The Reformation at 500.

But these are the good catholics, according to some Evangelicals, because they allow anyone to take communion....

...even people who deny the divinity of Christ.

It is important to keep an open mind.

//A passage from the Koran that denies one of the central tenets of the Christian faith was sung aloud at a cathedral service in Scotland.
The passage from Surah 19, which specifically denies that Jesus was the Son of God and says He should not be worshipped, was sung during a Eucharist service at St Mary’s Episcopal Cathedral in Glasgow to mark the feast of the Epiphany.

A video of the recital was posted on YouTube showing a girl singing the passage in a typical Islamic style. It narrates the Islamic account of the birth of Jesus, which includes the claim that Mary was “ashamed” after giving birth, and the infant Christ miraculously spoke from the cradle – something not found in Christian scripture.

She then concludes by singing verse 35, which states in translation: “It befitteth not the Majesty of Allah that He should take unto Himself a son,” and then verse 36, which has the infant Jesus saying: “And lo! Allah is my Lord and your Lord. So worship Him. That is the right path.”

The cathedral praised the reading in a Facebook post, calling it a “wonderful event”.//

Are there any new heresies?

This post by Father Z suggests that the modern "old school" nun of the LCWR have simply re-invented the heresy of Montanism - the notion that the Holy Spirit speaks directly to prophetesses - in order to to circumvent orthodox Catholic teachings:

Why is Florence Deacon saying this? She is manifesting yet another dimension of the Magisterium of Nuns.

She is using the “poor”, and the poor can be translated loosely, as a hermeneutic for just about everything they want to justify doing. La Voz de los Pobres, The Voice of the Poor (it’s just better in Spanish), is a cover for setting aside Magisterial teaching.

This is how this works.

First, I take the “experience” of the person I am talking to. That person, who has some sort of conflict or problem, is in the category of “the poor”, or “the marginalized”, no matter what their income is. When that “poor” person speaks, I am listening to the voice of God, because the voice of God is heard in La Voz de los Pobres. So, the “poor” person’s experience, and then my “experience” of listening, become the grounding of interpretation of God’s will. See?

Then, after this listening, I interpret what the person wants to do. For example, the “poor” person wants to have sex with someone of the same sex, or wants to simulate ordination to the priesthood, or wants to vote for pro-abortion politicians who support certain social justice programs, or even wants to have an abortion.

Then, because the “poor” person told me what they want, and because I, the interpreter of La Voz de los Pobres have listened, I give the “poor” permission to do what they want. I have effectively bypassed the Church and the authentic Magisterium. I, wielding the Holy Spirit, have listened to God in La Voz de los Pobres and that listening has given me all the authority I need no matter what the “official” Church says.

Say for the sake of this exercise I am a LCWR nun. I encounter another “gay” person. I listen. I can now affirm her in her “gayness”. I can affirm her because I listened to the voice of God in La Voz de los Pobres.

This blah blah from Sr. Deacon, reveals what these nuns are after: they seek to set aside the defined teaching of the Church and simply affirm their own desires. They are seeking to supersede the Magisterium of the Pope and bishops with their own Magisterium of Nuns, rooted in whatever the hell they want to do.

China and weird Christian heresies.

China can sure turn out some weird and violent Christian heresies. This is from my review of "The Great Big Book of Horrible Things":

The author has a couple of nice appendices where he crunches some numbers for determining who and what are the greatest killers. Although my senses was that he had a secularist bias, he was encouragingly even-handed in analyzing both the cliche that religion causes war and the contribution that Communism has made to mass-killing in the 20th Century. For my part, I was surprised by the number of Chinese rebellions that were inspired by a form of "Christianity," to wit, two: the Fang La Rebellion (Rank: 37) of 1120 - 1122 was led by "Vegetarian Demon Worshippers," i.e., Manichaeans, and the Taiping Rebellion (Rank: 6) of 1850 - 1864 was led by a person who fancied himself to be the "younger brother of Jesus Christ." Granted that there are a lot of Chinese rebellions that did not need to be ignited by a a Christian heresy, one has to marvel - Gosh! Wow! - about the fact that any of them - let alone two - were ignited by such an alien influence, as Christianity is to China, and ponder what effect that may have had on the antipathy of Communist China in the 20th Century to Christian missionaries. (Admittedly there are other reasons for Communists to suppress Christianity, but the virtue of a book like this one is that it allows such patterns to become apparent because of the breadth of its coverage.)

Add to that list the Eastern Lightning cult:

China has recently detained hundreds of practitioners of a fringe cult. At first glance, it’s easy to read this as just another case of religious persecution against Chinese Christians. But that interpretation is wholly wrong.

 

Those arrested are allegedly from the Eastern Lightning cult, which calls itself Christian but, in reality, is something very different. The group teaches that Christ has come back to earth in the form of a Chinese woman named Deng, who lives in Henan province. It has also apparently latched on to Mayan Doomsday prophesies.

Eastern Lightning is notoriously violent, in many ways resembling a terrorist organization or a gang more than a church. Members have often resorted to kidnap and torture to force conversions. Real Christians are among Eastern Lightning’s primary targets. The group assaults or kills defectors, and it also has politically revolutionary tendencies; calls for members to “exterminate the great red dragon,” a reference to the Communist Party, reportedly prompted today’s crackdown.

To be sure, China’s legal system leaves much to be desired, and it’s possible that some of those detained are innocent of Eastern Lightning’s characteristically criminal behavior. There’s also good reason to expect that if there are any innocents, they won’t get a fair hearing.

Yet a crackdown on Eastern Lightning could justifiably happen even under a liberal, Western legal system that acknowledges religious freedom.

Context matters here. The Chinese government remains uncomfortable with religious practice. Unable to get rid of religion altogether, Beijing instead attempts to manage its practice with an elaborate bureaucracy. Any believers who worship outside the state-sanctioned system risk intense persecution.
 

Weird, weird, explosive stuff, apparently.

My question is, why can't they do both?

I mean, "Addicting Info" apparently thinks that every other Catholic can "multi-task," so why not nuns?

You kind of get an idea where this post is coming from with the headline:

Pope Tells Nuns To Forget About Feeding The Poor And Focus On Hating The Gays.

Because "not feeding the poor" and "hating gays" is clearly what the Vatican meant when it said "stop forgetting Jesus."

What is educational, particularly in light of reading a science fiction mystery set in a future where secularism has been made the official and total ideology of the state, called "The Night Sessions," is the vile river of hate vomitted forth by the secularist commenters.

Baptizing in the name of the Source and the Servant and the Guide.

Huh?

There seems to be some ecumenical document between the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and various Reformed Christian denominations, including the United Church of Christ.  The document notes that the Catholic Church will not recognize baptismal formulas which are not the Trinitarian formula found in Matthew 28:19 - 20, i.e., "the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

But dealing with Protestants is like herding cats, even - strangely - when it comes to adhering to "biblical" language.  According to UCC pastor Chuck Currie:

I do not use the traditional language of "Father, Son and the Holy Spirit" during baptism as I try to refrain from using gender specific language for God in most cases. You can download the basic outlines of the baptism liturgy that I use here to see what language I do incorporate.


Actions taken by the General Synod of the United Church of Christ speak to but not for the local church. Therefore, as a minister in the UCC I am not bound by any agreement made regarding baptism and may (and will) continue to use the language that I currently do. Inclusive language is important in theology and a important trait of many UCC congregations and our denomination as a whole. None of this is to say that I am opposed to the agreement. Ecumenical agreements are important and when and where Christians can find unity it is important to foster those relationships.

Currie's preferred baptismal formula is to baptize in the name of the "Source, Servant and Guide."

*Yuck*

How many things are theologically wrong with that formulation?

1.  It denies the integral relationships which make up the Trinity.  Is a servant necessarily begotten?  Is a servant begotten by a source?  What's the relationship of a "guide" to a servant or a source, or vice versa?

These aren't abstract questions.  They go directly to the heart of orthodox Christianity.  Deny the relationship between the persons of the Trinity - such that the Father begets the Son and Son is begotten by the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (or through the Son, if you swing in the Eastern Orthodox direction), and you've got polytheism, not Trinitarianism.

2.  It denies the equality of the persons of the Trinity.  Orthodox Christianity affirms that each person of the Trinity is equal to each other.  While the notion of "Father" and "Son" gestures at an inequality, such inequality is not logically inherent in the two terms.  "Servant", on the other hand, cannot logically be anything other unequal to the Father (and maybe the Spirit.)

Do that and you have moved in the direction of an Arianism that posits that the Son is a lesser being.

3.  It gestures at Modalism.  Father, Son and Spirit are mutually exclusive, but Source, Servant and Guide are not.  What happens to the concept of "person" when the divine persons are reduced to a job description.

4.  It's not biblical.  Matthew 28:19 - 20 affirms that Christ instructed that disciples followers be baptized as follows:

18. Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.


19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,

20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

It seems like a poor trade just to be politically correct.

"Every heresy is a truth taught out of proportion."


- G. K. Chesterton

In which we discover "hyper-dispensationalism." 

From that blog whose name we dare not utter, lest we summon its proprietor in a cloud of sulfurous smoke:

[Pastor Joel] Finck is one of the leading defenders of the particular (and popular) version of Hyper-Dispensationalism espoused by Cornelius R. Stam and the Berean Bible Society (bereanbiblesociety.org). Stam wrote one of the clearest (and most theologically and hermeneutically absurd) defenses of the theology in the book Things That Differ: The Fundamentals of Dispensationalism (1951). Stam's ultimate purpose in his writings was to argue that his theology (along with Charles Baker) was the true version of Dispensationalism that all the previous Dispensational thinkers had missed, and in doing so, mainline evangelicalism had missed the "true theology boat" altogether.


As you might have guessed, this kind of situation is going to produce some bad theology. As I pointed out almost a year ago (here), Finck and the BBS believe the following:

1. The Bible is divided up into absolute dispensations.[1] Therefore…

2. Paul introduces a completely new gospel (the “mystery” was revealed to him only) with the inauguration of the Dispensation of Grace.[2] Therefore…

2A.There are “two gospels” in the New Testament that are not compatible with each other[3]; Peter, Jesus, and all those prior to Paul believed in works-righteous salvation while Paul taught a gospel of grace.[4] Therefore…

2B. Only Paul’s epistles are the basis for doctrine today,[5] and people are not saved by the teachings of Jesus or Peter, but exclusively by the gospel of Paul.[6]

3.There is no “Great Commission” in Matthew’s gospel.[7]

4. Water baptism is no longer a church ordinance. In fact, it’s “dangerous.”[8]

All very logical, but doesn't it sort of miss the point about Jesus and all that?
All one can say is "Chesterton was right."

Amazon book Review: Dissenting from the Orthodoxy of Post-Modernism.

The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity has reshaped our understanding of Early Christianity by Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger.

My review.


In recent years, a new "orthodox" understanding of early Christian history has been midwifed by popular culture through outlets like the Discovery Channel, the National Geographic Channel and the History Channel and through popular books like "The Da Vinci Code." The new "orthodoxy" presents a vision of early Christianity as beginning in a state of disorganized, spiritual, fissiparous "Christianities" that cooperated with each other in the milieu of the Roman Empire until at some point - probably with the conversion of Constantine - one of the "Christianities" became simply "Christianity," at which point it erased the memory of the earlier stage when all "Christianities" were equally legitimate.

For many modern people, this "new orthodoxy" is intuitively correct, i.e., it feels right. The success of "The Da Vinci Code" and the fact that there is an audience for cable television's regular unveiling of purported archeological or textual discoveries that purport to overturn the "old orthodoxy" is evidence that a lot of people are somehow "primed" for the "many Christianities" view Christian history.

The chief spokesperson today for the "many Christianities" school is Professor Bart Ehrman. Ehrman is a Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He has a calm and relaxed demeanor with a sight Southern drawl and a background that includes a period when he was a "born again" Christian and went to Moody Bible Institute, until he moved into liberal Christianity and, then, into open agnosticism, apparently because of his realization that the Bible he read wasn't actually published by God. Like another great convert - St. Paul - he has used his "conversion story" to vouch for the sincerity of his position and to impress people with his apparent detachment from a personal agenda.

Ehrman has used his position as a Southern, former-fundamentalist turned professor or religious studies to perform the role of providing scholarly support for the "many Christianities" theory. Over the last ten or fifteen years, Ehrman has made it his project to provide talking points to cable television documentaries about purported explosive new findings about Christianity and the Christian texts and to publish books touting such "new findings" in order to advance the "new orthodoxy" of "many Christianities" discussed above. In a number of venues, Ehrman has popularized the notion that the form of Christianity that has a historical continuity with modern Christianity was merely "proto - orthodoxy" which competed with other "Christianities" that could have lost and, thereby, lost its orthodox designation.

The "dirty secret" behind Ehrman and other's "many Christianities" school of religion is that the scholarship on which it is based is not "secret" and it is not "new" and it is trivial to the extent that it is accurate, and wrong to the extent that it might overturn the historic orthodox understanding of Christianity, facts which even Ehrman admits when pressed. Hence, Ehrman's view that there were "many Christianities" - and that historic Christianity was a minority in parts of the Roman Empire - goes back to the "Bauer Thesis" advanced by Walter Bauer in the 1930s. Similarly, although Ehrman points to "other Gospels," he has acknowledged that those "other Gospels" were written too late to be reliable and that "the four Gospels are therefore our best sources for trying to establish what Jesus himself said and did." Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Likewise, Ehrman admits when pressed that virtually all the purported textual variations are insignificant to determining the original text, and that for the handful where the original text cannot be recovered with certainty, none affect Christian doctrine or belief (apart presumably from the extremely literalistic, fundamentalist understanding of how the Bible was written and propagated that Ehrman seems to have held in his youth.)

Kostenberger and Kruger's project in "The Heresy of Orthodoxy" is to address the factual and historical presumptions of the "new orthodoxy," paying particular attention to Ehrman's contributions, and to sketch an explanation for why this "new orthodoxy," which actually has so little scholarly support has such traction with the public. The authors are extremely successful in carrying out their project. The book is a valuable resource for pulling together the current state of knowledge about Early Christianity. For example, Ehrman's confident assertion that orthodox Pauline - Nicene Christianity was a minority position in parts of the empire, Kostenberger and Kruger point out that this is based on the 80 year old and discredited "Bauer Thesis," which lacked - and still lacks - any empirical support and is, in fact, discredited by actual data.

Kostenberger and Kruger's book divide into 8 chapters in 3 parts.

Part 1 is entitled "the Heresy of Orthodoxy and the Origins of the New Testament."

Chapter 1 is entitled "The Bauer-Ehrman Thesis: Its Origins and Influence." In this chapter, the authors describe the "Bauer Thesis," which is defined as "the view that close study of the major urban centers at the end of the first and early second centuries reveals that early Christianity was characterized by significant doctrinal diversity, so that there was no "orthodoxy" or "heresy" at the inception of Christianity but only diversity--heresy preceded orthodoxy." In the 1970's, the Bauer thesis gained some scholarly acceptance, and, starting in the late 1979, the Bauer Thesis went mainstream with the publication of Elaine Pagel's "The Gnostic Gospels."

Chapter 2 is entitled "Unity and Plurality: How Diverse was Early Christianity?" In this chapter, the authors examine the factual underpinnings for the Bauer Thesis. Examining the literature concerning different regions of the Roman Empire - Asia Minor, Egypt, Edessa and Rome - the authors argue persuasively that heresy could not have preceded orthodoxy. For example, for Bauer's claim that Marcionism preceded orthodox in Edessa is undermined by the fact that Marcionism didn't appear until the mid-Second Century, which would mean that there was no Christian presence in Edessa for at least a century before Marcionism's arrival. In addition, the form of Marcionism assumes a familiarity and acceptance of Pauline Christianity. Marcionism was an outreach to Christians, not to pagans.

Chapter 3 is entitled "Heresy in the New Testament how early was it?" The authors examine the New Testament texts for evidence of heresy in the First Century. The author's conclusion is that orthodox Christianity agreed on central doctrines, including the Lordship of Christ. In contrast, the heretic identified in the New Testament did not have a common doctrinal core or make a claim that their beliefs derived from Christ or his apostles.

Part 2 is entitled "Picking the Books: Tracing the development of the New Testament Canon."

Chapter 4 is entitled "Starting in the Right Place: The meaning of canon in the Early Christianity." From a historical standpoint this chapter is the most questionable, albeit from a theological viewpoint it is quite interesting. The authors' thesis is that the fact of the establishment of a new covenant in Christ, mandated the establishment of a new canon. This argument may make a lot of sense from the author's theological commitment, but from a historical standpoint, the question would be whether the early Christians understood this proposition as normative for them. The authors argue that there is evidence for such an understanding, but historical evidence seemed weak.

Interestingly, although the authors seem to be writing from a Protestant background, their argument seems generally consistent with the Catholic position of canonicity outlined in Verbum Dei. In Verbum Dei, the Second Vatican Council postulated that the inspired texts of the canon were inspired without regard to the Church, but that the Church was entrusted to recognize and safeguard the texts. In other words, canonicity is a matter of community. Texts may be inspired in the abstract, but they cannot be recognized as inspired unless the real community of Christians recognizes them as inspired.

Chapter 5 is entitled "Interpreting the Historical Evidence: The emergence of canon in Early Christianity." This chapter seemed far more successful than the prior evidence. The authors utilize the historical evidence of non-canonical sources that quoted canonical texts to argue that long prior to the first listing of canons, church fathers were accepting or rejecting texts based on the universality, apostolicity and orthodoxy of the texts. Further, the accepted texts were being used on a regular basis in "public readings" such that the tradition recognized canonicity long before any text listed what books were canonical.

Chapter 6 is entitled "Establishing the Boundaries: Apocryphal Books and the Limits of the Canon." This chapter hits hard the fashionable argument that "non-canonical" gospels could have been accepted as canonical but for the narrow-mindedness of early church fathers. The authors point out that the canon was never "wide-open" where alternative texts could have fit in. In fact, texts that could not be traced to the apostles were regularly rejected howevermuch they might have supported orthodox positions.

Also, in this chapter, the authors make the fair point that the Gospel of Thomas - a favorite of the "many Christianities" school - was never included on any canonical list and there is no evidence of its existence prior to the mid-second Century.

Part 3 is entitled "Changing the Story: Manuscripts, Scribes and Textual Transmission."

Chapter 7 is entitled "Keepers of the text: How were texts copied and circulated in the ancient world?

This is a very useful resource concerning the important role that Christian texts played in the life of the Christian community. The authors recognize that Christian texts were read in public liturgy on a regular basis - which certainly would have meant that incidental errors would be discovered and corrected than would have been the case if the texts were copied and put on a book shelf to be read by individuals. The authors also describe the professionalism attendant to the copying and publication of the books which provides a guarantee against gross and frequent mistakes.

Chapter 8 is entitled "Tampering with the text: Was the New Testament text changed along the way." In this chapter, the authors take on Ehrman's tendentious special pleading that the Christian texts contain manifold errors by pointing out the undisputed fact - which even Ehrman acknowledges when he isn't grandstanding - that we actually have the accurate contents of the original Christian texts.

The authors conclude with the fair question as to how such an empirically discredited theory as the Bauer-Ehrman Thesis could have such widespread acceptance, amounting to taking the place of "conventional wisdom." Their theory is that post-modernism has permeated culture such that the average person innately understands that there is no such thing as "truth." Hence, since there is no "truth," moderns start with the presumption that all truths are equally valid. Hence, there is a built in audience for the Ehrman thesis, no matter how weak its factual support.

This is clearly a very useful book for people who want to know more than they get from the normal sources of "pop theology."

Women's Ordination

Clerical Whispers has this interesting post about how a United Church of Christ minister apologized for UCC participation in a so-called ordination of women to the Catholic priesthood:

Rev. David Runnion-Bareford, Executive Director of the Confessing Movement in the United Church of Christ, responded to the situation by sending an open letter to Boston area Catholics via Cardinal Sean O'Malley.

In his letter, he apologized for the "division and confusion" caused by Rev. Nancy Taylor and the Church of the Covenant—the church were the ceremony was held.

"Please accept our deepest and sincere apology for the behavior of Rev. Nancy Taylor of Old South Church, UCC and the UCC related Church of the Covenant. They do not reflect the heart and mind of our United Church of Christ whose premise is 'that all may be one.' Those of us who truly value the unity of all Christians and treasure our ecumenical relationships with you as Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ are grieved,” Runnion-Bareford wrote.

The Confessing Movement UCC pastor also said that his movement is also “fully aware that this event was not motivated by a sincere desire to honor the call of God and the anointing of the Holy Spirit on the ministry of committed Christian women.”

Rev. Runnion-Bradford further criticized the women for refusing to take a vow of chastity and for promoting a self-centered gospel, citing the “Body, Sex and Gender” section of the group’s web page.

“We know that 'Womenpriests' openly include candidates who are engaged in the practice of sexual license. It is significant that the participants would not take the vow of obedience or chastity. We are aware of the statements on their website proclaiming a false gospel of self and mutual affirmation, denying the fall of humanity and our need for repentance from sin and personal transformation through the atoning crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

"We note that it is not incidental that this event was hosted in Boston by a church that is prideful about its aggressive religious sanction of homosexual, bi-sexual and transgender relationships and same gender 'marriage.' We also note that the pansexual activist group Integrity participated and assisted with hospitality," Runnion-Bradford observed in his letter.

Rev. Nancy Taylor also received a letter from Rev. Runnion-Bradford according to a press release from the Confessing Movement pastor. In his letter he took Taylor to task for her “divisive statements and behavior” saying that they “appear to violate the Minister's Code of the United Church of Christ, which says, 'I will be a responsible representative of the Church Universal and participate in those activities that strengthen its unity, witness, and mission'."

Rev. Taylor’s appearance and words of support for the women who attempted ordination could have implications for UCC practices as well, said Rev. Runnion-Bradford.

He asked Taylor, “Can we infer from your actions of this last week that you would approve of groups who have justice issues with the United Church of Christ carrying out their own ordinations of individuals they believe valid regardless of our church's standards and protocols?"

Here is the Womenpriests' Mission Statement:

We believe in God for whom love is truly the highest priority, who expects the Church to be a community of care and mutual concern, brothers and sisters among whom leaders are servants and to whom power means comfort and healing.

We believe in God who cherishes every part of our personality, our intelligence and spiritual gifts, but also our bodies, our sexuality, our longing for relationships, warmth and touch.

We believe in God who has created all human beings to be sons and daughters, who calls both men and women equally to leadership and ministry in the Kingdom of Love.

We believe in God who does not exact cruel sacrifices from us, but heroic deeds of love as Jesus showed us, deeds of generosity, a God who wants us to respect and love ourselves while giving and sharing of our best for the sake of others.

We believe in God who expects us to be creative and free, who wants us to express our opinions honestly, to fight with all our heart and mind for truth and justice rather than blindly obey commands, to trustingly challenge those in authority when they make mistakes.

How very reassuring that these "womenpriests" are willing to vow not to be "blindly obedient," particularly if they feel that their sexuality, longings, warmth and touch may have to be compromised.