Taking TRUTH seriously... & Politics in Russia
- http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/02/24/putin1/index.html (in English)
As Long As We All Get Along
Chuck Colson (archive)
February 5, 2004 | Print | Send
Peter James Lee was one of the sixty Episcopal bishops who voted to approve
the appointment of Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, as bishop of New
Hampshire. Since the vote, Lee has faced stiff opposition from conservative
evangelical churches in his diocese.
In his speech to the annual meeting of his diocese, Bishop Lee said this,
"If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose
I can think of nothing more dangerous. What Lee is basically saying is that
we can tolerate anything within the Church just to keep the Church
What would cause someone to think this way? In part there is much at stake
economically in keeping things the way they are. Schism is the enemy
because pastors' retirements and church properties get threatened if you
break away from a denomination?as do bishops' reputations. But putting
personal int! erest ahead of truth, sacrificing truth on the altar of what
we call unity? No. And it's not real unity; it's expediency.
The second reason for putting unity over truth is that American Christians
of all stripes?evangelical, as well as liberal?no longer take truth
seriously. David Brooks in a recent New York Times column made the point
that Americans believe that, "In the final days, the distinctions will fade
away, and we will all be united in God's embrace. This happy assumption has
meant that millions feel free to try on different denominations at
different points in their lives, and many Americans have had trouble taking
religious doctrines altogether seriously."
As a result, says Brooks, we tend to think that all people of good will are
"basically on the same side," we practice religion that is easygoing and
experiential rather than rigorous and intellectual, and we "have trouble
sustaining culture wars."
The result is that, like Bishop Lee, we've fal! len into this mushy
ecumenism, believing that doctrines and distinctions make little or no
difference. But our forebears, particularly in the Reformation tradition,
didn't shed their blood for retirement plans, for buildings, or for a cozy
sense that everybody is okay. They shed their blood for truth.
All other considerations, whether we're seeker-sensitive or liturgical,
whether we're taking care of our retirement plans or building new
additions, everything is secondary to the preservation and defense of
This applies to every church, not just the Episcopal church. In my
experience, Bible-believing churches can sometimes be as unwilling to apply
church discipline over matters of truth and morality as Bishop Lee. One
politician I know boasts about his faith while voting for gay rights and
against the partial-birth abortion ban. Not only is he not disciplined by
his church in the name of truth, but he gets time and again to speak in the
pulpit. Anything else! , of course, might cause disunity.
As Pogo said, "We have just met the enemy, and he is us." It's all well and
good for evangelicals to sit around and say "those crazy Episcopalians."
But they're just reflecting what all of us do in lesser degrees. And Lee's
words ought to be a sobering wake-up call to us all.
- True; the only heresy in Anglicanism is schism.
--- In email@example.com, byakimov@c... wrote:
> http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/02/24/putin1/index.html (in
> As Long As We All Get Along
> Chuck Colson (archive)
> February 5, 2004 | Print | Send
> Peter James Lee was one of the sixty Episcopal bishops who voted
> the appointment of Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, as bishop of
> Hampshire. Since the vote, Lee has faced stiff opposition from
> evangelical churches in his diocese.
> In his speech to the annual meeting of his diocese, Bishop Lee
> "If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Benjamin William Champley
Waterhouse" <bwmc_waterhouse@h...> wrote:
> True; the only heresy in Anglicanism is schism.I don't wish to appear argumentative, but for the sake of
accuracy, don't the Anglicans recite the Creed with the
heretical filioque insertion ?
Love in Christ,
- Dear Reader John,
My statement was from their point of view!! I don't think I could
enumerate their actual heresies in less time than reading the
--- In email@example.com, "ICXC_NIKA_"
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Benjamin William Champley
> Waterhouse" <bwmc_waterhouse@h...> wrote:
> > True; the only heresy in Anglicanism is schism.
> I don't wish to appear argumentative, but for the sake of
> accuracy, don't the Anglicans recite the Creed with the
> heretical filioque insertion ?
> Love in Christ,
> Deacon John