That's right, the Vast Majority of Episcopalians are no longer Christians

Los Angeles Diocese Wins Summary Judgment in Property Case

NEWPORT BEACH, CA (ANS) -- St. James Anglican Church in Newport Beach, California, has received a serious set-back in its legal case and in their fight to retain their property from being confiscated by the Episcopal Church, of which it was formerly a part, after it withdrew from it and joined the Anglican Province of Uganda and the Diocese of Luwero in August of 2004.

Steps to disassociate from the Episcopal Church were initiated by the leadership of this evangelical Anglican church as a result of widening differences of biblical interpretation an example of which was evidenced when controversial decisions made at the General Convention in the summer of 2003, most notably, the confirmation of the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, Gene Robinson.

In August 2004, this decision, along with other theological differences, led the Rector, wardens, vestry, and a nearly unanimous congregation, to vote overwhelmingly to disaffiliate from the Episcopal Church and to affiliate with the conservative Anglican Church of Uganda.

 St. James Church was soon joined by All Saints Church in Long Beach and St. David's Church in North Hollywood. All three churches were then sued for their property by the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles and the national Episcopal Church.

 Since 2004, the church has received national attention over its legal case against the Episcopal Church, but now, in a story by George Conger of Anglican Ink, the church's case, that it should be able to retain the property, has been rejected by an Orange County (California) Superior Court Judge.

 Conger wrote that the Judge had ruled that a Bishop of Los Angeles had "no authority to give the parish of St James in Newport Beach a written waiver exempting the congregation's property from the reach of the Episcopal Church's Dennis Canon."

 He went on to say, "In a ruling for summary judgment handed down on May 1, 2013, Judge Kim Dunning ordered the parish to hand its multi-million dollar properties over to the Diocese of Los Angeles."

 "The decision was unexpected," Daniel Lula - an attorney for the parish -- told Anglican Ink, as the matter had been set down for trial later this month.

 In an email to his congregation, the Rector, the Rev Richard Crocker said: "We have received notice this morning from our attorneys that the court has handed down a significantly negative ruling in our court case. This of course changes the landscape of next week's trial," he noted, inviting the parish to a meeting with Mr. Lula "to offer explanation of what we know about the ruling at this point."

Conger stated, "In her decision, Judge Dunning said the Episcopal Church's rules governing parish property on the diocesan and national level took precedence over civil property and trust laws. She dismissed as non-binding a 1991 letter signed by the then Canon to the Ordinary D. Bruce MacPherson, later to become the Bishop of Western Louisiana, on behalf of Bishop Frederick Borsch that released the diocese's claim to the property."

 Bishop MacPherson said in a deposition, "The purpose of the conversations between the Diocese and St. James was for St. James to hold title to its property in its own name free of any trust . . . [as] part of an agreement in order for St. James to secure substantial donations for its building program."

 Conger then wrote, "However, this waiver did not amend the parish bylaws and diocesan canons she held. Even if it did, according to the present leadership of the Episcopal Church's interpretation of the canons 'the Bishop of the Diocese did not, and does not, have authority to amend any of these instruments.'"

 Judge Dunning cited the declaration by the Episcopal Church's expert witness Robert Bruce Mullin in support of her deference to canon law over the evidence of the deeds and waiver noting the "Mullin declaration concerns 'religious entity governance and administration,' and this court is bound by it.

 "The court further stated that it believed a parish was a subordinate unit to a diocese and had no existence outside the diocese. While the Episcopal Church could exist without St James, St James could not exist without the Episcopal Church - and as it had no existence independent of the diocese, the loss of its property to the diocese could not harm it."

 Conger continued by saying that in 2011 the California Supreme Court rejected an argument of the Episcopal Church that the 1991 letter had been declared invalid by its first review of the case in 2009. The Court said, "We express no opinion regarding the legal significance, if any, of the 1991 letter. We merely hold that a court must decide the question," overturning an appellate court ruling that did not allow the parish to put forward a defense.

 In 2005 the Orange County Superior Court ruled the Episcopal Church's allegations were legally defective, but an appellate ruling reversed the trial decision and adjusted the approach to church property law in California. The Parish appealed to the California Supreme Court, who reversed the Appeal Court and returned the case to the Superior Court where St. James answered the complaint, raised affirmative defenses, and began discovery proceedings. This court denied a motion from the diocese, which took a writ to the Appeal Court for summary judgment in the case. This was granted before a trial had occurred and judgment given, and the Parish again appealed to the California Supreme Court. In early 2011, the California Supreme Court ruled for the Parish and sent the case back to the Orange County Superior Court.

 "If the parish does not appeal the decision it will have to vacate the property in the near future," said Conger.

 In his invitation to the parish meeting Mr. Crocker said: "I ask that all members of St. James come together in unity at this time to hear from our attorney and to pray together. The Lord is not surprised by this decision and He is in our midst. But His strength is particularly manifested when we come together in unity and prayer."

Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, sent a letter to Christianity Today magazine offering the campus of his Lake Forest, California mega church to St. James to use if they are forced to vacate their Newport Beach property. Rev. Crocker responded to Warren's offer with the following, "We are overwhelmed by his generosity. It is an encouraging sign of support from Christians in the community."

Christianity must change or die, but not like Gene Robinson suggested

I've been told that the church must change in order to continue as a living organism. But the people who tell me that, usually belong to churches that are dying, exactly for implementing the changes they suggest to me.

Ross Douthat, has written a good piece dealing with this issue in the New York Times, where he deals with this issue. Liberals have been telling us for years that the church must change in order to stay alive, but the churches lead by liberals are the ones dying because of their misguided change.

Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?IN 1998, John Shelby Spong, then the reliably controversial Episcopal bishop of Newark, published a book entitled “Why Christianity Must Change or Die.” Spong was a uniquely radical figure — during his career, he dismissed almost every element of traditional Christian faith as so much superstition — but most recent leaders of the Episcopal Church have shared his premise. Thus their church has spent the last several decades changing and then changing some more, from a sedate pillar of the WASP establishment into one of the most self-consciously progressive Christian bodies in the United States. 

As a result, today the Episcopal Church looks roughly how Roman Catholicism would look if Pope Benedict XVI suddenly adopted every reform ever urged on the Vatican by liberal pundits and theologians. It still has priests and bishops, altars and stained-glass windows. But it is flexible to the point of indifference on dogma, friendly to sexual liberation in almost every form, willing to blend Christianity with other faiths, and eager to downplay theology entirely in favor of secular political causes.

Spong was wrong then, and is wrong now. He wants to kill of Orthodox Christianity, so it doesn't stand in the way of his sinful life, but at the end, he seems to had inflicted a wound to his own type of christianity. The issue was then, and is now, that those who should have known better, did nothing, instead went on to dismantle the Episcopal Church in order to be in the good graces of today's society and culture.  So there's no interest in defending the truth of the Bible against a society that needs it so much, rather, picks up their political fights, which contradict the Gospel at its core.

Yet instead of attracting a younger, more open-minded demographic with these changes, the Episcopal Church’s dying has proceeded apace. Last week, while the church’s House of Bishops was approving a rite to bless same-sex unions, Episcopalian church attendance figures for 2000-10 circulated in the religion blogosphere. They showed something between a decline and a collapse: In the last decade, average Sunday attendance dropped 23 percent, and not a single Episcopal diocese in the country saw churchgoing increase.

Well, there's nothing they can offer but the same thrush that the young people are facing outside the church. We don't see a great increase in the audience they intended to target. In Australia, the Uniting Church, is experiencing something similar. Yet, the churches it was meant to replace, seem to either thrive (the Methodist), or at least survive (the Presbyterians).

This decline is the latest chapter in a story dating to the 1960s. The trends unleashed in that era — not only the sexual revolution, but also consumerism and materialism, multiculturalism and relativism — threw all of American Christianity into crisis, and ushered in decades of debate over how to keep the nation’s churches relevant and vital. 

Traditional believers, both Protestant and Catholic, have not necessarily thrived in this environment. The most successful Christian bodies have often been politically conservative but theologically shallow, preaching a gospel of health and wealth rather than the full New Testament message.

My sentiment as well. But I wouldn't call prosperity Gospel people "traditional believers". They are as far from the Gospel as the Mormons or Jehova Witnesses. They have a total different religion. These churches thrive, not because they are Gospel driven, rather, because they are money driven. People want money and wealth, so they go to these churches to get a hand of how to obtain it, or make it.

But if conservative Christianity has often been compromised, liberal Christianity has simply collapsed. Practically every denomination — Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian — that has tried to adapt itself to contemporary liberal values has seen an Episcopal-style plunge in church attendance. Within the Catholic Church, too, the most progressive-minded religious orders have often failed to generate the vocations necessary to sustain themselves.

Not all Methodist, Lutheran or Presbyterians are going the way of the dinosaurs, but those denominations that have adopted the Episcopal way, are going the way of the Episcopal church.

Both religious and secular liberals have been loath to recognize this crisis. Leaders of liberal churches have alternated between a Monty Python-esque “it’s just a flesh wound!” bravado and a weird self-righteousness about their looming extinction. (In a 2006 interview, the Episcopal Church’s presiding bishop explained that her communion’s members valued “the stewardship of the earth” too highly to reproduce themselves.) 

Liberal commentators, meanwhile, consistently hail these forms of Christianity as a model for the future without reckoning with their decline. Few of the outraged critiques of the Vatican’s investigation of progressive nuns mentioned the fact that Rome had intervened because otherwise the orders in question were likely to disappear in a generation. Fewer still noted the consequences of this eclipse: Because progressive Catholicism has failed to inspire a new generation of sisters, Catholic hospitals across the country are passing into the hands of more bottom-line-focused administrators, with inevitable consequences for how they serve the poor. 

 Liberals don't want to accept their peril. As we see in the case of Katherine Jefferts Schori, she wants to window dress their declining numbers by passing it as a way of "stewardship of the earth". This type of denial would not be allowed in other quarters. And in the case of "progressive" Catholicism, it just won't get people inside their orders. If some progressives nuns wants to affirm somebody's homosexuality, why would, they in turn, would quit being a lesbian in order to turn into a life of celibacy?

But if liberals need to come to terms with these failures, religious conservatives should not be smug about them. The defining idea of liberal Christianity — that faith should spur social reform as well as personal conversion — has been an immensely positive force in our national life. No one should wish for its extinction, or for a world where Christianity becomes the exclusive property of the political right.

May the Lord deliver us from the right to take the face of Christianity!!!!

What should be wished for, instead, is that liberal Christianity recovers a religious reason for its own existence. As the liberal Protestant scholar Gary Dorrien has pointed out, the Christianity that animated causes such as the Social Gospel and the civil rights movement was much more dogmatic than present-day liberal faith. Its leaders had a “deep grounding in Bible study, family devotions, personal prayer and worship.” They argued for progressive reform in the context of “a personal transcendent God ... the divinity of Christ, the need of personal redemption and the importance of Christian missions.” 

Today, by contrast, the leaders of the Episcopal Church and similar bodies often don’t seem to be offering anything you can’t already get from a purely secular liberalism. Which suggests that per haps they should pause, amid their frantic renovations, and consider not just what they would change about historic Christianity, but what they would defend and offer uncompromisingly to the world.Absent such a reconsideration, their fate is nearly certain: they will change, and change, and die.

I wonder then, how these "liberals" couldn't pass on their faith to the next generation. There's still much we have to learn. 

How to Interpret the Bible Like a Liberal in 8 Easy Steps

By David Norman

Step 1. Redefine a theological term in a way that no Biblical author would recognize.

Step 2. Force that theological redefinition on verses that are not primarily addressing a debated issue.

Step 3. Be sure your interpretation aligns with current cultural standards because they aren’t “archaic” and treat everyone “fairly.”

Step 4. Claim Biblical insight into the debated issue based upon that interpretation and read that new insight into verses that actually address the debated issue.

Step 5. Make an emotionally charged accusation against those who interpret the text in a manner consistent with 2 millennia of church history.

Step 6. Enjoy fellowship with others who share your hermeneutical methodology and break from any traditional reading of the Scriptures.

Step 7. Make Scripture mean whatever you want it to despite authorial intent or other trivial matters such as Biblical fidelity.

Step 8. Declare Scripture to be unclear or inconsistent due to the various interpretation and meanings all traced back to poor hermeneutics.

Video banned by Youtube. A young girl speaks her mind on gay marriage

Democracy from the Chinese view. Interesting alternative view.

Why China’s Political Model Is Superior

By ERIC X. LI

Published: February 16, 2012

Shanghai

THIS week the Obama administration is playing host to Xi Jinping, China’s vice president and heir apparent. The world’s most powerful electoral democracy and its largest one-party state are meeting at a time of political transition for both.

Many have characterized the competition between these two giants as a clash between democracy and authoritarianism. But this is false. America and China view their political systems in fundamentally different ways: whereas America sees democratic government as an end in itself, China sees its current form of government, or any political system for that matter, merely as a means to achieving larger national ends.

In the history of human governance, spanning thousands of years, there have been two major experiments in democracy. The first was Athens, which lasted a century and a half; the second is the modern West. If one defines democracy as one citizen one vote, American democracy is only 92 years old. In practice it is only 47 years old, if one begins counting after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — far more ephemeral than all but a handful of China’s dynasties.

Why, then, do so many boldly claim they have discovered the ideal political system for all mankind and that its success is forever assured?

The answer lies in the source of the current democratic experiment. It began with the European Enlightenment. Two fundamental ideas were at its core: the individual is rational, and the individual is endowed with inalienable rights. These two beliefs formed the basis of a secular faith in modernity, of which the ultimate political manifestation is democracy.

In its early days, democratic ideas in political governance facilitated the industrial revolution and ushered in a period of unprecedented economic prosperity and military power in the Western world. Yet at the very beginning, some of those who led this drive were aware of the fatal flaw embedded in this experiment and sought to contain it.

The American Federalists made it clear they were establishing a republic, not a democracy, and designed myriad means to constrain the popular will. But as in any religion, faith would prove stronger than rules.

The political franchise expanded, resulting in a greater number of people participating in more and more decisions. As they say in America, “California is the future.” And the future means endless referendums, paralysis and insolvency.

In Athens, ever-increasing popular participation in politics led to rule by demagogy. And in today’s America, money is now the great enabler of demagogy. As the Nobel-winning economist A. Michael Spence has put it, America has gone from “one propertied man, one vote; to one man, one vote; to one person, one vote; trending to one dollar, one vote.” By any measure, the United States is a constitutional republic in name only. Elected representatives have no minds of their own and respond only to the whims of public opinion as they seek re-election; special interests manipulate the people into voting for ever-lower taxes and higher government spending, sometimes even supporting self-destructive wars.

The West’s current competition with China is therefore not a face-off between democracy and authoritarianism, but rather the clash of two fundamentally different political outlooks. The modern West sees democracy and human rights as the pinnacle of human development. It is a belief premised on an absolute faith.

China is on a different path. Its leaders are prepared to allow greater popular participation in political decisions if and when it is conducive to economic development and favorable to the country’s national interests, as they have done in the past 10 years.

However, China’s leaders would not hesitate to curtail those freedoms if the conditions and the needs of the nation changed. The 1980s were a time of expanding popular participation in the country’s politics that helped loosen the ideological shackles of the destructive Cultural Revolution. But it went too far and led to a vast rebellion at Tiananmen Square.

That uprising was decisively put down on June 4, 1989. The Chinese nation paid a heavy price for that violent event, but the alternatives would have been far worse.

The resulting stability ushered in a generation of growth and prosperity that propelled China’s economy to its position as the second largest in the world.

The fundamental difference between Washington’s view and Beijing’s is whether political rights are considered God-given and therefore absolute or whether they should be seen as privileges to be negotiated based on the needs and conditions of the nation.

The West seems incapable of becoming less democratic even when its survival may depend on such a shift. In this sense, America today is similar to the old Soviet Union, which also viewed its political system as the ultimate end.

History does not bode well for the American way. Indeed, faith-based ideological hubris may soon drive democracy over the cliff.

Eric X. Li is a venture capitalist.

While we are in the topic of sex, does the Bible allow lesbian sex? Some crazy christian and Jews believe it does

It is true! I've read in many websites that the Old Testament (the Jewish part of the Bible) does not condemned lesbian sex. Well, in the New Testament (the Christian part of the Bible) does explicitly condemned lesbian sex, Romans 1:26.

However, some people, because there's no condemnation in the Old Testament against lesbianism, they wish to promote that there's nothing wrong with a lesbian relationship.

This view is prevalent in liberal christianity, but also very much present in liberal Judaism. Sometimes the later say that the Rabbis of old were in hand with such a view. However, let's see what the one who is considered the greatest of the rabbis think about it, Maimonides:

For women to be mesollelot with one another is forbidden, as this is the practice of Egypt, which we were warned against: "Like the practice of the land of Egypt . . . you shall not do" (Leviticus 18:3). The Sages said [in the midrash of Sifra Aharei Mot 8:8–9], "What did they do? A man married a man, and a woman married a woman, and a woman married two men."Even though this practice is forbidden, one is not lashed [as for a Torah prohibition] on account of it, since there is no specific prohibition against it, and there is no real intercourse. Therefore, [one who does this] is not forbidden to the priesthood because of harlotry, and a woman is not prohibited to her husband by this, since it is not harlotry.But it is appropriate to administer to them lashings of rebellion [i.e., those given for violation of rabbinic prohibitions], since they did something forbidden. And a man should be strict with his wife in this matter, and should prevent women known to do this from coming to her or from her going to them.

So same sex marriage, according to Maimonides, it's not something new, but has been with us before. Good thing the ancient open their eyes and saw that it was not good for humanity!!

Anyway, lesbianism, and any other kind of deviancy, is not allowed in the Scriptures!!!

When a Parent leaves God, the whole family follows.

I try not to download the Compass program from my national ABC. But sometimes, I tunes downloads it anyway. But this time, I was appalled at what I saw. Compass is a Catholic run program, but the programs are always either attacking christianity, or denigrating it. The last show, was no exception. It showed the life of an australian religious (I can't call him a christian, since he rejected the basis of Christianity as mentioned in the program) figure, Ted Noffs.

Noffs seem to have been a Bishop Spong of his time. He started saying that organised, hierarchical religion was something that must die, and as mentioned before, rejected cardinal doctrines such as original sin, and the deity of Jesus. And if you have the time and willingness to waist your download, you will see that he stopped baptizing in the name of Jesus, but started doing it in his own formula, "in the name of all faiths", (min. 22:10). He faced the opposition of the Methodist church in Australia, and was rightly called for a trial of heresy.

He was truly a person who cared for other human beings. He cared for those who were left behind by society, and he saw that as the crux of religion, helping others. He came with a new term, "the Family of Humanity", in which he said that he himself was

"I am Protestant but I am also a Catholic. I am a Muslim but I am also a Jew. I am a Hindu but I am also a Buddhist. Because first and foremost, I am a human being and no one in the world is a stranger to me.”

He wanted to be all things to all people, yet, losing his own identity as a christian.

Noffs set up The Wayside Chapel, that served as his base to serve his community, and cater for drug addicts, poor people, and those who were being ignored by society. Indeed, he put his faith in humanity, and he showed it. In that, he was truly consistent and admirable.

My issue with him is that he took God out of picture, and had more faith in humanity than in God. As can be heard in the Compass program, he rejected the divinity of Christ, which he saw as a later construct of the church. This rage against the bride of Christ clearly puts him against not only historic Christianity, but against the God of Jesus Christ. By baptising somebody in the name of all faiths, that would be not only a huge disregard for what Christianity stands for, but any observant Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc. What this shows, far from being a pietistic person, Noffs wanted to impose his view of religion upon those religions, and actually, as one of his grandsons calls him,

Ted Noffs wasn’t human. He was some kind of divine spirit, a deity.

This shows how far Noffs wanted to become a god himself through his new doctrine of "the Family of Humanity".

His family have follow on the work started by Noffs, his social work, but no more with a religious overtone. His son, is agnostic, and his son's sons, one atheist, the other, gay. Noffs progeny totally rejected the God who the senior started serving, and at the end abandoned because he couldn't fit in his worldview.

From a Christian view, this is sad story, one that shows how somebody who gives God the shoulder, is not the only one who pays the spiritual price, but also his progeny may pay it, because there was no faithfulness to God in their father/grandfather in the first place. He taught them that God was not necessary in their lives, that humanity had it i them to better themselves. A total contrary message of that of Jesus Christ, who came to earth because that philosophy is not true.

Lastly, as with Bishop Spong, Noffs saw that organised religion was on the way of the dinosaur, and that Australians would ultimately reject all sorts of hierarchal religion. If he would see the Australian church landscape, he would be turning in his grave. Noffs, as Spong, and many others, are subjected to think that in order for the church to survive, it must die. I am sorry, but Jesus died for the church, and trying to kill of the church, in anyway, is the most clear rejection of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross on behalf of sinful humans. That, Noff rejected, so he rejected Jesus's entire mission.

They should do well in reading a bit more of Scripture, specially the following:

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Luis A. Jovel

Newsweek -- The End of Christian America

Albert Mohler has written an article on the subject of the gradual demise of Christianity in the USA. Now Newsweek, has picked up on the issue, and has written an article and put the issue as its front page news. I invite you to read Mohler's article and Newsweek's.
*******************************

"To the surprise of liberals who fear the advent of an evangelical theocracy and to the dismay of religious conservatives who long to see their faith more fully expressed in public life, Christians are now making up a declining percentage of the American population."

Thus writes Newsweek editor Jon Meacham in this week's cover story, "The End of Christian America." The image on the front cover says it all, declaring "The Decline and Fall of Christian America" in type set to form a cross.

The cover story is a serious consideration of the issue Newsweek set as its priority for the week of Easter, and the seriousness of the magazine's approach is evident in the fact that its editor, Mr. Meacham, wrote the cover story himself. The essay, elegant in form and serious in tone, demands attention.

I read Jon Meacham's essay with no small amount of personal interest, for Mr. Meacham had talked to me as he was writing the article. Here is how his essay begins:

It was a small detail, a point of comparison buried in the fifth paragraph on the 17th page of a 24-page summary of the 2009 American Religious Identification Survey. But as R. Albert Mohler Jr.—president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, one of the largest on earth—read over the document after its release in March, he was struck by a single sentence. For a believer like Mohler—a starched, unflinchingly conservative Christian, steeped in the theology of his particular province of the faith, devoted to producing ministers who will preach the inerrancy of the Bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the only means to eternal life—the central news of the survey was troubling enough: the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation has nearly doubled since 1990, rising from 8 to 15 percent. Then came the point he could not get out of his mind: while the unaffiliated have historically been concentrated in the Pacific Northwest, the report said, "this pattern has now changed, and the Northeast emerged in 2008 as the new stronghold of the religiously unidentified." As Mohler saw it, the historic foundation of America's religious culture was cracking.

I do remember that moment quite well, and I expressed my thoughts in an article posted March 27, "The Eclipse of Christian Memory." The increasingly secular character of New England, now surpassing even the Pacific Northwest, is a portrait of Christianity in retreat. The course of this retreat has been long. Indeed some historians would trace the secular trend in New England to the period of the Revolution itself. In the minds of at least some New Englanders, King George was not the only authority dethroned in that generation.

Still, the region remained under the influence of Christian memory and, for most of the intervening decades, under the influence of the Christian worldview. Now, New England is the most secular region of the nation, representing a model of what I believe is rightly designated post-Christian America.

Mr. Meacham picked up on this description of the pattern, and Newsweek launched a cover story. A good portion of the essay deals with my argument and a consideration of its accuracy and significance. Without doubt, Newsweek considers the pattern to be of great significance -- thus the cover story. Mr. Meacham looked at the same data that had caught my attention, the American Religious Identification Survey [ARIS] and the Pew Forum's U.S. Religious Landscape Study. His summary response to the post-Christian designation: "There it was, an old term with new urgency: post-Christian. This is not to say that the Christian God is dead, but that he is less of a force in American politics and culture than at any other time in recent memory."

Here is the essence of Jon Meacham's analysis:

While we remain a nation decisively shaped by religious faith, our politics and our culture are, in the main, less influenced by movements and arguments of an explicitly Christian character than they were even five years ago. I think this is a good thing—good for our political culture, which, as the American Founders saw, is complex and charged enough without attempting to compel or coerce religious belief or observance. It is good for Christianity, too, in that many Christians are rediscovering the virtues of a separation of church and state that protects what Roger Williams, who founded Rhode Island as a haven for religious dissenters, called "the garden of the church" from "the wilderness of the world." As crucial as religion has been and is to the life of the nation, America's unifying force has never been a specific faith, but a commitment to freedom—not least freedom of conscience. At our best, we single religion out for neither particular help nor particular harm; we have historically treated faith-based arguments as one element among many in the republican sphere of debate and decision. The decline and fall of the modern religious right's notion of a Christian America creates a calmer political environment and, for many believers, may help open the way for a more theologically serious religious life.

This is a fair and insightful rendering of the pattern. What does become clear in this paragraph is that what Newsweek sees as the essence of the issue is political influence. While this is hardly a non-issue, my greater concern is not with political influence and what secularization means for the political sphere, but with what secularization means for the souls of men and women who are now considerably more distant from Christianity -- and perhaps even with any contact with Christianity -- than ever before. My main concern is evangelism, not cultural influence.

One key aspect of Mr. Meacham's argument is his suggestion that what binds America together is not "a specific faith" but instead "a commitment to freedom" and, in particular, freedom of conscience. There is something to this argument, of course. The founding generation did not establish the young republic on any religious creed or theological doctrine. Still, there is something missing from this argument, and that is the recognition that freedom, and freedom of conscience in particular, requires some prior understanding of human dignity and the origins of conscience itself. Though the founders included those who rejected the Christian Gospel and Christianity itself, Christianity had provided the necessary underpinnings for the founders' claims.

Mr. Meacham also suggests that this new situation is perhaps healthy for the church. To this extent I agree -- the church gains a necessary knowledge any time the distinction between the church and the world is made more evident. Our first concern is and must be the Gospel. It is good that non-Christians know that they are not Christians and that Christians be reminded of that fact that what sinners need is the Gospel of Christ, not merely the lingering morality of the Christian memory.

I am haunted a bit by this section of the Newsweek article:

Mohler posted a despairing online column on the eve of Holy Week lamenting the decline—and, by implication, the imminent fall—of an America shaped and suffused by Christianity. "A remarkable culture-shift has taken place around us," Mohler wrote. "The most basic contours of American culture have been radically altered. The so-called Judeo-Christian consensus of the last millennium has given way to a post-modern, post-Christian, post-Western cultural crisis which threatens the very heart of our culture." When Mohler and I spoke in the days after he wrote this, he had grown even gloomier. "Clearly, there is a new narrative, a post-Christian narrative, that is animating large portions of this society," he said from his office on campus in Louisville, Ky.

I appreciate the care, respect, and insight that mark this essay by Jon Meacham. I also appreciated our conversation about an issue that concerns us both. Still, I hope I did not reflect too much gloom in my analysis. This much I know -- Jesus Christ is Lord, and His kingdom is forever. Our proper Christian response to this new challenge is not gloom, but concern. And our first concern must be to see that the Gospel is preached as Good News to the perishing -- including all those in post-Christian America.

A Date with Disaster -- Presbyterians Approve Homosexual Clergy

Meeting in San Jose, California, the Presbyterian Church USA, the liberal branch of American Presbyterianism, moved to approve homosexual clergy on June 27, 2008 -- a date that may well mark a final blow against biblical orthodoxy in that denomination.

The PCUSA has debated sexuality issues for decades now, with activists for homosexual ordination pressing their case until they finally got their way at the denomination's General Assembly. In that historic meeting, the General Assembly actually approved several proposals.

Even before dealing directly with the question of ordination standards, the General Assembly approved a first step toward revising the denomination's official translation of the historic Heidelberg Catechism. Once again, the crucial issue was homosexuality. The question was "complex and multi-layered," as the proposing group admitted.

Here is how the official PCUSA news office described the issue:

Most of the Assembly's attention focused on Question 87 of the catechism: "Can those who do not turn to God from their ungrateful, impenitent life be saved?"

The current text of the answer reads: "Certainly not! Scripture says, 'Surely you know that the unjust will never come into possession of the kingdom of God. Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers or drunkards or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God.'"

According to the overture rationale, two phrases in the current answer that were supplied by the 1962 translators do not appear in the original text or in any translations produced prior to 1962. The primary phrase that is in dispute is "or of homosexual perversion."

The words "homosexual perversion" in an official church document would, to say the least, present a challenge to approving the ordination of active homosexuals. The General Assembly voted to approve the change, arguing that the issue was accuracy in translation. Those opposed to the change noted that the catechism is making a direct reference to 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, which explicitly does include homosexual behaviors among those condemned.

That out of the way (though requiring further action at the next General Assembly), the denomination then turned to the issue of standards for ordination. The language to be replaced requires that all ministers of the church must live in "fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness." That language, consistent with Scripture and Christian tradition, is to be replaced with a new standard that would require nothing at all with reference to sexual integrity.

The new wording would read:

Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation, pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation and establishes the candidate's sincere efforts to adhere to these standards.

The new wording is liberal in application and neo-orthodox in form. The minister must merely pledge to live in obedience to Christ, but with no reference whatsoever to what Jesus would require in terms of sexual ethics. The language about following where Jesus leads "through the witness of the Scriptures" reduces the Bible to a witness and obedience to utter subjectivity.

The proposed amendment to the standards now moves to the denomination's 173 regional units (presbyteries) where it must receive sufficient support. Similar efforts have failed in the past, but many believe that this proposal will be difficult to defeat. The defection of many conservatives from the denomination (and some churches as well) may weaken the opposition.

Nevertheless, even without the change in the standard, local presbyteries may well move to ordain active homosexuals anyway. The Associated Press explains how:

Of equal importance to advocates on both side of the debate, the assembly also voted to allow gay and lesbian candidates for ordination to conscientiously object to the existing standard. Local presbyteries and church councils that approve ordinations would consider such requests on a case-by-case basis.

That vote was an "an authoritative interpretation" of the church constitution rather than a change to it, so it goes into effect immediately. The interpretation supersedes a ruling from the church's high court, issued in February, that said there were no exceptions to the so-called "fidelity and chastity" requirement.

Taken together, these changes represent a disaster for this church. In capitulating to the demand that homosexuality be normalized, the church turned its back on the Bible, on its own tradition, and on the protests and prayers of its members who would, of all things, expect their ministers to exhibit "fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness."

Just reflect for a moment about what the removal of those words really means. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA has just proposed to define its own denomination as a church for which those words no longer make sense.

The Albert Mohler Program

Schism in the Episcopal Church of the USA

I have always enjoyed reading and hearing to Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Seminary, who usually posts very interesting articles in his blog, as well interesting podcasts from the same blog.

Since the next couple of weeks I will be very busy doing my essays for the end of the semester, I may not write a lot, but I will keep you informed of those news and issues that are of a Christian interest.

I thereby offer you an interesting blog entry by Dr. Mohler.

William Bennett once observed that America was fast becoming "the kind of nation civilized nations sent missionaries to." In truth, that is what America has now become, with the installation of Martyn Minns as "missionary bishop" for the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA).

The schism in the Anglican communion was visible for all to see when the Nigerian primate, Archbishop Peter Akinola, installed Bishop Minns in a ceremony held in northern Virginia. According to press reports, the event was held in a 3,500 seat facility next to Potomac Mills. Bishop Minns will exercise episcopal oversight over 34 congregations in the U.S. -- with about one third identified as ethnically Nigerian.

As Michelle Boorstein of The Washington Post reported:
A powerful Nigerian Anglican archbishop defied top church leaders yesterday by coming to Northern Virginia and installing as one of his bishops a local minister who recently broke with the U.S. church after accusing it of being too liberal.

The festive ceremony thrilled those who believe the U.S. church has become too permissive but highlighted divisions that threaten to crack the Anglican Communion.

Church leaders in the United States and Great Britain had asked Archbishop Akinola not to come to America at this time and not to install Martyn Minns as bishop of his new group. Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church USA, even released a letter asking Akinola to stay away. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, did the same [see here].

Nevertheless, he came. And his coming indicates one blunt truth that cannot now be denied: Archbishop Akinola no longer considers his church in communion with the Episcopal Church USA, at least as the American church is represented by its elected leadership.

This was made clear in a letter from Akinola to Jefferts Schori released May 2, 2007. Note this excerpt:
At the emergency meeting of the Primates in October 2003 it was made clear that the proposed actions of the Episcopal Church would "tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level, and may lead to further division on this and further issues ..." Sadly, this proved to be true as many provinces did proceed to declare broken or impaired communion with the Episcopal Church. Since that time the Primates have established task forces, held numerous meetings and issued a variety of statements and communiques, but the brokenness remains, our Provinces are divided, and so the usual protocol and permissions are no longer applicable.
And:
It is my heartfelt desire - and indeed the expressed hope of all the Primates of the Communion - that The Episcopal Church will reconsider its actions - and make such special measures no longer necessary. This is the only way forward for full restoration into fellowship with the rest of the Communion. Further, I renew the pledge that I made to your predecessor, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, that the Church of Nigeria will be the first to restore communion on the day that your Province abandons its current unbiblical agenda. Until then we have no other choice than to offer our assistance and oversight to our people and all those who will not compromise the "faith once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3)

The Washington Post observed that Archbishop Akinola now presides over the largest province of the Anglican Communion -- and a province experiencing rapid and continuing growth. Meanwhile, the Episcopal Church USA continues to lose members.

An interesting comment came from one of those who observed the new bishop's installation. Marie Penney, described as bouncing her baby happily in the foyer, said this:
"To me, this movement combines the best of all worlds -- to be banded with all these brothers and sisters from Nigeria. I can't imagine another group of Christians I'd rather be with," said Pinney, who grew up Baptist and worships at Truro. "I feel so much more in line with Archbishop Akinola. There are hardly any bishops in the Episcopal Church that I'd even want my children in Sunday school with."

That last sentence is stunning in its force and clarity. "There are hardly any bishops in the Episcopal Church that I'd even want my children in Sunday school with."

That kind of frustration with liberal theology and liberal church teachings is what produced the installation of Bishop Minns. Archbishop Akinola came to the United States as, among other things, a missionary to a land that desperately needs the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Tragically enough, his visit was necessary because far too many of our churches and denominations need to be evangelized as well.