As the church’s doctrines have become more elastic, the church has contracted. It celebrates an “inclusiveness” that includes fewer and fewer members.

He is, of course, not saying anything new or that we have not observed before. I have often marveled at how the so-called “progressives” in our church (I say “so-called” because such a term, like so many in politics, is used not to define oneself, but the other; the opposite of “progressive” is, of course, “regressive”) are so confounded as to why evangelical churches with a fairly straightforward message of repentance, acceptance of forgiveness, and Bible study have been growing so rapidly while our numbers dwindle. The answer is simple. Very few people want a religious community where “anything goes.”

People fundamentally understand that not everything can be equally right. We go to churches, synagogues, and mosques to hear guidance and direction. We know we aren’t perfect and recognize there must be a better way. The last thing we want to hear is “your OK just the way you are, don’t change a thing” because we know that we are not OK. A newer generation won’t get the reference, but we might say “I’m not OK and you’re not OK and that’s OK.” At the core of all the Bible and the Gospel particularly is the assertion that we and this creation were made for something much, much better than what we are now. We need clarity of message so that we can decide whether or not we agree with it. Say what you will about Willow Creek Bible Church, you know what they believe. You may not agree with them, which is fine, but you know what they believe. What does the Episcopal Church believe? Hmm. That’s a tough one….

In many ways I think that the Episcopal Church would be far, far better off if it simply decided to draw a clear line in the sand regarding the role and authority of Scripture. The church would probably lose members and it might gain them, but at least being decisive would allow those seeking a community of faith to know upon what (or whom) the Episcopal Church based their faith.  Be hot or be cold, but no one finds luke wark palatable.

 

The episcopal extravaganza at Lambeth illustrates how outdated the Church of England hierarchy is

View a graphic representation of episcopal inflation in the Church of England

by Theo Hobson

The problems of the Anglican Communion are being sorted out by its leaders, the bishops – well, those bishops who have decided not to boycott the Lambeth Conference. There are still quite a few of them at the Anglican pow-wow: 650 out of a possible 800 worldwide. They are currently enjoying a retreat in Canterbury Cathedral, a sort of holy lock-in. Forgive the heretical thought, but how much would it matter if that ancient edifice suddenly collapsed on the lot of them? Might Christian culture actually be a bit better off?

… The English have a funny relationship with bishops. We almost got rid of them in the 16th century, we briefly abolished them in the 17th century (and cut the Archbishop of Canterbury’s head off). There’s no denying their historical importance: it was antipathy to bishops that galvanised the parliamentary party in the civil war, and the same antipathy subsequently launched England’s Nonconformist tradition that played such a key role in Liberal politics. We have certainly been shaped by our episcopal tradition – but as much in the breach as the observance.

Anglicanism is the only form of Protestantism to take bishops so seriously. And this has been a cause of huge internal division. The Anglo-Catholic wing has a tendency to idolise them, as a spiritual elite descended from the Apostles, and the evangelicals are wary of the office – but of course they see it as their humble duty to occupy it rather than cede power to the Anglo-Catholics.

…The godfather of our anti-episcopal tradition is Milton. Four hundred years after his birth, we should stop to think what he would have made of the international episcopal palaver at Canterbury. “Why are you still clinging to this feudal relic, this tired dream of holy authority?” he might ask. “Why can’t you see that the gospel spurns hierarchy, and calls us to freedom?”

 

Much of the Anglican world must be lamenting the latest emission from GAFCON.  Anglicanism has always been broader than some find comfortable. This statement does not represent the end of Anglicanism, merely another chapter in a centuries-old struggle for dominance by those who consider themselves the only true believers. Anglicans will continue to worship God in their churches, serve the hungry and needy in their communities, and build missional relationships with others across the globe, despite the desire of a few leaders to narrow the influence of the gospel. We look forward to the opportunities of the Lambeth Conference for constructive conversation, inspired prayer, and relational encounters.

Help me out people, what is it about her response that I find so offensive? Is it the scatological tone of the first sentence? Does she think that she is any less than one who claims to be a “true believer”? (She obviously thinks “the others” are wrong.) Perhaps it is the way in which her first sentence seems to ignore the fact that much (the majority, in fact) of the Anglican world has lamented the actions of the Communion in the North and West. Is it the tone, the condescension?

What is it….

Some more thoughts. Compare the PB’s response with that of the ABC. He did affirm the uniqueness of Christ and his deity in his statement, affirmed the common purpose and goals and then had very reasonable criticisms of the GAFCON proposal. From KJS? We have scatological aspersions.

 

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has responded to the final declaration of the Global Anglican Future Conference with the following statement:

The Final Statement from the GAFCON meeting in Jordan and Jerusalem contains much that is positive and encouraging about the priorities of those who met for prayer and pilgrimage in the last week. The ‘tenets of orthodoxy’ spelled out in the document will be acceptable to and shared by the vast majority of Anglicans in every province, even if there may be differences of emphasis and perspective on some issues. I agree that the Communion needs to be united in its commitments on these matters, and I have no doubt that the Lambeth Conference will wish to affirm all these positive aspects of GAFCON’s deliberations. Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion

…

I have in the past quoted to some in the Communion who would call themselves radical the words of the Apostle in I Cor.11.33: ‘wait for one another’. I would say the same to those in whose name this statement has been issued. An impatience at all costs to clear the Lord’s field of the weeds that may appear among the shoots of true life (Matt.13.29) will put at risk our clarity and effectiveness in communicating just those evangelical and catholic truths which the GAFCON statement presents.

 

Orthodox Anglicans who are creating a new movement at a breakaway summit in Jerusalem have said they feel “betrayal and abandonment” at the current church structure.

The 1,000 conservatives at the Gafcon conference say they feel “profound sadness” that the worldwide Anglican Communion has been driven to the brink of schism by liberals in America and Canada departing from traditional church teaching, particularly over sexuality.

Another Daily Telegraph article has more details:

Organisers of the Gafcon summit in Jerusalem who produced a statement declaring the formation of the “church within a church” were keen to state that it does not represent a complete split or schism in Anglicanism, and that they only want to preserve the faith’s original intentions.

Their final statement stated: “We cherish our Anglican heritage and the Anglican Communion and have no intention of departing from it.”…

And they claimed that the “colonial structure” of Anglicanism had failed to discipline those churches which had broken the rules by consecrating gay clergy and blessing same-sex unions.

For good or for ill I think this is the only way for the Anglican Communion to preserve its unity. The comment about the “colonial structure” is spot on, the churches (national entities) that exist now are purely the result of national and political boundaries and the spread of the Anglican Church was the result of British colonization. The Empire is long since gone and now the colonists are taking the lead. With the ability to communication immediately through the internet and phone services the need for physical, regional boundaries is no longer necessary.

We pride ourselves on being a “broad” church with room for everyone in it. If we want the Communion to remain as just that, a communion of different communities and views, then allowing organization based upon theological affiliations rather than geographic location is the best way forward. The problem will be, of course, the fragmenting of the British, Canadian, and US churches as some parishes would choose to leave the local Diocese and others would remain.

For those in other Protestant traditions this is nothing new. What has set the Anglican Communion apart is the episcopal structure, resulting from the origins of the Church of England as a theological rather than structural break from Rome. But the Archbishop of Canterbury (nor the other Primates) is unable to allow diversity while still reserving the power to discipline those who step too far out of bounds. So instead there is diversity with no discipline. Allowing the formation and alignment of Anglican Churches along something other than geographic boundaries might allow for diversity of views and practices while preserving the Communion. Maybe.

 

(They also just had John Green from the Pew Forum talking about their recent report and repeated the incorrect statements from their previous survey about people changing “faiths” when in fact they are chaning denominations.”)

 

One of the major flashpoints in the ongoing conflict in the Anglican Communion centers on a recently married and openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson. Robinson was consecrated as bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire in 2003, an event that helped convince several conservative Episcopal churches in the U.S. to look for alternative spiritual leadership. These breakaway parishes are now under the oversight of several African bishops, including Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria. That country officially is the second largest province in the Anglican Communion by membership but probably the first in terms of active members.

Now that the Anglican Communion is majority African, and the vast majority of African Anglicans are theologically conservative, there is a real question as to whether the historical ties of the Anglican Communion are strong enough to counter the forces that seem to be pushing the church toward schism. The Lambeth and Global Anglican Future conferences could soon provide an answer.

Take a look at the changes that have occurred over the last hundred years. The short of it: Britain and America are becoming irrelevant to the Anglican Communion.

 

So at the bottom of the post where I found this story was an auto-generated post titled:Flexible: BMW and Ecclesiology. The end of the video will explain where this post comes from, but the gist is,

The GINA then became a metaphor for how BMW as a company even thinks about cars…or thinks about thinking. For those of us trying to re-think forms and structures in church settings, this little story is a great example of how long-established paradigms could be replaced by faithful innovation.

Uh, maybe.

 

Proper 5, Year A

Hosea 5:15-6:6
Psalm 50:7-15
Romans 4:13-25
Matthew 9:9-13, 18-26

Therefore [Abraham’s] faith “was reckoned to him as righteousness.” Now the words, “it was reckoned to him,” were written not for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification. (Rom. 4:22-24) — Amen.

If you are a regular NPR listener you may remember a few months ago that the notion of “faith” hit the news when the results of a recent Pew survey were announced. The survey showed that “more than a quarter of adult Americans have left the faith of their childhood to join another religion or no religion.”¹ There was much discussion at the time about what these results were saying about Americans and our religious convictions. It turns out that we are still a remarkably religious nation, especially when compared to our European cousins. But even as all the news reports talked about this report on “faith” it missed the fact that this was not about faith at all. Rather it was about religion, the set of beliefs that one confesses or espouses and the actions and modes of worship that one engages in as a member of a religious community. For instance, although there was a decline in those raised as Catholics and Methodists who said they remain in those traditions, a large percentage of those same people identify themselves as Christians, albeit now in an evangelical setting. They have not “switched religions” but have simply moved to a different expression of the same religion, Christianity.

What our readings today present us with is the very foundational question of “faith.” I have to admit that I find this topic perhaps only slightly less challenging to preach than the nature of the Trinity. There are all sorts of passages in the Bible that talk about “faith,” each with a slightly different angle or perspective on this fundamental concept.

Hebrews 11 tells us famously that, “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Several years ago I had a student in a class on religious thought and he expressed a frustration with this definition of faith. “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for.” To him, “hope” was merely wishing, like “I hope I will win the lottery,” but faith, he argued had to be something more secure. (This student, by the way, is now finishing up seminary.) “Hope” in this context, however, is not about wishing or wanting something to be true even while knowing that very likely is not. Rather this kind of hope is the expectation of something that has not yet fully come to fruition. Our Christian faith is when we act upon these beliefs.
Faith is belief plus action.

Consider our readings this morning. In Paul’s letter to the Romans he refers to Gen. 15 where we are told that Abraham believed God “therefore his faith ‘was reckoned to him as righteousness.’” You remember the story, God had promised Abraham that his children would be endless in numbers and they would inherit all of Canaan, yet he was extremely old and his wife Sarah was barren, unable to have children. In Genesis 15 God reaffirms his promise to Abraham.

1 After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision, “Do not be afraid, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.” 2 But Abram said, “O Lord GOD, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?”

Abraham points out the obvious to God, that he has promised him children to be his heirs and yet he had none. Notice that Abraham is willing to question God, to challenge God on his promises. This is not the subject of this sermon, but here is a bonus point: we are allowed to challenge God, to remind him, and therefore ourselves, of what God has promised to us. And when we do, like Abraham, we will hear God affirm his promises again in our lives.

4 But the word of the LORD came to him, “This man shall not be your heir; no one but your very own issue shall be your heir.” 5 He brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your descendants be.” 6 And he believed the LORD; and the LORD reckoned it to him as righteousness.

This is the faith that Paul tells us is counted as righteousness. It is important to realize that Abraham’s “belief” is not simple intellectual assent to a concept. But Abraham believes that God will make his descendants (rather than Eliezer of Damascus’) as numerous as the stars and thus does not pursue the “adoption” of Eliezer. In this case the “action” based upon belief is ceasing an activity. Abraham believed God’s promise to him and so acted accordingly. This is faith worthy of righteousness. Abraham of course goes on to have a few more missteps but his entire story is in fact, one of faith. When God first calls out to Abraham he tells him simply, “get up and go to the land that I will show you…I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing.” Abraham heard God and believed that he would indeed bless him and so he got up and went, with no further assurances than God’s word. Faith is not simply believing something to be true, it is acting upon it as well.

In our Gospel this morning we find two stories, each about a person’s faith in Jesus’ ability to heal. The synagogue leader takes a great risk, knowing that his position within his community and synagogue would likely be ruined by associating with this crazy preacher was driven by the necessity of his child. But he also acted on his belief in Jesus’ power to save. “My daughter has just died; but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live.” Did you notice what he said? His daughter was dead. Not just ill or feeling woozy. And yet we know he believed that Jesus could bring her back so he ran to him and said, “lay your hand on her and she will live.”

On his way to see the child a woman who had been ill for 12 years, sick with a hemorrhage, a flow of blood, which meant that for her to touch someone she would make them ritually unclean, reached out and touched the fringe of Jesus’ garment. Why? Because she believed in his power to heal her. She said to herself, “If I only touch his cloak, I will be made well.” There is no wishful thinking here, only the conviction that Jesus could heal her. “I will be made well.” She believed in Jesus and she acted on that belief and she is healed. Jesus reassures the woman who touched his garment, “‘Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well.’” And instantly the woman was made well.”

Faith is belief plus action. It is not some abstract, esoteric knowledge to which we give intellectual assent. It is the firm conviction of God’s love and power and our response to that belief. If we merely say the creeds and confess Jesus as Lord and Saviour, but it never causes a change in our lives or the way we act then is it really faith? As James tells us, “faith without works is dead.” Had the woman simply said, “I believe that Jesus can heal me,” but was too meek or timid to reach out and touch him, she would not have been healed. Such a belief, no matter how strong one “feels” it, is not transformed into faith until one acts upon it.

In a moment we will recite the creed together, the creed that begins, “we believe.” How will this belief lead you to action this day, this week, in this life? If we believe that God created the heavens and the earth, how shall we now act? If we believe that Jesus came down from heaven for us and for our salvation, how shall we now act? If we believe in the forgiveness of sins and the resurrection of the dead, how shall we now act?
Faith is belief in action.

Bonus quote:
“Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.” — Saint Augustine

 

1. “Poll Finds a Fluid Religious Life in U.S.“

I always wrestle with this, not so much the concept but the definition. I am preaching on June 8th and the readings are Hosea 5:15-6:6, Romans 4:13-25, and Matthew 9:9-13, 18-26.

So I ask, what do you all think of this ultra-simplistic definition of faith?

Faith = Belief + Action

This led to some very good and constructive comments. Michael Halcamb and Alex Lampros (“SHC,” let’s hope his not yet created blog is as engaging as this comment!) both tackle the question of definition of “definition,” as it were. Michael suggests that I still need to define the terms “belief” and “action” and Alex’s appropriation of Sextus Empiricus questions the very value of definition and is right, in my mind, that it can lead to an infinite regression. I think, however, all but Bob MacDonald miss the context of my definition. Or perhaps Alex gets a part of it as well when he says

There is a time and place for it! I don’t think that any definition will be sufficient to grasp faith, which leads to a question of adequacy. Adequacy is relative to context. Some situations demand a definition of a higher degree of adequacy. In other situations, much can be said for keeping things short and sweet!

But no one seemed to consider the context of the service and the readings listed above. So, when Bob asks “What is believing? What is Action?” My answer is and will be the examples from the readings of the day. In the case of the Gospel it is the combined story of the woman with the hemorrhage who touches his tsitsit “in faith” and is healed and the man whose daughter healed.

To consider the woman, she “said to herself, ‘If I only touch his cloak, I will be made well.’” When she does, Jesus’ response to her is “Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well.” Thus I think I would define her “belief” as the conviction that if she did X she would receive Y and her action would doing something based upon that conviction. The faith that made her well then was the belief in Jesus’ healing ability brought to life by acting upon it. Had she merely held to this belief without ever reaching out to touch his tsitsit then she would not have been healed. What good is that? How does that improve her and we might even ask if she truly believes it if she is afraid or unwilling to act upon her belief.

Now as Bob points out, one of the passages is Rom. 4 and in that passage Paul invokes the famous reference of Abraham’s faith in Gen. 15:6 where we are told that Abraham “believed the LORD; and the LORD reckoned it to him as righteousness.” Even in this case I would argue that Abraham’s “belief” is not simple intellectual assent to a concept but that he believes that God will make his descendants (rather than Eliezer of Damascus’) as numerous as the stars and thus does not pursue the “adoption” of Eliezer. In this case the “action” is ceasing an activity. It is important to note as well that Abraham’s taking of Hagar and producing an heir with her is not going against that belief in God’s promise since Ishmael was Abraham’s descendant. God simply had not made it clear to Abe in Gen. 15 that it would be the product of a union with him and Sarah.

In all of this I am keenly aware that “belief” could be viewed as an awful lot like “faith.” This is where I would introduce a definition of a term, “belief.” I alluded to it a moment ago, that “belief” is an intellectual assent to a concept, such as I believe that my car can achieve 60 MPH. I have faith when I am driving and accelerate past 55 to the (legal limit) 65. Maybe not the best analogy, but perhaps it is useful.

Finally, any conversation on “faith” and the Bible must reference Heb. 11:1 and in fact, during Lent I posted a long thought piece on that passage and further elaborated on it in this post referencing the sacrifices of Cain and Abel.