ecumenism

another post related to my experience from looking at episciopal blogs (particularly Father Jake’s  who, even though I disagree with him theologically, is a pretty level-headed guy I must say)

There is a lot of problems in the Anglican Communion. A lot. Because of the differences in theology between the conservative, global south and the liberal west (I think that is an accurate geographical split) who both consider the other to have strayed away from true Christianity, there may be a schism. Both sides are beginning to feel like staying in Communion with one another is not worth it anymore.

I will agree, the tension is definitely there, and perhaps there is legitimacy to seeing a brother who will not repent of their sins and leaving them. But I wonder how far the separation needs to go.

Do we ever excommunicate a brother and leave him to his own ways forever, or does there have to be some sort of general sense of communion to make sure that he knows that we still love him? I fear that an actual split between the factions will not help in our attempt at Christian unity, but instead take a step backwards.

I see far too many churches in the evangelical tradition splitting and starting up new churches for the most ridiculous of reasons. Church plants are one thing, but how many churches are there that have no accountability to anyone; no relationship with any other church? How is there any expectation of unity within the church when there are estimated to be over 20000 Christian denominations in the world? Add to that the number of churches which claim to not be part of any larger group. How do we teach about the universal Church,  when we make no attempts to make our church universal?

I am not saying everyone forsake their differences and hold hands and sing kum-bay-ya, but there has to be some sort of steps taken to unity. And sometimes that unity is going to require us to be in dialogue with people who believe very different things.

So would I be happy if the Anglican Communion split? I don’t know. I think the best opportunity is for there to be actual conversation between the sides, but I wonder if that ship has sailed.

degrees of sanctification

The Christian life is one of constant change. We are always trying to take more steps away from self and towards Christ. Repentance is a daily need, and we can all agree that there is no person who has no room for improvement.

Where my new problems lie is in where I mentally place myself along this scale. About a month ago at our church’s men’s group the question came up of whether we think of ourselves as sinners or saints. Do we act in life as if we are fallen humans, constantly making mistakes, or do we assume that we are positionally justified and think in terms of how we are positively affecting the world around us?

It seems like an innocuous difference, one that will only bother philosophers and people who over think details. But in reality how we view ourselves will greatly affect our lives, especially our lives in Christ.

When we think of ourselves more in the camp of a depraved, fallen human who is unable to please God with our actions (which we are), we will be quick to accept our mistakes. “I couldn’t help but sin because I am just a sinner,” we lament, all the while justifying our sins because we have accepted our fate as sinners.

At the same time, however, if we think of ourselves too much in the realm of saints (which we are), as holy ones, we can falsely think too highly of ourselves. It is possible to then go through much mental strain when we inevitably fall into sin because we have assumed that we will not sin. At the same time, that bar is set high because of Christ who was tempted as we are, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15).

What I think we have to keep in mind, is first off, we are a new creation. The old self is gone and a new has come so that we are able to live free from the bondage of sin (Romans 6:4-7). In my recent dialogues with people on a wide number of blogs I am finding more people who accept sin and throw their hands in the air. That beliefe seems pretty incongruent with Paul’s teaching on the matter.

Secondly, I think that the Bible does not encourage us to think of ourselves as completely changed. In 1st John we read that anyone who claims to be without sin lies (1 John 1:8). We will not be perfect until the day of the Lord and we are give our glorified bodies.

What I think is the right way to think about personal sanctification is to never give the old self any foothold in our thinking, while recognizing that we are fallible. We must never recommit our minds to thinking that we are still part of the kingdom of darkness, who no longer has power over us. We are under a new kingdom. There has to be striving and real commitment to living as close to perfect lives as we can – for (as Peter Akinola said this Sunday) there is no alternative to obedience. Any part of our lives that is not changed into conformity with God’s commands is still to be changed. But our identity, at its core, has to lie with Christ and his kingdom. We are not of this world anymore.

So wherever you find yourself on the sliding scale of sanctification, do not allow yourself to think that you are still a hopeless sinner, because if you are in Christ you no longer answer to your former master. You are part of the body, and we all ought strive to make that identity more and more prominent in our lives.

angry anglicans

so, recently there has been quite a stirring in the Chicagoland episcopal church due to an upcoming visit from ++Peter Akinola to a joint service of several conservative Anglican churches out in Wheaton, IL. lots of blogs are calling for protests, and many of the people posting are pretty hate filled.

And so I throw my two cents into the pot.  It seems like there is a considerable amount of misunderstanding between the Episcopal Church and those of us who are in churches departed from the Episcopal church. We say that we believe the Bible to be true and our highest authority, and so what Paul calls sin we call sin. We will be the first to acknowledge our own many sins, and can not begin to judge any person – that is God’s role. We do say, however, that if something is called sin in the Bible, we will not affirm that behaviour. We do not hate sinners, but we can’t affirm that their sin is acceptable

What is heard, or at least what it seems like is being heard, is that since we will not affirm sin, we hate sinners and refuse to accept them as people. I quote a comment from josh on akinolarepent.wordpress.com

“We don’t care what your thoughts are, or your justifications; those positions aim to assert heterosexual superiority in every aspect of public life. And just like the old doctrine of white superiority, that’s profoundly bigoted and sinful.”

The problem is that the argument is constantly leaving its roots and hitting side issues. Conservative Anglicans do not aim to fashion ourselves higher or better or superior to anyone. We simply can’t accept homosexuality as something that is pleasing to God, not because we formed that opinion by ourselves, but because that is what we believe that Bible says – and the Bible is the chief authority in our thinking.

And frankly, you will find that in a lot of these churches, GLBT people will be much more accepted that not. I have been in two different AMiA churches, and both of them had open arms to anyone in their church. There was no hate directed at GLBT people. Instead there was enough love to not carte blanche accept their sin, but instead to help them through it. In fact, I wish that attitude was presented more thoroughly to my own sins, that they would be brought to light so I could change them.

I know I have offended enough people already, so I end with this: the gospel is not about acceptance and affirmation, but about repentance and transformation. (I know wordplay is cheesy, but I can’t help myself…)