishop Akinola is respected as a “man of peace [whose] leadership is a model for Christians around the world” (Time Magazine, April 30, 2006).  We know that he “is primarily an evangelist and a pastor whose desire is to see all people come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ” (Letter from Martyn Minns, March 3, 2006).  We know that he “face[s] burdens of ministry at home both ponderous and persistent” (World Magazine, Dec. 16, 2006), burdens of a nature unknown in our country.  In northern Nigeria, Islam and Christianity are “at war” (id.).  As northern states began adopting Sharia law – law that calls for the stoning of homosexuals – Akinola “called on the government to suspend oil receipts and supplies.  ‘Time has come to call the Shariah governors to throw Shariah off our land,’” he said (id.).  When Muslims rioted in February 2005 in response to Danish cartoons unflattering of Mohammed:

Nigeria was hit hardest: In the north rioters killed more than 120 Christians, burned about 40 churches, and destroyed hundreds of shops and houses.  Reprisals by Christians in southeast Nigeria killed about 100 Muslims and left perhaps thousands homeless (id.).

We know that Archbishop Akinola, ministering in this alien cultural milieu, is “working overtime to lower the religious and ethnic tensions in Nigeria and to care for those who have been traumatized in the recent strife” (Minns Letter).  The very Standing Committee reports upon which Akinola’s opponents rely demonstrate a breadth of ministerial concerns that belies any claim that this is an intolerant homophobe obsessed with oppressing people based on their sexual orientation.  These reports express the Church of Nigeria’s concern with  child trafficking; the riotous “destruction of lives and property” triggered by the Danish cartoons;  “attacks on and assassination of clergy”;  “frequent . . . hostage taking . . . in the oil producing area of the Niger Delta”;  the unethical diversion of funds away from HIV and AIDS patients;  fighting bird flu;  the obedience of all citizens, “especially the three tiers of Government,” to the “rule of law”;  the efficiency and trustworthiness of the police force;  educational policies;  administration of the census;  corruption of the electoral process;  the care of Nigerian pensioners; etc.

Finally, we know that, prior to our congregational vote, the archbishop attempted to clarify his position on the proposed Nigerian legislation, explaining that:

he believes that all people – whatever their manner of life or sexual orientation – are made in the image of God and deserve to be treated with respect.  “We are all broken and need the transforming love of God . . . .  Jesus Christ is our example for this.  He refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery [and] instead . . . said, ‘Go now and sin no more.’  That is an essential part of the message of the Gospel and the teaching of our congregations.”

CANA statement, Dec. 7, 2006.  Some who disagree with Akinola’s adherence to biblical teaching on the underlying issues of same-sex conduct construe this clarification as non-responsive, Orwellian doublespeak.  I find this interpretation untenable when one more fully considers the reputation and past performance of the man who is speaking and the circumstances in which he ministers.  When looking through that lens, one can reasonably and fairly conclude that the archbishop does not offer unqualified support for the proposed Nigerian legislation.  Pointing to Jesus’ refusal to condemn the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11) as an example, Akinola indicates a reluctance to condemn those who practice homosexuality.  He observes that they “need the transforming love of God,” implying that compassionate healing – not jail sentences imposed through the criminal justice system – would be the proper response of the Nigerian people.  He embraces the biblical understanding that “all people – whatever their manner of life or sexual orientation – are made in the image of God and deserve to be treated with respect.”  By this statement, did the archbishop intend to imply opposition to the proposed restrictions on homosexuals’ fundamental rights of speech and association?  Detractors, I’m sure, would vigorously dispute such an interpretation, perhaps attributing this sentiment to nothing more than political expedience.  I admit that he was less clear than I would have hoped.  But when the time came to cast my vote, I chose to take into account what we know about Archbishop Akinola and the dangerous circumstances in which he ministers so faithfully, and give him the benefit of the doubt on this point.  I trust and hope that this was the correct decision.  The archbishop’s more recent statement, in which he acknowledges “genuine concerns about individual human rights” being threatened by the proposed law, suggests that it was.

*          *          *

In summary, to those who claim that my vote to leave the Episcopal Church and affiliate with CANA is a vote for bigotry:  you’re missing the point.  My vote was cast in support the primacy of Scripture and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ – not against sexual practices, in the United States or Nigeria.  While the attention given to this issue no doubt is a product of our cultural obsession with all things sexual, it should be equally clear that our decision to leave the Episcopal Church and join CANA is rooted in our fidelity to the Word.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Matthew Thompson has amassed an extensive collection of resources on the proposed Nigerian legislation.

Bishop Lee, Please Defend the Faith Entrusted to the Saints

December 16, 2006

My local church, like several others in Virginia, convened last Sunday to vote on whether to disaffiliate with the Episcopal Church.  The call to consider walking apart, as I understand it, was precipitated by the denominational leaders’ unrepentant abandonment of Scripture as the supreme authority for life.  Twenty-four hours from now, we should know the results of the vote.

Speaking of the prospect of losing 17% of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia’s Sunday attendance, Bishop Peter James Lee said, in an interview with the Washington Times:

The diocese owns their property.  . . .  It was developed by generations of people who were faithful Episcopalians and who are buried with these churches. We have a fiduciary responsibility not to let a current generation of leaders -- who are mistaken -- to take away the property of the church.  [But] I do not want to go to court if we can avoid that.

I pray that Bishop Lee would “stand firm” (1 Corinthians 16:13) and “contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3) with at least as much conviction as he seems to have concerning his fiduciary responsibility to care for church real estate.

UPDATE:  The congregation of The Falls Church voted 1,228 to 120 to sever denominational ties with the Episcopal Church and Diocese of Virginia.  (Press Release)

Cultural Renewal: A Christian Calling?

December 13, 2006

Last week, Republican Senator Sam Brownback, “favorite of the religious right” according to CNN, announced that he is formally considering running for president in 2008.  What interests me about Brownback’s announcement is his statement that one of his campaign’s primary objectives is to “renew our culture” in the United States.  Media reports cynically have tended to chalk up such rhetoric to the senator’s desire to position himself as “the traditional values candidate.”  At least one writer has observed that Brownback’s concern about the condition of the culture is likely a direct consequence of his efforts to learn how his faith ought to influence his public service.

I suspect that the notion of a committed Christian in high public office seeking cultural renewal may make many Americans nervous – professing Christians included.  I can already hear people raising alarms about the impending theocracy.  I do not intend, in this space, to address the concerns of nonbelievers.  Instead, I would like to speak to those within the Christian community who may doubt the relevance or importance of the faith to an objective as sweepingly broad as the renewal of the culture.

Continue reading "Cultural Renewal: A Christian Calling?" »

The Episcopal Church: the Nature of its Disease

December 08, 2006

The front page of Monday’s Washington Post carried an unfortunately distorted story about my local church’s impending vote on whether to disaffiliate with the Episcopal Church.  The story is unfortunate, because it mischaracterizes the growing chasm between my church, The Falls Church (“TFC”), and the denomination as primarily the result of a disagreement over homosexuality.  According to the Post, the problem is that:

Some conservatives in the Episcopal Church . . . believe the church abandoned Scripture by installing a gay bishop in New Hampshire in 2003, among other things.  Those feelings of alienation were strengthened when Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori – who supports the New Hampshire bishop – was elected this summer to lead the national church.

The 2003 confirmation of Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, a divorced father of two who is an admitted, non-celibate, unrepentant homosexual, no doubt is important to orthodox Christians in the Episcopal Church.  The importance, though, derives from the fact that Bishop Robinson’s confirmation is merely the latest in a long line of instances in which the Episcopal Church has expressed an utter lack of respect for the authority and reliability of Scripture.  As the leadership of TFC has framed the issue:

The currently conspicuous symptom of our denomination’s long slide from Biblical orthodoxy is false teaching about the issue of homosexuality, but the underlying issue is a lack of submission to God’s will as expressed in His Word, the Bible[, and] no Christian standard or doctrine is safe where the authority of Scripture has been overturned . . . .  (Can Two Walk Together, Except They Be Agreed? pp.2, 14)

Continue reading "The Episcopal Church: the Nature of its Disease" »

Faith in the Public Square: Obama’s Approach Is Fine By Me

December 02, 2006

With Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D) joking on The Tonight Show about running for president, it seems like a good time to revisit his June 2006 remarks before the Call to Renewal Conference, a gathering of religious progressives. 

In that speech, Obama offered his perspective on the proper role of religious faith in public policy debate.  On one hand, the first-term senator chided “secularists” who would “ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square.”

Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King -- indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history -- were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause.  To say that men and women should not inject their “personal morality” into public policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

But then, in seeming contradiction, Obama warned religious believers about how they should present their faith-based concerns in the public square.

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values.  It requires that their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason.  I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will.  I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

This may be difficult for those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do.  But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice.  Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality.

Continue reading "Faith in the Public Square: Obama’s Approach Is Fine By Me" »

What Evidence Might Convince You that Christianity is False?

November 08, 2006

When presenting the faith to nonbelievers, Christians sometimes find an open door to explain “the reason for the hope [they] have” within (1 Peter 3:15).  Though some may not conceive of “the reason” for their belief in these terms, Christians are blessed with hope because they, sometimes explicitly and other times implicitly, have weighed the evidence and found it in Christ’s favor.  For example, some have been strongly influenced by creation, its beauty and order and testimony to the majesty and power of the Creator.  Others have been moved by the universal and timeless presence of the natural law, including the testimony of deep conscience and the unforgiving working out of natural consequences (e.g., “you reap what you sow”).  Still others have been brought to faith primarily by the witness of changed lives, the supernatural transformations they see in the lives of believers.  Most of us probably were carried to the foot of the Cross by a collection of these and other types of observations.

Several weeks ago, I heard an unbelieving scientist approach this issue with an interesting twist.  Like many in his position, he considers science and religion to be squarely at odds.  From his perspective, science deals with facts, religion with values (if anything);  science is driven by evidence, religion by blind faith.  Challenging the notion that the Christian faith can be and is supported or strengthened by appeals to material evidence, he asked:  if the evidence is genuinely of concern to you, what evidence might convince you that Christianity is false? 

Restoring Culture: What Can One Person Do?

November 04, 2006

Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek wisely cautioned would-be social planners against falling into the “fatal conceit” – the belief that they can predict with any precision the complex consequences of their efforts at societal reform.  Ken Myers, a leading Christian author and cultural analyst, argues that Hayek’s

call to humility should be given to those of us who want to effect a change in culture.  Cultural engineering doesn’t work.  We can do very little to encourage or discourage cultural trends or fads.  (All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes: Christians & Popular Culture, p.32)

Careful not to say that we can do nothing to change the culture, Myers (quoting T.S. Eliot) advises that the “very little” we can hope to accomplish is to:

“combat the errors and the emotional prejudices which stand in the way” of cultural change.  That is, we can call attention to the folly or absurdity or outright sin that certain cultural phenomena encourage or facilitate . . .  “We should look for the improvement of society, as we seek our own individual improvement, in relatively minute particulars.  We cannot say: ‘I shall make myself into a different person’;  we can only say:  ‘I will give up this bad habit, and endeavor to contract this good one.’  So of society we can only say:  ‘We shall try to improve it in this respect or the other, where excess or defect is evident’” (id. at 32-33).

During the last month or two, I’ve returned several times to Myers’ advice.  It bothers me.  I want to believe – and I do think – that each of us can do more than just “very little” to effect cultural change. 

Continue reading "Restoring Culture: What Can One Person Do?" »

Should Christians Fast from Politics?

October 28, 2006

Jeff at Mr. Dawntreader pulls together a collection of thought-provoking perspectives on the question of whether Christians should fast from politics – a question now fashionable following the publication of Tempting Faith, the kiss-and-tell book of former White House aide David Kuo. 

Racial Inequality: Is the Church Correcting or Perpetuating It?

October 21, 2006

As I matured into and through young adulthood, my worldview solidified into a form of radical personal, political and economic individualism.  I conceived of little communal obligation other than the requirement that we all act in our own rational, long-term self-interest.  When questions of racial or economic injustice were raised, in law and business school classrooms and private discussions, I was among the more strident defenders of the American meritocracy.  I still can hear myself:  “We have no caste system.  Racial discrimination is illegal and has been for decades.  Material success is available to all who are willing to sacrifice and strive.” 

I had little to no sympathy or appreciation for arguments that there exist structural inequalities – between rich and poor, black and white – that cause our would-be meritocracy to produce unjust outcomes.  I didn’t dispute the existence of apparently unjust outcomes, or that those outcomes might be the result of structural inequalities.  I argued that structural barriers were minimal compared to the power and ability of a free individual of strong motivation and will to succeed.  “Each of us, from across the demographic spectrum, encounters innumerable barriers to success in life,” I would argue.  “Certainly, some have been born into tougher circumstances.  But can we reasonably hope to correct such imbalances through the unwieldy hand of government?”  As an educated (some would say overeducated), upper-middle-class, white male raised in a safe suburban neighborhood, these were very convenient positions for me to adopt.

Well, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere (e.g., Greed, Political Giving, Halloween), my relatively recent submission to the unbounded sovereignty of Jesus Christ has resulted in His welcome yet uncomfortable intrusion in many corners of my life.  That questions of racial and economic injustice are no exception comes as no surprise.  What does surprise me is learning that members of His Church may be unwittingly perpetuating racial inequality in America by emphasizing, in part, individualism and free will, much like I used to.

Continue reading "Racial Inequality: Is the Church Correcting or Perpetuating It?" »

Blind Faith: What About Thomas?

October 13, 2006

In a recent post, I mentioned that I sometimes hear nonbelievers explain their aversion to Christianity along the following lines: 

I never could be a Christian.  I just can’t believe anything based on ‘blind faith.’  . . .  There may be evidence [supporting Christian belief], but Christians aren’t allowed to examine and weigh it.  Righteousness requires that they believe without question or challenge.  I know, because this is what I was taught as a child, when my parents dragged me to church.

(An example of this line of reasoning just so happens to appear today in a post called Hans Zeiger’s Scientific Ignorance:  Christian “beliefs are tucked safely behind all sorts of protective mechanisms, particularly the notion that one must have faith that they are true no matter what the evidence says because anyone who doubts them is being influenced by Satan (I’ve been told this directly on many occasions by those who believe such things).”).

Continue reading "Blind Faith: What About Thomas?" »

Religious Freedom: Did Christianity Make Any Positive Contribution?

October 10, 2006

Ed Brayton sparked an interesting conversation yesterday with his post Historical Ignorance on Display, in which he criticizes a speech by Gary Lankford, president of the Ohio Restoration Project.  I know nothing about Mr. Lankford or the Ohio Restoration Project.  I am not particularly interested in Lankford’s speech or much of Ed’s criticisms of it. 

What interests me is Ed’s history of the formation of the U.S. Constitution, in particular its inclusion of religious freedoms. 

Religious tolerance came only with the Enlightenment-influenced founding fathers, who wrote a Constitution that forbid religious tests for office, guaranteed religious freedom, prohibited religious establishment and had not a single provision that was based upon the Bible.  . . .

[I]f religious tolerance is to be credited to Christianity, [s]urely one should be able to point to specific references in the Bible or in Christian tradition that argued for religious tolerance if that was true, but one cannot. There was no Christian society that had religious tolerance or religious freedom prior to the founding of this country, which was an explicit rejection of centuries of religion nitolerance [sic] and religious establishments by Christian rulers.  . . .

Prior to the Enlightenment, there simply was no tradition of religious tolerance in Christianity;  indeed, the movement toward religious toleration was a reaction to centuries of intolerance from Christian leaders.

Continue reading "Religious Freedom: Did Christianity Make Any Positive Contribution?" »

Blind Faith: Does Christ Require It?

September 30, 2006

When I talk with or listen to nonbelievers, particularly atheistic scientists, about Christianity, it’s usually not long before they explain:  “I never could be a Christian.  I just can’t believe anything based on ‘blind faith.’”  Inevitably, I or someone else then tries to explain that the God of the Bible does not ask that we believe based on faith alone.  He has provided a great deal of evidence – in Scripture, nature, and the natural law – so that people may know Him.  One may argue that they do not find the evidence compelling, but they cannot argue that none exists. 

The Christian Right’s Problem: Knowing God’s Truth

September 29, 2006

Former senator John Danforth of Missouri has a new book, Faith and Politics: How the “Moral Values” Debate Divides America and How to Move Forward Together.  As reported in yesterday’s Washington Post, Danforth is telling audiences that the “potency of the Christian right in the Republican Party is limited,” “religion is a divisive force in the United States today,” and “GOP leadership [has proven to be] neither humble Christians nor effective politicians.” 

Continue reading "The Christian Right’s Problem: Knowing God’s Truth" »

Money and Possessions: from Greed to a Biblical Motivation for Reward

September 19, 2006

Time’s cover story for the week of September 18 – Does God Want You To Be Rich? – explores the hold that the so-called “prosperity gospel” has on a significant fraction of the Church.  When prosperity preachers say that God wants His followers to be rich in the things of this world, it riles me.  When their destructive message is amplified through mainstream media reports, it angers me. 

My sinful nature would love for the prosperity gospel to be true.  In fact, if I were to design a religion, it no doubt would include a god who wants me to be rich right here, right now.  As recently as two years ago, my adoration of money may have rivaled the most decadent among us.  As an adolescent, Alex P. Keaton was among my role models.  Later, Oliver Stone’s Wall Street, starring Michael Douglas and Charlie Sheen, consistently rated as one of my favorite movies.  The major appeal:  Gordon Gekko (played by Douglas). 

As slick and twisted as Gekko was, I admired what I perceived as a willingness to discuss the pursuit of self-interest in language stripped bare of political correctness.  Recall his climactic speech at the Teldar Paper shareholders’ meeting: 

Continue reading "Money and Possessions: from Greed to a Biblical Motivation for Reward" »

The Virus of Faith

August 30, 2006

“For many people, part of growing up is killing off the virus of faith with a good strong dose of rational thinking. But if an individual doesn’t succeed in shaking it off, his mind is stuck in a permanent state of infancy, and there is a real danger that he will infect the next generation."  ─ Richard Dawkins

According to Richard Dawkins, Oxford professor, provocateur and evolution apologist, I’m infected by a virus called faith.  Until recently, I would have become angry upon hearing such an allegation – angry with the lies, the arrogance and, most of all, the person making the allegation. 

Continue reading "The Virus of Faith" »

“Where does God stand on abortion?”

August 15, 2006

Yesterday, “The Nation’s Newspaper,” USA Today, ran an opinion piece, Where does God stand on abortion?, by Episcopal priest and author Tom Ehrich.  Despite his choice of title, Ehrich spends precious few words analyzing or discussing where God stands on abortion.  In the few words he devotes to God’s perspective, Ehrich declares that there are only a “few biblical passages that come even close to being relevant” to the issue of abortion, and then suggests that those few passages are open to competing interpretations of equal validity.  In short, “neither side [of the debate] can make an absolute [Biblical] case for or against abortion.”

With the Bible swept aside, Ehrich is left to contend that the “decision [of where God stands on abortion] ultimately comes down to . . . individuals.”  And what have individuals decided?  “[E]ach denomination – even those most publicly aligned with opposition to abortion, such as Roman Catholic and Southern Baptist – has a sizable minority that takes a different position.”  In other words, we humans – even the religious ones – are confused and in disagreement.  Amid the confusion, we should seek to position ourselves, according to Ehrich, in the “common-sense middle” rather than either “extreme.”

To recap the argument: 

1. the Bible contains almost nothing relevant to the question of abortion;  
2. the few arguably relevant Biblical passages are indeterminate; 
3. therefore, it is up to the individual to decide where God stands on abortion;  and
4. people with common sense stay near the middle, avoiding the extreme positions. 

My favorite step is the twist in the argument between #2 and #3.  What ought we do when God’s position is difficult to discern?  Father Ehrich suggests that each of us arrogate the power to decide what God’s position is.  As nice as it would be to have that kind of power, I respectfully decline. 

Swimming in Worldviews, at the Aquarium

August 10, 2006

This past weekend, my wife and I took our youngest daughter and some out-of-town friends to visit one of our favorite attractions, the National Aquarium in Baltimore.  The wildlife displays truly are spectacular, educational and entertaining for all ages.  During past visits, my eyes have been drawn to the spectacular and entertaining.  This time, I tried to focus on the Aquarium’s educational efforts.

In addition to the wealth of information describing the animals, their habits and their habitats, several exhibits included descriptions and pictures of environmental damage caused by the human race.  This is not surprising given that the Aquarium’s stated mission is “to stimulate interest in, develop knowledge about, and inspire stewardship of aquatic environments” (emphasis added).

What interested me most was trying to identify the worldview(s) to which the Aquarium is appealing in order to “inspire stewardship of aquatic environments.”

Continue reading "Swimming in Worldviews, at the Aquarium" »

Fighting Perceptions

August 04, 2006

For the last couple days, I’ve followed the discussion on Ed Brayton’s blog, Dispatches From the Culture Wars, concerning his post Anti-Gay Bigotry in Action.  The harsh, unthinking treatment received by the Knight family, as suggested by Ed, seems insane.  But that is not my reason for sharing this post with you. 

The Christian in Politics: Two Key Attributes

August 01, 2006

I recommend reading an interesting interview of Michael Gerson, who until recently served as a speechwriter and adviser to President Bush.  Mr. Gerson touches on two particularly important characteristics of the faithful Christian participating in the political sphere.

Continue reading "The Christian in Politics: Two Key Attributes" »

Kevin Phillips: Confused About the Bible

April 30, 2006

You may have seen that Kevin Phillips wrote an opinion piece carried by the Washington Post on April 2.  (See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/01/AR2006040100004.html)  I took the opportunity to write a letter the editor.

Phillips says so many things worthy of reply, it was difficult to narrow my comments to one or two issues and keep them sufficiently brief. Because Phillips is perceived, in political circles, as someone who really understands Christians, I wanted to focus on certain apparent, gross misconceptions about the Bible. I chose to focus, in particular, on what the Bible has to say about the relationship between God and man and God and nations. If my letter were a longer treatment, I would have spent time addressing many of the apparent presuppositions underlying his views of science, knowledge, etc.

Read the text of my letter

"W" Seems Alien To Some

March 31, 2006

President Bush “has refused to indulge anti-Arab sentiment over the Dubai ports deal,” and that has left Washington Post op-ed columnist Richard Cohen, by his own admission, utterly baffled.  Cohen says it is “obvious” that a “xenophobic element” has “propelled the squabble” over the Dubai ports deal and is “what sustains it.”  

Read full essay

Shawshank: Repentance and Eternity

February 28, 2006

I must admit that I watched THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION more than once between 1994 and 2004, and not once did I grasp its Christian themes.  It’s shocking, really, considering how the movie unmistakably paints Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) as the Christ-like savior of Shawshank State Prison.

Read full essay

The Evolution of Truth

January 31, 2006

In a leading news item this past Christmas season, a federal district court judge in Pennsylvania held that the Dover Area School Board violated students’ Constitutional and civil rights by requiring teachers to inform their science classes that there are gaps or problems in Charles Darwin’s theory and other theories of evolution.  The 139-page opinion has been hailed as a “strategic defense of Darwinian theory” that “will be extremely useful . . . to science teachers and others who are struggling against . . . tremendous pressure to bring religion into the classroom.”  Darwin’s detractors, it is said, have been left “wounded” and in “dismay.”

Read full essay

Objective Proof

August 31, 2005

Elsewhere on this site, I contend that the circumstances of my transformation and its effects on my family provide “objective evidence” of the existence of God.  This claim raises two issues:  (1) what I mean by “objective”;  and (2) whether there really can be “evidence” for a claim that I cannot ultimately prove.

Read full essay

Faith Is Personal

June 30, 2005

Judges, Bishops and Philosopher Kings: A Question of Authority

May 31, 2005

In Plato’s THE REPUBLIC, Socrates denounces Athenian democracy and its rule by the unlearned masses, arguing that only “philosopher kings” possess the wisdom and temperament to govern others.  

Today, you would be hard-pressed to find a political or religious leader (in this country) who openly advocates totalitarian rule by philosopher kings.  But, in my opinion, there are those in leadership, both political and religious, whose policies suggest a preference for rule by such a cadre of elites.  

Read full essay

This Website Is Weird

April 30, 2005

Six months ago, you simply could not have convinced me that, before long, I would create a website devoted to sharing my faith and the evidence which underlies it.  No way.  No how.  Not me.  That would be too far out of step with the mainstream -- too weird.

Read full essay

What I Mean by "Faith"

April 30, 2005

In my experience, the term “faith” is all too commonly used and understood as “blind faith,” or “belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.”  I see it in popular literature and movies and hear it in discussions with family and friends.

Read full essay