Roe v Wade and the death of dialogue

A few weeks ago I ran across David Gushee's excellent editorial in The USA Today called "What Roe Started". Gushee, an evangelical Christian and professor at Mercer University, argues that the Roe v Wade decision fundamentally altered the state of civil discourse and debate in America's political life.

The abortion issue raised the stakes of cultural debate so high that it became almost irrestistably easy for people to demonize those on "the other side." Thus abortion proponents called pro-lifers "anti-choice" and saw them as attempting to extend government control even to the most intimate decisions made about our own bodies. What could be more intrusive and intolerable? On the other side pro-lifers saw abortion proponents as "pro-death" and as supporting the legal mass-murder of children, the most innocent and defensless members of our society. What could be more heinous?

And so, demonization has become a regular feature of our political discourse, now extending to many issues. The Left demonized Bush and now the right demonizes Obama. As Gushee puts it "the politics of decency gave way to blood sport." The problem is that it accomplishes nothing. Demonization of individuals shifts energy away from reasoned debate and therefore prevents deep dialogue about issues, and so demonization cannot promote rational persuasion and compromise which are absolutely necessary if we are to have a single government for such a diverse people.

There is no surprise, then, that our nation is now so culturally and politically divided. Gushee appeals for a more restrained, rational politics that seeks to find common ground, even while still profoundly disagreeing about Roe v Wade:

I myself am an evangelical Christian who thinks Roe is bad law. But I am also drawn toward any effort to find common ground, whether on abortion reduction strategies or on other issues. For this, I have been demonized. Some of these experiences have led me to reflect a bit on why, as a Christian, I am so committed to the effort to find common ground — and why I seek to resist the demonization of adversaries that I find very tempting sometimes.

I try to start by recognizing the God-given fellow humanity of everyone whom I encounter, even those I sharply disagree with. My faith teaches that every human being is made in the image of God and beloved by him. Each shares humanity's common pool of frailties and strengths. Every human being is worthy of being treated with basic human decency and respect. I try to do that. I remind myself that every human being is capable of error and sin. But I am also painfully aware that whatever must be said about the weakness and vulnerability of others must also be said about me.

And he ends on a hopeful note:

I dare to think that it's still not too late to be the kind of nation in which differences are debated honestly, the votes are cast, the decisions are made and we move forward together as one people. I would like to see Christians contribute to that kind of society, rather than to the demonization that undermines it at its foundations.

May God strengthen Christians to move beyond demonization and "argument culture" and be leaders on the way to a new age of civil, rational discourse. This too can be a strong witness to the Light of Jesus Christ for the whole culture to see.

For those readers inclined to take a trip back to the 16th Century - here is a wondeful wonderful discussion of the views of that great foundational Anglican theologian Richard Hooker on the nature of discourse rooted in faith, hope, and love. He humorously called the political and theological discussions of his own day "full of tongue and weak of brain" - sounds familiar...

Is the New York Times anti-Catholic?

Archbishop of New York Timothy Dolan says that it certainly has been. Read here for more.

Evangelism by Trendiness

At the campus ministry I serve, one of our small groups is reading Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller. I suppose this may be a trendy thing to do. Hmmm...

In any case, I ran across this quote in chapter 10 that seems to get at some of my questions about the way United Methodist churches are trying to market themselves (as in the RETHINK campaign for example), or the hasty dash I see some churches making to throw off our distinctive traditions in order to become just like non-denominational churches for the sake or reaching new people - what is the underlying reasoning behind what we are doing? Have we thought about it theologically?

Miller writes:
"A friend of mine, a young pastor who recently started a church, talks to me from time to time about the new face of church in America - about the postmodern church. He says the new church will be different from the old one, that we will be relevant to culture and human struggle. I don't think any church has ever been relevant to culture, to human struggle, unless it believed in Jesus and the power of his gospel. If the supposed new church believes in trendy music and cool webpages, then it is not relevant to culture either. It is just another tool of Satan to get people to be passionate about nothing."

I've got no problem with good music or cool webpages, nor with churches trying to do new things. What concerns me is an attitude that if we can just make church "cool" for those outside (and usually we let the insiders decide what that means), if we can just put the right packaging on it, then we will accomplish our mission (which appears to be attendance growth).

"Give the people what they want."

But at that point have we not bought into consumerism and reduced our faith to a spiritual commodity to be marketed? The truth is our message is something un-cool: Come die with us. Come bear a cross with us. Come learn what it means to be a spiritual sacrifice, acceptable and pleasing unto God. Come suffer through mediocre sermons and un-trendy music. Come put up with the broken best efforts of other Christians who are all struggling together to live in God's grace and to be his church. Come learn how to live in a community where we love not because when we first showed up everything was as hip and cool as a television commercial (it certainly wasn't), but rather because we have imbibed deeply of the love of God through some crazy old book and weird rituals with bread and water and wine that are thousands of years out-of-fashion.

This is, I suppose, the reason for my sort of admiration for the Greek Orthodox: they carry on as if it is still the year AD 787 and they don't really care what I think of it. Good for them, I like that.

God willing, I will never become one of those perpetual, cynical, complainers about the church (we have plenty of this and it is often unhealthy). We have been given an awesome, hopeful, joy-filled, ancient faith. We are offered a sharing in the very life of the Triune God (which hasn't made it into our RETHINK commercials yet, as far as I can tell). We have been grafted into the body of Christ - the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the Truth. I love the Church. We should just be who we really are - with conviction (this brings up that whole denominational identity thing) - rather than trying to figure out what "they" want us to be. Will the attendance grow if we do that? I have no idea. Probably it will in some places and not in other. But ultimately all shall be well. All manner of thing shall be well.

Happy "All Souls Day"!

What the Pope actually offered the Anglicans

Here is an excellent article spelling out what we do and do not actually know at this point about the offer being made by the Pope to Anglicans who wish to become Roman Catholic. It dispells 5 myths that are out there among blogs and news sites.

Newest gothic cathedral to be consecrated

Tommorow (Thur. 10/29) will see St. John's Anglican Cathedral consecrated in Brisbane, Australia, making it the world's latest Gothic Cathedral. Construction began in 1906 on the 1889 design. Click here for images.

Methodist-Lutheran Unity Statement

As you may have heard, this past summer the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) accepted the full communion agreement with The United Methodist Church (UMC), that the United Methodist General Conference also had accepted back in the summer of 2008. So now our churches are in "full communion." We recognize one another as equal and fully legitimate expressions of the one body of Christ, proclaiming a common faith, celebrating common sacraments, with interchangeable clergy and seminaries and so forth.

I've only recently read the unity statement called "Confessing our Faith Together" (available beginning on page 12 of this study guide). It is always nice to read these ecumenical statements because they set forth what each Church considers the fundamentals of its own faith and practice, and so form a nice "refresher" in the basics of Lutheran and Methodist theology. It is also reassuring to note that the general theological flavor of this document is orthodox, especially with regards to Trinity, Christology, soteriology, and sacraments.

A couple of points are worth noting:

In the section on theological authority, paragraph 12 reminds us that Holy Scripture is the primary authority for both Churches; para. 13 points out that both see the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed as basic statemtents of the apostolic faith; and para. 17 notes important elements of the tradition that serve as practical authorities, naming the teachers of the Early Church, Martin Luther, and John & Charles Wesley as formative teachers for our common faith.

The Section on Prevenient Grace has this well-said quote:

Since all life is enveloped by the wooing activity of the Holy Spirit, God draws people to the saving grace given to us through Word and sacrament and received by faith in Jesus Christ.

The second part of this sentence is an excellent way to phrase the relationship between God's initiative in giving grace through the Bible and through the Sacraments (the "means of grace") on the one hand, and the importance of our recieving grace by faith in Christ on the other. This forms the foundation of a Christianity that is at once both sacramental and evangelical. Through the Biblical Word and through the sacraments God gives grace; while it is by faith in Christ, trusting our Lord and Savior, that we recieve his grace. In this way we hold together the Biblical truths that the sacraments really do incorporate us into salvation (see John 3:5; John 6; Rom. 6; 1 Cor. 10; Titus 3; 1 Pet. 3) and also that salvation is through faith (John 3:16; Eph. 2:8-10, etc.).

Note also the nice emphasis on a high eucharistic doctrine held in common by both Churches in para.s 40 & 41:

In this sharing (koinonia), Christ offers his life-giving body and blood through bread and wine to all who take part in the celebration of this meal (1 Corinthians 10:16). In the words of Christ that institute this meal stands a promise that he himself is truly present for us. These words in the Supper call us to faith...It is by the living word of Christ, empowered by the Holy Spirit, that the bread and wine become the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood.

The document also implicitly calls for the celebration of Holy Communion to be as frequent as possible (in para. 46):

This meal unites us with God and with one another; the more time we spend at the Lord’s table, the more we come to love one another and appreciate the Giver of every good and perfect gift.

So, I recommend this theological statement to Methodist and Lutheran Christians, and to others interested in the unity of the Church, or the basics of the catholic faith held in common across denominational lines.

Unfortunately, this full communion agreement itself has something of a cloud hanging over it, since the same Lutheran Conference that accepted this agreement then turned around and removed the rules requiring their clergy to hold to Biblical sexual standards (in order to facilitate actively homosexual clergy; click here for an interesting description). This move will undoubtedly fracture the unity of the ELCA itself over time, leaving a big question-mark over the future of this full communion agreement.

Pondering this calls to mind the words from The Book of Common Prayer (and Wesley's revision of it): "...inspire your catholic Church with the spirit of truth, unity, and harmony and grant that all who confess your holy Name may agree in the truth of your holy Word, and live in unity..." And we see in these strange times how much we need to continue praying that prayer for the Church.

[pictured above, ELCA Bishop Hanson (left), and UMC Bishop Oden applaud the move toward full-communion]

Wesley on how to read the Bible

How to Read Scripture:

If you desire to read the scripture in such a manner as may most effectually answer this end, would it not be advisable,

1. To set apart a little time, if you can, every morning and evening for that purpose?

2. At each time if you have leisure, to read a chapter out of the Old, and one out of the New Testament: if you cannot do this, to take a single chapter, or a part of one?

3. To read this with a single eye, to know the whole will of God, and a fixt resolution to do it? In order to know his will, you should,

4. Have a constant eye to the analogy of faith; the connexion and harmony there is between those grand, fundamental doctrines, Original Sin, Justification by Faith, the New Birth, Inward and Outward Holiness.

5. Serious and earnest prayer should be constantly used, before we consult the oracles of God, seeing "scripture can only be understood thro' the same Spirit whereby it was given." Our reading should likewise be closed with prayer, that what we read may be written on our hearts.

6. It might also be of use, if while we read, we were frequently to pause, and examine ourselves by what we read, both with regard to our hearts, and lives. This would furnish us with matter of praise, where we found God had enabled us to conform to his blessed will, and matter of humiliation and prayer, where we were conscious of having fallen short.

And whatever light you then receive, should be used to the uttermost, and that immediately. Let there be no delay. Whatever you resolve, begin to execute the first moment you can. So shall you find this word to be indeed the power of God unto present and eternal salvation.

-John Wesley

Preface to Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament

EDINBURGH, April 25, 1765.

You know, one might expect this to be the sort of thing that one was assigned to read if one went to a United Methodist seminary. Of course, in all fairness, it may have been assigned on a day that I didn't finish all of my homework. That is very possible. Still, as we spent so much time talking about Biblical hermeneutics (the reading and interpretation of the Bible) it would seem that this little passage should have been brought up on several occasions, though I can't say that I remember that happening.

Anyways, it is never too late to learn more about being a disciple.

Falling away from the faith

One of the most disturbing discoveries I made in college as I was transitioning out of some particulars of (Southern) Baptist theology into a more classical sacramental theology, as it is embodied in the Wesleyan tradition, was that most Christians do not, and have not across the ages, believed in "once saved always saved" - which is one of the most sacred doctrines of my Baptist brethren. Once a person had experienced a conversion (generally by praying The Sinners' Prayer at an altar-call), he could never be seperated or fall away from his saved state. There was an ontological change in that New Birth (which was entirely synonymous with that conversion moment) that could not be undone and which itself assured one of final salvation at the coming of Christ.

I discovered, however, that Methodists, Catholics, Anglicans, the Orthodox, most Pentecostals, and perhaps even Lutherans (I'm a little iffy on Lutherans, but see Article 11, paragraph 42 of the Formula of Concord) do not believe this. The vast majority of Christians held in a catholic consensus that falling away from the faith was at least theoretically possible - that those who "have once been enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come" (the power of resurrection and New Creation at work in inner being - exactly the ontological change my friends were trusting in, as in 2 Cor. 5:17) can nevertheless become those who "have fallen away" and who are "holding him [Christ] up to contempt" and who cannot be restored to repentance while they are doing so (Hebrews 6:4-6).

It took me a while to really let this sink in, because it was very different than what I had heard growing up in Baptist-saturated North Louisiana.

Here is an excerpt from the writings of the early Methodist theologian John Fletcher, a fellow Anglican priest who travelled extensively with John Wesley and wrote against 5-point Calvinism. His theological writings were very influential in the early Methodist movement. I recently ran across this, which got me to thinking about this debate again. You will see that Fletcher draws upon several Biblical passages and Scriptural ideas in arguing against "once saved always saved." Wesleyan theology instead argues, along with the catholic consensus, that the converted must continually live and grow in the grace of Christ. If they fall into sin or deny him, the Spirit will call them back to faith and they must turn back to him with faith and repentance if they are again to walk in his grace (Roman Catholics emphasize the importance of confessing to a presbyter and recieving absolution at this point).

It seems to me that the Wesleyan question the is not only "have you been converted in the past?" (as is suggested by the Southern Baptist theology I had heard), but more to the point, "are you walking and growing in the grace of Jesus Christ right now in the present?" And if not, let us confess our sins and pray for the Spirit to give us true repentance (as it says in the old Common Prayer Book liturgy).

Celebrating 10 years of Justification consensus

Protestants - Lutherans and Methodists in particular - and Roman Catholics are gathering in Old St. Patrick's Church, Chicago, today to celebrate 10 years of a consensus on the doctrine of Justification by Faith with the Roman Catholic Church.

Considered the most significant agreement since the Reformation, the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification was signed by the Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation on Oct. 31, 1999 in an effort to end centuries of doctrinal dispute.
"For hundreds of years, the issue of justification by faith divided Catholics and Protestants," said Bishop Gregory Palmer, president of The United Methodist Church’s Council of Bishops, in a released statement. "This agreement celebrates consensus on the basic truths of the doctrine of justification."
Methodists joined the agreement in 2006 during a World Methodist Council meeting in Seoul, South Korea.

For the full article, click here.

The Top Theological Schools

HERE is an unscientific list of some of the top theological schools in North America according to the "First Things" website (which is a source I generally enjoy reading).

Though not exactly a numerical ranking, it does name Duke Divinity School and Notre Dame as the top two programs on the continent. Both have remained on top for years he says because they have consistently hired "intellectually exciting professors who are committed to students and care deeply about the future of a decidedly orthodox and church-oriented vocation of theological scholarship."

One of the questions that often gets asked about some of the other United Methodist divinity schools (besides Duke) is whether the academic explorations going on are really in service to the Church's Biblical mission, or only to the academic aspirations of the faculty (though the two may indeed walk together at times). This is, I think, a fair question.

After these Princeton Theological Seminary and Wycliffe College at the University of Toronto are praised for their various strengths. The article also notes that unfortunately a number of traditionally fine Jesuit colleges, as well as many of the oldest and most revered Protestant schools have become enamored with various types of contextual theology or "innovations" such that, while they still have much to offer academically, the commitment to Christian orthodoxy and strengthening the Church's mission has become more marginal - though he does list some exceptions.

The institutions affiliated with Catholic University (such as the John Paul II Institute and Dominican House of Studies) get high praise, on the other hand, for focusing on Christian vocation hand-in-hand with serious theological study.

He closes out his list mentioning the excellent work by notable faculty at The University of Dayton; my own seminary, Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University (which I am glad to see made this list); Baylor University; and the Dominican School of Philosophy and theology at Berkeley which make them all solid options for graduate studies.

So that's the list at First Things. What about you? Any other suggestions on the Top Theological Schools in North America?

Church of England opposes euthanasia

I don't know if this is a new stand or not, other Christian communions have come out against euthanasia and medically assisted suicide long ago. But it is nice to hear some good news about the Church of England.

Click here to learn more. I was interested to read over the principles that form the base of this postion. It seems to me that these same principles apply to opposition to abortion in most cases as well:

Principles behind this position
• Personal autonomy and the protection of life are both important principles that are often complementary but sometimes compete.
• Personal autonomy must be principled and not without regard to others.
• Protection of life should take priority when there is a conflict between the two.
• When protection of life is impossible that does not undermine these principles.
• Every human being is uniquely and equally valuable, hence human rights are built on the foundation of the ‘right to life’, as is much of the criminal code.
• An obligation on society, doctors and nurses, to take life or to assist in the taking of life would create a new and unwelcome role for society.

A Scientist's case for God

I recently heard that Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, and author of the book The Language of God, has been appointed by President Obama as head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (I know, I must have been under a rock).

Not surprisingly, some of the "new atheists" - such as Sam Harris in a New York Times editorial - have criticised this move, suggesting that Collins, because he is a believer in God, is by that very fact disqualified from holding this position of leadership in the scientific/medical community. I think that critique is very interesting since it seems to be the case that behind what Sam Harris is saying is this: unless a person thinks as he thinks on this question of God's existence, then that person should have no place in the scientific conversation. It looks to me like an ideological power-grab, the very kind of dialogue-squelching that religious institutions have too often been guilty of in the past (the Galileo affair comes to mind).

Naturally, I believe that in so far as scientific discoveries and Christian faith both give insight into various aspects of the real world as it truly is, there is no necessary incompatibility between the two. All Truth is God's Truth, however it is discovered or revealed. Unfortunately, too many narrative crafters in American society (both in the media, the academy, and in the Church) have endlessly spoken of the "conflict" between "religion" and "science" (whatever those terms mean in the abstract).

I think that narrative needs to be vigorously challenged by Christian (and other) intellectuals and culture-shapers. To that end, I am happy to share this radio interview in which Francis Collins speaks of his own faith as one who is both a moderate Evangelical Protestant Christian and also an emminent scientist.

On the substance of the interview - I thought it was very good. I would love to have heard a little bit about the different sorts of "evidences" that are used in different disciplines (the criteria for evidence used to support a claim is quite different depending on whether one is an historian or a physicist, for example). Christian belief can be supported from various disciplines - the historical investigation (using rigorous standards of historical evidence) of the event of the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth seems to me to be the most straight-forward (and N.T. Wright's book The Resurrection of the Son of God is among the most significant statements of the historical case for the Resurrection).

Is health care a "right"?

I ran across an interesting article this morning about using the language of "rights" to talk about health care access. I noticed last week that NPR was doing this in exploring healthcare systems in other developed nations - all of which (except for the US according to NPR's narrative) have decided that health care is a basic human "right."

I wondered how this could be the case. There is something about health care that does not at all seem to be like freedom of speech or freedom from arbitrary imprisonment. It seems further away from the basics of what it is to be a human creature. I felt a nagging suspicion that there was a category mistake being made - perhaps similar to the category mistake that is made when people talk about the "right" of this or that person or group to be ordained in the Church, which misses the point that ordination is a gift from God, not a right that any of us can demand and that true Justice, by the nature of things, must give (for that is what a right is).

So check out these thought-provoking quotes from this post (and read the whole article too!):

Since his [Thomas Jefferson's] day, and certainly preceding it, the historic American understanding of human rights is the exercise of individual freedom, especially in the political realm, for both public and personal good. We have historically never understood our rights as encompassing access to services or commodities...

It does sound all high minded to say that, like rights, health care should be equal for everybody, which I suppose is why clergy are so susceptible to claim it. It's more than obvious that no one in the Congress or the White House believes it, though...

(While the post begins by pointing out that The United Methodist Church's Social Principles call health care a right, it goes on to point out the differently nuanced position of the Roman Catholic Church:)

[T]he Catholic Church does not teach that “health care” as such, without distinction, is a natural right.The “natural right” of health care is the divine bounty of food, water, and air without which all of us quickly die. This bounty comes from God directly. None of us own it, and none of us can morally withhold it from others. The remainder of health care is a political, not a natural, right, because it comes from our human efforts, creativity, and compassion.

Check it out for your pondering pleasure. I should point out that I certainly favor affordable, high-quality, and universally available health care, and as a society we should work to make this a reality. I believe that a society in which that kind of care is available is, so far, a better one than a society in which that is not available, all other things being equal.
But that would also be true for universally available, high-quality, and low-priced homes, but this doesn't therefore mean that home-ownership is a basic human right, only that such a society would be a better one (I think). Likewise, I'm just not so sure that health care is therefore a natural "right" just because it is good for society. Yet we really can promote something as a positive good for society even if we don't believe it falls into the category of a natural human right (because it fails to meet the criteria belonging to that category).

But I would be interested to see a good solid argument that health-care is a right of nature for all humans, if anyone runs across a good one (keep in mind that an argument gives reasons for a position, not merely assertions of that position).

How simple should Christianity be?

That is the question asked by this post over at "Glory to God for all things" - and one that I have asked before.

There is in parts of the catholic Church, especially in American Protestantism I think, an impulse that wants to simplify everything, to reduce everything to its most basic elements - including our worship, our theology, our preaching and so on. That which is complex or difficult is labelled "irrelevant" and that which is simple or easy is "accessible" and no other justification is then even needed to jetison the complex in favor of the simple. The assumption seems to be that if it doesn't reach the broadest possible audience it therefore must not be true - or not the truth that we want, anyway. It seems to me that this is one reason why proposed changes in the life of the church can be made - even significant ones - without particularly deep or rigorous theological reflection or forethought.

People like simple and easy, therefore they might actually grab hold if that is what we have to offer.

But the more I think about this - the more I think that real life is not simple and real life is not easy. And a grown-up faith that takes real life seriously must not be either. Of course, the complex is difficult to reduce to a slogan or a formula in any sort of useful way. Try reducing the wonderful sacramental theology of the classical tradition to 4 Spiritual Laws. Thinking about it this way has made "presenting the gospel" (in the classical evangelical sense) in my preaching a bit more difficult, because, when I've presented the basics, I always feel that I am only scratching the surface and need to say alot more. I talk about relationship with Jesus, but feel the need to go back and say quite abit more about covenant since it is none other than a covenant relationship that we are invited to, and so on.

Anyways, that was a definite ramble - the original post I linke to is very good. You should read it.

How God changes your brain

Check out this article discussing the changes that occured in the brains of Christian and Buddist monks and nuns who engaged in periods of intense prayer and meditation. The studies show that such spiritual practices literally reshape the way the brain works in ways that make the practicioner more calm, relaxed, compassionate, and deeply mindful. Such practices can have the same effects even for non-religious people.

I suspect that God has "hard-wired" us in such a way that these practices literally shape us to be more like him. Interestingly, saying short prayers (as is commonly practiced by many moderately religious individuals) did not show the same positive effects upon the brain.

I recently saw a guy talking about the same subject on Public Television. All of this has made me want to revisit Practicing the Presence of God by Brother Lawrence.

Do men use abortion to manipulate women?

On occasion I run across an article by Albert Mohler, who was at one time the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kentucky, and is a widely read social critic. One time he randomly came into the Cokesbury where I worked on Southern Methodist University's campus. Now I have a few theological disagreements with Mr. Mohler, and often find him to be a bit to the right of me on some social and political issues, but if I do see a column of his that looks interesting I'll often give it a chance.

I recently read this one about how abortion has been used by men and ammunition to persuade women to have sex. In a cultural context when abortion was not legal "on demand" as a means of birth control, women could use the risk of pregnancy as a reason for saying "no" to sex, or the fact of pregnancy to persuade the man who fathered the child to propose marriage and help rear the child.

With legal abortion "on demand," men are more likely to expect their girlfriends to have sex with them (perhaps on threat of ending the relationship if they do not), because a potential impediment has been removed (or so the argument will go). And should such illicit sex lead to a pregnancy, the man can abandon his responsibilities in the matter by pointing out that it is (supposedly) "the woman's choice" - and therefore her responsibility alone - if the child is born or not. Whether she has the child or not, he will not feel pressured to marry her.

This, of course, reinforces a number of personal and social problems: the problem of female poverty and single-parenthood and the personal frustration that go with them; the problem of fatherless children who are more likely to get into legal trouble and less likely to succeed in virtually every measurable way than are children with fathers (minority communities are especially hard hit here); the various problems and social ills that result from these first problems (cycles of poverty, overcrowded prisons, etc.); and on it goes.

A practice that was hailed by feminists as liberating for women, giving them more control over their lives, may have - in many cases - had the exact opposite effect. An interesting fact presented in this essay is that the great majority (64%) of women who had abortions felt pressured by others to do so. I was reminded of a comment by bishop Willimon (which I have mentioned before) that a Duke study found that most women who have abortions do so because they feel they have no other choice. It is a sad irony that some call this "freedom of choice."

There is a lot to think about in this article that Mohler has written, and so I do recommend it. As I have argued before, I believe that abortion on demand as a means of birth control (so I am not now speaking of abortion in medical emergencies to save the mother or cases or rape or other rare cases that are sometimes mentioned) is deeply corrosive for our humanity: bad for our families, bad for our children, and therefore bad for our whole community.

Of course, reducing, or eliminating this practice would require a huge cultural shift - a sexual counter-revolution, so to speak. And given the attitudes of many young Americans (and indeed, given the content of the media which is continually fed to us) this does not look especially likely. But who knows what tomorrow may hold, for with God all things are possible.

Newman on Wesley

"...if you wish to find [among the Anglicans] the shadow and the suggestion of the supernatural qualities which make up the notion of a Catholic Saint, to Wesley you must go, and such as him”

-John Henry Newman

from: Certain Difficulties felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching, vol. 1, pp. 88-91
(though, truth be told, Newman then expresses his distaste for Wesley's doctrines and his claims of inner assurance, but there it is).

Michael F. Bird on influential authors

Some of you may know of Michael Bird, who blogs mostly on stuff to do with New Testament scholarship over at www.euangelizomai.blogspot.com - here is his very funny (and nerdy) answer to the question of what writings have influenced him.

BW3 on Wright on TEC

In case you didn't get that title, I've run across some remarks by well-known United Methodist theologian Ben Witherington III, in which he comments on the statement made by NT Wright (see a few posts below) about the recent decisions of The Episcopal Church's General Convention, that basically threw off the rules of the wider Anglican Communion regarding sexual morality, in favor of a pro-homosexuality agenda.

Witherington's comments address the whole issue with insight, and brevity. To read them go here.

Praying the Psalms

"When through continuous prayer the words of the Psalms are brought down into the heart, then the heart like good soil begins to produce by itself various flowers..."
-Ilias the presbyter, from The Philokalia

One of the things that I have always loved about the Anglican tradition as contained in The Book of Common Prayer (BCP), is the praying of Psalms each day. In the Common Prayer Book one prays through the entire Psalter each and every month. This practice was passed along to the American Methodists in John Wesley's revision of the Common Prayer Book, the Sunday Service Book, in which about 3/4 of the Psalter is arranged for daily reading throughout the month. A selected Psalter is still to be found in our Hymnal, but without being divided into daily sections as in the BCP and Wesley's BCP revision.

As I pray the Psalms, and have done so regularly for several years now, it is amazing how much of Jesus I see in them. It is wonderful just how many little hints and whispers and opaque outlines of the life and death and Resurrection of Jesus are continuously found in them. I believe that they teach us how to interpret Scripture "mystically," if I may use the term in that way.

The Psalms also, of course, give us a voice to pray many of the deep, dark, thoughts that we are taboo to talk about in Church, for some reason: our times of doubt, of anger, of not "doing just fine."

Do you folks ever pray the Psalms?

Christian comeback in Europe?

Is Europe hopelessly anti-Christian and must it's self-destructive secularism inevitably open the way for it to become the next Muslim continent? Some commentators have lamented this possibility. But Philip Jenkins disputes this analysis in an article (and in his new book, God's Continent ) in which he argues that Christianity is poised to make a comeback in secular Europe. I hope and pray that he is right - and am more than willing to take another mission trip to Europe, as the campus ministry I serve did last Summer.

Two paragraphs from the Jenkins article stuck out to me:

In fact, the rapid decline in the continent’s church attendance over the past 40 years may have done Europe a favor. It has freed churches of trying to operate as national entities that attempt to serve all members of society. Today, no church stands a realistic chance of incorporating everyone. Smaller, more focused bodies, however, can be more passionate, enthusiastic, and rigorously committed to personal holiness. To use a scientific analogy, when a star collapses, it becomes a white dwarf—smaller in size than it once was, but burning much more intensely. Across Europe, white-dwarf faith communities are growing within the remnants of the old mass church.

I have long wondered if this is basically what may happen to the "Mainline" or "historic Protestant" Churches of the United States, including The United Methodist Church. As the society moves away from a Christendom approach, fewer and fewer people will join our churches, fewer will come to us to baptize their children, fewer will come for church weddings, fewer will do any of these things "just because that is what one does." In other words there will be fewer nominal Christians (and fewer nominal United Methodists). Those who are left will be the truly committed: the disciples of Christ, not merely the cultural Christians, will populate our churches.

Of course, we will shed a great many more members (that is, our membership roles will shrink significantly, even if actual church attendance remains somewhat steady). We can only guess where our membership will "bottom out" - but when it does, we will have a wonderful opportunity to regroup and then grow.

The other thing that struck me was this:
Jürgen Habermas, a veteran leftist German philosopher stunned his admirers not long ago by proclaiming, “Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter.” Europe may be confronting the dilemmas of a truly multifaith society, but with Christianity poised for a comeback, it is hardly on the verge of becoming an Islamic colony.

Could it be that a growing number of European intellectuals will recognize how important the Christian notions of justice and love, of humans bearing the image of God, of faith and reason - how all of these Christian elements have made possible not only the birth, but also the continuation of Western Civilization? We'll see what happens.

Wesley on Communion

"...if we consider the Lord's Supper as a command of Christ, no man can have any pretence to Christian piety, who does not recieve it (not once a month, but) as often as he can."

-John Wesley, The Duty of Constant Communion, (section 21)

I thought it was an ironic quote since many United Methodist Churches recieve Holy Communion precisely only once a month.

I suppose, in so far as many of us don't yet practice weekly Communion, we do have a wonderul opportunity then to conform ourselves closer to Wesleyan theology, closer to the larger Anglican Tradition that Wesleyanism flows from, and indeed, closer to the universal/catholic practice of the Early Church: by taking up a weekly celebration of Holy Communion.

Metropolitan Jonah speech at ACNA

As you may have heard there were some high-profile guest speakers at the recent convention of the Anglican Church in North America. That convention ratified the canons and constitution of the new aspiring Anglican Province, elected former Episcopal bishop of Pittsburgh, Robert Duncan, as its first Archbishop, and set the direction for the new Church group.

One of the much talked-about features of the Convention was the speech delivered by Metropolitan Jonah, the leader of the Orthodox Church in America and a former Episcopalian, in which he signaled a new willingness - indeed an enthusiasm - among the Orthodox to begin ecumenical dialogue with the Anglicans, with full recognition of the new Anglican group as an authentic Orthodox Church as a realistic possibility.

Metropolitan Jonah named three major issues, on the Anglican side, that need to be resolved for such a union to occur: 1) the removal of the filioque clause from the Nicene Creed, which many Western Churches are beginning to consider anyways, 2) the rejection of Calvinism, which was condemned as a heresy by the Eastern Churches centuries ago, but is held by many evangelical Anglicans and 3) the rejection of the ordination of women as bishops or priests (he made no mention of deacons, and I assume this is considered negotiable).

The Anglican Church in North America has already declared that it will not ordain women as bishops, but left the issue of priests up to the individual dioceses and sub-divisions of the Church.
On the whole, this could represent a remarkable step forward in the cause of ecumenical reconciliation, and I'll be excited to see what happens in the coming years. As a side note, it seems evident to me that this new Anglican Church in North America will be much closer to United Methodist doctrine and discipline than the Episcopal Church is likely to be in the coming years. Perhaps we should shift some of our ecumenical energies to work with this new group.

The video below includes the whole address.

NT Wright on TEC General Convention

The following is part of a statement by the Anglican Bishop of Durham, N.T. Wright, on the General Convention of the Episcopal Church's decision this week paving the way for more actively-practicing gay bishops and priests and deacons, over the explicit objections of the Anglican Communion and against the urging of the Archbishop of Canterbury who himself addressed the convention before the vote was taken asking them to show restraint. They did not:

Both the bishops and deputies (lay and clergy) of TEC knew exactly what they were doing. They were telling the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other “instruments of communion” that they were ignoring their plea for a moratorium on consecrating practising homosexuals as bishops. They were rejecting the two things the Archbishop of Canterbury has named as the pathway to the future — the Windsor Report (2004) and the proposed Covenant (whose aim is to provide a modus operandi for the Anglican Communion). They were formalising the schism they initiated six years ago when they consecrated as bishop a divorced man in an active same-sex relationship, against the Primates’ unanimous statement that this would “tear the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level”. In Windsor’s language, they have chosen to “walk apart”.
Granted, the TEC resolution indicates a strong willingness to remain within the Anglican Communion. But saying “we want to stay in, but we insist on rewriting the rules” is cynical double-think. We should not be fooled.

Of course, matters didn’t begin with the consecration of Gene Robinson. The floodgates opened several years before, particularly in 1996 when a church court acquitted a bishop who had ordained active homosexuals. Many in TEC have long embraced a theology in which chastity, as universally understood by the wider Christian tradition, has been optional.

That wider tradition always was counter-cultural as well as counter-intuitive. Our supposedly selfish genes crave a variety of sexual possibilities. But Jewish, Christian and Muslim teachers have always insisted that lifelong man-plus-woman marriage is the proper context for sexual intercourse. This is not (as is frequently suggested) an arbitrary rule, dualistic in overtone and killjoy in intention. It is a deep structural reflection of the belief in a creator God who has entered into covenant both with his creation and with his people (who carry forward his purposes for that creation).

Paganism ancient and modern has always found this ethic, and this belief, ridiculous and incredible. But the biblical witness is scarcely confined, as the shrill leader in yesterday’s Times suggests, to a few verses in St Paul. Jesus’s own stern denunciation of sexual immorality would certainly have carried, to his hearers, a clear implied rejection of all sexual behaviour outside heterosexual monogamy. This isn’t a matter of “private response to Scripture” but of the uniform teaching of the whole Bible, of Jesus himself, and of the entire Christian tradition.

The appeal to justice as a way of cutting the ethical knot in favour of including active homosexuals in Christian ministry simply begs the question. Nobody has a right to be ordained: it is always a gift of sheer and unmerited grace. The appeal also seriously misrepresents the notion of justice itself, not just in the Christian tradition of Augustine, Aquinas and others, but in the wider philosophical discussion from Aristotle to John Rawls. Justice never means “treating everybody the same way”, but “treating people appropriately”, which involves making distinctions between different people and situations. Justice has never meant “the right to give active expression to any and every sexual desire”.

Such a novel usage would also raise the further question of identity. It is a very recent innovation to consider sexual preferences as a marker of “identity” parallel to, say, being male or female, English or African, rich or poor. Within the “gay community” much postmodern reflection has turned away from “identity” as a modernist fiction. We simply “construct” ourselves from day to day.

We must insist, too, on the distinction between inclination and desire on the one hand and activity on the other — a distinction regularly obscured by references to “homosexual clergy” and so on. We all have all kinds of deep-rooted inclinations and desires. The question is, what shall we do with them? One of the great Prayer Book collects asks God that we may “love the thing which thou commandest, and desire that which thou dost promise”. That is always tough, for all of us. Much easier to ask God to command what we already love, and promise what we already desire. But much less like the challenge of the Gospel.

Of course, the question is what will happen next. The campus ministry I serve, for example, is a shared ministry with the diocese of Western Louisiana, a relatively moderate-to-conservative diocese whose bishop was at GAFCON. Will groups like this try to sign onto the Windsor Covenant even if their denomination does not? Will they join ACNA? Will they seek some sort of 'alternative oversight' while staying in the Episcopal Church? I don't know, but they are in my prayers.

Bishop Whitaker: Let us pray - with the Church

Here is an excellent post from Bishop Whitaker urging United Methodist pastors to use the Church's prayer of Great Thanksgiving when celebrating the sacrament of Holy Communion. The sacrament is a focal point of our worship, especially in the Wesleyan tradition as the bishop points out (sadly many of our churches seem ignorant of this, judging by their practice), and how we celebrate this sacrament is highly important:

In some congregations, it has become the custom of the pastor to offer his or her own prayer as a substitute for the Church's prayer. Sometimes the pastor includes the words of institution, and sometimes the pastor does not include these words. While it is essential to include the words of our Lord which were spoken at the Last Supper when he instituted the Lord's Supper, even this is not adequate.

The prayer of the Church should be used when celebrating the Eucharist because it is the prayer of the whole Church and not that of just the congregation or the pastor. It contains the whole drama of God's salvation from creation to the new creation. It is ordered around the Rule of Faith, namely the worship of one God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

He goes on to address other reasons for using the church's official liturgy and encouraging pastors to do so.

Some of the comments are illuminating as well. One comment notes the fact that some clergy who do indeed use the official liturgy do so in a hurried and thoughtless way that detracts from the sacramental moment rather than undergirding it. I have long maintained that a scripted prayer can be (and must be) read with real sincerity and conviction - but this is by no means automatic. The clergy must prepare themselves spiritually and indeed be mindful of exactly what it is they are doing in the moment of prayer itself. However, one advantage of using the church's liturgy over a sponteneous prayer is that it will be as theologically sound and as deeply true whether or not the pastor is spiritually prepared or actively mindful of the holy moment.

For those who are interested in going further, here is a relatively short article about the evolution of the liturgy in the United Methodist Church, from the Ancient Church, through the Medival and Anglican/Reformation periods, down to the present.