Unity Mandate

I was just telling my wife that being inside the Anglican world very much does feel like a Mere Christianity, as the Anglicans imagine themselves as the middle way between Catholics and Protestants. They are what Leithart is seeking, and yet there still is not reconciliation or cooperation. But my point was that being inside Anglicanism is an attempt at mere Christianity and I can say that it feels very bland and hollow. Anglicanism, in order to be moderate and broad for all, has to strip away theological emphasis in general in favor for liturgy, rituals, prayers, holidays, and administration. Within the broad lines of the Nicene creed, you can believe whatever you want and there is no real discussion or teaching or tradition of doctrines otherwise. This is the reason the women’s ordination issue is there for Anglicans. Technically the Bible doesn’t say one cannot ordain them.

Even as the issue is being discussed, not many people in the Anglican world are writing or arguing about it. Theology and doctrine are not their thing, generally speaking. (There are a few that would disagree, but they are the few as represented by Anglicanism’s aristocratic structure.) The reason is that they want to be broad enough for everyone to be included. They want unity and compromise as a fundamental principle. So, as I said, inside this world I feel like I have had my theological heritage stripped from me. It is really deflating and enervating. Anglicans as a culture of people don’t discuss the Bible, or theology, or anything particular to church history and contemporary topics. They talk about moral lessons, how to grow Anglicanism in the sense of being broad, compromising, and unified. It is so broad as to be shallow.

I grew into Christianity loving theology and identifying strongly with a tradition of orthodoxy developing throughout the centuries. Entering Anglicanism for lack of options in my region, I feel as though all the centuries of Christian teaching – along with the heritage of its people – have been taken away and replaced with a bare Nicene formula and a Unity Mandate. My question for Leithart, middle way Anglicans, and for the general movement today among multi-ethnicists is, “Where is the Unity Mandate in the Bible? And where does it tell us to emphasize a broad unity in place of a de-emphasis on rich, deep, particular truth-centered doctrine?”

Jesus’ prayer to make us all one no more makes us the same, indistinguishable, or removes denominational variations than it does in removing marriages. We’re all “one” in Christ but I still have a marriage, a wife, and children who come before others. In other words, unity in Christ doesn’t dissolve distinctions or even hierarchies among us. Calvin and a whole line of Protestant and Catholic teachers say the same thing, up until the mid 1800s when everything became rationalistic egalitarian such that “equality” meant sameness in every way. There is no reason why being one body requires us to be inside one church building or denomination.

Advertisements

You Can Take The Girl Out Of The Home…

…but you can’t take the home-orientation out of the girl.

When women left the home and went into the public sphere as their primary residence, they have ever since been trying to make that public sphere into a safe home.DPBwR-VXcAA9O2D.jpg

At home a woman is provided for in food, healthcare, clothing, income, and so forth; so in public she recreates businesses and daddy government to provide all this for her. At home she is safe from strange men, so in public she designs safe spaces free of men. They want to be out of the home but then they want all of society to be one safe home where they can walk around half naked and entirely safe and provided for.

Mono-Unity Leads To A-theological Emphases

The push for a mono-church will lead to a least-common-denominator theology:

Peter Leithart in “The End Of Protestantism”:

“American Protestants may find it easy to work for unity with other Protestants. White churches may also find it easy to reunite with other white churches. Crossing the boundary between Protestant and Catholic is edgier; negotiating the minefield of American race relations is more difficult still. But if American churches are going to make headway in achieving a semblance of catholicity, these are the places where reconciliation must take place…The racial divisions of the church will not be overcome if white Christians reconcile with other whites while keeping a safe distance from black denominations. Denominationalism will cease to be an obstacle to unity only when we attack the thicker, more impenetrable barriers. Black-white, Protestant-Catholic: these are the boundaries that must be transgressed, the dividing walls that must be broken through. So long as these walls remain, American denominationalism will go on its comfortable, childlike way, bowing low before the American way of life…So long as these walls remain, we will not fulfill the prayer of Jesus.”

Little do people mention that race is not the only thing that divides “white” and “black” denominations. There is a stark divide of theology as well. The same goes for protestants and Catholics. For the two racial groups to come together, a lot on one side or both are going to have to change their theology in some serious ways. Im not talking about end times stuff, nor of worship style. I mean soteriology and sanctification.

Speaking more broadly, it is perhaps the largest of errors of the multi-ethnic movement in the church that it is devoid of theology or that at best it relegates theology and doctrine and creed to secondary status. Unity is to be achieved at all costs.

But really, think about it. How can whites and blacks and Mexicans all get together in church with their vastly different beliefs about the Christian life and faith? Are multi-ethnicists so ignorant of those nonwhites whom they claim to love that they do not know of their differences in Christian teaching? Black church tradition, for instance, have very liberal, socialist, liberationist, and feminists beliefs and practices. Mexican churches are extremely charismatic (if not catholic/superstitious). To bring both of these into white, protestant, reformed circles will require the removal of theological barriers such as creeds, confessions, doctrinal statements, theological traditions like Calvinism, and so forth.

In fact, traditionally prominent figures such as Luther or Edwards are already being brought into question because they did not accept all people (Luther: Jews) or treat others as multiculturally equal (Edwards: slaves). The 500th anniversary of the Reformation could not go by without voices within the neo-reformed movement pointing to its fouled wellsprings:

Stages of SJW Infiltration

List of SJW Invasive Destructiveness:

SJW Fortified: Organizations that were built with resisting SJW entryism as one their deck planks.  SJWs will try anyway because they are parasites and parasites must feed.
Example: Castalia House

SJW Resistant:  Organizations whose internal culture is resistant to entryism by it’s nature.  Any place where everyone has to start at the bottom and work like hell just to get a foot in the door.  Lower level corporate culture provides considerable protection.
(*Surprise*) Example: Disney Parks, “Yeah I know it’s 94 degrees and you are wearing a forty pound bear suit.  NOW DANCE MORE SPRITELY YOU FAGGOT!”  Entryism in these cases are the result of top down pressure, when it can be managed at all.

SJW Neutral: Organizations that are under the impression that  they can stay open minded even with a few SJWs on payroll.  Entryism and eventual Convergence are guaranteed.
Example: the 2010 version of Cracked.com.

SJW Compliant:  Organizations that bow to external SJW pressure despite the damage this causes.
Example: Target.

SJW Friendly: Organizations that invite SJW guidance and follow SJW politics but are still (temporarily) functional.
Example: Google.

SJW Converged: The target organization of Entryism has been killed and the SJWs are now “parading around in it’s skin.  Demanding respect.”
Example: Take your pick.

SJW Cancerous:  Organization is so diseased it is destroying everything it touches.  One that is so converged it is completely dysfunctional and is only still surviving due to it’s ability to parasitize a host.
Example: Marvel Comics.

Peak CT

CT in 1956: Theologian intellectual Carl Henry becomes first editor-in-chief.

CT in 2017: “The Sweatiest Bible Class In America

“Revelation Wellness’ slogan sums up the appeal of Christian fitness for many believers: ‘Love God. Get healthy. Be whole. Love others.’ … The ministry uses fitness as a pathway to freedom, encouraging participants to ditch what weighs them down physically and spiritually. Prayers and pushups go together. Scripture is preached as reps are counted. Together, healing happens. For Keeton’s team, physical fitness is not the end goal — it is merely a tool to proclaim Christ…’My encouragement to women is that the judgment is in: You’re loved. You belong,’ she said. ‘And there is sickness inside of you. Go to the feet of Jesus and have him pull it out, and then move your body in response to the goodness of his love…’ She preache(s) fitness, freedom, and faith to others, inviting people to live fully as themselves.”

Anglo-American Conservatism

“The…principles of Anglo-American conservatism are summarized as:

1) Historical Empiricism: The authority of government derives from constitutional traditions known, through the long historical experience of a given nation, to offer stability, well-being, and freedom.

2) Nationalism: The diversity of national experiences means that different nations will have different constitutional and religious traditions.

3) Religion: The state upholds and honors the Biblical God and religious practices common to the nation.

4) Limited Executive Power: The powers of the king (or President) are limited by the laws of the nation, which he neither determines nor adjudicates.

5) Individual Freedoms: The security of the individual’s life and property is mandated by God as the basis for a society that is both peaceful and prosperous, and is to be protected against arbitrary actions of the state.”

Source