Anglicanism: Conciliar and Confessional

Why not BOTH? Or are they necessarily exclusive?

The attempt by sects to affirm one and deny the other is the source of the current ire in The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). Anglicanism (for better or for worse) has been one of synthesis (current state). In fact, according to one of my professors, our dear JI Packer so strongly believed in the theological process that he would endorse almost every book he was asked to endorse. He had a childlike trust that the Holy Spirit was guiding the Church into all truth!

In any case, there is a polemical argument in arguing for either confessionalism or conciliarism over against the other. However, I look to these two and see the potential, as an alternative to the fighting, for synthesis. I tend to see the Church as a Court. God is judge, he appoints representatives. He has given us his law (a confession, if you will allow this characterization) and has appointed a court to test every spirit (a council, if you will allow this characterization). To be sure, not everything is to be tried by Church courts (e.g., synods), but dealt with at the lowest level possible (see Matthew 18) where possible.

The Church of England, by an Anglo-Catholic conception, started as a synthesis between Evangelicals, Anglo-Catholics, and Liberals. I have not sought to prove nor disprove this thesis, but I accept it for sake of discussion. It is interesting that in the recent formation of the ACNA, one could argue that allowing liberalism to achieve its Telos has resulted in the schism. In fact, it has been noted (circa 1930s?) that the Evangelicals grouped Liberals and Anglo-Catholics together in their minds and thinking “they are in charge of the Episcopal Church,” while the Anglo-Catholics saw Liberals as distinct from themselves and thought “they are in charge.” Liberalization is by nature or at least allows for progressivism.

Whether or not the original Liberals were so bad is not here being considered but that their heirs have fractured the American Church (as well as others) with a rival confession. Does this mean that confessions are important? More than important, they are inescapable. Just like liturgy can be written down or not, or tradition can be acknowledged or dismissed, both of them as well as confessions are facts of life and are inescapable. That is not to say that every liturgy, tradition, or confession is well-developed, but that they exist, even if only in seminal form.

So is the ACNA headed for a confessional threshing? But of course! To think otherwise would be disingenuous, or at the very least ignorant. I believe the Anglo-Catholics see the coming threshing. I believe there are Evangelicals who look forward to the coming threshing (not that they should as it will be a day of weeping and gnashing).

But what is to be done?

First, the Anglo-Catholics have Francis J. Hall’s Anglican Dogmatics! Good for them. But do the Evangelicals have an Anglican Systematic Theology? Nope, not so good for them, especially in an upcoming Confessional (i.e., theological) threshing. So, adherents of each confession needs to sit down and write out their theologies: ecumenical and polemical, dogmatic and adiaphora, systematic and biblical, etc.

Second, reestablish Church Discipline. I don’t mean spanking people. I mean Church order. Are dissenters allowed to be ordained in the ACNA? This is a set up for failure. What are the minimum confessional requirements for ordination? How loosey-goosey is one allowed to be on the 39 Articles of Religion? It also means censure. Now I don’t want to see the ACNA turn in to some brand of witch hunting that many people have experienced in American fundamentalist Churches. But it does need to have standards.

Third, cast the mold for how we move forward in a Church having rival confessions. Come let us reason together, taking counsel apart, taking council together. Should we be conciliar? I think it’s also inescapable. There is no organization without people. There is no holding together without a kind of consensus (manufactured or actual). Thus there is no Church without a Council.

Historically, it seems that the synod, classis, presbytery, or similar have been the council of the various Church bodies holding court. This has been circumvented by standing committees which have exercised an outsized influence over the conciliar process, which needs to be reassessed by each Church body if we are to be truly conciliar (see Crossed Fingers: How the Liberals Captured the Presbyterian Church).

Beyond that, I’m not ignoring the larger Church at council (“conciliarism”), it’s just we haven’t seen one in a while and it may be that we need to get our “sectarian” councils operating properly so that we can be experienced enough to run a contemporaneous Council of the Church.

Returning to the recent American Anglican schism­—I’ll ask a pertinent question to this whole ordeal—could we have kept the liberal progressives in the Church? Or to put it another way, could we have kept the Church together with liberal progressives in our midst?

Yes.

Yes, but…

Yes, but their positive energies and motivations needed to be properly directed (constrained). It is far easier to let their progressive spirit (i.e., a desire to change things while pursuing their ideals) venture them off the deep end and then excommunicate them. It is much more difficult (and we weary so easily in well-doing) to train them up in the nurture and admonition of the LORD!

I mean, can you imagine it? Can you take someone with an ingrained wild, progressive spirit, teach them the ways of the LORD and then release them on the world? What would it be like?

Could someone take their idealism into the Church, not be unduly polemical (divisive), not change things for change’ sake, and seek the pure washing of the bride of Christ with the pure water of the Word? Could someone take their “progressivism” and seek the reforming of the Church? Could someone take their rebellious spirit of individualism and yet submit to biblical authorities? Could someone take their holistic brain and train it in sequential logic?

But of course. That’s me :) That being said, it was a long road and fraught journey.

Last thoughts.

Can East meet West? Some people think that is what characterizes Anglicanism.

Can Confession meet Council? I think history is clear on this point, but we resist.

Led by Children, Good or Bad?

Children Leading, a Bad Thing?

“I will make mere youths their officials; children will rule over them.” Isaiah 3:4 (NIV 2011)

This was judgment, it was not a good thing. It is interesting that the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK) cross-references this verse to several verses about the child kings in the Old Testament (OT). I had not thought that the boy-king Josiah's rule was a result of judgment: a bad thing. But it does make some sense.

Josiah became king because his father was judged. Okay, sure. So it may not be the fact that a child is ruling that is in itself a bad thing, but that it came about because of bad things. This squares with what comes later in Isaiah about future blessings of old age. If the people of God are blessed, children won't be forced to take the leadership roles.

Children Leading, a Good Thing?

The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. Isaiah 11:6

I have always taken this passage literally. It's a wolf. It's a lamb. Next question...

But as I was listening to this, it occurred to me that we refer to evil people as wolves and the average person as a sheep. Ah, the people that once preyed upon others will do so no longer! This is what the passage is talking about, righteousness and justice. It is also the case that in other parts of Isaiah animals and plants represent people, so it squares.

This brings us to the point about children leading. In the way I used to read it, children will be able to pet lions, tigers, and bears, Oh My! While I don't want to throw that away, I don't think that's the point of the passage. It's talking about people, much of Isaiah does that with metaphors.

So this means that a child will lead people, a blessing in this context!

Uh...

If children are in charge, how do we know if we're being cursed or being blessed?

Good question. Let's look at a few more verses.

How Shall Children Lead?

Through the praise of children and infants you have established a stronghold against your enemies, to silence the foe and the avenger. Psalm 8:2

We have considered the auspices under which children ascend to the throne of leadership (Isaiah 3:4). We have considered the type of society that children would lead (Isaiah 11:6). But we have not talked about what would characterize their leadership.

In Psalm 8:2 we see a childlike trust in the Lord, because we know they don't have the experience to fight and win. Jesus refers to this kind of faith. Cleverness and shrewdness have their place, but trusting in the Lord should characterize us and our leadership. In fact, a child could lead. Not by their knowledge, skills, and abilities, but by their faith. Their faith in God.

Interestingly, when you've worked for the federal government for 17 years, you realize just how much the system relies on faith. Even leaders step out on faith to lead. So is it really any different? Man has been reduced to faith in man, but God asks us to place our faith in Him. In this way, any child of God could lead, because all of the support we give to bad leaders anyways, could instead be given to children who lead with their faith in God.

Now, don't misunderstand.

I'd prefer someone with experience AND a childlike trust in Jesus to lead our society.

Why can't we have both? How do we get there?

Lead by Example: Be a Leader Worth Following

“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Matthew 18:6

I know, I know. It's not talking about "children." But it is talking about how you lead people and by consequence how you raise up the next generation of leadership. And that's my point here. How we lead will have an impact on how those who come after us will lead. "More is caught than taught."

Conclusion

IF your society has justice…

IF your children trust Jesus…

They will LEAD us in praise! 

That's my point. So beware, dear reader. You have been warned. Do you practice justice, righteousness, and faithfulness? Do you inspire others to trust and place faith in Jesus?

IF NOT we'll be left will childish leaders. 

Hmm. 

What kind of leaders do you think we have today? And is your response to criticize the leaders or to practice justice? Oh, I'm the one who doesn't understand??? Oh well, I'll go back to reading Isaiah.

Research Notes on Creation, Theology, and Science

Institute for Creation Research

Principles of Scientific Creationism https://www.icr.org/tenets

Master of Christian Education (M.C.Ed.) https://icr.edu/mced

Why am I posting articles titled "Research Notes"?

 I am in the beginning stages of designing/architecting a website as a repository for my notes, writings, sermons, exegetical sermon notes, blog posts, opinions, outlines for books and articles, etc. It is intended to be developmental: a public blog, a subscriber forum, and a supporter portal.

For now, that means I need to transition from saving everything as a Gmail Draft to blog posts, partly for ensuring the information gets saved more securely, but also forcing me to turn disorganized notes into organized notes (public viewing driving accountability to that end!)

So if you actually read this nearly shallow pulsed blog, I apologize for the uptick in dry content posts...but you'll gain an insight into what's going into the project that's getting underway.

Research Notes on Bible Commentaries

 Isaiah Commentaries

https://bestcommentaries.com/isaiah/

I found this while trying to find a copy of a book (from a commentary) that I need for my Isaiah class I'm taking this Spring!

Research Notes on Federal Vision Theology

Keyboards warriors, unite!

Ha ha. 

I got into a conversation with a few people on the internet and of course there were disagreements; this time it was about the Federal Vision (FV) controversy. But I don't merely agree to disagree nor do I retreat to entrenched commitments. Instead I go into research mode.

I reread some old things, re-watched some old things, but I also found new things too.

Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church's Response to FV

First, I'll post what I was looking for: Analyzing the Federal Vision, Woodruff Road Presbyterian https://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?seriesonly=true&sourceid=woodruffroad&keyword=Analyzing+The+Federal+Vision.

The quality of the recordings are subpar, but the content is essential. There are more recent exposés on YT that have better sound, video, and production, but this is the one my pastor gave us to watch back in 2008 or something like that.

Thus, its relevance is that it was distributed by an agent of the Church and was much closer in time to the controversy. Also, it is relevant in reminding me what I watched so that I don't misquote it some 15 years after watching it (I have a decent memory for such things, but not a perfect one).

Drs Pipa and Waters

Dr. Joseph A. Pipa, Jr. and Dr. Guy P. Waters are really smart guys. Pipa can be a bit strong with the rhetoric, but he's not wrong. You can see his credentials here: https://gpts.edu/about/faculty-staff/pipa/. As a result of watching this, I requested information about Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary 15 years ago. I still think I have the compact disk, LOL!

Waters was a bit dry but I liked the informative approach. He works at Reformed Theological Seminary: https://rts.edu/people/dr-guy-waters/. He has also written a book on paedocommunion: https://rts.edu/resources/children-and-the-lords-supper/. 

Drs Venema and Strange

I also listened to Dr. Cornelis P. Venema and Dr. Alan D. Strange. Venema has done some good work on the New Perspectives on Paul controversy and you can see his credentials here: https://www.midamerica.edu/faculty/cornelis-venema. He's also got a book on paedocommunion: http://marsbooksonline.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=18. But he deferred to Strange on the FV controversy.

Strange is at the same seminary as Venema: https://www.midamerica.edu/faculty/alan-strange. He did a wonderfully irenic treatment of the FV pastors. I thought he was spot on but also charitable. You can listen to that here: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sid=6300622337.

Orthodox Presbyterian Church Statement on FV

https://opc.org/nh.html?article_id=478

Presbyterian Church in America General Assembly Minutes (addresses FV)

https://www.pcahistory.org/pca/ga/33rd_pcaga_2005.pdf (PDF warning!)

Thus ends my notes from 2023-01-07 (really though, 2023-01-03).

To Build a Movement, to Develop Focus, and to Hatch a Plan

MVV

Core Value(s): To #ReturnToGod through Jesus Christ.

Mission: To work alongside #CoreligionistsAndCobelligerents

Vision: To build towards #TheFutureCity in the New Earth.

As a statement:

#ReturnToGod and work with #CoreligionistsAndCobelligerents to build #TheFutureCity.

This statement takes the form of Initial, Progressive, Final, or in other words Already, but Not Yet.

Strategic Planning

1. Define your vision
2. Assess where you are
3. Determine your priorities and objectives
4. Define responsibilities
5. Measure and evaluate results

(Taken from: https://www.mural.co/blog/strategic-planning-process)

1. The vision of #TheFutureCity needs to be fleshed out. There are many visions out there. Every person, generation, intellectual camp, etc. has to set down their vision. My vision is the one that I can see most conforms to the vision I see in the Christian Bible, most notably in the book of Revelation. It is a theonomic theocracy (more on that later), a monarchial kritarchy, etc. (more terms for "archy" and "cracy" can be found here: https://phrontistery.info/govern.html).

2. The mission of working alongside #CoreligionistsAndCobelligerents is where we are at today. There are problems in public schools that we must fight along with other theists who are fighting those battles. There are problems in our laws that we must fight along with cultural Christians, Supreme Court Justices, Congress men and women, etc. You get the point. Insisting on only working with "the pure" will necessarily lead to failure of achieving our goals. "The Pure" do not exist, if you think they do, you yourself will eventually be excised from that group anyways, so what's the point?

3. Theology provides the foundation for all of life and thought. Start there. If you started somewhere else or left, #ReturnToGod.

4. This is something that will be done as the movement is fleshed out. In any case, each person should act in accordance with their conscience. So, take the principles we will present here and work them out! A lot of people will resist anything that's prescriptive, but some people crave structure (due to personality or other factors). Also children, the immature, or those with aging mental faculties could greatly benefit from that which is prescriptive. We shouldn't shy away from that which is prescriptive, we should shy away from totalitarian/authoritarian methods of enforcing prescriptions. We should also be charitable about them as they are often adiaphora, open-handed. The prescriptiveness of some religions are drawing people to them, Christians should consider it.

5. Time will tell. However, we will look to develop SMART Goals! Plan, Do, Check, Act is another methodology which can be employed (with some modifications, or at least clarity of actually understanding the methodology). This is often clarified by true understanding of mission and vision. Where there is no vision, God's people perishes. Often when we truly understand the problem, antithesis, whatever, the solutions seem to readily present themselves.

You don't fit in, neither do I.

Maybe this rant will make you feel better...

But, for everyone else who's thinking that my credo really is, "I am Wimpy, hear me whine!" just hear me out.

Keep the Faith! Please don't give up because of me being "me".

I'm sorry for being quick to react. I need to work on it.

Of course sugar and stimulants don't help, but they're not the problem...

Of course my upbringing didn't help, but it's not the problem...

Of course the church doesn't seem to know how to help, but it's not the problem...

Of course you have the same exact problems as me, but you're not the problem...

How do I deal with my emotions in a healthy way? Do I react and try to "fix it"? Do I sit and have a good cry before I do anything rash?

Has anyone modeled what "healthy emotions" looks like? Not what worldly wisdom says is healthy, of course.

Is every decision supposed to be scrupulously calculated? Am I supposed to let emotions take the wheel from time to time? Even if that means I lose friends, break trust, and find myself alone in the world?

When must emotions be expressed or when should they be suppressed? I'd be quickly categorized a "narcissist" by people around me.

So, is that how I get the "people skills", by being my "authentic self" in full (un)glory? After which, people would help me grow and develop...right? Eh, No.

They'd hate me. For being so judgmental, though I'd be reflecting back to the world the judgmental-ism that I feel.

They'd leave me. For being mean, though I'd be reflecting back to the world its own meanness.

They'd cancel me. For being different, though they said, "Be yourself!"

'No, Michael, if you'd just give us a chance...'

I thought I did.

I thought you rejected "me".

I've changed to suit you, but I'm still not good enough.

I'm alone.

And I'm not alone.

There are countless of us rejected by the world.

We have been rejected, ostracized, oppressed, persecuted, enslaved, and killed.

Some of us have come to terms: c'est la vie, "that's life".

Some of us have changed to suit the world to fit in where we can.

But we are still estranged.

I have found these people.

Some are religious, but not all.

I am.

They say I'd make a good pastor. They'd come to my church.

"Religious people" don't like "me", though.

I don't have "people skills".

I think it's that I don't "tickle their ears".

In my study of psychology, this is likelier an answer. Do I have my problems?

Yes, of course, but we all do. The way I see the world seems to be so different from the hegemonic ways for which people seem to clamor.

That's not me. But...

Like St. Paul, I'll try---I'll try to be "all things to all people". How?

I don't have a FUMEING CLUE.

Help!

Jesus, please help me. 

Everyone Has an Opinion and They...

Aw Shucks!

I posted my opinion on my social media page...

And someone said I was wrong!

BUT, their point wasn't about what I said, their response intimated that I was wrong to say it.

What nerve! I was over it, until...

They used the same form of argument (what I call, "the fight for truth") to support a different cause.

***WHAT?!***

Does this person "get it"? I don't think so. And if I said anything...I don't think we'd be friends on social media after that.

So...

Instead, I take up my "pen" (keyboard) to get my thoughts straight and put them out of my mind (literally) and onto the screen.

First, I'll record my 4/30/20 post here (in response to this video):

No arrests were made, thank God.

Do not read the following if you cannot handle [your own] cognitive dissonance:

In my internal monologue, Christians should never have stopped their religious rites. From the beginning there were contrarian epidemiologists who said Do Not Quarantine.

Interestingly, there were epidemiologists (not contrarian) who said We Are Already Too Late to implement mass quarantines.

I really do believe that we are obeying man out of fear (God is not the author of fear), instead of God. God says, "do not forsake gathering together."

'But God, we have livestreaming, video conferencing, and virtual communion!'

"Hmm. You're right. Your virtual obedience will be granted a virtual reward."

Remember, this is my internal monologue...

If this is acceptable, then it will be acceptable if I "virtual church" after the hysteria passes. If that is not acceptable, then why is forsaking gatherings acceptable now?

The science doesn't even support it. I want to be faithful to God and science (immunology). Both say you must have contact to Live.

But my God ordained authorities [civil and religious] say, "stay home." Since I haven't heard of any religious leaders in my area still meeting, I am resigned to unconscionable obedience or unconscionable rebellion.

Though my conscience has been violated, rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. So that's worse. Hence my example of obedience from the beginning.

I ask God to break in on my internal monologue: should I move to a state/county where they didn't shut down? Should I move to a denomination that didn't shut down?

It doesn't exist. You can only find small pockets of resistance. Even I'm not resisting, but I am speaking out. Now you know why. Now you know my dissenting opinion.

But I've always been a contrarian. So this is no different. There is no place where this son of Adam can lay his head. Which is why, "here" is as good a place as any to take my stand.

Here I stand, I can do no other. I'm not resisting. It's not in my nature. But I'll not forsake truth.

I think breaking up this funeral to be a violation of the [constitutional right to] free practice of religion. I think quarantining the healthy and forbidding church gatherings to be a violation of the [constitutional right to] free practice of religion and peaceably assemble.

I believe the religious leaders' absolute obedience to the state to be a violation of God's law.

Before anyone tries to break into my internal monologue (which you are obviously free to do as I'm posting this publicly), I will tell you my basis of belief (so you don't have to waste your time).

I believe in the absolute inerrancy, infallibility of the Holy Scriptures as the Words of God. I hold a conservative approach to theology. Thus, I reject modernist interpretations (evolutionary theory, etc). I reject elitist interpretations (new perspective on Paul, etc).

I believe in obedience to authority and in holding our authorities accountable to the truth. No schism; unless they want to take off your head, then maybe schism.

I believe laissez faire is a biblical approach to the civil sphere. So my economics are Austrian (free market), my sociology is conservative.

I hold that most people are scientifically illiterate, to some degree. And those who fashion themselves to be "of science" are like the scientists that Isaac Newton was deathly afraid of (he was neurotic, but they were too political).

There is nothing "settled" in science. What "we know" is really what we believe based on our current understanding. You will always find reputable scientists disagreeing on the correct interpretation of the evidence.

You will always find scientists in politics, who seek to impose their view as the only orthodox position. Sadly this happens in the church too.

If you want to argue, I will always come back to these foundations, because it's why I believe what I believe. I know my "Why", do you know yours?

There were several decent comments and I gave thoughtful responses whether the commenters agreed with me or not.

One comment rubbed me the wrong way.

It has been my experience that, no matter how much you disagree with your bishop, it is best to work to agree with he who God has made your shepherd. It is what we vowed to do...even if it costs us everything.

I responded:

 It has been my experience that, in order to "work to agree", the disagreement must be clearly stated.

I lack either truth (egregious), understanding (major), or clarity (minor).

Without searching out the matter, your medicine may be prescribed in error.

Without a conversation, how am I to know what I need to repent of?

I have a blog length, stream of conscious response if you're interested. It should be enough to help you understand where I'm at and to properly assess what kind of assistance I may require.

Thank you for your concern and taking the time to comment, I appreciate all feedback, even if I disagree or dislike it. I can only grow from the interactions :)

They did not respond.

Oh well.

I don't know if they lack either the ability or desire to respond. It surely makes it difficult to "speak with my enemies [frenemies, and even friends] in the gates."

I wrote a much longer, stream-of-conscious response that I did not post. I considered making it a blog post, but did not do that either. I thought the short response was better. But, I'll include my longer response here [with minor edits].

What I wanted to say...

Thanks for commenting! I appreciate the sentiment. 

But [your point is] similar to what I was sidestepping when I started attending and joined my current [Anglican Church in North America] ACNA parish. 

Although I didn't abandon my former [Presbyterian Church in America] PCA church or the [Orthodox Presbyterian Church] OPC to which I considered myself to be an adherent of. I waited until the Navy moved me from SC to WA, to make the switch.

I would have agonized over leaving if I was a permanent resident in SC and still member of that church.

In consideration of the argument of authority that you brought in, should I go back to the PCA? Should I seek to formally transfer my membership out of the PCA? Does authority mean that I cannot disagree? Is it a silencing? When can I speak out for truth? When can I pursue it without fear of man? Any man?

I'm merely an aspirant [assuming you think I'm ordained, I'm not]. The ordination vows are one of the things that holds me back from relentless pursuit of ordination. My lack of [a Master of Divinity Degree] MDiv is what stops them from pursuing me, so to speak. 

One of the main reasons I left the PCA was my being convinced of paedocommunion. How could I stay and work towards agreement in that case? What about the lack of true Christian discipleship [that I did not get]? Not a lack of desire, but effective implementation. Or is assent merely enough?

I'm good enough at "playing the game" to know that I'm terrible at it and I don't care as much [about that] as I should care. I say, "No, no!" But then I obey anyways. Others say, "Yes, yes!" And get advanced to further their agendas. Who has done the will of the Bishop?

I am obeying. Am I to be silent? If I do not speak/write constructively, the fire in me will burn destructively.

If you can teach me to quench the prophetic spirit, I will follow your advice. I'd rather not carry this burden to [seemingly] feel everyone's pain and [ostensibly] know the truth being withheld from them.

My professional employers to date have tried to snuff it out. But I get the feeling that I can't give up, that I'm not supposed to. It doesn't mean that I'm going to do everything right, it means that I'm going to do what God has created me to do, but I'm willing to be corrected along the way.

How can I incorporate your correction? Can we sharpen iron and get to brass tacks in this matter?

Please don't mistake my questions as resistance. I really want to know. But I go deep into whatever I pursue, so you've got to be patient with my questioning and not take it personal (hard to do, I know).

To let you in on my process, I reduce everything into propositional thinking, if I can. This is why it can be tiring. If I'm wrong to do so--is it wrong for me to have left the independent Baptist Church when I left home for college and attended the OPC? Is it wrong for me to have left behind homophobia, legalism, bullying? No? Then after all that I've left behind in the pursuit of truth, why now have I seriously misstepped? Why is there a tendency among the ordained to mistake [what should be] servant leadership with authoritarian leadership (often in minute [or "seed"] form)?

Why do I notice and why does it bother me so much? And yet, I say nothing. Where is the forum in which I can faithfully express myself? I don't hold self-expression over faithfulness. But neither do I hold faithfulness as a lack of self-expression.

Matthew 18 suggests that if you're correcting me, that you do so privately. And if I resist, that you bring along others to establish the two witnesses requirement of biblical law.

I am not correcting my Bishop or priest [otherwise I'd be violating Matthew 18]. I have seen my priest act in [obedient to God] subversion to the state (according to my understanding), for which I am grateful, but I wasn't going to state it in the [original post] OP, for fear of getting him in trouble. 

More than correcting, I am writing in exasperation. And asking the question, which you did not answer, but instead told me to accept it and seek to agree with it.

I cannot seek to agree with it IF you give me no reasons. I must have the "why?" answered to be able to agree with it, given everything that I know. 

IF I did not post, everyone would think me in alignment. I would be certified "good" even if I [actually] disagreed or did not understand.

Instead, I question, in hopes that my concerns can be addressed, which makes me "bad" and not able to be certified [as "on the team"].

This is how it was in the previous bureaucratic hierarchy that I was employed by. I do not wish for this to be my future once again.

How am I to employ the gifts that God has given me? I'll rear seven boys with the same beliefs, but [to your apparent chagrin] they'll have more courage than I to stand and fight. Unless someone can tell me where I err on my thinking [I won't be changing how I bring them up].

Can you? Will you? I'd love to chat. I have no fear of being absolutely transparent. Either I'm mad or a "true believer". You tell me. Could I know if I was mad?

Everyone tells me I have such great kids, but they don't like to hear how I get the results. [Biblical, I'd say, but others think uncivil.]

Everyone thinks I'm a certain kind of person, but they have no idea as to the internal warfare going on in my [head,] heart and soul. You now have some clue.

Welcome to my internal thought life! Am I right or wrong? Tell me where I'm wrong, I need no reward for where I'm right, that's grace at work. I need Spirit and Christian community to tell me where I'm wrong, so I can continue to work out my salvation with fear and trembling. 

Sadly, [many] people love darkness more than light. I have sought for discipleship within the church and have been let down by those whom I've asked. The church hasn't failed though. My discipleship has happened through their unkind corrections, through internal conviction by the Holy Spirit, and a lot of reading [late] theologians/pastors.

So, while I glean what I can from others, I'm seeking to reestablish a modern catechumenate. One that redeems the totality of the person for Christ. It's scary because I've learned that servant leadership means getting held accountable by those whom you serve!

I drafted this, but did not publish it. Recently however, this person made social media posts that advocate the fight for truth. They essentially made the same point I was trying to make. The only difference is in what social issue they chose to fight for. I suppose they aren't inconsistent with their post. The Bishop would have to disagree with their stance on that social issue, so I'm not accusing them of being inconsistent.

Rather, I'm saying that I can take their posts and seamlessly substitute my social issue for theirs. I am about to quote their posts with my social issue inserted in place of theirs. Here is their 5/28/20 post [with my edits].

I "Loved" what they posted...

As a theologian it is easy to fall into the trap of a [sic] worshipping a God who has become a specimen for examination, dissection, and analysis. A God that lives in a petri dish or in jar of formaldehyde or in a cage next to the other rodentia upon which we subject our experiments only to be left in the lab at the end of the day, apart from the daily messes that our short lives on this spinning ball in a seemingly endless universe is no God at all.

This sort of God stands silent in the face of the atrocities that [the powers of this world] inflict upon [the oppressed] and remains silent as we politicize those atrocities. But this is not the God of Christianity. Yes, our God stood silent in the face of [persecution] and [tyrannical] power and remained silent in the face of [despotic rule] ending in his own execution at the hands of both an oppressive power structure and the zeal of those who lived beneath its foot. But he did so then in our stead...so that we, His people, need not stand silent. His silence before Pilate leading to the cross is the space into which we now speak - not before a Roman Governor but before our own failed systems of power and control [promoted by our states' governors and legislators].

We speak into it neither with lack of self control nor with fear but with purpose. We are not called to speak as oppressors or oppressed, slave or free, jew or greek, male or female but as citizens of a Kingdom in which such atrocities as the [depriving people of their livelihoods] have no place. We speak from a place not of what we are trying to make the world into but from a place of what we believe God is doing, here and now.

We challenge power when power becomes [corrupt] precisely because such power has no place in the world. We challenge zeal when zeal has lost the plot and becomes about [fear-based control] and not justice. Our words are actions, our actions our prayers, [sic] and our prayers, we believe, can change the world.

Let us pray for the soul of [each person deprived of their livelihood] and of all other victims of [state] violence and atrocity...let us pray for our city, our world...and then let us go out into that world as those sent to live in it as it ought to be in opposition to the imperfect and oppressive status quo.

I wish I wrote my original post with such passion! Not really, I would have been seen as too extreme, so my words were more measured. Only because this person wrote in line with the mainstream rhetoric could they write so freely.

Oh that my beliefs walked in silver slippers!

And their 6/5/20 post [with my edits].

Keep writing letters to your various political leaders. Keep making phone calls.

They have [questioned the constitutionality of the lockdowns], but change has still not come to our system of government. Especially important is citizen review for the [governors' executive orders] - where we the people have a say in how we are [governed] and served.

Don't forget to include city officials as well. We need change on a city by city basis too!

So, in response to their improved words (tongue-in-cheek), I will respond as they responded to me.

It has been my experience that, where my bishop has remained silent, so will I. If he is not speaking out against the systems of power, neither will I feel compelled to, though society demands it. No matter how much you disagree with your bishop's silence, it is best to work to align with he who God has made your shepherd. It is what we vowed to do...even if it costs us everything.

Hmm. Not a fan, though I use their words back to them. You can see what Jesus meant when He said, judge not...

For your own judgment will be used against you. If your own words used against you seem to reduce to absurdity, then they were absurd when first uttered. That is my judgment. Please, for my own sanctification, use what judgment I use against me. If I am found wanting, I shall repent.

Go and do likewise.

So what is my point? 

I'm not leveling a charge of inconsistency, but one of justice. It is not just to try to silence me by appealing to a vow which I have not taken. Even if I had, it seems to me that it would still not be just. When we switch the issue to their pet social issue, it becomes glaringly obvious.

They would not stand by in the face of a Bishop that follows society into a violation of social justice. 

Why should I be compelled to follow my Bishop into what I perceive to be a violation of true justice.

I'm not accusing my Bishop of malice. I think there is a discussion to be had, which hasn't happened. I think even if my Bishop agreed with me, the path chosen may still have remained.

Why?

Because discretion is the better part of valor. If enough people in the diocese would feel mislead by a Bishop going against the state, he would be hard pressed to lead them against subtle tyrannies. 

"Live to fight another day," or in this case, live to fight against egregious tyrannies.

Is God's Kingdom in Earth? Heaven? Both?

I'm not treating the title specifically, but more pointedly. This blog post started out as a facebook comment, which has grown in size beyond the etiquette of posting on facebook! This is in response to a post on an eschatology (the study of the "last things") forum, "Postmillennialism - The Eschatology of Hope."

Short response:

Mark 9:1 "there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."

If this is a friend and/or friendly debate, it's probably worth it, but if it's just an avatar on the screen, *shrug*--ya' know?--discretion is the better part of valor.

If you really want to engage, check out my longer response at your leisure.

Feedback is always appreciated! Please let me know what you think. God bless!

Long response:

My Story
In my experience, all thinking is circular. That's not to say "all arguments are circular", which is a very different thing. Revelation breaks upon us and wrests our pride away from us, if we allow it. In our humility, we can stop justifying our beliefs and "transcend" what we hold as inherently true.

God has done this for me in my life. My father/the church did this for me from my youth. David Chilton/Gary North did this for me when I was 18 yrs old. Everyone I interact with becomes a source for me to rethink my thinking.

Why do I say this? If you subscribe to a coherent system of thought [of which Augustinian-Calvinism vs. Pelagian-Socinianism (per AA Hodge) are the two rival, theological systems], then you must understand the evidence proffered as proof from within that system and how it's necessary to that system to function. Anything less is throwing stones.

My opinion.

Note, most arguments are just stone-throwing-contests. It's why I've bowed out of general debate, which I did heavily in my twenties. I'm in my thirties now and OH SO WISE! (sarcasm of course; really, just burned enough, when I realized that even I didn't know what "Calvinism" actually was even though I defended it. Herman Bavinck helped).

How to Respond?
For a practical turn here from "my story", what can this person offer as evidence of their claim "Postmil[lennialism] by implication contradicts that and many other texts."?

You can continue to try and defend your stated position, but how well do you know it? People are often tripped up, not because they are defending the truth or a lie, but because they can't seem to defend it.

I believe a commitment to truth keeps more people in it than ability to defend it and that's okay. Obedience is more important than the sacrifice it takes to become a superb thinker/speaker/debater.

In "defense" of thy kingdom come...
I understand what they're saying. From their perspective this "proof text" does not constitutes proof. Agreed! Check out Mark 9:1 for something more like a proof text.

But their response fits well my understanding of thy kingdom come. Let me explain...

Theoretical and Practical Postmillennialism
IF they actually do what they're saying, I'd argue that the faithfulness of the bride increases AND influence increases. Or else the church is impotent.

What the church militant does in history is the apparent way the kingdom advances on earth (by His direction). If they reject that, fine. If they can't understand postmillennial thinking as a system of thought, well "aye there's the rub."

Epistemology (How we know "what we know")
Appealing to "context" is not a good argument against systematics. It's a good argument against eisegesis, aka "forcing in" our thoughts. But who would accuse Jesus or any of the Apostles with interpreting out-of-context when they applied the Old Testament in ways that were hitherto unconventional?

This person claims that postmillennial implications contradict Jesus' teaching. Can they show how? How can you be expected to respond with "truth in love" if you have nothing to respond to?

I wish I could sit down with every person I disagree with and we could logically work through every disagreement. Alas, this will not happen. And there's not enough time.

I hope this helps as you think through important issues.