It’s great to see many of the conservative bodies breaking away from ECUSA to find another Bishop to align under. But my question is: What is so wrong with the Continuing Anglican movement that these break-offs cannot seem to submit to a Continuing Bishop? Wasn’t it the continuing Anglicans that first recognized the error of the ECUSA church, back in the 60s and even as far back (concerning the REC) as the late 1800s? The Continuing churches such as the REC, APA, ACA, etc., already have bishops with apostolic succession, that are more than capable of being an Archbishop of a unified Anglican church in America.
It appears that we are beginning to align with Bishop Akinola, of Africa, which is great news. But what does this convey to others about the Continuing movement, as well as America as the Christian country that it was supposedly destined to be? Will the Continuing churches eventually dissolve and become absorbed by the Third World movement? And, will America itself be swallowed up by one of the Third World countries after we align with a Third World Bishop? Do not underestimate the influence of the Church!
God may indeed use one of the more liberal, future presidents like Clinton or McCain to continue to merge us with other countries through trade and military, and maybe even immigration. Meanwhile, we are aligning ourselves with a Bishop in another country.
Please don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying the direction we are headed is in some way disastrous. I’m just attempting to sort the confusion out. If the Continuing Anglican church needs a Bishop outside America, then that’s what she needs. And if America needs to be absorbed by another country to remain conservative, then that is what she needs. But if we are to remain an independent country, we will eventually need a Bishop that resides in our country. Otherwise, we will be looking at some of the same problems that the Anglican settlers had in the 1700s with the Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury.
On the surface, the forces behind the spread of secularism and Islam would appear to have little in common. Secularism is essentially a movement against a place for religious belief in public life, while Islam holds the complete subservience of the public sphere to Islam through the imposition of Sharia law. But, as Richarad Bastein points out in an article at Mercator.net, things may not always be as they seem. Just as similarities were notable between the seemingly opposed forces of Nazism and Marxism, so links can also be seen between Islam and secularism.
Read the rest of this entry »
I have heard some good arguments coming from different conservatives, regarding various candidates. I am hearing that Ron Paul’s “constitutional” stance outweighs his various ethical weaknesses. I have also heard the argument for Romney being strong in economical areas. I have heard nothing very enlightening about McCain.
I voted for Rev. Mike Huckabee. I did this not because he is the most intelligent of all the candidates, but because I think he is the most humble. Christ says that He pours His grace on whom? the humble. How do I know Rev. Huckabee is humble? Well, I do not know him personally, but I do know that he is more theologically grounded than ANY of the other candidates. Also, I do not think that he is somehow out of step for supporting McCain and making himself available as his running-mate. The running-mate can submit to a “lesser” politician, and be ethical, as long as it is the running-mate’s intention to do all he can with the position God has given him.
O God, the foundation of wisdom, whose statutes are good and gracious and whose law is truth; We beseech thee so to guide and bless the Legislature of this State, that it may ordain for our governance only such things as please thee, to the glory of they Name and the welfare of the people; through Jesus Christ, the Son, our Lord. Amen. - 1928 Book of Common Prayer
Today is the Feast Day of King Charles I, father of nine children and the only post-reformation Saint of the Anglican Church. Charles was the King of England, Scotland and Ireland from 1625 until his execution by parliament on January 30, 1649. He is considered a martyr by Anglicans due to his “Christian Kingship” and “defender of the Anglican faith.”
A few of King Charles’s last words, right as he placed his head on the guillotine-block were, “I go from a corruptible to an incorruptible Crown, where no disturbance can be.” This was the abolishment of the English Monarchy.
Charles appointed Laud as Bishop of the Church in an attempt to thwart Calvinism. Calvinistic doctrine could have taken the Church into a bold new world. The problem, though, was that most of the Calvinists of that time were Presbyterian in polity and government, and thier standard of worship included many Anabaptistic leanings. The king could not win the hearts of the newly formed Scottish and English Puritans. The Puritans went as far as creating their own confessions and catechisms (Westminster) in spite of the fact that the Prayer Book and 39 Articles of Religion (with Calvinistic theology included) had been established for almost a century.
After the execution, Oliver Cromwell, a very radical Puritan, assumed control over England and became “Lord Protector” of England. The puritan polity did not last long and the Monarchy proved its strength and historical momentum by re-establishing itself in 1660.
Our Church, St. Andrews REC, participated in a Pro-Life rally this last Sunday. This is my son, Christian, doing his part. Below, you can see part of the crowd. I’m standing in the back (black and grey with hand on waist), behind the RC priest with the hat (I wonder if the hat is significant to some sort of interesting Order;) Special thanks to my CREC friend, Scott Bennion for the pics.
“Thus let all Your enemies perish, O LORD! But let those who love Him be like the sun when it comes out in full strength.” - Judges 5:31
“It is certain that all royal dominion is meant to be ministerial.”
- John Calvin
We may not have royalty, but maybe we can have “ministerial.”
Most Americans are not aware of what really caused us to rebel against England in the Revolutionary War, and to what authority we did so. Many believe that we fought against a mob of Nazi-like soldiers and a “tyrant” of a king. I have even heard this from great teachers of the faith, that we fought the tyranny of King George and the persecutors of religion so that we could have freedom! There are very serious problems with this belief. It is clear to me that the rebellion of the Colonists was motivated by greed, and even a distortion of Calvinistic theology (but more on the theological aspect in a future post). The proof of the greed is obvious, especially when the ethics and actions of the Colonists is contrasted with the ethics and actions of today’s people (church). Was it really a terrible thing to pay taxes to a government for tea and paper, even if it was an unfair taxation (I do not believe that it was unfair)? If so, then why is America (and the Church in support) now paying taxes to a government that supports abortion as well as a HOST of other atrocities?
Could we be reaping what we have sown? Our resistance to the Anglican Church of England and her ministers (including King George) in the 1700’s has given us nothing but pain and turmoil. We work almost half of our days paying taxes for a Unitarian government, only to be shoved into a life of debt and constant religious harassment and heresy within our Church. Our country is nearly being taken over by other countries that do not hold to the same religious values as us, and Islamic terrorism is at an all time high.
But, we did not want the protection from the king or ANY government, for that matter, against heresy and modern Hellenization. We thought that a country that promoted the ancient Greek philosophy of government, as well as the ancient Greek philosophy of religion, trade, and culture at large, would give us the kingdom on earth that people have always longed for. This philosophy, coupled with the Colonial Presbyterian theology, that God had called them (the Puritans) to smash the “Canaanites” (the biblical reference of what they called the Indians) and create the “Promise Land” that God had given them, would create the largest Secular empire in the world. Little did they know that God had already given us, not one nation (America) to take dominion over under “God,” as they say (a Unitarian god), but God has given us the whole world through more catholic means of the Church universal.
Many documents began to be produced after the war, declaring that America was a “free” nation. Besides the Declaration of Independence as the leading document of independence, American Presbyterians altered the Westminster Confession of Faith in order to exclude all reference to the State protecting the Church from heresy (see this post, as well as this post).
The result of the Colonial Calvinists and their union with the Colonial Secularists and Unitarians such as Thomas Jefferson, created an ethos of greed and secular capitalism. And at the right moment, when they had a chance to bring forth the scapegoat, to hide their sin for the sake of their prosperity, they did. They accused King George of being a tyrant.
Facts Regarding the King
1. King George was no tyrant. He was a devout Christian man who loved his family and country. King George was not “insane” as many Americans claim he was. He became ill with porphyria, and lost much of his mental faculties later in life. He died of this disease on January 29, 1820.
2. King George simply wanted the colonies to help pay the expenses for the war against the French. England Defended the colonies (America) against the French and was in need of financial help to pay for the expense. Much of England was living in poverty because of the war, while the Americans were living in luxury. America had been a very wealthy nation for quite some time, and had even built their Calvinistic theology around this desire for wealth (despite the fact that Calvin did not teach us to live in material wealth).
3. King George instituted the Stamp Act to help pay for the war. The Colonists complained and Parliament repealed the law, and later narrowed the taxes down to imported glass, paper, lead, and tea. This was called The Townsend Act of 1767. The colonists complained again, and the English gave in again, narrowing the tax to tea, only. This is when the Americans began to rebel, thus creating the “Boston Tea Party,” throwing (fits) the tea into the harbor. The King wrote to Lord North, “the truth is that the too great lenience of this country increased their pride and encouraged them to rebel.”
4. To influence the Americans against England the Reformers published the Geneva Bible with the phrase “tyrant” in place of where “king” was supposed to be placed. Being the Reformed people that they were, the Americans began to call the King a tyrant.
5. Many Americans, such as Samuel Seabury, the first Bishop of the American Episcopal (Anglican) Church, refused to rebel against England and were thus marked as “Loyalists” (loyal to the crown). George Washington’s mother was a Loyalist and also a devout Anglican. Loyalists were treated very harshly during the Revolutionary times. Their homes were vandalized and many of them were tarred and feathered. Bishop Seabury said, “If I must be enslaved let it be by a King at least, and not by a parcel of upstart lawless Committeemen. If I must be devoured, let me be devoured by the jaws of a lion, and not gnawed to death by rats and vermin.” (Seabury, Letters of a Westchester Farmer, 1774–1775 (1970) p 61.).
Now what? You ask! We repent, as Christians, for the sin we have committed and continue to commit by supporting the very same ideals and theology of the Continentals! Study Anglicanism and find out that, before Continental Reformed theology, there was a theology and life of Kingdom authority that was inaugurated by the the Apostles and their disciples. We must return to this kingdom mindset that was brought over to America by the Anglican Church, mend our relationship with the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church, and live in peace and spiritual prosperity that the Anglican Reformers once desired. Fragmentation and division into modern sects must be repented of, and the taking up of the ancient theologies of the Fathers must prevail!
In this post, Jonathan Byrd, a recent Anglican convert from the Reformed faith, speaks about the potential nomination of Mike Huckabee. My personal belief is that Huckabee will be a great president. His ethics seem much more Christian than Ron Paul, who believes in legalizing drugs, is questionable on his abortion beliefs, and does not seem to be an advocate of the English language.
That title should get the attention of quite a few Anglicans as well as Presbyterians. I have nothing substantial to say about the relation between Anglicanism and theonomy in this post, other than the fact that something needs to be said about their relation. The Church of England was, and still is in many ways, theocratic. I intend to research this in 2008 and hope to have a fine 20 page-or so article on it sometime in the Spring.
Take a look at these stats on Islam. Pretty alarming!
Some Christians are urging others to pull their children out of public school due to the new pro-homosexual bill that our hero Arnold Schwarzenegger just passed. The dividing line between the wheat and the chaff is becoming more and more evident as proclaimed Christians will be showing just whose side they are on.
It appears that Islam is gaining more momentum…only to be crushed, of course. Bush has called our fight against Islam a “crusade.” Well, maybe this time we can recapture Jerusalem!
I have often wondered just why we, as Christians, are constantly attempting to create a legalistic America. You will often find arguments as to why certain laws are so wrong and how public schools are so corrupt etc., but you will seldom hear of the true Gospel remedy; that is, that the State needs to submit to the Gospel and those that God has given the Gospel to: The Church!
Ethics without Christ is legalism, plain and simple! We have no right telling the State (the State that we do not want to run) to live by our ethics, it’s ludicrous. Our State and educational system was given over, piece by piece, ever since the Revolutionary War. There are no longer any laws directly requiring the State and all her entities to submit to Christian ethics. If, for instance, the State wants to abort children, we certainly have the right to voice our opinion, but we really do not have the right to use the authority of the Scriptures until we make it clear that the Scriptures and the Church (the Church is the only body that can teach the Scriptures) have authority over the State in spiritual/ethical matters.
So next time you get excited over what Hilary Clinton is saying or what Bush did not do right, think of whether or not we have even earned the right to be angry. It’s almost as if we want both to eat and keep our cake. All throughout history, families have been martyred for the sake of evangelizing their State, but today we would like to skip the persecution and get right to the prize. How arrogant is this, to claim we deserve such a prize? It is likely, at this point, after opening our borders wide to other religions and cultures (we did this not only in the early days of the Revolution, but also in 1965 through Pres. Johnson), that we are going to have to suffer in order to evangelize the State. May we prepare our children!
Do you see a contradiction in these statistics below? BTW, it looks like Senator Mccain is a part of that 65% (It appears that he has recently left the Anglican communion for the Baptists. He says that he will not be [re] baptized until after the campaign. Hm!).
1. Sixty-five percent of Americans believe that the nation’s founders intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation and 55% believe that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation, according to the “State of the First Amendment 2007” national survey released Sept. 11 by the First Amendment Center.
2. Just 56% believe that the freedom to worship as one chooses extends to all religious groups, regardless of how extreme — down 16 points from 72% in 2000.
3. 74% said that it is essential to be able to practice the religion of your choice.
First, I do not agree with number One. I do not see anything in the founding documents that say Christianity is to be the predominant or influencing religion. I do believe this is a Christian nation, though not based on those documents. Taking Christ and the Bible out of conversations/documents about “God” leaves us with a totally different god; one that is open to different cultures and doctrines, including Allah!
Number Two and Three give rights for Muslims to persecute us and to rejoice in it (#2), as their Koran commands them to.
Christianity is both an inclusive and exclusive religion. It is exclusive in that all others systems of belief cannot be tolerated, but it is inclusive because we invite all to join us. It is also exclusive in that God requires us to be obedient to him in everything we do, including governing the country to which He has given us.
I received this from a well-intentioned friend regarding Church and State:
“Remember what the original colonists were fleeing; a FEDERAL CHURCH, run by the Government of England. They were not looking to abolish religion, only to keep the Government from establishing ONE GOVERNEMENTALLY CONTROLLED DENOMINATION.”
That seems like an oxymoron. How does one abolish Church while instituting it? Many say the early Americans (and the modern) wanted some sort of non-governmental church, where the government did not “control” the Church. But the Presbyterian Church, which essentially became the new American Church (over 80% of the Rebel soldiers were Presbyterian) after they warred against the Anglicans in the Revolutionary War, declared in their documents that they no-longer wanted the protection of the State.
This new church neither wanted the guidance nor the protection of the State. So what did they think would happen? that heretics would never take over? If you notice my post on The Fool a few days ago, you will notice that the liberal’s eschatology is over-realized in that their anthropology is so skewed that they have become completely naive. They underestimate the nature of sinful man!
You can’t fire your security force and expect there to be no break-ins. You cannot leave your doors open every night and expect no one to eventually walk in and harm you. I think we need to start admitting that America was far too arrogant by stating they wanted no oversight from the country that first funded their expedition in the very beginning. If we want the grace of God, we need to be humble (James 4:6). And it is certainly going to take the grace of God to ward off the Muslims and liberals that are after our country.
One of the Roman Catholic Archbishops seems to be excommunicating presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani by declaring him unfit to receive communion. Good for him! But Giuliani says this:
”Archbishops have a right to their opinion, you know. There’s freedom of religion in this country. There’s no established religion, and archbishops have a right to their opinion. Everybody has a right to their opinion.”
Uh…Rudy, are you really Roman Catholic? Hasn’t anyone ever taught you about submitting to authority, and that Bishops speak ono behalf of the Lord? Maybe you should become a Baptist!
That statement he made involves your typical arrogant and autonomy-loving philosophy that many in America hold to. Because the Presbyterians that whooped us Anglicans in the Revolutionary War failed to “establish a religion,” we have to deal with this type of trash. Every man is a religion unto himself. Every man does what is right in his own eyes, as the Children of Israel did when they had no king. The Proverbs speak of this as pure foolishness (Proverbs 12:15).
If you cannot find a voice for the Scriptures than you cannot find the Scriptures, especially in a day and age that God has provided so many good authority figures!
Today I heard my favorite political/cultural commentator, Michael Medved, mention how America’s founding documents make the proclamation of “separation of Church and State” to assert that we do not have the right to demand ministerial education for political candidates. Well, then what kind of education must a politician have? Religious education is inescapable. Even your local community college has a religious groove to it. It’s called Americanism, or what I believe to be Unitarianism (God without the Trinity or absolutes).
John Calvin, the Reformed Catholic of Geneva, said this regarding the relation of Church and State, and the Bible’s model of Kingship:
“It is certain that all royal dominion is meant to be ministerial”
“Kings are to be servants and ministers of God…”
God established magistrates properly “for the use of the people and the benefit of the republic.”
“[Kings] are not to undertake war rashly, nor ambitiously to increase their wealth; nor are they to govern their subjects on the basis of personal opinion or lust for whatever they want.”
“Subjects are under the authority of kings; but at the same time, kings must care about the public welfare so they can discharge the duties prescribed to them by God with good counsel and mature deliberation.”
John Calvin - Sermon on 1 Samuel 8
And if you choose to — if you believe in the Almighty, you can — you’re equally an American. If you’re a Jew, Christian or Muslim or Hindi or whatever. It is one of the great traits and traditions of our country, where people can worship the way you see fit. Interview on Larry King Live (CNN), Aug. 15, 2004
I heard Bush say something similar to this on the radio today. I think what he and many Americans do not understand is that religions, such as Islam, worship in such a way that drives them to hate infidels. They do not have an evangelistic message of liberation, but rather they have an existential message of servant-hood which teaches the complete annihilation of infidels.
In Islam, there is no grace, but rather there is only submission or death. In Christendom there is grace, and if one does not desire to come to Christ then they are not forced to come. Although, this does not mean that this infidel can begin to create their own heretical movement to destroy God’s Church. Or does it?
Do we tolerate those who desire us to follow Islamic or other cultic ethics within our communities? At what point do we restrain this person or peoples? Doctrinal and ethical neutrality is impossible, and so if God has given us a homeland to be good stewards of, then what ethical system do we institute? Is there such an ethical system that America is striving for that could be even marginally inclusive to other faiths? Is God pleased with this pursuit? If not, what would He have us do?
On September 11th, 2001, when Islam struck America, I was driving in my Honda CR-V on the way to Twin Towers. That’s right, “Twin Towers.” Only, this was Twin Towers of Los Angeles, the county jail and mental hospital. I was working as a Protestant Chaplain there. When I heard the news, I turned around to head back home to be with my family. I will never forget the faces of the people around me while I was driving in the traffic - grief-struck!
How much of Islam will we tolerate? That’s my question. How naive will we be by believing there are “peaceful” Muslims? Hey, some Muslims feel they are called to battle with sword and some with the pen! If our military goes to battle with Osama will you raise your voice in opposition? No, of course not. Likewise, the so-called peaceful Muslims will never come up against the radical Muslims. Why? Because they would be disobedient to the Koran. I’m too tired right now to look up the Koran verse, but it says Jihad is fought in many different ways, besides through the sword. We need to oppose every form of Islam with the Gospel of Christ (this includes Christ’s Law, does it not?). It will take a new and radical generation to voice this truth. Hopefully you are or can become a part of it.