Bigoted Progressive Church of Sweden Refuses To Call God By His Preferred Gender Pronouns

Last week, the Babylon Bee (a satirical website) ran an article entitled, "Bigoted Progressive Christian Refuses To Call God By His Preferred Pronouns."  Well, life didn't waste any time imitating art, with this (real) news from the Church of Sweden: "Priests to be banned from calling God 'he' or 'the Lord' in bid to be gender neutral."

The Bible tells us that God has a name (YHWH).  But the Jews had such reverence for God's name that they refused to use it, though they had other names for God: Adonai, El Shaddai, etc. that reflected his Personhood.  Jesus taught his followers to call God "Father."  And Jesus couldn't call God "Mother" because he had a mother, and she wasn't God.  The YHWH of the Old Testament was/is Jesus' Father; and, the precious truth of the Gospel and the New Testament is that, if we are in Christ, his Father becomes our Father.

But more recently, especially in the West, we simply refer to God as "God."  And when you do that, you can invest that rather ambiguous name with any content (or gender) of your choosing.  You can create a god to fit your liking or your perceived needs.  But that is the very essence of idolatry.  (Side note: The god of philosophy is not the Christian God.)

But in order for God to be God--in fact, and not merely in our imagination, he has to have an objective existence and identity.  (The late Francis Schaeffer had that right: the two most essential things a person must know about God are summed up in two of Schaeffer's books: The God Who is There; and He is There and He Is Not Silent.) 

God has an objectively real identity; and in order for us to know God, he has to have revealed himself to us, which he has done in the words of the Bible.  The Bible is God's Word written, just as Jesus of Nazareth is the Word of God Incarnate.  So, either we stick to the imagery and identity of God as he has revealed himself in the Bible and in the Person of Jesus Christ, or else we are just making it all up.  And this, apparently, is what the Church of Sweden and other theological liberals in our day want to do.

From The Mirror (UK) [with my comments added in bold type and brackets]:

The Church of Sweden, which is headed by a woman, made the decision during an eight-day meeting but not everyone is happy with the new rules.

Church clergy have been told to refer to God using gender-neutral language, dropping masculine words such as He and Lord.

The order came after more than 250 members of The Church of Sweden, which is a Evangelical Lutheran church, met to discuss ways of updating a 31-year-old handbook that sets out how services should be conducted.  [Just wait until the Episcopal Church (USA) comes out wth its new Prayer Book, possibly as early as next year's General Convention.]

The church is headed by a woman, Archbishop Antje Jackelen, who told Sweden’s TT news agency the church had been discussing using more inclusive language since its 1986 conference. [Because if you have been talking about it for a long time, that makes it okay.]

She said: “Theologically, for instance, we know that God is beyond our gender determinations, God is not human.”  [God is not human, but God is a Person.  And personhood requires gender, which is why God chose to reveal himself to us in personal language and, ultimately, in the Person of Jesus Christ.  ("He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9).]

But not everyone is happy with the decision.

Christer Pahlmblad, an associate theology professor with Sweden’s Lund University, told Danish newspaper Kristeligt Dagblad the move was “undermining the doctrine of the Trinity and the community with the other Christian churches.”

He added: “It really isn’t smart if the Church of Sweden becomes known as a church that does not respect the common theology heritage.”  [And, more importantly, when you face God at the Last Day, he isn't going to be very happy either.]

The meeting lasted eight days and the decision was one of many made by the church’s 251-member decision-making body.

The new rules will come into affect on May 20 next year, which is the Christian holiday of Pentecost.

The Church of Sweden is known for its liberal position on many issues, particularly homosexuality.

When Eva Brunne became Bishop of Stockholm in 2009, she was the first openly lesbian bishop in the world.

The church has 6.1 million baptised members out of a country of 10 million people. [Because it is a state church and they baptize everyone who doesn't say no; yet they still only get about 200,000 people in church on the average Sunday.]

A Church of England spokesman told The Mirror its clergy will continue to refer to God as male. [For now.]

He said: “The Church of England has always used masculine language when speaking about God, for example in the words of the Lord’s Prayer – ‘our Father, who art in Heaven’ – and in referring to God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and continues to do so."

However, the spokesman said the C of E uses “inclusive” language when referring to people and, earlier this month, published guidelines on helping children “explore the possibilities of who they might be", including their gender identity.  [This is how it begins.]

That Pesky Women's Ordination Issue

From its inception in 2009, the Anglican Church in North America has included individuals on both sides of the issue of the ordination of women to the priesthood.  Some observers, including those who did not wish the newly-formed entity well, predicted that the ACNA would eventually split over the issue.  Nevertheless, nearly nine years later, the ACNA remains as one Church, sometimes ignoring and sometimes bumping into what could rightly be called, "the elephant in the room."

Those who would like to go on ignoring the elephant will have a much harder time doing so now that the Bishop of Fort Worth, the Rt. Rev. Jack L. Iker, has declared that a state of "impaired communion" exists in the ACNA over the issue.  In his address to the Diocese of Fort Worth convention last weekend, Bishop Iker commented on the ACNA's current dilemma:

So where are we?  Most ACNA bishops and dioceses are opposed to women priests, but as it presently stands, the ACNA Constitution says each diocese can decide if it will ordain women priests or not.  We now need to work with other dioceses to amend the Constitution to remove this provision.  As you know, women bishops are not permitted in any diocese, and no bishop wants to change that prohibition.

Earlier in his address, Bishop Iker had observed:

...when Archbishop Robert Duncan appointed the Task Force [in 2012], he charged them with doing a study of the issue of women in holy orders, but instructed them not to come to a conclusion or to make any recommendation as to how to resolve the debate.  The report simply summarizes the arguments for and against.  This is in stark contrast to a similar study done by the Anglican Mission in America several years ago, known as the Rodgers Report, which concluded that women cannot be ordained bishops or priests, while leaving open the door to the possibility of women deacons.  Those of us who agreed to the formation of the ACNA in 2009 did so with the clear understanding that a serious theological study would be done and that a decision would be made at that time.

I made the observation at the time the Task Force was appointed that the composition of this group seemed to be designed to arrive at a stalemate and, consequently to preserve the status quo of dioceses each following their own chosen position.  To some extent, that design was understandable: the last thing this newly-formed alliance of orthodox Anglicans from a variety of backgrounds needed was to have a potentially fatal schism so early in its life.

The problem is that this status quo is only tenable as long as: (1) Dioceses go about their business and ignore what is going on in other dioceses in terms of ordination; and (2) Dioceses continue to exist on the basis of affinity, allowing congregations to affiliate with a diocese not based on their geographical location, but on allegiance to a particular bishop, a particular style of churchmanship, and a particular position on the issue of the ordination of women.  For instance, the parish where I am rector is in Colorado but has, since before the formation of the ACNA, belonged to the Diocese of Quincy, based in Illinois.  The Diocese of Quincy ordains women to the diaconate but not the priesthood and includes congregations from Florida to Hawaii and from Wisconsin to Texas.  (And let me say, parenthetically, it is a good and wonderful diocese.)

On the other hand, there is the Diocese of Pittsburgh, which also includes parishes outside its former geographical boundaries and has, since before the formation of the ACNA, described itself as a diocese that embraces both positions on the ordination of women.  I have argued for years that, strictly speaking, this is not accurate.  The Diocese of Pittsburgh is a diocese that has an ordination process and a bishop that ordains women to the priesthood.  It merely includes some congregations that disagree with that position and will continue to do so until those congregations come to accept the prevailing position of the Diocese.  Don't misunderstand me, the Diocese of Pittsburgh is an amicable diocese, but once the diocesan processes and the Bishop are oriented toward the ordination of women to the priesthood, the atmosphere of the diocese puts an irresistible, if unintentional, pressure on those congregations that do not accept women priests; and it really can't be described as a diocese that embraces both positions.

The ACNA's problem is this: How can a Church that is divided over the definition of what it is to be a priest consider itself to be in unity?  And, in particular, what does it mean for a woman who is considered to be a priest in one part of the Church, but whose ministry is not recognized in another?  Those of us who spent years in the Episcopal Church are used to things being messier than this, which is perhaps why we have been able to live with the dissonance for so long.  But for a Church seeking to be faithful to the teachings of Christ, the implications of this disunity for the Church as a whole and for the women who have been ordained are huge.

So what is the ACNA to do?  First, from one end to the other, in every congregation, the ACNA needs to commit itself to a season of prayer and seek God's will regarding this issue.  People need to set aside their preconceived notions, however firmly held, and simply seek God's will for the good of the Church.  I say this so that we do not end up praying for our position to be victorious or "praying against" each other.  We are committing ourselves to seek God's will and nothing else.  This will require extreme humility and self-denial.  It will be especially hard for women who have already been ordained to the priesthood and have perhaps spent a significant part of their lives in this ministry.  We need to recognize this fact and maintain the highest possible respect for our sisters in Christ as we work through this issue.

Second, the Anglican Church in North America needs to come to a uniform understanding of what it means to be a catholic church.  We aren't making up church as we go along.  We are heirs of the Church Jesus founded on the apostles; we are compelled to stand in and conform ourselves to that tradition.  We need to come to an authentic Anglican understanding of the use of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.

As I said in my essay, A Stool or a Tower, You Decide, I believe we need "to view Scripture, Tradition, and Reason as three ascending levels of a tower.  Scripture is the foundation.  Tradition rests on Scripture and is built upon it but cannot go where there is no foundation.  Reason rests on Scripture and Tradition and builds upon it but, again, cannot go where there is no supporting foundation."

Thus, Scripture provides the matter upon which our faith is based.  Tradition is the guide to our interpretation of Scripture.  It makes certain that our understanding of Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation but is, as in the canon laid down by Vincent of Lerins, in line with that which has been believed “everywhere, always, and by all”—the test of true catholicity.

Reason is the guide to our contemporary application of Scripture and Tradition.  This is a significant point: Reason is not an independent source of authority that is the arbiter of truth, it is the tool and the method by which we apply the truth (based in Scripture and interpreted by Tradition) to our contemporary experience.

Why is this important?  Because it is not the Church's business to make things up as we go along.  We are either the Church Jesus founded or we aren't.  As the 19th century Anglican theologian Charles Gore, by no means a conservative in matters of theology, pointed out:

First, let it be clear that the Church’s function is not to reveal truth.  The revelation given once for all to the Apostles cannot be either diminished or added to.  It is a faith “once for all delivered,” and the New Testament emphasizes the Church’s duty as simply that of “holding fast” and teaching what she has “received.”  The apostle St. Paul claims that his converts should repudiate even him—should treat him as anathema—if he were to teach anything else than what he taught at first.  It is thus of the very essence of the Christian revelation that, as originally given, it is final.  Whatever is new to Christian theology in substance, is by that very fact, proved not to be of the faith….

Gore then goes on to cite a number of patristic sources and then concludes:

It is not then a matter which needs proving, that novelty in revelation is equivalent to error, according to the fathers.  But this evident proposition leads to an important conclusion.  It follows that the authority of the Church is of a more secondary character than is sometimes supposed.  She is not a perpetual oracle of divine truth, an open organ of continuous revelation: she is not so much a “living voice” as a living witness to a “once-spoken voice.”

Gore made these comments in his book, Roman Catholic Claims (pp. 38-40) in which he argues that, in contrast with the Roman Catholic Church, which had departed from the faith and invented many dogmas, it is the Anglican Church that is truly biblical, apostolic, and catholic—believing that which the Church founded by Christ had believed from the beginning.

Third, the ACNA needs to undertake a new study of the ordination of women, with a task force of disinterested (not uninterested, but impartial) parties who, like the task force that undertook the study for the Anglican Mission in America in 2002, are prepared to look objectively at arguments from Scripture, Tradition, and Reason regarding the role of women in ministry.

Fourth, the ACNA needs to commit itself to live according to the results of this study.  And if, ultimately, that is not possible, then the ACNA needs to divide into two entities that remain under the Anglican umbrella, in much the same way as the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) and the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) live under the ACNA umbrella now.  Their bishops would meet in two separate colleges (as well as together as they see fit).  They would acknowledge that a state of impaired communion exists, as Bishop Iker has indicated; and perhaps this separation will compel them to seek the unity they have been unable to find thus far.

Finally, It is imperative that, if it comes to it, that the two entities remain in relationship with each other to the greatest extent possible.  A schism in the ACNA could be fatal for the burgeoning movement, with disastrous effects on orthodox Anglicanism around the globe.  There are some expressions within the ACNA that, without the influence of the whole, could forget what it is to be Anglican.  Then there are other expressions within the ACNA that could, left to their own, become just another continuing Anglican Church only using a newer Prayer Book.  It must not come to this.  Jesus expects better of us.  We are the Church that has Scripture, Tradition, and Reason as our guide.  We are the Church that has the Sacraments our Lord gave us.  We are the Body of Christ that has the Holy Spirit indwelling us and leading us.  We can and we must do better, for the glory of Christ's Name.

I offer these observations with fervent prayer for the welfare of orthodox Anglicanism and the unity of the Church for which Jesus prayed (John 17).

A Stool or a Tower? You Decide

The following is an article that I wrote in 2005 and was published in a number of places, but not on my own blog. I am publishing it here for the first time because I will refer to it in my next post.

The classic Anglican theologian to whom later Anglicans have looked in speaking of sources of authority in the Church is Richard Hooker.  Hooker listed the sources of authority as Scripture, tradition, and reason [not necessarily in that order, but that is a subject for another day].

Later writers have, by way of analogy, described these three sources as a “three-legged stool.”  This analogy has led some people to speculate (sometimes tongue-in-cheek) on the relative length of the three legs, and in so doing, to treat the sources as independent entities of differing value, or even to pit them against each other.  Thus, while I agree absolutely with Hooker on the three sources, I find the later analogy to be flawed and open to misinterpretation.  (The reference to Hooker’s sources as the “three-legged stool” is so ubiquitous in Anglican circles that even the analogy is often mistakenly attributed to Hooker himself.)

It would, I believe, be better to view Scripture, Tradition, and Reason as three ascending levels of a tower.  Scripture is the foundation.  Tradition rests on Scripture and is built upon it but cannot go where there is no foundation.  Reason rests on Scripture and Tradition and builds upon it but, again, cannot go where there is no supporting foundation.

Thus, Scripture provides the matter upon which our faith is based.  Tradition is the guide to our interpretation of Scripture.  It makes certain that our understanding of Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation but is, as in the canon laid down by Vincent of Lerins, in line with that which has been believed “everywhere, always, and by all”—the test of true catholicity.

Reason is the guide to our contemporary application of Scripture and Tradition.  This is a significant point: Reason is not an independent source of authority that is the arbiter of truth, it is the tool and the method by which we apply the truth (based in Scripture and interpreted by Tradition) to our contemporary experience.

The 19th century Anglican theologian Charles Gore points out:

First, let it be clear that the Church’s function is not to reveal truth.  The revelation given once for all to the Apostles cannot be either diminished or added to.  It is a faith “once for all delivered,” and the New Testament emphasizes the Church’s duty as simply that of “holding fast” and teaching what she has “received.”  The apostle St. Paul claims that his converts should repudiate even him—should treat him as anathema—if he were to teach anything else than what he taught at first.  It is thus of the very essence of the Christian revelation that, as originally given, it is final.  Whatever is new to Christian theology in substance, is by that very fact, proved not to be of the faith….

Gore then goes on to cite a number of patristic sources and then concludes:

It is not then a matter which needs proving, that novelty in revelation is equivalent to error, according to the fathers.  But this evident proposition leads to an important conclusion.  It follows that the authority of the Church is of a more secondary character than is sometimes supposed.  She is not a perpetual oracle of divine truth, an open organ of continuous revelation: she is not so much a “living voice” as a living witness to a “once-spoken voice.” (Roman Catholic Claims, pp. 38-40.)

Thus, I would have to take issue with John Wesley, who expanded Hooker’s sources of authority to include experience as a fourth source in what has become known as The Wesleyan Quadrilateral.  It must be noted that by “experience” Wesley means godly experience.  And it also must be noted that Hooker used the term “Reason” in the 16th-17th century sense of “Right Reason”—the critical application of the mind to a fixed set of data.  Neither Hooker nor Wesley used reason or experience in the contemporary sense of “what seems good to me.”  Nevertheless, the tendency of contemporary theology has been to use both these categories in highly subjective ways.

The contemporary Anglican theologian, John Macquarrie, goes beyond Wesley’s addition of experience to add “revelation”—the perception of God’s activity in nature (as distinct from Scripture)—as a fifth source of authority.  He then adds culture (as distinct from tradition) as a sixth source of authority.  Thus, increasingly in contemporary theology, we are seeing the pendulum swing very far in the direction of the subjective, as opposed to the objective reference to Scripture and Tradition.

The misapplication of reason in matters of theology may be the legacy of the modern period, just as the subjective misuse of experience and culture may be the legacy of the postmodern period in which we now find ourselves.  The task, then, for those who engage in the Church’s proclamation of the Gospel—and who would keep that proclamation true to the faith “once for all delivered” to the saints—is to help the Church rediscover the “living witness” of catholic tradition to the “once-spoken voice” of God’s Word.

A Warning from History for Communist China

Prompted by this:

China Urges Rural Christians to Replace Jesus Images with Xi Jinping

Chinese officials and residents in a rural area of Jiangxi province have revealed a government plan to “melt the hard ice” in the hearts of Christians towards communism by denying them pivotal poverty relief packages if they do not replace images of Jesus in their households with photos of President Xi Jinping.

One official stated that the move was necessary because Christians are “ignorant” and need to be taught to worship the state, not God.

Read the rest.

Totalitarian governments are all the same.  If a country followed the Judeo-Christian tradition (as the US used to do more than it does now) you would have a society that honored their parents, balanced work and rest, and didn't murder, steal, lie, commit sexual immorality, engage in profanity, or covet their neighbors' possessions.  What could be wrong with that?

But then you have the kicker: "You shall have no other gods but me."  And totalitarian governments, whether they are communist, socialist, nazi, or fascist, all want to replace God in the minds and hearts of their people.  They can't be content with merely running a constitutionally limited government, they want to rule every aspect of their people's lives.

So every one of these societies goes up against the Judeo-Christian tradition and ultimately loses—whether it is the ancient Egyptians, the Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Alexander the Great's Greek Empire, the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union—all far more powerful than the Jews and Christians they persecuted—and all gone with the wind.

So it will be for Communist China also.  And the Democratic Party that took God out of their platform had better learn from history too.

Semper Reformanda!

From PJmedia, where there is more:

Anglicans Lead Martin Luther-Style 'Grassroots Protest' Against 'Progressive Christianity'

On Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, anonymous evangelical Anglicans posted a 95 Theses-style complaint on the doors of five British cathedrals. The first complaints went up on the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther's posting of the 95 Theses on the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church in Germany, and the documents pinned to the doors referenced Luther in calling for the Church of England to return to following the Bible.

"500 years ago, Martin Luther nailed 95 Theses to a church door in Germany," one document reads. "He did it because the church had become corrupt. Today a Declaration is being fixed to a cathedral door here in England because the Established Church in our land is becoming corrupt."

"The Church of England claims it has not changed its doctrine but its practice on the ground has already changed: clergy are adopting lifestyles which are not biblical and teaching that such lifestyles are holy in the sight of God," the document explained. "This revisionism is causing a crisis not only in Southwark Diocese but across the whole of the Church of England."

The document issued a very hefty charge. "When the church redefines sin and eliminates repentance, it can no longer offer the good news of eternal salvation from sin in Jesus; the church no longer remains distinctly Christian; it is no longer salt and light in the world," the declaration read.

This document ended with a clear Reformation-style challenge. "Where leaders refuse to repent and submit themselves to the Word of God, the Lord raises up new leadership for His church and new structures: just as He did through Martin Luther 500 years ago."

Read the rest.