Calls to Repentance

It seems to me that due to:

1. 9/11

2. The Iraq War

3. The desolation of New Orleans

4. Our financial collapse

There should be calls to repentance going out in every church in our land. Judging by the history of the Church, when manifold judgments like this strike us we should proclaim a fast and repent to God for our sin and seek His face for direction. I don’t see that happening which perhaps is another indication of how asleep at the wheel we all are.

Anglo-Catholic-Pro-Homosexual

There is something strange about the make-up of people like Rowan Williams. We know that his ‘private theology’ is that homosexual sex is just fine. And now we get more confirmation that he ok with core elements of Roman theology that the Reformation found to be idolatrous. This pairing of love for Roman positions on Mary and saints with being fine with same sex activity seems to be somewhat common. Those who are heretics regarding sex are also quick to give away Reformational doctrines on idolatry.
Someone once said that the Episcopal Church’s position on homosexuality was wrong but that it had less practicing homosexuals inside whereas the Roman Catholic Church has the right position on paper with more actual homosexuals practicing inside of her. I have no idea if this is true or not, but it is an odd juxtaposition.
So Williams who is just fine with these Roman doctrines at the same time makes any reunion with Rome impossible by his tolerance of disordered sexual ethics. Odd.

Anglo-Catholic-Pro-Homosexual

There is something strange about the make-up of people like Rowan Williams. We know that his ‘private theology’ is that homosexual sex is just fine. And now we get more confirmation that he is ok with core elements of Roman theology that the Reformation found to be idolatrous. This pairing of love for Roman positions on Mary and saints with being fine with same sex activity seems to be somewhat common. Those who are heretics regarding sex are also quick to give away Reformational doctrines on idolatry.

Someone once said that the Episcopal Church’s position on homosexuality was wrong but that it had less practicing homosexuals inside whereas the Roman Catholic Church has the right position on paper with more actual homosexuals practicing inside of her. I have no idea if this is true or not, but it is an odd juxtaposition.

So Williams who is just fine with these Roman doctrines at the same time makes any reunion with Rome impossible by his tolerance of disordered sexual ethics. Odd.

Ned Flanders Christendom

Writing in Chronicles magazine about how funny Ned Flanders from the Simpsons is, Aaron Wolf says:

What’s disturbing is that evangelicals seem to be “just okily dokily” about being effeminate, anachronistic, milk-toast believers, locked in their own subculture of Christian rock CDs, T-shirts that read “God’s Gym” and “This Blood’s For You,” and copies of Left Behind. As Pinsky [Wolfe is referring to an article in Christianity Today] put it, “Flanders is actually the physical embodiment of ‘muscular Christianity,’ a man who would be right at home at a Promise Keepers rally.” It’s hard to imagine such “muscular” Christians as these standing unflinchingly before Nero, confronting the Moors alongside Pepin the Short, nailing 95 Theses to a door (or excommunicating the one who did so), or even calling someone a heretic.

An idea for the NFL

I think the NFL should take a page from the Premiere League in the UK. They should start 10 clubs in smaller markets like Portland and stipulate that the top 2 teams in this second tier move up to the NFL for the next season. The bottom 2 NFL teams get relegated to the second tier league for the following year. How cool would that be? It would give an incentive to terrible teams to stay off the bottom of the pile and give small markets a shot at the big time.

Do you hear me NFL?

The Collapse of Rome

We aren’t there yet, and it gets a little old hearing every other person in America comparing us to Rome, and yet

An Encyclopedia of World History says this of the third century:

The third century is characterized by the complete collapse of government and economics throughout the Mediterranean. Upon the death of Commodus, the armies asserted themselves against the Senate as they had in 68. The ultimate victor, Septimius, finally and frankly unmasked the military basis of the imperial power. After an attempted revival of “constitutional” government under Alexander, the imperial position became the reward of successful generals of increasingly provincial and uncultured origins. The one ideal which still dominated the armies was the preservation of the frontiers against the Germans and the Persians {something we don’t do right nowJoel}. Even the separatist movements were aimed, not at independence, but at the preservation of the imperium Romanum. To secure this end and their own support, the troops made and unmade emperors and drained the scanty resources of the civilians by taxation, depreciation of coinage, and exactions of food, quarters, etc. The military wholly absorbed the civil administration. Intellectual life ceased, inscriptions became rare, and archaeological finds show a rapid decline in skill and taste.

Taleb on statistics and the future

The author of the Black Swan tells us what we need to hear: no one knows the future. Models that “predict” future patterns based on past behavior are generally useless. Going to work in the Twin Towers was safe every day up until 9/11. Being a turkey is great right up until Thanksgiving Day.

“Experts” in suits don’t know anything more about the future than you do. All of their models are based on the past. Take all predictions with a grain of salt.

Thoughts on “Is Mormonism Christian?”

The current issue of First Things, which I subscribe to, contains an article with a topic very familiar to those of us who interact with the LDS Church: Is Mormonism Christian ? The authors are Bruce D. Porter from the First Quorum of the Seventy on the LDS side, and Gerald McDermott a Professor from Roanoke College from the (ahem) Christian side.

There is nothing ground-breaking in either man’s presentation if you are at all familiar with the history of these debates. Mr. Porter outlines LDS differences with the Nicene Creed and then goes on to outline the LDS version of the creation, birth, life, death, resurrection and the atonement of Jesus Christ. He summarizes his article with this:

Are Mormons Christian? By self-definition and self-identity, unquestionably so. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints affirms that it is a Christian-faith denomination, a body of believers who worship Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and who witness that salvation is possible only by his atoning blood and grace. By the simple dictionary definition of a Christian as one who believes in or worships Jesus Christ, the case is compelling. To the title Christian a critic of Mormonism may add any modifiers he deems appropriate-unorthodox, heretical, non-Nicene, different-but blanket assertions that we are not Christian are a poor substitute for informed argument and dialogue.

Mr. McDermott counters with two major points of disagreement:first, “The Book of Mormon, which is Mormonism’s principal source for its claim to new revelation and a new prophet, lacks credibility.” Second, “…the Jesus proclaimed by Joseph Smith and his followers is different in significant ways from the Jesus of the New Testament.”
The frustrating  thing about this exchange to me is the failure to define terms – granted there is a necessity for brevity in the magazine format. Porter at least puts forward a reductionist definition of Christian in his closing statement: “one who believes in or worships Jesus Christ.” My dictionary defines Christian as “a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings” but that is neither here nor there. McDermott does not even define what Christian means, he simply illustrates some areas where he thinks the two faiths contrast.
In some ways fighting over this term is unproductive and doesn’t get us anywhere, but on the other hand, we should be able to define what the word means from inside the Church itself. If we can’t define what Christian means, who can? But it is a vexing question – what is a Christian? If we say that it is one who has been born again then many thousands if not millions of Latter Day Saints will agree that they have been born again and are Christians. If we say that it is believing in the Bible, they would again concur, generally speaking. We could try Trinitarian baptism which gets close to the heart of the matter as the Vatican has noted. Mormons use the formula of the Trinitarian Name, but the meaning implied by their Father, Son and Holy Ghost is not the same as that of orthodox Christianity.
If we include Nicene orthodoxy as defined by the first 4 to 7 councils of the ecumenical church, we are getting somewhere. But this standard might rule out millions of folks whom we would be loathe to remove the Christian label from. And can we really expect the average person in the pew to be able to define Nicene Christology correctly?
I have argued before that the Trinity is the defining doctrine that separates a Christian from a non-Christian. I believe that the decisions of the councils, viewed through the lens of Scripture, are defining as boundary markers for what a Christian is. This doesn’t mean a believer has to know them and be able to talk about them. They don’t get tacked on to the end or our Bibles. But they function in an authoritative way in explaining the outlines of our faith. This is a high view of church authority, one that believes that the Holy Spirit did not vanish at the end of Revelation and cease guiding the church. I believe that our conflicts with Mormons and other heretics necessitates this view. The early Anglican theologians provided this view of the authority of the church:

The Church has power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

note: this is cross-posted with Endued