Category Image Diseases and Their Progression


The Archbishop of Sydney (Anglican) has written a couple of articles for David Virtue. The first one is exceptional in its honesty about evangelicalism, its beliefs, and provides sufficient information for predictions to be made about the future of Anglicanism. That will take a bit of explaining, of course, so I'll hold that to the last.

The reason that I applaud Bp. Jensen's honest about evangelicalism's beliefs is not that others haven't also been honest. Its more that I'm used to folks in the Anglican Communion throwing about the term orthodox with little supporting definition. David Virtue is most notable for that. Every time I read something of his where he uses the term, I am tempted to fire off a comment to his list. Unfortunately, every time is quite honestly, every thing he writes. To Virtue, orthodoxy means "Biblical Orthodoxy," which is the delusion, held by most evangelical/fundamentalists, that they are adhering to what the Bible says. What they often fail to account for is that they are really adhering to a set of teachings that can be defended to some degree by careful selection of Scriptural passages. So, in fact, this "Orthodoxy" is right/correct (Ortho) only in that it meets with the views held by some subset of the Protestant reformation. So, here is the particular list of beliefs that Bp. Jensen ascribes to, and claims (correctly, I think) that evangelicalism is all about:

• Authority of Scripture above all
• Keen awareness of sin and guilt
• Penal substitionary understanding atonement is central
• Conversion and assurance

Each of these statements has some degree of truth underlying them, and then a whole lot of baggage and error of rather modern pedigree. For instance, if the authority of Scripture is above all, when exactly did this change? It is a matter of historical fact that the Church existed before the New Testament had its first letters written. So, although the OT Scripture were authoritative, clearly there was a whole collection of new teachings that went beyond the Scripture. The argument that Scripture became solely authoritative after the death of the Apostles is clever sounding, but without foundation. This is not to denigrate Scripture. The Church has always held Scripture in high regard, and looks to it as a primary source of revelation. However, in the new Israel there is a fundamental change that cannot be overlooked. That change is that the Holy Spirit was sent upon the entire Church to serve as guide (note - entire Church, not just some small group folks in the West). No longer would there be an individual prophet here and there. Rather the whole Church was being guided. Note that Jesus did not promise to send Scripture - he promised to send the Spirit.

We can continue with the sin/guilt/substitionary atonement question. Clearly, based on Scripture, the writings of the Fathers, and the Liturgies that have come down to us the understanding of our sinful nature has always been a part of Christianity. However, the unique focus on the penal substitution model of the atonement is more a late medieval focus. Yes, this model has its basis in Scripture, but it is only a model, and does not capture the fullness of the Gospel message. One of the unfortunate outcomes of the exclusive use of this model is the basic belief that as Christians we basically remain entirely corrupt, and only get into heaven because of a declaration of our righteousness, not that we ever become actually righteous. One of the unfortunate results of this view will be addressed below, and reflects a huge omission on the part of Bp. Jensen.

Finally, we look at the conversion and assurance piece. Clearly conversion is critical. There is no place for lukewarm or outright non-believing Christians in the Kingdom. However, conversion is also a process. Evangelicals tend to believe in a onetime conversion resulting in absolute assurance in salvation. While the initial conversion may be a onetime event, conversion itself is more of a process. Absolute assurance is, itself, a very dangerous teaching. It leads to spiritual pride, and often a failure to "run the race" as St. Paul describes it. Now, these errors themselves lead to other problems.

So, What Happened to Easter?

"Only through the death of Jesus Christ on the cross can there be forgiveness and redemption." At no time during this discourse on evangelicalism does Bp. Jensen mention the R word. You know, resurrection. In fact, at one point, he makes another rather alarming statement that we are called to "submission in repentance and faith, bringing salvation from the guilt of sin and so freedom to live the Christian life and the promise of life eternal." So what we are saved from is guilt. Once again, there seems to be no place here for the resurrection. Our capacity to live for eternity is due to our salvation from guilt. As he pointed out previously, this was accomplished entirely on the cross. I don't think that Bp. Jensen is at all incorrect here, at least as far as his description of evangelicalism. In most confessions I've seen, although they acknowledge the resurrection, it appears to be more of an afterthought. All of the theology is wrapped up in the crucifixion.

This makes me wonder, if we are to assume as Bp. Jensen states, that being an evangelical makes you part of the true church, how it is that this evangelical assembly squares its theology with the ancient Christian approach of elevating Pascha (Easter) above all other days. You would think that if evangelical theology were correct that the Church would have always celebrated Good Friday as the most important day of the year. We'd all receive Good Friday baskets or some such, and Easter would be an afterthought for those people not too tired out by the Good Friday celebrations.

The other piece missing here is a good theology of the incarnation. You see, the faith once received believes in the transformation of human nature due to God's assumption of that nature. The faith once received believes that we can partake in the divine nature of God. All of this is quite frankly missing from evangelicalism, and this is a huge, gaping hole that leads to further errors and problems.

Gospel or Church?

We are told that the Church is the very Body of Christ, as well as being the pillar and bulwark of truth. To Bp. Jensen, and presumably his fellow evangelicals, it is a fellowship of believers ministering to one another. Nothing particularly mystical about that. In fact, Bp. Jensen informs us that a proper evangelical will elevate the Gospel above the Church. If the Church is the Body of Christ, isn't that the good news too? How can one be elevated above the other. The Church is yet another way in which we participate in the hypostatic union of God and Man which leads to our very transformation. The Church is the very ark of our salvation. Yet, because of a limited view of atonement, and an even more limited view of the incarnation, evangelicals miss that point. One key problem is that the Church can no longer serve as the pillar of truth - simply because the Church appears to be merely all those individuals who share a common belief system. Bp. Jensen himself notes that Arminians and Calvinists exist side by side within this Church - and yet they disagree on some serious fundamentals. Doesn't sound like a lot of truth there.

The W Word

Unlike the resurrection, at least Bp. Jenson mentions worship - if only to declare that it should be simple if it is to be Evangelical. I'd be interested in seeing how simple worship squares with the worship we see throughout Scripture. In fact, the last images of worship that we see in the pages of Scripture are in the Revelation to John. These images, like all other images of worship in Scripture, are images of incense and robes, and candles, and bowing, and movements. In other words, anything but simplicity. In fact, God places a great deal of emphasis on worship, especially in the Old Testament, and apparently it is continuously going on in Heaven. How is it that we can assume it has suddenly become unimportant? Yet, evangelicalism has no real place for it. A few praise songs at a fellowship event must be about right as far as they are concerned. Bp. Jensen seems to like the idea of "liquid" church, where the only thing of importance is that it shouldn't be entirely individualistic. His discussion as to why it shouldn't be individualistic is a bit shallow, probably because he doesn't really understand why this is. His reading of Scripture has informed him that we need to minister to one another, but that is as far as it goes. Since his theology is lacking a good understanding of the incarnation, and a good understanding of the Church as the Body of Christ, he doesn't have a lot of good ammunition. I think that in Bp. Jensen's world we will ultimately see a decline in corporate worship, if for no other reason than nobody within the evangelical world has much of an argument for it. In fact, Bp. Jensen points out that another key piece of evangelicalism is individual judgement. So, if the individual judges that he doesn't need to be engaged in a visible church body of some sort, I would gather his judgement trumps the rather vague beliefs on this subject apparently held by all good evangelicals.

We Don't Need no Stinkin' Priest

St. Peter refers in his letters to the priesthood of all believers , echoing a similar phrase in the Old Testament. Clearly we are all, as were the ancient Israelites, called to the priesthood at some level. It should also be obvious that St. Peter is not introducing anything new, as much as most evangelicals seem to want to believe that he is. Even though everyone is called to be a priest - to make sacrifices to God, that does not eliminate for people to hold the formal office of priest - which, of course, we see throughout the New Testament era and beyond. Now Bp. Jensen thinks we can see the elimination of priests in worship services and the like. Again, I don't think this is unique to Bp. Jensen, I just think he has done a good job of capturing the essence of evangelicalism. Unfortunately, Bp. Jensen seems to have missed a rather key passage in the Epistle of St. Jude , which points back to a time in ancient Israel when there were some who felt that they, too, didn't need a special office of priest. Needless to say, they were wrong, which was demonstrated rather dramatically. So here we have what is really another case of evangelicalism not having a proper theology, and it results in error, and a rather severe error.

Compare and Contrast

So, within evangelicalism, we have a group that prefers individual judgement, that seems to ignore passages of Scripture when those passages don't square with their individual theology, and who seek the freedom to worship as they see fit. Compare and contrast this to modernists who do pretty much the same thing. The only difference, really, is that modernists ignore larger chunks of Scripture than evangelicals do. Harsh words? Yes, certainly, but you see it has been my belief that the reformation is directly responsible for the modernist infection of Western Christianity. The reformation so elevated individual judgement and individual interpretation of Scripture, and so lowered the importance of a visible Church and of an orderly God derived worship, that they opened the door for subsequent generations to simply continue the effort. I think modernism is a disease whose roots lie at the very feet of the reformation.

So what predictions do I have for the Anglican Communion? Well, you see, even if all of the modernists are given the boot and are no longer part of the larger communion, I think you have only delayed the necessary progression of a disease. AngloCatholics are no longer, and perhaps never really were, a force to be reckoned with. Most of them have openly acknowledged that they have to join with the evangelicals and pretend that the errors I mention above (along with the many more that come with the package) don't really matter. So, in another 50 years or so, likely even sooner, we'll see the same sorts of things again. The only real solution, IMO, is for Anglicanism to return to its real roots. Not its roots in the reformation, but its roots in its earliest days. A return to its roots as a member of the one True Church - not a loose organization consisting of a bunch of like-minded members, but rather a visible Kingdom on Earth where all worshiped and worked together.



Posted: Tuesday - May 30, 2006 at 11:05 AM          

©