<$BlogRSDURL$>

Friday, June 04, 2004

Headless Blog!

Folks checking for an update have been disappointed (and some indicate that they are disturbed) to see the unchanging post containing the picture of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi holding aloft the freshly severed head of Nick Berg.

The continuing vociferous protests from around the Islamic world (strong reproof from well-respected Muslim clerics coupled with massive street demonstrations in Jordan, Pakistan, Iran, etc.) against al-Zarqawi's action as misrepresenting the "peacelovingreligionofIslam's" good name have convinced me I was wrong and I have removed the picture. And if you believe that I've got a bridge in NYC I want to sell you.

In fact, I have removed the disturbing image because it was...disturbing.

The point has been made.

Wednesday, May 12, 2004

The face of radical Islam in the modern era:



The face of radical Christianity in the modern era:



Any questions?





Tuesday, May 04, 2004

I am trying to overcome the phenomenon of "blog guilt." Blog guilt occurs when one knows one should be writing, but for whatever reason has not met this expectation. This can progress to "blog avoidance" in which the sufferer ignores the existence of his own blog because it represents unmet obligations. However, there is the reality that my waking hours are being consumed by the overriding demands of nailing down the details of leaving one ecclesial communion for another, and tying up loose ends as one pastoral appointment winds down while preparing to begin a new church plant. Blogging has plummeted in the hierarchy of vital obligations. As a mere mortal I find that multiplied stress and yammering responsibilities effectively nuke my creative impulse. Other, nobler folk (like my friends Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch and Jai Gibson of Wesleyvoice) appear to be able to conquer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and keep on cranking out pithy, insightful, aphoristic observations about life, the universe, and everything. I'll try to follow their inspiring (if intimidating) examples. But don't hold your breath!

Wednesday, March 31, 2004

From the "They Ought to Know Better" Files

Recently two professors from the "Harvard of the South" (Duke University for those who don't realize that the South is the cultural center of the universe) helpfully offered Christians a means of moralizing in favor of homosexual practice. Their argument is presented in a commentary on the United Methodist Reporter Interactive website. It was a valiant and well-intentioned effort, but considering the intellectual firepower the authors possess, Mary McClintock Fulkerson and Kathy Rudy ought to know better.

The logical flaw in the Fulkerson and Rudy piece in the Reporter is that they insist that we must deal with the issue of homosexuality based on a moral paradigm and then they offer one irreducible guideline: "one minimal way to determine morality is to ask whether the love two people share brings them and others closer to God." Here is just one example of where this fails logically:


Why is coming closer to God a good thing? From whence is this standard derived?

If they claim it comes from the Christian faith then one must ask how do Fulkerson and Rudy know this assertion to be true?

Although they will perhaps appeal to Tradition, history, etc., at some point they will have to appeal to Scripture as the source of the Tradition that affirms their assertion. Why? Because by its very nature, Christianity insists that we cannot know what is essential about God and ourselves without God’s self-revelation. This means that they have to concede a revelation separate from what may be known through reason or observed empirically is necessary as a foundation for claims as to what is moral.

As soon as revelation becomes the foundation for this line of reasoning then the logical flaw is revealed: If Fulkerson and Rudy appeal to the revelation of Holy Scripture, how can they embrace "what brings them and others closer to God" as a standard while rejecting the very revelation of what God indicates facilitates this end? By what authority do Fulkerson and Rudy get to determine what is morally normative in the Scripture and what is not? By what wisdom do Fulkerson and Rudy claim to supercede Scripture's depiction of what creates filial proximity with God? Are Fulkerson and Rudy saying that they merely subjectively prefer to accept some parts of what they acknowledge to be revelation while rejecting others? Then why waste time and effort by appealing to Scripture at all? Why not apply Ockham’s Razor and just jump straight ahead to subjective preference?

I have not erected a straw man to represent the professors' position, but have merely attempted to tease out the logical consequences of their original assertion: "one minimal way to determine morality is to ask whether the love two people share brings them and others closer to God." Any moral argument that concedes that some things are morally right, while others are morally wrong, must have a basis, a criterion, by which these distinctions are measured. If the standard is self-referential, i.e. I just personally feel this to be moral, then the result is moral chaos and one must ask, "Why do I care what is moral in first place?" It makes more sense to drop morality as a worthy end and rather resort to something along the lines of Nietzsche's "will to power" -- maybe a "will to pleasure."

You can indeed support homosexual practice and all that goes with it by various compelling arguments. However, you cannot do so by insisting on a moral framework derived from Christianity. Christianity is ontologically linked to God's self-revelation. Thus at some point Scripture rears its head and you are forced to accept it or reject it. If you reject Scripture then you have absolutely no reason to insist on qualifying your position as Christian. Indeed, to do so is incoherent and fails the logical law of non-contradiction. If you accept Scripture as the foundation for Christian faith and practice you cannot reasonably support homosexual practice. We may choose between these two positions, but reason will not permit us to simultaneously embrace both.

The good professors really ought to know better.


Tuesday, March 30, 2004

Re-reconquista

The year 1492 used to be known by American school children as the year Columbus discovered the New World. Today, of course, we know that it was the year Columbus introduced European oppression to the indigenous peoples of the Americas, thus destroying the environmentally-friendly, egalitarian paradise they had so diligently worked to create.

The year 1492 was also a seminal moment in time in European history. In January of that year Ferdinand and Isabella succeeded in expelling the last of the Moorish rulers from the Iberian Peninsula. It was in 711 that the "peace-loving religion of Islam" began to spread the message of the Prophet in Iberia via military conquest. (No doubt the Muslim invaders would have chosen tracts over swords, but were inconvenienced by having to wait several centuries for the invention of the printing press.) It took the Catholic monarchs of Spain 781 years to restore Christian rule following their losses to the Moors. On March 14th of this year the Spanish electorate took a giant step towards undoing the achievement of the Reconquista.

There is absolutely no doubt that Al Qaeda and its subsidiary terror franchises believe they have directly influenced the Spanish population to cringe in the face of jihad. The evidence for this is that the terror group has promised to “temporarily” suspend operations in Spain since the ejection of the Popular Party in the March 14th elections. Yet this is only one strand of the unraveling of the Reconquista.

The domestic population of Spain is in sharp decline. The birthrate in Spain is 1.1 children per woman. A birthrate of 2.1 children per woman is needed just to maintain a stable population. In Spain, and throughout Europe, the population vacuum is being filled by mass immigration from North Africa, Turkey, and the Middle East. One byproduct of this immigration is the dramatic increase in the number of practicing Muslims in the depopulated, de-Christianized nations of Europe. In Spain this translates into 200,000 Muslims with a birthrate of over 3 times that of the average Spanish household (cf., Europe's Muslim Street).

Thus, between the hammer of jihad and the anvil of demographic implosion it seems inevitable that Spain is facing a Re-reconquista. What makes this particularly ominous is that the radically militant form of Islam setting the agenda in the world today bears little resemblance to the relatively civilized, tolerant Moorish kingdoms of medieval Spain.

Monday, March 29, 2004

Bittersweet Departure

Effective June 22, 2004 I will no longer be an ordained elder in The United Methodist Church. On that day I will surrender my ordination credentials to the District Superintendent of the Fayetteville District of the North Carolina Annual Conference. The next day, June 23rd, I will be partnering with an Anglican Mission in America church here in North Carolina for the purpose of planting a new Anglican Mission church in the Research Triangle area.

I love and appreciate The United Methodist Church. I came to know Jesus Christ in this denomination and received an outstanding theological education at a premier United Methodist school: the Divinity School of Duke University. For 17 years I have faithfully, and I think effectively, served as a United Methodist pastor. Until Christ takes me home I will enthusiastically embrace the Wesleyan heritage of vital piety centered in holiness of heart and life that was instilled in me through the UMC.

Wonderful ministry is happening throughout the UMC as the Good News about Jesus is preached and lived out in faithful discipleship in its congregations. Powerful missions of healing and deliverance continue to bubble up from local churches and annual conferences throughout the connection. Even as an Anglican priest I will continue to be a supporter of and apologist for the authentic Christian ministry and mission embodied in The United Methodist Church.

My family and I are grieved at leaving our beloved denomination, yet we are filled with excitement and joy at being involved in ministry in the new movement known as The Anglican Mission in America. That which we love best about United Methodism is present, and even more robustly demonstrated, in the AMiA.

Several people have asked me how I arrived at the decision to change ecclesial communions. This decision was not made overnight or in a fit of pique. Let me state firmly that I have no desire to start an ecclesial insurrection or lead an exodus out of the UMC. Nevertheless, the genesis of this decision was indeed a point of conscience which quickly became a sense of a positive vocation – a call of the Holy Spirit – to be involved in a fresh move of God embodied in the historic Anglican Church.

I do not want to belabor the point, but for the purpose of clarity I will explain how this process began. The point of conscience presented itself in February of 2003 with the refusal of the North Central Jurisdiction to deal with the overt heresy of Bp. Joseph Sprague, even after official charges had been brought against the errant leader. As an elder of the Church I had vowed to “…be loyal to the United Methodist Church, accepting its order, liturgy, doctrine, and discipline… and accepting the authority of those who are appointed to supervise [my] ministry.” One consequence of this vow of obedience was that I had to support and endorse funding Bp. Sprague’s heretical “ministry” by encouraging the local church to fully accept the apportionments (monies paid by the local church to the denomination). The “Episcopal Fund” share of the apportionments pays the salary of the likes of Sprague.

In stark contrast to this, my commitment to Christ demanded that I oppose heresy and those who promulgate false teaching (cf. Matthew 7:15-23; Romans 16:17-18; 1 Timothy 1:3-7; 1 Timothy 4:1-7; 1 Timothy 6:3-5, 20-21; 2 Timothy 4:1-5; Titus 1:10-14; 2 Peter 2:1-3; 1 John 4:1-6; Jude 3). Since the Church would not censure or discipline Bp. Sprague, I determined that I was compelled to choose faithfulness to Jesus Christ over my vow to support the denomination. Further, if I remained in the UMC and did not fulfill my vow to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the denomination by refusing to endorse the apportionments then I would be no better than Bp. Sprague in his refusal to honor the teaching of our Church.

I realize that not everyone would come to this conclusion, but I believe that conscience demanded I surrender my elder’s orders rather than honor a vow that put me at odds with loyalty to Jesus Christ and the faith once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

However, that point of conscience merely served to open my heart to hear the call of the Holy Spirit to be involved in planting churches in The Anglican Mission in America. This movement is closer to the center of the Great Tradition of the Church than many Protestant sects, stalwartly stands upon the Holy Scriptures as God’s authoritative Word, and embraces the present working of the Holy Spirit. The emphasis on mission and church planting within the AMiA fueled the passion I already had to plant churches committed authentic Christian community and radical obedience to Jesus Christ. Moreover, the Anglican Mission stands in solidarity with the Global South and is under the oversight of the Anglican Archbishops of Rwanda and Southeast Asia.

So I leave The United Methodist Church with a heart full of gratitude and love for the denomination that led me to accept Christ, taught me the Scriptures, nourished me with the sacraments, and equipped me for ministry. Our Bishop, the Rev. Marion Edwards, has been supportive and sympathetic towards my family and I as we make this transition. Similarly, my District Superintendent, the Rev. David O. Malloy, has embodied tenderness, love, and pastoral concern as he relates to my wife, my children, and me. I will always hold a tremendous amount of affection for the colleagues I have served with and the churches I have shepherded.

That said, I am deeply troubled that certain annual conferences and bishops continue to flout the authority of God’s Word and the clear teaching of our Discipline. The recent verdict in the Karen Dammann church trial reveals that sections of the United Methodist connection are in open rebellion against God and his Church. So far the UMC has not demonstrated a willingness to deal decisively with behavior and teaching that threaten to bring individuals and the denomination under the judgment of God. If I may be so bold I would offer this gentle warning: If The United Methodist Church continues to ignore rebellion, heresy, and apostasy in annual conferences and the episcopal office many other pastors and parishioners may also be forced to choose between loyalty to Christ and loyalty to the denomination.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?