Bishop Lawrence comments on the recent deposition of Bishop Duncan

I don’t comment publicly or post regularly on the situation in the Episcopal church because it can so easily become an unhealthy obsession for so many people. I encourage myself and encourage my people to focus on Christ and when an action or response becomes necessary for us at Trinity then I will be happy to do whatever is necessary under Christ. Nevertheless, from time to time, important statements are made by people who directly affect our congregational life. Below is one such statement. I encouarge you to read it all.

All of this leads me to believe that the challenges that lie before a predominately conservative diocese like South Carolina have now been enormously increased if only because of the perception of our parishioners and clergy—but, more pertinently from what I fear is a failure of the present House of Bishops to realize just how far from historic Christianity our church has drifted. To many of our minds this, far more than Pittsburgh’s present challenge to TEC’s discipline and polity, is what has led to this current crisis. Beyond this the checks and balances previously given to us in the Constitution & Canons seem profoundly weakened. Phrases long understood as clear apparently can be spoken of as ambiguous. If what appears to be the plain meaning of a canon can be dismissed with apparent ease and with no recourse; if the request from such a monumental gathering as Lambeth 2008 urging greater dialogue and forthright conversation within the body of Christ seems to count for so little here in the first action of the House—even after so many TEC bishops report being profoundly moved by the grace exhibited toward us from those provinces grieved and hindered by our prior actions; and when there seems to be so little recognition that it has been the very actions of our General Convention and HOB in recent years that has so alienated dioceses like San Joaquin, Pittsburgh and others that their laity and clergy vote in such large majorities to remove accession clauses—judicious governance and Christian unity will drain like water from an opened hand. One might have wished for a more generous spirit and greater patience toward our own aggrieved members. Indeed one has to wonder where such tone deafness and purblindness come from.

I hesitate to write such words because I have been treated with respect within the House of Bishop since my first meeting in March 2008, then again at Lambeth, and most recently at this last meeting. But since to hold my words on such a crucial matter will serve no one well, including my own diocese of South Carolina, I try to present these concerns respectfully and for the purpose of more forthright conversations within the House of Bishops and the Church at large.

read it all here

Chistian converts put to death in Iran

Iran’s parliament has passed the death penalty for apostasy, which is viewed in that country as converting to any other faith than Islam.

 Thousands of Iranians have been converting to Christianity, and the underground church is thriving, according to reports. But other Iranians are returning to Zoroastrianism, which was the dominant religion in Iran at one time. Jonathan Rocho, with International Christian Concern (ICC), explains.
 
“We, as a Christian organization, are very much concerned about this because this means many Christians who converted from Islam are going to face death, simply because of their decision to follow Jesus Christ,” Rocho laments.
 
He says Iranians are questioning the Muslim faith after living under the regime, which has been dominated by the religion since the revolution in the 1970s. “They have not seen any change in their lives,” Rocho adds. “There is even more repression, more problems going on in the country, so they are very much confused about the Islamic faith.”
 
Already, two Christian converts accused of apostasy have been given the death penalty. Since Iran does not easily succumb to international pressure, Rocho urges people to pray.

read it all here

How did the feminism of the 1970’s adopt the shallow sexuality and oppresiveness of its patriarchal enemies?

This is a challenging, complex, and immense essay written by Frederica Matthewes-Green. It tends to get off track and ramble at points, but I found it very engaging. I’ve only excerpted what was its most compelling point for me. Read the whole thing by clicking through to the next page and following the link.

There is a pop-sociology concept called “imitating the oppressor,” which means that when a group struggles for a new identity it tends to adopt the values of whoever it perceives to be holding power. Thus, anything that looked “feminine” made feminists uncomfortable, because in the opinion of men it was weak. Why we should think that men were smarter than our mothers and grandmothers was never clear. Most of the time, we acted as if men were made only a little higher than pond scum. Yet we accepted unquestioningly that a man’s life was the ideal life. Everything about men seemed more serious, more important. We felt embarrassed at our soft arms, and betrayed by our soft emotions. Motherhood was a dangerous sidetrack, a self-indulgent hobby that could slow you down. That’s the way men saw it, and who were we to argue? Whatever men treated with contempt was contemptuous; whatever men valued was valuable. And what men valued most was success.

Though I use the term “careerism” to identify this value, I don’t mean that women shouldn’t have careers. I mean rather a half-conscious ideology which holds that the most important thing in life is the rank conferred by a place of employment. It’s as bad for men as it is for women.

Careerism is a foolish idea on many levels, not least because only the most fortunate, and elite, people get to have careers. Most people just have jobs. When I was a young feminist mouthing off about how I was going to be out in the workplace and not stuck at home, my dad gave me a few wise words that, improbably, sunk in even then. He pointed out that most of the people in the world don’t get their fulfillment from the thing that gives them a paycheck. They get their fulfillment from other facets of life: faith, family, hobbies, literature, and music. For most people, a job represents only the hours they must spend each week to earn the free hours in which they can do the things they really care about. Careerism is the misguided notion that work trumps everything else.

Spurgeon: The Gospel does not ask for your consent…it gets it

There is one more word I must notice before I have done with this sweet portion—that is the word “shall.” Oh! I love God’s “shalls” and “wills.” There is nothing comparable to them. Let a man say “shall,” what is it good for? “I will,” says man, and he never performs; “I shall,” says he, and he breaks his promise. But it is never so with God’s “shalls.” If he says “shall,” it shall be; when he says “will,” it will be. Now he has said here, “many shall come.” The devil says “they shall not come;” but “they shall come.” Their sins say “you can’t come;” God says “you shall come.” You, yourselves, say, “you won’t come;” God says “you shall come.” Yes! There are some here who are laughing at salvation, who can scoff at Christ and mock at the gospel; but I tell you some of you shall come yet. “What!” you say, “can God make me become a Christian?” I tell you yes, for herein rests the power of the gospel. It does not ask you consent; but it gets it. It does not say, Will you have it? But it makes you willing in the day of God’s power. Not against your will, but it makes you willing. It shows you its value, and then you fall in love with it; and straightway you run after it and have it. Many people have said, “we will not have anything to do with religion.” yet they have been converted. I have heard of a man who once went to chapel to hear the singing, and as soon as the minister began to preach, he put his fingers in his ears and would not listen. But by-and-by some tiny insect settled on his face, so that he was obliged to take one finger out of his ears to brush it away. Just then the minister said, “he that hath ears to hear let him hear.” The man listened; and God met with him at that moment to his soul’s conversion. He went out a new man, a changed character. He who came in to laugh retired to pray; he who came in to mock went out to bend his knee in penitence; he who entered to spend an idle hour went home to spend an hour in devotion with his God. The sinner became a saint; the profligate became a penitent. Who know that there may not be some like that here? The gospel wants not your consent, it gets it. It knocks the enmity out of your heart.

Excellent Luther Quote Courtesy of Charlie Jordan

Luther’s “little point” would have most assuredly been the soteriological aspects of Reformation theology, which will always be a battle as long as this first world endures. Nevertheless, I find this applicable on so many fronts that I would be curious about your thoughts.

If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point. (Luther’s Works. Weimar Edition. Briefwechsel [Correspondence], vol. 3, pp. 81f.)

Leadership: Framing the Church (A Vision for the Future Session 3)

A VISION FOR THE FUTURE
SESSION 3: LEADERSHIP: FRAMING A CHURCH

Recap: In our first week together we discussed how the foundation of the church is the Word of God. In our second week together we discussed how the Word of God points directly towards God’s saving action on Golgotha. Today we will be discussing what God uses to build a church once a firm foundation of the Gospel has been laid in a community of believers.

After a foundation has been laid, the process of framing begins. The frame is what will eventually give the house its shape, style and beauty. In the church, the leadership is the frame. Built on the foundation of the Gospel, gathering its strength from the Gospel and being bound by it, the leadership shapes, styles, and beautifies the church into a group of people who reflect the glory of God.

John Piper: The Grace of a Transformed Life

When the divine command comes to a butterfly, “Fly!” it feels no burden, no fear, no guilt. It just does what it has been made to do: it flies—and sings to the grace of God with every flap of the wing. It has the new nature of a flier that it didn’t have when it was a larva in the cocoon. That is what Scougal means by the “vital principle” of true religion in the soul.

But when the divine command comes to the larva in the cocoon, “Fly!” it does not fly. Instead it has three options for how it can respond. 1) It can sink in despair and say, “I can’t fly! There is no hope for me!” Or 2) it can soar in self-deceit and say, “I am flying! See, there is the ground way down there.” Or 3) it can do what St. Augustine did and cry out, “Command what you will, and grant what you command—Make me a butterfly, O my God!”

The true and wonderful thing about the comparison is that it points to the necessity and the miracle of the new birth. To be a Christian is to have a new vital principle of life in the soul so that the commands of God are not oppressive, but are the beckoning of a beautiful spring day and the aroma of a flower-filled garden. By the grace of God we have been transformed into butterflies. The life of God has come to dwell in our soul and it is now our nature to be up and flying for the Savior.

read it all here

Men’s Bible study resumes Sept. 25, 7:15 a.m.

If you are looking for previous study guides and or course schedules please go to A Vision for the Future under “categories”

What a treat: Woody Allen interviews Billy Graham

This is a charming, fun, and at times laugh out loud interview.  Allen is respectful and funny as you would expect.  Graham graciously and faithfully conveys the Biblical truth in a gentle and witty manner.  Be sure to watch both parts! 

watch part II by clicking through to

entertainment preaching vs. Bible (or..real) preaching

I’m posting this so you might know what to look for in a preacher but also that those of you who attend worship at Trinity, Myrtle Beach might hold your clergy accountable to the faithful, engaging, relevant and clear preaching and expositing of the Scriptures. Accept nothing less!

The difference between an entertainment-oriented preacher and a Bible-oriented preacher is the manifest connection of the preacher’s words to the Bible as what authorizes what he says.

The entertainment-oriented preacher gives the impression that he is not tethered to an authoritative book in what he says. What he says doesn’t seem to be shaped and constrained by an authority outside himself. He gives the impression that what he says has significance for reasons other than that it manifestly expresses the meaning and significance of the Bible. So he seems untethered to objective authority.

The entertainment-oriented preacher seems to be at ease talking about many things that are not drawn out of the Bible. In his message, he seems to enjoy more talking about other things than what the Bible teaches. His words seem to have a self-standing worth as interesting or fun. They are entertaining. But they don’t give the impression that this man stands as the representative of God before God’s people to deliver God’s message.

The Bible-oriented preacher, on the other hand, does see himself that way—“I am God’s representative sent to God’s people to deliver a message from God.” He knows that the only way a man can dare to assume such a position is with a trembling sense of unworthy servanthood under the authority of the Bible. He knows that the only way he can deliver God’s message to God’s people is by rooting it in and saturating it with God’s own revelation in the Bible.

read it all here

what does the next president of the United States believe about….

everything from abortion to homeland security in this very helpful resource here

R.C. Sproul on Hell

not a figment of a fundamentalist's imagination

There is no biblical concept more grim or terror-invoking than the idea of hell. It is so unpopular with us that few would give credence to it at all except that it comes to us from the teaching of Christ Himself.

Almost all the biblical teaching about hell comes from the lips of Jesus. It is this doctrine, perhaps more than any other, that strains even the Christian’s loyalty to the teaching of Christ. Modern Christians have pushed the limits of minimizing hell in an effort to sidestep or soften Jesus’ own teaching. The Bible describes hell as a place of outer darkness, a lake of fire, a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth, a place of eternal separation from the blessings of God, a prison, a place of torment where the worm doesn’t turn or die. These graphic images of eternal punishment provoke the question, should we take these descriptions literally or are they merely symbols?

I suspect they are symbols, but I find no relief in that. We must not think of them as being merely symbols. It is probable that the sinner in hell would prefer a literal lake of fire as his eternal abode to the reality of hell represented in the lake of fire image. If these images are indeed symbols, then we must conclude that the reality is worse than the symbol suggests. The function of symbols is to point beyond themselves to a higher or more intense state of actuality than the symbol itself can contain. That Jesus used the most awful symbols imaginable to describe hell is no comfort to those who see them simply as symbols.

 

read it all here

Announcing grim, yet popular new category…HELL

One of the features of WordPress is that I am able to see what articles people are reading and what search terms people are using to find their way to this blog. Consistently one of the most sought after topics by readers of AwakeningGrace has been the topic of Hell.  So I am starting a new category: “Hell”.  Here’s why:

1. It is by far the most frequently searched term on this blog by its readers
2. It is important that Christians know what the cross of Christ has saved them from so they might be grateful
3. It is important for unrepentant sinners to know the eternal penalty of their sins so they might turn to Christ and be saved
4. It is important to proclaim a Biblical truth that is largely neglected by today’s mainstream Christianity

So for those of you interested, just look for “Hell” under the categories list for the full archive…

over at DesiringGod came across this little gem…

David Mathis posted this excerpt from Mark Driscoll on the offensive yet attractive cross of Christ

The curious paradox of the atoning death of a bloody Jesus rising above the plane of human history with a mocking crown of thorns is that he is offensive in an attractive way. It is the utter horror of the cross that cuts through the chatter, noise, and nonsense of our day to rivet our attention, shut our mouths, and compel us to listen to an impassioned dying man who is crying out for the forgiveness of our sins and to ask why he suffered. Tragically, if we lose the offense of the cross, we also lose the attraction of the cross so that no one is compelled to look at Jesus. Therefore, Jesus does not need a marketing firm or a makeover as much as a prophet to preach the horror of the cross unashamedly. (Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches, 33, emphasis added)

check it out here

Steve Wood’s predictions for TEC in 2009

I think that the marriage (in States where the legislature or courts have ruled this legal) or blessing of same-sex persons will be authorized at General Convention 2009.

I think that the 2009 General Convention will modify the “Dennis Canon”, giving the National Church property ownership (it’s hard to remember that until 1979 PARISHES “owned” their property – not the Diocese or National Church).

I think that many in leadership at the 2009 General Convention will be content to walk apart from the Anglican Communion.

I think that based on the experience with women’s ordination the 2009 General Convention will debate, and defeat, a “conscious clause” with regard to same-sex ordinations and blessings/marriages. 

I think that the above actions will render it impossible for anyone left from “my side” to remain within TEC (though, of course, some will).

What I hope:

That a new North American Anglican Province is formed in the very near future.

check out the whole thing here