Exploring the notion that some Anglican parishes could soon return to full communion with Rome in protest of the Church of England allowing ordination of female bishops, Time magazine writers David Van Biema and Jeff Israely felt it necessary to throw in some loaded language about how English conservative Anglicans are different than their American Episcopal cousins:
Both the special nature of the English crisis and the Pope's possible involvement hinge on the fact that most of the English dissidents this week are not the evangelical, Bible-thumping members of the Communion whose fury at the American ordination of an openly gay bishop has led to talks of schism this summer. Rather they are members of a faction, heavy on liturgy and ritual, that abhors evangelicalism but considers itself very close to the Catholicism from which the Anglican Church originally sprang.
But wait, if conservative Anglicans across the Pond are about to bolt their church because the Bible forbids female bishops, how is that any less "Bible-thumping" than conservative Episcopals in the United States leaving the church because of openly homosexual bishops, a practice that also runs afoul of Scripture?
What's more, what's the basis for Van Biema and Israely insisting that members of a highly liturgical church tradition necessarily "abhors evangelicalism"? Are they forgetting Anglican evangelical theologian John Stott, profiled three years ago in their own magazine? Here's an excerpt from what Billy Graham wrote to honor the English cleric in a 2005 "Heroes & Icons" feature:
In the early '60s, John created the Evangelical Fellowship in the Anglican Communion. From the outset, it offered training scholarships in the West to potential future leaders in Asia, Africa and South America-many of whom took up high positions when they returned to their own countries. Today they are in charge of church movements with millions of members; John's work is a significant factor in the explosive growth of Christianity in parts of the Third World.
[...]
I can't think of anyone who has been more effective in introducing so many people to a biblical world view. He represents a touchstone of authentic biblical scholarship that, in my opinion, has scarcely been paralleled since the days of the 16th century European Reformers.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I am
July 10, 2008 - 10:06 ET by cvgbuckeyeI am a Bible Thumper. I teach a cover to cover reading of The Bible, all 66 books, each Sunday, in a large, non-denominational church.
In the business that I own, we run in-home appointments. Our #1 goal is to find a way to respond if we run accross someone who is in need of Christ and has not found him. If the prospect does business with us, we only consider that a bonus.
We never push the subject, it just seems to find a way to surface; more often than you would think. We have never been aware that we have offended anyone. We utilize a rather passive approach that you will find laid out in Bill Hybell's book, "Just Walk Accross the Room."
Bible Thumper???????? I HOPE SO! Proud to be known as such!!
I tend to take a more
July 10, 2008 - 10:18 ET by Dan The Man 2I tend to take a more confrontational approach. But, I have learned to veer away from small doctrinal disputes within teh Christian community. We as Christians, no mater which branch, are called to evangelize ... to spread the good news. We plant teh seeds and the Holy Spirit does the rest. The key is to watch the comfort level of your intended target and not to exceed it. There are many who will come before teh Lord and say Lord Lord have we no prophesized in your name and He will say begone I never knew you.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
the more we are persecuted,
July 10, 2008 - 10:25 ET by TruthMongerthe more we are persecuted, the better we are doing...
the grand prize gets you nailed to a cross:)!
may the best fundie win
Good on ya, cvg, and God
July 10, 2008 - 10:52 ET by misterbee241Good on ya, cvg, and God bless you. I too, am a Bible thumper, a Baptist minister to be exact. And I teach at my church and wherever the opportunity presents itself.
I think what the Anglican church needs is some good ol' hellfire and damnation sermons and Bible thumping. Jonathan Edwards comes to mind.
Sinners in the hands of an angry God: http://www.religionf...
"There is none so blind as they that won’t see."
Jonathan Swift 1667-1745
He never knew ye:) thump
July 10, 2008 - 20:01 ET by TruthMongerHe never knew ye:)
thump
Are they "Bible-Tappers"?
July 10, 2008 - 10:11 ET by Roger the ShrubberAre they "Bible-Tappers"?
Are they "Bible-Tappers"
July 10, 2008 - 11:08 ET by Dan The Man 2Are they "Bible-Tappers" Heard some guy in an airport got in trouble for tapping toes, is that related?
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
LOL!
July 10, 2008 - 10:17 ET by amberAfter reading the entire thread on banning religion, this is the first post I see. Ironic???? Should we take bets on how long till his becomes a religion baiting thread?
I was raised Episcopal and I have always called it the church of compromise. My Sunday school class consisted of Hanna Barberra cartoons. My priest said the Bible is just a book of stories to teach us how we should live, he is now a Bishop in the church. However, it was the confirmation classes that really introduced me to the Bible and Christ and lead to my leaving the church and becomming a believer. So, I guess it was not all that bad.
"Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else." --despair.com
Yes
July 10, 2008 - 10:25 ET by cvgbuckeyeDan & Amber: It's almost impossible for us to explain the absoluteness of the truth that we recognize;;; is it not! If skeptics only had a thread of the understanding!!!! well that's what we are sent to do, isn't it.
We're probably offending some with all this so I'll stop;;at least at this time.
It does seem somewhat
July 10, 2008 - 10:48 ET by Chris NormanIt does seem somewhat provocative, considering the thread from yesterday. However, if we could just stick to the way the media covers religion, rather than comparing religions themselves, we should be able to stay out of trouble.
McNotObama '08
Exactly Chris - Compare the conservative vs the liberal side
July 10, 2008 - 11:14 ET by Dee Bunkof the religion. That is what Ken is doing here. It's not that hard of a concept to understand
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
Amber - your former church
July 10, 2008 - 10:55 ET by misterbee241Amber - your former church sounds like a lot of the comtemporary "seeker friendly" churches today. I'm glad you have a new church home.
"There is none so blind as they that won’t see."
Jonathan Swift 1667-1745
→ Good post amber
July 10, 2008 - 11:09 ET by Cool ArrowI also attended a non Bible Thumping church for many years. And as it was with your experience, when I started reading the Bible, my eyes were opened, and I left that Church.
Great Coverage as always Ken
July 10, 2008 - 10:30 ET by Dee BunkYou are consistently able to see the conservative position regardless if you are talking about Catholics, Anglicans or any other faith that you are not a part of. You don't have to subscribe to all the tenets of someones faith to understand that the media consistently knock and misrepresent the conservatives in that faith.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
And the way you talk about
July 10, 2008 - 10:43 ET by Chris NormanAnd the way you talk about it, Ms. Dee, is exactly the way we should discuss the media's coverage of religion. It is political in nature.
McNotObama '08
Thanks, that's what I aim
July 10, 2008 - 10:48 ET by Ken ShepherdThanks, that's what I aim for although I of course have my own particular views.
And that is what makes it all the more honorable
July 10, 2008 - 11:25 ET by Dee BunkAnd that is what makes it all the more honorable
I absolutely loved your pieces about the SBC convention and your knowledge of the differences led to a light bulb moment for me. Keep up the good work.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
Part of the problem if not
July 10, 2008 - 10:46 ET by Dan The Man 2Part of the problem if not the most part is the idea of the more sedate Christians is we should be models and then the non Christians will see this and want to do likewise. This is a good thing to be a role model but if you dont go any further and don't tell anyone what Christ is all about they tend to hear and believe a secular version.
Seems to me a Bible Thumper would be anyone telling another person about the truth.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
So true Dan and as you and Ken and others have shown
July 10, 2008 - 11:19 ET by Dee BunkIt's easy to do that without attacking someone else's faith. You share yours and tell people what's right about it.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
Every time
July 10, 2008 - 11:42 ET by cvgbuckeyeEvery time I walk by non-belief or skepticism and choose not to respond, then I have condoned it and I will be answerable to God for it;;;whether or not I see this as justice or not is irrelevant. As a true believer, I am bound to speak out until I am convinced of rejection AND then there may come that Biblical allowance that I might "shake the dust from my feet and move on".
Don't know if I've ever reached that point with anyone so I just choose to never shut up; sorry but there are eternal souls at stake.
"And Jesus went into the
July 10, 2008 - 16:17 ET by bradbenj5952"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold
and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the
moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves." Matthew 21:12 & 13 I'm not so sure the Lord would agree with the sort of "politeness" being advocated here, nor does He condone rudeness. But to keep silent where error is present is wrong. Pointing someone to the completed work of Jesus Christ on Calvary, his resurrection, and ascension; faith in Him alone, is never wrong even if it means telling someone in error they are wrong. Isn't that what evangelizing is? Telling sinners they are in danger and need to be saved? Pointing them to the Word so that they can understand what the Lord did for them? How can we sinners possibly be saved without first realizing we are wrong? And that, if not in the Lord, our present state keeps us in jeopardy regardless of our "religious" beliefs. The moneychangers and sellers of doves in the temple in Jesus' day thought they were right, he showed them otherwise, and rather impolitely I might add. I wonder, if Jesus went into some temples today and started overturning the graven images that the people are bowing before, would he be asked to leave?
"Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my
people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins." Isaiah 58:1
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
Pet irritation
July 10, 2008 - 11:51 ET by Kenny BunkportThe MSM continues to use the term "Bible-thumpers" for evangelicals even though everyone knows this is a pejorative term. They wouldn't consider using such stereotypical metaphors when describing other religions or protected minorities. Even if the appellation is not incorrect or technically offensive per se, the words have come to be an insult.
Just like using "towel-head" for a Muslim or "limp-wrist" for a homosexual, is there anything inherently hateful in those nicknames? Colorfully descriptive, in a sense, like Bible-thumper. But could you imagine the outrage if anyone tried to use those two words in the MSM? However, "Bible-thumper" is fine. What a bunch of moral relativists.
A gun in your hand beats a cop on the phone.
The main problem here is
July 10, 2008 - 13:34 ET by Damian GThe main problem here is the over-generalisation done by Time. There are those who oppose women clergy who are very Catholic in their style (such as myself as an American Anglo-Catholic), and there are others who are more Protestant.
The more Protestant-minded Anglicans do not want to associate themselves with Rome, so they have begun to re-align with churches in the "Southern Cone", that is, those in the Southern Hemisphere, especially in Africa.
That Time felt the need to somehow distinguish these English "Catholic-lite" Anglicans from their allegedly homophobic, tiny-brained American cousins shows their anti-American, anti-Christian, limousine liberal bias. And again, I'm an American Anglo-Catholic from Long Island, New York, but I guess I don't exist in Time's little world, do I?
That's an excellent point.
July 10, 2008 - 13:42 ET by Ken ShepherdThat's an excellent point. There are Anglicans who feel closer to Rome and Anglicans who feel closer to the Reformed traditions and their focus on salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Clearly those Anglicans would not want to become Catholic given differing views on grace, faith, and works.
My Take
July 10, 2008 - 15:50 ET by candanceThis falls in line with liberal views on religion anyway. They really don't care if women have the ability to become priests - but they do care about homosexuals.
Thus banning gay priests is bad while banning females is no big deal.
It's a double standard, pure and simple.