From the American Anglican Council:
Beloved in Christ,
There are a few items that I would like to mention as we close the year 2009 and begin what looks like a busy 2010.
Consider the word "gay." Once it denoted happiness, perhaps even euphoric joy, but now, due to its co-option by the homosexual community, the words of a Christian hymn "...don we now our gay apparel..." send a confusing message. "Gay" now means the state of being a homosexual, though more usually used for males, since "lesbian" is often preferred for females. Another word that has had a dramatic degradation in contextual usage is the word "Fundamentalist." Originally, the term would have referred, without any pejorative slant, to those who held to fundamentals of the Christian faith, such as 1) Jesus was uniquely divine, 2) Jesus was born of a virgin, 3) Jesus died as a sacrifice for sin, 4) Jesus will come back again in power and glory, and 5) the inerrancy of Holy Scripture. In some lists the fifth item is instead the historical reality of Christ's miracles.
If you believe these things you are actually a Fundamentalist, but don't know it, or at least a fundamentalist before the word was distorted and degraded. Fundamentalism began as a movement in the United States in the early 1900s and involved Presbyterian academics and theologians at Princeton Theological Seminary. My, how things have changed! Now the word "fundamentalist" is a slur hurled by liberal revisionists at anyone who stands for the historic faith once delivered to the saints, and it is a slur used by newscasters and commentators to describe anyone who is beyond reason and excessive in their beliefs, and thus can be written off as far as any serious theological discussion. The word is commonly used to describe Islamic terrorists. Today, few Christians want to be labeled a "fundamentalist," for it implies someone who clings to an entrenched and stubborn position that prevails against all reasoned debate or contradictory evidence. It is particularly difficult when Science has set itself up as the religion of good sense, open to new discoveries, and possessing truth in almost every area imaginable. The problem is that Science is a process working at discovering truth, truth which is constantly changing as new discoveries are made, and truth which is not actually final truth but provisional truth - temporary truth, if you will - until another scientific breakthrough comes along.
To be honest, I am deeply interested in science and scientific discoveries in a very broad range of fields, and am eager to see what will be found next, but I have to put this truth in what I call the "als ob" category, the German expression which means "as if," because I know that science can only give us partial and temporary truth. On the other hand, I read the Bible and accept what the apostle Paul wrote in Second Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...." Where there are apparent textual difficulties in Scripture, I believe that these will be sorted out and understandable in time, and if not in this life, then when we are reunited in the heavenly resurrection. So then, I accept the Holy Scripture as true, and scientific discoveries "als ob," "as if." I believe that in God's own time the two will converge, but until then I walk by faith.
The point is, if a majority of Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, our Savior, and the second person of the Holy Trinity, and if a majority also believe that Mary was a virgin and that her conception was by the power of the Holy Spirit, and that Jesus died in our place, and paid the price for our own sins, and that Jesus is coming back sooner or later, and that the Bible is the Word of God, truthful and reliable, then that makes us all "fundamentalists," even if the word in popular usage doesn't fit us. What we need is an uncorrupted word to describe those who hold to a basic and foundational set of beliefs. Currently the word many of us are using is "orthodox," used in a descriptive manner rather than as a name: orthodox Anglicans, orthodox Presbyterians, orthodox Lutherans, etc. If you have a better word to use, do put it forward.
We note that in the closing weeks of 2009, the Anglican Communion has released the so-called final draft of the Anglican Communion covenant, and it appears that the new draft is weaker in many ways than the former version. We had hoped that the fourth moratorium on litigation would have made it into the document, since the legal warfare of TEC Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori and the Dewey, Sue'm and Howe contingent has increased. We also regret that the Covenant drafters continue to equate a bishop crossing an invisible geographical boundary to rescue souls with TEC's heretical teachings and actions which are putting millions of souls at risk of perishing - the arsonist who sets his house ablaze is equated with the loving neighbor who ignores the "No Trespassing" sign to rescue the children from the conflagration. We also sense that the new Covenant represents a shift of power to the Archbishop of Canterbury and his assistants, and this despite the fact that the ABC has been unwilling to use the power that he already has to affect the commonweal of the Communion.
Could 2010 bring a new response in addition to a new year? The optimist in me says, "yes, it could," the pragmatist in me says "yes, but unlikely." Our AAC staff is studying the new Covenant and related documents, and will report out early in this next year on our findings. Until then, have a blessed and faithful New Year, remembering always that our chief purpose here on earth is to glorify our Heavenly Father.
Blessings and peace in Christ Jesus,
The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council
_________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment