Writing about William Ames, John Eusden says:
The Protestant writings of the early seventeenth century frequently dismissed Aristotle as a protopapist. Ames, too, is critical of Aristotelianism, finding his orientation in another logician and philosopher, Peter Ramus (1515-72), but he is not prepared to dismiss the force and relevance of Aristotle’s thought.
In a scalding article in the Weekly Standard, ex-Mormon Kenneth Anderson writes:
Yet the worship of sales and marketing is not exactly unknown among the numerous evangelicals who promiscuously deride Mormonism as some kind of weird, even dangerous, sect but who themselves gather weekly to–well, what? Sing their country-rockified, feel-good, self-help-book ballads, lovingly serviced with the Word of the Therapeutic God by blow-dried yet humble, down-home yet suburban preachers whose cavernous mega-churches resemble nothing so much as the Wal-Mart of the soul on sale. And you ridicule Mormons? One need not be Christopher Hitchens to think that if there is something funny about Mormons, there is something funnier about a certain brand of evangelicals’ condescending to them.
And:
And if our sects are to be thus put under the microscope, then perhaps evangelical Protestantism is best understood as a syncretic cargo cult promising self- and relational-fulfillment through Jesus, a religious movement marching relentlessly forward to embrace a secular culture of therapy in the name of the Nazarene. For this the saints suffered to be torn to pieces by wild beasts and submitted to the flames?
Although his animus is over the top, I have to agree with his charges. This is why I want to be part of a serious and humble orthodoxy in the Anglican tradition, not an ‘evangelical’ church where everyone wears jeans, plays video clips and treats Jesus as a boyfriend rather than a Holy God. I think the heart of the matter is that most modern churches lack all seriousness. They are not serious about God, they have no sense of holiness or propriety, they have veered completely into the realm of entertaining and dumbing down in order to attract the biggest crowd possible. I don’t think that they have self-consciously examined what they are doing, but they are doing it nevertheless. And I’ve had it with that. I have checked out of this nonsense that produces un-believing louts from teenagers. Why should a teen take church seriously when it is a joke-filled fun-zone and an embarrassing imitation of cable TV culture? Look, if I want real entertainment I will go to somewhere that does it well, like Hollywood. Christians imitating that garbage come off looking twice the fool: first for doing it and second for doing it poorly.
Can you imagine the 12 apostles swaying to “Shout to the Lord” in a sanctuary with pastel colors on the ‘stage’ in Antioch or Jerusalem? Of course not. Sure, times change, but if you measure what we do in light of what they did back then, you quickly see the absurdity, just read Revelation to see what worship looks like in heaven. So I think if we simply use being serious as a yardstick, most of what passes for modern church fails at every level except being a serious joke.
With all that is behind us, what should Anglican churches do to regain health and growth in the new year and beyond? I see a general poverty of knowledge about church history, specifically Anglican history and Patristics. So I suggest the following:
1. Teach the 39 Articles. Do it in a small group setting, or a Sunday School, or whatever else might work. But I think that the Articles should be the springboard for Biblical discussions of doctrine. There is nothing like the Articles to define why we are not Roman, and why we are what we are.
2. Total Bible saturation. People will grow when they delve into God’s word. Nothing will be more effective at combating the errors and evil of the apostate churches than frequent exposure to Biblical teaching. People need to understand symbolism, story and doctrine from the source.
3. Outreach. I suggest a Mormon-like zeal in door to door, in-parish evangelism that is followed up with Alpha or similar programs to seek and save the lost.
These simple points can be elaborated on, but I think they should be at the core of recovering what it means to be Anglican in 2008.
With all that is behind us, what should Anglican churches do to regain health and growth in the new year and beyond? I see a general poverty of knowledge about church history, specifically Anglican history and Patristics. So I suggest the following:
1. Teach the 39 Articles. Do it in a small group setting, or a Sunday School, or whatever else might work. But I think that the Articles should be the springboard for Biblical discussions of doctrine. There is nothing like the Articles to define why we are not Roman, and why we are what we are.
2. Total Bible saturation. People will grow when they delve into God’s word. Nothing will be more effective at combating the errors and evil of the apostate churches than frequent exposure to Biblical teaching. People need to understand symbolism, story and doctrine from the source.
3. Outreach. I suggest a Mormon-like zeal in door to door, in-parish evangelism that is followed up with Alpha or similar programs to seek and save the lost.
These simple points can be elaborated on, but I think they should be at the core of recovering what it means to be Anglican in 2008.
I got some books from my wish list on Christmas, they include:
And one great CD that I wanted, and which is great:
A couple of weeks ago we went to Chicago to celebrate R’s birthday. It was wonderful being downtown with snow falling and Christmas shopping in full swing. We were able to go to the Art Institute of Chicago and see some cool paintings. I can’t find the one I liked the best online, but I did find others, such as this cloister:
And this Dutch church:
And this painting of Norway that reminds me of something my Dad painted and which also made me feel as if my lost home is Norway:
And another one that looks like a modern sci-fi cover, but which is old, and which I LOVE:
Insightful blogger Jim at the Third Moment talked about Romney’s recent speech concerning his faith. Jim quoted a passage in Alma and said:
“Now, Moroni being a man who was appointed by the chief judges and the voice of the people, therefore he had power according to his will with the armies of the Nephites, to establish and to exercise authority over them. And it came to pass that whomsoever of the Amalickiahites that would not enter into a covenant to support the cause of freedom, that they might maintain a free government, he caused to be put to death; and there were but few who denied the covenant of freedom” (Alma 46.34-35).
Would it be unreasonable to ask a presidential candidate who affirms the Book of Mormon as God’s revelation to humanity, what he makes of this example of executive action?
I don’t think there is anything wrong with a state establishing a church or set of beliefs, in fact I think it is logical and that we have enshrined secularism in the United States. But with that said, I don’t think that the Book of Mormon is anti-pluralism. For example, in Mosiah we read:
And it came to pass that king Mosiah sent a proclamation throughout the land round about that there should not any unbeliever persecute any of those who belonged to the church of God. (Mosiah 27:2)
And later in Alma it says:
For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds. (Alma 30:11)
From my reading, pluralism is enshrined in the Book of Mormon – which incidentally violates the Mosaic Law that these people were supposed to be keeping strictly.
Where does power lie? In some sense the source of earthly power is the ability to inflict physical pain and to kill. Say you want someone to move aside. “Move” you say. “No” the person says. If you are the state, you might threaten them and tell them that unless they move, you will fine them, sanction them, or imprison them. But if the person refuses to move then the state must employ force to move them. Say we want them to go to jail because they refused to move, unless they willingly walk to jail, we must corral them and shove them into jail.
Social mores such as the fear of shame are another incentive to produce behavior. Trying to get someone to talk in a criminal investigation for example, relies on people’s propensity to talk. The wise and the devious might say nothing unless coerced by threats, intimidation, or physical suffering. The person who refuses to move may have to be shoved or hit to get moving.
In the case of politics and Islam, some Wahabbi’s believe that God’s law should be supreme over the laws of man. But this is not the case in practice. A state is imposing secular or mixed laws which do not reflect God’s rule. Since the Wahabbi’s do not have the coercive power of the state at their disposal to take away jobs, money, or impose other sanctions, they resort to raw exercises of power via brute force. In other words they kill and maim those in their way. States are supposed to have a monopoly on killing, as it is the ultimate form of power on earth. The Wahabbi’s aim to control the world, expanding the Umma through killing, and to usurp the state’s monopoly on killing, or achieving rule in states like Pakistan, so that their power is legitimated.
But I find it odd to ponder on the fact that the bottom line is that all that keeps us in line is the threat of ultimate power that resides behind every institution. The power to tax, fine, imprison or kill.
The CANA church in D.C., St. Brendan’s in the City, now has an updated website and a blog.
My friend sent me another article on the move towards tradition in many communions:
Worshipers come to St. Mary, Mother of God in downtown Washington, D.C., for various reasons, but many say that a big draw is the Tridentine Latin mass that is said here every Sunday. Soon, St. Mary may be less well known for that distinctive liturgical offering than for the number of big-name government and media types that occupy its pews. Now that Pope Benedict XVI has loosened the restrictions on churches that want to observe the pre-Vatican II rite, more parishes are availing themselves of the option. Call it part of a larger conservative shift within the church—one that includes a renewed emphasis on such practices as personal confession and reciting the rosary as well as a resurgent interest in traditional monastic and religious orders.
Celebrating the Latin mass at St. Mary, Mother of God in Washington.
But this shift extends beyond the Roman Catholic Church. In Richardson, Texas, the congregation of Trinity Fellowship Church participates in something that would have been considered almost heretical in most evangelical Protestant churches five or 10 years ago: a weekly Communion service. An independent, nondenominational church of some 600 members, Trinity Fellowship is not the only evangelical congregation that is offering a weekly Eucharist, saying the Nicene or Apostles’ creeds, reading the early Church Fathers, or doing other things that seem downright Roman Catholic or at least high Episcopalian. Daniel Wallace, a professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, which trains pastors for interdenominational or nondenominational churches, says there is a growing appetite for something more than “worship that is a glorified Bible class in some ways.”
