Los Angeles Times Charlotte Allen July 9, 2006
Out-of-the-mainstream beliefs about gay marriage and supposedly sexist doctrines are gutting old-line faiths.
The accelerating fragmentation of the strife-torn Episcopal Church USA, in which several parishes and even a few dioceses are opting out of the church, isn’t simply about gay bishops, the blessing of same-sex unions or the election of a woman as presiding bishop. It also is about the meltdown of liberal Christianity.
Embraced by the leadership of all the mainline Protestant denominations, as well as large segments of American Catholicism, liberal Christianity has been hailed by its boosters for 40 years as the future of the Christian church.
Instead, as all but a few die-hards now admit, all the mainline churches and movements within churches that have blurred doctrine and softened moral precepts are demographically declining and, in the case of the Episcopal Church, disintegrating.
It is not entirely coincidental that at about the same time that Episcopalians, at their general convention in Columbus, Ohio, were thumbing their noses at a directive from the worldwide Anglican Communion that they “repent” of confirming the openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire three years ago, the Presbyterian Church USA, at its general assembly in Birmingham, Ala., was turning itself into the laughingstock of the blogosphere by tacitly approving alternative designations for the supposedly sexist Christian Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Among the suggested names were “Mother, Child and Womb” and “Rock, Redeemer and Friend.” Moved by the spirit of the Presbyterian revisionists, Beliefnet blogger Rod Dreher held a “Name That Trinity” contest. Entries included “Rock, Scissors and Paper” and “Larry, Curly and Moe.”
. . . more
This article says it all. The Episcopal Church is as non-Christian as a monastery of Buddhists. Why bother, no God, no right or wrong, no stance just feel. I wondered for a long time why I could not convert to the Episcopal Church, even marital harmony was not enough. Now I know, where would I be nowhere. I hope that many of the conservative members of this church, many friends of mine can find a church that will give them the peace and security they seek. LIke many here in Colorado we have become Orthodox, the church of history, of faith, of right thinking. Is it perfect? No, but it the last bastion of the faith, God grant that it never falls to this current nonsense called liberal Christianity
Ron, you seem to be buying into the article’s premise that there is somehow some degree of “unity” within conservative Christian denominations.
Over at Catholic site New Advent, I found the following regarding the Episcopal Church: “Note to the traditional Episcopalians and Presbyterians among our readers: As you find yourselves increasingly surrounded by an anti-Gospel mentality, we renew our invitation to read the “signs of the times” and seriously consider becoming Catholic. Not because we need you at our side in the battles to come (we do) and would welcome you with open arms (we would), but because the Catholic Church is the one church founded by Christ Himself. It might not be politically correct to state it this bluntly, but it’s what Catholics believe. And in times like these, isn’t such a bold claim worth a second look?”
However, Dr. Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (which is the “flagship school” of the SBC) has a link to this same article on his blog. Unfortunately, he had this to say in terms of New Advent’s claim: “I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is a false church. It teaches a false gospel. And the Pope himself holds a false and unbiblical office.”
The Jehovah’s Witness’s governing body (The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society), also a socially conservative group, of course claims that “it is the ‘faithful and discreet slave’ mentioned in Matthew 24:45 (New World Translation). It considers itself and its publications the only legitimate channel of directly inspired leadership and the only totally correct interpreters of Scripture in the world today.”
(emphasis mine)
There is great disunity within conservative Christendom, the degree of which should not be understated. So what if they’re all united on a few social issues against a perceived common ‘enemy’? In terms of theology, their differences far outweigh their similarities.
The writer of the article seems to be saying “Give up on these flailing liberal churches. Join a conservative one who maintains adherence to the ‘True Gospel'”. Okay, well once you start “shopping around”, where does one go? One might get the impression upon reading the article that one’s salvation is only at stake if you pick a church that supports gay rights and women’s ordination, when in fact it hinges on a great deal more, at least according to Christianity’s religious leaders. The perceived problems in the Episcopal Church are a mere reflection of the lack of theological consistency within Christendom as a whole.
James says:
“There is great disunity within conservative Christendom, the degree of which should not be understated. So what if they’re all united on a few social issues against a perceived common ‘enemy’? In terms of theology, their differences far outweigh their similarities.”
Yet, as C.S. Lewis said (I am paraphrasing) it is the conservatives who are much closer now among the “denominations”. The reason is that conservatives have a basic understanding (and commitment) to the Gospel, Dogma, etc. Liberals do not even understand these things, because at the core of their worldview/paradigm/religion is a non Christian philosophy. Most of the time this philosophy is neo-Epicureanism. In other words, “liberal” Christians are really not really Christians at all – they are Epicureans who use the terminology and trappings of Christianity.
The conservatives, on the other hand, are real life Christians. They may have important, even irresolvable dogmatic differences. However, they at least ARE Christians. In this way the assertion that “their differences far outweigh their similarities” falls on its face. Also, the statement :
“The perceived problems in the Episcopal Church are a mere reflection of the lack of theological consistency within Christendom as a whole.”
Is erroneous. The REAL (not “perceived”) problems of the Episcopal “church” (As a Traditional Christian I can not grant the honor of the Capitalization, or even leave off the quotes) is Apostasy from Christianity. This is no longer a dogmatic disagreement between two faithful Christians, it is something else entirely.
I agree that the Episcopalian’s detachment from a consistent theology and set of moral values rooted in the Gospels has been their downfall. But it does not follow that the Episcopalian experience discredits all “liberal Christians”. To make such an assertion is not just an attempt to paint with a broad brush, but is more analagous to using a roller dipped in a pan of paint. There are Christians (like myself) who are liberal on economic issues, but prefer a more conservative and traditional theological and doctrinal approach from their church. Conversely there are “South Park” conservatives, who are fiscally conservative but socially libertarian.
The late Cardinal Bernadin’s moral framework of a “Consistent Ethic of Life” is a better yardstick of proximity to true Christianity. According to Cardinal Bernadin:
By this standard Christians who call themselves liberal and those that call themselves conservative are both deficient.
“There are Christians (like myself) who are liberal on economic issues, but prefer a more conservative and traditional theological and doctrinal approach from their church.”
Dean, have you ever given serious thought to the idea that conservatives are “conservative” on economic issues because the listen to the “traditional theological and doctrinal” gospel and come to certain traditional understandings of human nature. Given this understanding of human nature, they then come to certain conclusions about governance of the polis, and it’s relationship to “economic” issues. Modern liberalism has different ideals about “what is man”, and thus they come to different conclusions about Justice in the market place and Justice down at city hall. You at least have to admit that the “great thinkers” of modern distributionist theory are NOT Christians by any stretch of the imagination (Marx, etc.). Why is it that Christians consistently come to different conclusions about central planning, government “love”, etc.?
For example, what leads an otherwise well intentioned man such as the late Bernadin to say something as patently false as this:
“We cannot urge a compassionate society and vigorous public policy to protect the rights of the unborn and then argue that compassion and significant public programs on behalf of the needy undermine the moral fiber of the society or are beyond the proper scope of governmental responsibility”
These “significant public programs” in fact do undermine the moral fiber of the poor – anyone who has lived in one of America’s inner cities (as I have) has seen the outright devastation “well intentioned” programs like welfare, Medicare, social security (particularly it’s “permanent disability” component), section 8, etc wreak daily. These are horrible programs, that do not accomplish 1/10th of the good their supporters claim and wreak far more damage than most of their critics will dare to speak about.
Let me be blunt (since you seem to quote him a lot), Mr. Bernadin was a fool to support these horrible programs, and it reveals something fundamentally wrong with the “liberal” social agenda if it continues to argue for the moral, physical, and societal devastation that the “Great Society” has unleashed. By the way, as a conservative I would agree that the moral, physical, and societal health of the people are not “beyond the proper scope of governmental responsibility” – only libertarians would argue against that. However, what I am against is government acting in a way that hurts, rather than helps these same things. The REASON why Mr. Bernadin (and yourself/fellow liberals) are wrong not only about the actual results of these programs, but the idea and source of the programs themselves, is that you have bought into an anthropology that has everything to do with Marx and nothing to do with the Gospel…
Christopher: You are advocating Social Darrwinism, not Chrsitianity. The Bible clearly establishes a moral imperative to help the poor. That imperative encompases both personal and collective social action.
Personal action is required so that we can personally identify with the least of our neighbors that Christ has explicitly directed us to assist. I agree with my conservative friends that we cannot “pass the buck” to Washington. However there are some causes of poverty that are structural, systemic and maco-economic in nature and that only the power of government can remedy and reverse. While it is true that some government programs have had negative unintended consequences, many others have been successes and achieved the goals they were created for.
If some government programs have not been successful it was because they were poorly conceived, designed and executed. They need to be scapped and replaced with something else. Thier failure does not discredit the entire concept of govermment as a compassionate agency for improving peoples lives any more than do the thousands of business bankruptciies each year discredit capitalism.
When conservatives Christians express a desire to do away with government programs, their faith imposes upon them an obligation to replace the government solution with some other solution. If no other practical solution or serious alternative is provided, than the obligations of faith are abandoned and and Christian moral duty abdigated.
Social awareness, social concern, charity does not stop at a conservative political man’s doorstep. Many conservatives including myself, help the wisow and the orphan. Yet, encouraging free loading, laziness and irresponsibility was not advocated by our Lord. An example the prodigal. Salvation is personal, and fostered in the Holy Church. When the church fails, the example fails and the parishioner is at risk in his salvation. Right thinking, right action by the church leads to salvation. The internal encouragement to sin by the church in effect risks a man’s soul if he continues in his sin
“Christopher: You are advocating Social Darwinism, not Christianity.”
I sometimes think you really believe such statements, so let me say you are wrong. I ask you Dean, does Fr. Jacobse, and the other regular posters here who have disagreed with your progressive/liberal/marxist anthropology for years now, do they advocate “Social Darwinism”?
“The Bible clearly establishes a moral imperative to help the poor. That imperative encompases both personal and collective social action.”
Correct!! Now, where does it say that massive central bureaucracies, ran by a secular government, are to inefficiently redistribute wealth? Why do you confuse such bureaucracies with the Biblical imperative?
“However there are some causes of poverty that are structural, systemic and maco-economic in nature and that only the power of government can remedy and reverse.”
Name one.
“hile it is true that some government programs have had negative unintended consequences, many others have been successes and achieved the goals they were created for.”
Name one.
“If some government programs have not been successful it was because they were poorly conceived, designed and executed. They need to be scrapped and replaced with something else.”
Your getting warmer. The are poorly conceived and designed because they start with the wrong assumptions about human nature.
“Thier failure does not discredit the entire concept of government as a compassionate agency for improving peoples lives any more than do the thousands of business bankruptciies each year discredit capitalism.”
Now your getting colder. If the entire concept of “compassionate agency” rests on false assumptions about human nature, then the analogy breaks down. capitalism (at least what the dictionary means by the word – liberals usually load the term) does not rest on the same erroneous assumptions about human nature.
“When conservatives Christians express a desire to do away with government programs, their faith imposes upon them an obligation to replace the government solution with some other solution.”
Not true at all – since what you really mean by “some other solution” is another government program that rests on false assumptions about human nature. You mean (correct me if I am wrong) more liberalism.
“If no other practical solution or serious alternative is provided, than the obligations of faith are abandoned and and Christian moral duty abdigated.”
Not true at all. If the liberal programs cause manifest and abundant HARM – which they do – then the obligations of faith require us to look at our assumptions and not to simply leap off the cliff again (and again, and again) and create another harmful program. the assumptions of course are liberal/marxist anthropology.
Christopher challenges me to name a successful governnment program and I am more than happy to oblige, in order to disprove his ridiculous contention that all government is bad and that people who use governent services are by nature, bad and lazy people.
Government Programs that have been a success:
USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (1906) – Dramatically reduced incidents of food-borne illness among US population
Rural Electrification (1930s) – brought electricity to millions in rural south.
National Parks (1900’s) Preserves natural splendor of many cherished ASmerican locations and provides recreational opportunities for millions of Americans.
The Federal Reserve System (1910’s) – Created a cetral bank authoized to use monetary pollicy to smooth out dramatic fluctuations in the business cycle that would result in economic hardship.
Federal Deposit Insurance Commission (1930’s)- Prevents “runs” on banks that previously wiped out the savings of millions of Americans.
Securities and Exchange Commission: (1930’s) Before this agency was created, insider-trading and deceptive stock dealings ran rampant on Wall Street. The SEC enforces full and honest disclosure of all stock transactions, and fights to curb insider trading
Social Security (1930’s) – kept millions of elderly Americans from sinking into poverty.
GI Bill (1940’s) – enabled millions of returning veterans to attend college and advance themselves economically.
National Weather Service (1940’s): This agency not only gives you your daily weather reports, but saves the lives and/or livelihoods of pilots, sailors, farmers and those in the paths of destructive storms
Interstate Highway System (1950’s) – Improved transportation system, promoted commerce and eased travel difficultes for millions of Americans.
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Provided the funding for the research that led to the creation of the internet, and the first web browser created at University of Illinois, Champaign Urbana.
Medicaid (1960’s) – Provides health care coverage for millions of indigent and disabled Americans who otherwise would go without needed health care or show up at emergency rooms as charity cases forcing hundreds of hospitals into insolvency. Medicaid covers half of all the people in nursing homes.
Medicare (1960’s) Provides health care coverage for millions of indigent senior and elderly Americans who otherwise would go without needed health care or show up at emergency rooms as charity cases forceing hundreds of hospitals into insolvency.
Food and Drug Administration – Drug Approval Process (1960s) – ensures safety and efficacy of medications taken by millions of Americans.
Head Start (1960’s) Provided pre-school educational activities that have improved the educational performance of millions of students in elementary and high school classes later on.
Clean Air and Clean Water Acts (1970’s) By 1970, three fourths of America’s rivers were undrinkable and unswimmable. Air quality in cities contributing to spiraling lung-disease rates. Over industry opposition, these Acts turned the environment around and visibly cleaned both our air and water.
Brady Bill (1980’s) – Background checks by licensed dealers prevented hundreds of thousands of criminals from obtaining dangerous leading to a significant decline in handgun deaths, as measured by the Center for Disease Control.
This is just to name a few.
Dean,
As a conservative I would keep:
USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service
National Parks
The Federal Reserve System
Securities and Exchange Commission
National Weather Service
Interstate Highway System
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Food and Drug Administration
Clean Air and Clean Water Acts
Of course, those are easy because most agree that they largely fall into what government should be doing. They are cheap, and they are not wealth redistribution programs based on liberal/marxist anthropology. In other words, they are not what we are talking about at all (and you know it)!
The following however is what you erroneously believe do good, even fulfilling the Commandment to love thy neighbor:
Medicaid
Medicare
Head Start
Social Security
To that you should add section 8, emergency room medical care, much of our “social work” infrastructure, etc. The above programs are neutral to many, and positively harmful to the rest.
So, how about your anthropology? Do you know what I am referring to when I say “anthropology”?
Christopher writes: “The following however is what you [Dean] erroneously believe do good, even fulfilling the Commandment to love thy neighbor:”
As of 2000 around 68 percent of nursing home revenue came from Medicaid residents. After Medicaid is eliminated, what happens to those people? Or is not that of concern? If you choose not to answer, I will interpret that as “not of concern.”
Chistopher: I am not sure what you mean when you use the word “Anthropology”.
I did observe that the government programs you approve of are the ones that primarily benefit middle and upper class Americans, while the government programs you disapprove of our the ones that primarily benefit lower class Americans- the poor – those people to whom everything we do, we do to Christ (Matthew 25). Discarding this instruction of Christ you see the poor as intriniscally bad people, living a life of poverty of their own free choice, and therefore totally responsible for any suffering it brings them. You reject Christ’s instruction to assist the poor because you see any assistance provided to them them as further enabling their poor choices and lack of responsibility.
This leads me to believe that your use of the word anthropology is shaped by a Calvinist outlook, since your comments are consistent with that doctrine. Calvinists believe that salvation is “predestined”; some people are “elected” or predestined for salvation, while others are predestined for damnation. The notion that Christ came for “free mankinind from sin” is nonsense to a Calvinist because the elect were already chosen to be saved before they were born. The elect are already free and the damned cannot be freed. Christ’s ministry was cruel hoax. God had already made his decision, so free will is irrelavent; good works are irrelavent, love for our neighbors is irrelavent.
You have no objection to government programs that assist the wealthy and middle class, because as Calvinist you see them as object of divine favor for the elect. On the other hand, like a Calvinist, the poor are for you, objects of extreme loathing and disapproval. When a Calvinist sees the poor he does not see the face of Christ, but the despised portion of humanity that God has damned.
The Calvinist sees the poor person and does not see someone God loves, and who can be redeemed, but someone irredeemably bad that God hates. Likewise, you look at a poor person and do not see someone whose quality of life and possibilities for life can be improved through the interventions of a compassion state, but someone irredeemably bad who will never rise above the level of criminal and parasite no matter how much assistance you give them.
Dean wrote:
Dean you advocate a social gospel not the Gospel. Christ did not suffer on a cross so that there is a chicken in every pot.
Dean,
Your all over the place again. Let’s stick with the anthropology, because that is what underlines our fundamental disagreement. Let’s set aside your “Calvinist” argument because it does not follow from your earlier argument of “social Darwinism” (one can not be a Calvinist and a Darwinist at the same time, unless you change the meaning of the terms) Before you start accusing conservatives of “discarding” the instructions of our Lord, we should look at the actual results of our “help”. Since we are talking about government help (government “love”), let’s look at not only the actual results of said love, but the assumptions that such programs take as regards to anthropology.
Anthropology is anther term for “what is man”. We have to ask “what is man” before we begin to help or love a man, because what he is related to the practical consequences of any relationship we establish with him. For example, if I want to establish a loving (or any other kind) of relationship with my family pet (Rosie is her name, she’s a dobie/pointer mix), I have to understand something about her nature, what she is, and how this effects her behavior and how she will respond to any behavior on my part. If I want to have her come when I say “come”, certain behaviors on my part will help and others will harm (e.g. perhaps a reward such as a treat is better than a punishment).
Since you are an Orthodox Christian, I assume you want to apply Christian Anthropology to the question above, namely government “love”. So, what in your view is the Christian answer to “what is man”?