The Reformed Reinhardt

The Reformed Reinhardt
"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Thursday, May 10, 2012

To Liberal Heretics: The Best Advice I can Give

Sir Thomas More: Roper, the answer is no...and will be no as long as you're a heretic. William Roper: Now, that's a word I don't like, Sir Thomas! Sir Thomas More: It's not a likeable word or thing.
Lord help me. Why do I try to reason with revisionist clergy and their toadies? Why not just try to rope the wind for a change? (Hey, that would be fun and goofy. My kids would love it!) Maybe I am a glutton for punishment. Nevertheless, I thought I would write on it. The spark for this discussion was their jubilation (I guess they never knew, even if the rest of us did) over President Obama's decision to personally back the complete overhaul of our legal and secular concept of marriage to include same-sex partnerships.
But be ready for a lot of talking to the abyss.
Most revisionist clergy just call any assurance with the function of marriage as we have historically understood it,and any indignation and frustration with frenzied activists who want to toss it overboard without a real adult conversation about it, which, to my knowledge, the Episcopal Church has never had...they call us 'self-righteous.' No debate. No counterpoints. No explanation of how they are not continuing the weakening of our social and family structures. No explanation about how their choice to culturally embrace the gay lifestyle (which is the real reason for pushing same-sex unions) is not going to make things worse for gay men who are dealing with lots of physical and mental health issues related to this lifestyle that we now want to condone with every fiber of our public life. No...we are just 'self-righteous.' That is it.
First of all, before you as liberal clergy call another person 'self-righteous', and before you rob the word of its usefulness to turn it into a political dart (and before you try to teach two or three members of your congregation to use that word in their responses to orthodox laypersons who are trying to raise awareness), maybe we need to restudy here the root of the word: it means righteous on our own terms.
I haven't been to seminary--though I'm thinking of going after I finish my dissertation. However, from what I have read, justification on our own terms sounds more like liberal theology than orthodox theology. Justification in liberal theology seems to depend on 'becoming a more fuller you' (in the words of John Shelby Spong) than it does in putting your sins on the cross for Christ to bear. But this isn't what we are really talking about now.
When it comes to my views as a Christian and an orthodox Episcopal churchman, it may shock you to realize this since your opinion about me is already made up, but I don't think of myself as righteous on my own terms (and indeed I hope I am not proud enough to consider myself righteous at all, but I think of myself as a loathsome and ungrateful sinner who is saved only by Christ's love). I am, however, justified through faith by the terms that Christ has set for all of us.
I've read J.I. Packer, and he makes it very clear that we are justified if (1) we accept the sacrifice Jesus made (as both our pascal lamb, like Issac, and high priest, like Abraham), and (2) if we try to show our love and appreciation to God by following his commandments. Following the commandments, Packer showed me, does not save us, but it is an outward and visible sign of our reciprocal love for God. (Christians who say they believe in Jesus as their savior, but who don't want to be bothered with--and even scorn the idea of--reciprocating His love by living a sacramental life and following His word are just bad Christians. There is no way to soft-soap this.)
Everything else that I have said, here and elsewhere, has been in defense of the gospel that I was given when I accepted Christ as my personal Lord and Savior in my beautiful former parish back in Texas...the one revisionists such as yourselves constantly refer to as 'breakaway'...which I have no idea what that means in the midst of the current sad state of Episcopal unpleasantness anymore.
But I do not believe, then or now, that this issue and my concern for the respect for holy orders has ever had anything to do with me. I gave up 'me' in a small church coffee house in 2005 when I asked Christ to 'abide in me.' Maybe it has something to do with you, but we'll get to that later.
I don't know how you revisionist clergy define 'self-righteous,' but maybe you could find another word for yourselves and your small (and ever-shrinking) group of sycophants.
(2). When it comes to many of you liberal clergy, however, I guess I am confused. The most flummoxing thing about your situation is that in some of your posts today and in during this week, you very clearly violated your holy orders. I don't see any way out of it.
I left my BCP at work today, but I've read profusely over the rite of ordination for deacon and priest (I have lots of friends who are priests...both ECUSA and ACNA), and I remember several passages where a candidate vows before God to uphold the Holy Scriptures and the Blessed Sacraments, and promises to be an example to his flock, and promises to love righteousness and hate evil (the evil itself, not the person).
I cannot read into your hearts, but I can tell something about you through your actions, and your actions lately, which in many cases were unsolicited replies to what other clergy and laypersons were saying about President Obama's remarks on social media, are clear indications that you are holding conflicting beliefs about what you promised to do when you were ordained, and what you want to do in this current 'spirit of the times.' Now I admit that there are parts of the gospel that I'm not sure of, and things I wish I could rewrite, just like some of you would like to rewrite the parts about homosexual culture and gay marriage. However, the Holy Scriptures themselves rebel against this idea for a reason, and C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity writes about it:
“The great difficulty is to get modern audiences to realize that you are preaching Christianity solely and simply because you happen to think it true; they always suppose you are preaching it because you like it or think it good for society or something of that sort. Now a clearly maintained distinction between what the Faith actually says and what you would like it to have said or what you understand or what you personally find helpful or think probable, forces your audience to realize that you are tied to your data just as the scientist is tied by the results of the experiments; that you are not just saying what you like. This immediately helps them realize that what is being discussed is a question about objective fact — not gas about ideals and points of view.”
God intends for the Gospel and the Holy Scriptures to rebel against some of our more fashionable inclinations because, as Lewis shows us, the Gospel is in itself a unified evangelical argument that God uses to get others to choose Him...to Know Him. That is why we cannot read whatever we want into the Scriptures, and we are cautioned by the Apostles into not doing so.
However, it seems to me most of you don't want to follow a holistic/historic/universal/catholic interpretation of the Scriptures. You call that 'fundamentalism' and 'biblical literalism', and other isms beside these two, but it is late, and I'm too tired to write all of your fatuous foolishness down now. Okay, fine. That is your choice, and God gives it to you.
But why do you continue to serve in a holy vocation if you no longer believe in the foundation which is the reason for that vocation in the first place? I don't get it.
I read about a priest in England (I have lost the link) who resigned his post because he disagreed with the teachings of the church as it pertained to him and his gay partner. I think this priest is a very honorable man, even if I disagree with him on theological principles.
If you have a problem with the holy orders your took, I respect that...but why do you cling to a sacerdotal vocation?
Also, I worry about how this effects your standing with Christ because Jesus and the Apostles have more to say about false teachers than almost any other topic. Saint Peter talks with concern and love for those lost in sin, but when it comes to those who teach a false gospel, his tone changes and his outrage is obvious. And I remember how Jesus cleansed the temple...with a whip of chords.
Be careful, discern, repent, and love God's commandments as the Psalms tell us to, for they are glorious.
One last thought. When you can't get your way, take it like mature men and women. Don't act like babies.
God bless you. Goodnight, and good luck.

No comments:

Post a Comment