Christianity Politics USA

The Kitchen Table 33 – Civic Religion.

On this weeks Kitchen Table Steve and I discuss my earlier article on Civic Religion 

The Kitchen Table 32 – Judgement Day

This is the song I mentioned….


  1. There is a lack of focus on teaching doctrine and morality and this is reflected in the behaviour and lifestyle of the clergy.

    1. I am one of those who had to leave. They are all failing in this regard:

      “2 Timothy 1:13-14 NIV
      What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.”

  2. Titus 1:9

    He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

    So the “word as taught” is our yardstick for sound doctrine. The BrisAngs rejects the “word as taught” and reject the entire notion of doctrine and believe they are above rebuke. 😞 This is despite the fact that:

    2 Timothy 3:16

    “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness”

    Since they do not believe this claim, how can they believe anything in Scripture? They believe human reason instead and that all scripture and morality is culturally conditioned (hence, moral relativism) and NOT the clear, eternal, unchanging Spirit-breathed word of God. They believe by himan readon and science they can determine what God really meant that was kept hidden from our ancestors who misunderstood and God allowed to persecute homos because the ancient scribes and prophets could not clearly discern God’s message to us. Only in our enlightened, scientific age can we apparently discern that same-sex relationships are moral and
    safe (despite all the evidence about health risks to the contrary). Funny that the BrisAngs’ interpretations of morality concur exactly with current worldly morality, particularly that of a leftist bent.

    Hebrews 13:9

    9 Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited those devoted to them.

    Again, without a yardstick, how do we know what is strange? Did Borg, Spong or the Jesus Seminar ever answer this basic question or did they just write Paul off as not the Word of God?

    Titus 2:1

    But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine.

    A bit hard when these people don’t even believe in Doctrine, thus they write off huge parts of the N. T. as meaningless to us today.

    I’ll stick with Paul, Luther and Calvin.

  3. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming; and now it is already in the world.

    — 1 John 4:2–3

    Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist!

    — 2 John 1:7

    So these Progs confess Christ has come in the flesh but whether their conception of the Christ (“anointed one”) is God incarnate or not is left VERY ambiguous in their teachings.

    What they do deny though is that the Resurrection is of the flesh. I’d say they are skating on very thin ice with their claims and John’s words may well spply to them.

    Give me the sure, firm foundations of Biblical Christianity any day over these dubious new American theologies and the anti-intellectual BrisAngs promoting them and them.

    I confess Christ, the Son of God, came in the flesh, was crucified in the flesh, was raised in the flesh and will come again in the flesh.

  4. It is interesting to consider just how many pains the Gospel writers go to to emphasise the physical, bodily nature of the Resurrection: the descriptions of the empty tomb, the folded linens, the stone rolled away, the guards and so on. What is the logic to this according to these heretical priests who argue it is all just a metaphor? A metaphorical account would focus on transcendence. The risen Jesus we see has transcendental elements, to be sure, but He also offers to let Thomas put his hands in His wounds and is not above doing earthy things like barbecueung fish on a beach. What on Earth is metaphorical about that?It just shows what very, very poor students of literature these false priests are.

    No wonder they deny the importance of doctrine too since Christian doctrine emphasises the absolute centrality of the Resurrection and refutes so many of the speculative claims of these priests. They have to reject huge chunks of the Bible as one thing leads to another – denying one part, as they do, subsequently breaks the logic of several others, then when they deny some other part, the flow-on effects continue until they render most of the Bible irrelevant in their quest to redesign the religion to suit their modern secular mores, filling the gap left with New Age mumbo jumbo. Not only are they ashamed of the ancient, unchanging truths, their own morals have slipped so that they are as unethical and disingenuous as the worldly people around them. There is no longer any distinction.

    Thank goodness there are so many logical flaws in their arguments their anti-intellectual Liberal Catholicism/Progressive Christianity are readily apparent. Do they really believe that they alone have discovered how to interpret the Bible correctly after 2000 years and that they know more than the Early Church parishioners to whom the texts were addressed? Their approach leaves vast chunks irrelevant and, strangely enough, leaves only those parts that validate modern secular morality on issues like SSM. Why do they consider themselves followers of Jesus if they do not believe or cannot be sure of most of what He said? He becomes a nebulous, blank canvas figure on which they can project their own beliefs and, strangy enough He becomes a hippie SJW failed social reformer, just like these priests… In the meantime, they purposely ignore all of the serious research going on into the Gospels and cling to the beliefs fringe cranks like Marcus Borg and John Shelby Spong who were considered a joke in serious academia.

    At least Bower is honest in admitting he is diesn’t believe in the God of the Bible. These Jesus Seminar-inspired BrisAng cranks don’t even have enough integrity to admit they are not Christians. I just feel sorry for the people they are dragging down to Hell with them.

  5. Spot on, Anonymous Rhinoceros.

    It reminds me of what a medieval Roman Catholic cardinal said about the Bible: I know not this book but I perceive that everything written in it is against us.

    It is right to criticise these people for:

    “If I profess with loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except 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 Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.”
    –Martin Luther

  6. I just read your friend McAlpine’s Christmas message in the link in your latest blog post. He sums it up nicely:

    “Slattery would be served well by having a chat with his fellow intellectual and philosophical traveller, the English writer and thinker, Douglas Murray. Murray observes that many of his formerly atheist, intellectual friends are turning to Christianity in these times of crisis and the absence of meaning in the West.

    And what forms of Christianity are they turning to? Not the liberal, disembodied, mystical version founded by the likes of Schleiermacher et al, but the crunchy forms such as Orthodoxy in which Christ really did rise from the dead, and for whom the church is larger than the world.

    [edit for brevity]

    Slattery… in his call for consumeristic Westerners to centre themselves on the mystical within the Christmas message… ends with this:

    ‘This is a challenge for all people who sense that they are on a spiritual, though not necessarily a religious, search. The challenge is to raise and enlarge the self, to move the mysteries at the periphery of daily existence to the core of consciousness.’

    Enlarge the self? Surely that’s the exact problem that the historical event of Christmas came to resolve. We are all for enlarging ourselves. Ever since our first parents reached out to be like God.

    The vitality of the Christmas story is the God of the universe who, rather than enlarge himself (an impossible task) shrank himself to the perspective of a helpless baby…”

    Spot on and it shows how the Progressive Christianity forces are actually at odds with both intellectuals and popular currents. Their warmed over, Americanised, liberalism fails to meet the spiritual needs of our time and reveals itself ti be nothing but a cult of the self, concerned with personal transcendence, transforming this world in the image of one’s self, pushing one’s personal political agenda, etc. It vlaims to be about social justice and helping the other but it is nothing but a vanity project for a group of priests and priestesses who can barely conceal their disdain for the Bible, and orthodox Christian morality and the doctrines of traditional faith. They may claim not to be atheists but their beliefs are so far removed now from doctrine, faith and Biblically-defined beliefs that the only people that believe that are they themselves. They have tricked themselves onto the fast path to Hell. The tragedy is these false preachers are taking down other people – their small cult following – with them while, ironically, the former atheists in McAlpine’s article are, thankfully, turning to a strong orthodoxy instead, for which we can praise the Lord in great thankfulness.

  7. I just learnt the famous N. Z. bishop and honorary Quaker, Paul Oestreicher, is an agnostic.

    He also once claimed that Jesus was probably gay.

    It seems to me that promotion of homosexuality almost seems to grow in inverse proportion to diminishing belief in God.

    How Oestreicher can be an Anglican bishop when he isn’t even convinced God exists is beyond me. He sounds like another Bower. No wonder the church is in such a bad state when the powers-that-be promote people who don’t even hold to the most basic of their beliefs. . I’m surprised the BrisAngs didn’t headhunt him for a position. It sounds like he’d fit right in there.

    It seems obvious to me that the only reason the Progressive Christianity and Jesus Seminar crowd have come up with the innovation of reading most of the Bible as myths and meyaphors when this has NEVER historically been the case us because they lack belief that these things could have historically occurred. If some early Christians had read the books as metaphorucal, they might have a point but they are asking us to believe that all of the early Christian writers from the crude scrawlings of Mark to Matthew to a semi-literate fisherman like Paul, to the polisged prose of Luke were completely misunserstood by their original audiences and everyone subsequent to them – including the most sophisticated theologians throughout history – until “genius” fringe thinkers like Spong and Borg came along and recovered the original meaning to enlighten us all. Ludicrous. Never mind the fact that the Jesus Seminar had a clearly stated agenda to debunk Christianity. Never mind slso that reading the texts as metaphorical leaves them an incoherent mess.

    To change the topic, last night, I listened to a recording of one of Doctor Martin Lloyd Jones’ ancient Christmas sermons. He spoke of how no one was naive enough to believe the world could be changed into a utopua by politics anymore. With their focus on social justice at the exclusion of the basic tenets and doctrines of the faith, I guess the Progressive Christianity movement didn’t get the memo. With little to no belief in a personal God, the Bible or the afterlife, social justice political activities are all these fringe theologians have left to them. It is sad in a way because they’ll never affect any real change because their causes are so fringe but that is all they have left of their religion – a naive hope they can make things better (from their subjective perspective) in the short time we spend in this world, through radical leftist activism and groupthink.

  8. I think a lot of the problems are due to H. R. issues. To be hired as a priest in ACSQ, it seems like you have to be one of the most radical of radical leftists these days. Better yet if you are also gay or transgender. Normal people need not apply and heaven help you if you actually believe what is written in the Bible. Anyone with normal Christian values and views is identified and expelled in training at Saint Francis’ Theological College. As a result, the priests that graduate cannot relate to ordinary people in the pews with mainstream views. Eventually, all of the normal parishioners leave as the priests push their bizarre political and social agendas around mormalizing homosexuality, transgenderism, the environment and so on and marginalise those who hold normal Christian beliefs.

  9. Re: Saint Francis Theological College at one synod-would’ve been circa 2009-someone tried to move a motion that would’ve launched an enquiry into the school . Bishop Holland had the numbers to turn every clause of the motion criticizing the college into a clause commending it. I never trusted him again after that bit of politics.

  10. Someone put a very good comment about the mess on another site:

    “How can we truly say we truly love the homosexuals in our communities, when when we do not tell them the truth? The so-called progressive leaders (Apostates) such as the the very Reverend Peter Catt in Brisbane are in error and are leading so many astray.

    I believe, they are the ones who are instrumental in pushing same- sex marriage, today and belching “conservative Christian you are out of touch, you do not speak for me!” (Apostate leaders are you aware that some of the LGBTQI do not want you to speak for them either? The do not want same-sex marriage legalised and are very happy in their recognised civil unions?)

    God’s Word does not change. My heart is breaking. How much more does it break our Heavenly Father’s heart.”

  11. The Apostles’ Creed specifically refers to “the resurrection of the body“, so the composers of that text were clearly NOT thinking of the Resurrection as a metaphor.

    Of course, the Apostles’ Creed also refers to the virgin birth and the ascension, which these people consider metaphorical, too.

    If the Creed is a basic test of Orthodoxy, then clearly this form of Anglicanism lies outside the definitional boundaries of Christianity. I do not say that lightly.

  12. The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths. (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

  13. I’m glad to see people tell the truth about the Anglican Diocese of Brisbane. Here is a small thought of mine. Regarding the injunction of Jesus to resist not evil, Wikipedia says “R. T. France … notes that the word translated as resist, anthistemi, has a far more restricted meaning in the original Greek. The word translates more accurately as “do not resist by legal means”. Schweizer notes that this is how the word is used in Deuteronomy 19:18 and Isaiah 50:8. To France, and many other scholars, this verse is just one part of a discussion of legal principles, similar to the previous and subsequent verses.” This being the case why does ACSQ have so many lawyers and utilize legal threats and court cases against so many opponents?

  14. Thanks for your blog entry on the passing of Mandela. My Souh African friends here in Australia think it is accurate.

    Catt is of course gushing over him. His Anglo-Catholic extreme liberalism is a good match for the BrisAng mentality.

    A very unusual view of blasphemy from Catt and an interesting quote from Tutu putting himself above God on the issue of homosexuality.

    ‘The incarnation begins with us’? Seriously? Sounds very New Age. Surely it begins with a God who is prepared to come down to us not us looking for light and goodness in ourselves to love ourselves more. Rather should we not focus on God’s love for us and His Son’s life of example and death of self-sacrifice as a way of defeating our selfish desires and teaching us instead to love our neighbour and put him first?

    It is disturbing to read Catt trying to talk about justice and trying to gain the moral high ground when he is one of the most injustice and hypocritical churchmen I’ve ever encountered, sadly. Is he trying to convince others or himself?

  15. Parishioners in ACSQ churches should earnestly reflect and pray on these words.

    “And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues” – Rev. 18-4

    God gives us plentiful warnings in Jude and Revelation, to name just two sources, of what He will do to churches that do not faithfully uphold His Word. I pray Brisbane Anglicans will heed these words and leave their fallen church before they are led astray by its false teachings.

    1. Here is someone on a main Progressive Christianity website explicitly denying that Jesus is God:

      “It’s okay for males to wrestle (God was imagined as male, remember) but not to cuddle (Jesus was imagined as God, remember).”

      Rod Bower must obviously believe this too since he doesn’t believe in a literal God (as noted on Rev. Ould’s website). Catt and his ilk obfuscate the matter and do not say exactly if or how they understand Jesus’ divinity. Anyway, it is interesting to see a member of their movement say this so unambiguously.

  16. Here’s another discussion of what Progressive Christianity actually means from one of its advocates:

    “Friends, Jesus isn’t God. Jesus didn’t die for our sins. Jesus wasn’t killed instead of us. God isn’t wrathful or vindictive. There isn’t a hell (other than ones that we create here on this earth). Going to heaven after we die isn’t what the faith or salvation is about. God didn’t write the Bible. There isn’t going to be a “rapture.” Jesus’ resurrection didn’t have to be understood as a physical one for it to be a real and meaningful one (Paul and many of the early disciples encountered a spiritually risen Christ). Science and faith aren’t incompatible. God didn’t create the Creation in 6 literal days. The earth isn’t only 6,000 old. Human aggravated global warming isn’t bogus. God isn’t male. Women are fully equal to men. Homosexuality isn’t a sin. Being transgender isn’t sinful or to be rejected. Racism is sinful. And Christianity isn’t the only way for humans to experience salvation.

    Instead, Jesus and his message are about living in love, loving-kindness, compassion, and grace. Jesus and his message are counter-cultural and subversive to all of the worldly powers that be. Following Jesus is about nonviolently resisting imperialism. Following Jesus is about pursuing God’s vision for restorative and distributive justice instead of human tendencies for retributive justice. Following Jesus is about trusting in the wisdom and blessedness of the ways that he taught that seem counter-intuitive according to the ways of the world. Following Jesus is about liberating humanity from the myth of redemptive violence and bringing us toward the reality of redemptive nonviolence. Following Jesus is about seeking to manifest the beloved community, the empire/kingdom of God, “on Earth as it is in heaven.” Following Jesus is to be familiar with the scriptures that informed and inspired Jesus to help inspire, embolden, and empower us as we follow this radical and challenging Way together in community with kindred spirits.

    Progressive Christians rightfully honor and celebrate Jesus as a unique and fully incarnate (poetically speaking) manifestation of God.”


    Heretical, woke nonsense.

  17. Yes, it is all New Age nonsense from Westar. This part explains the attitude of their priests and priestesses:

    “…leans toward panentheism rather than supernatural theism; emphasizes salvation here and now instead of primarily in heaven later; emphasizes being saved for robust, abundant/eternal life over being saved from hell; emphasizes the social/communal aspects of salvation instead of merely the personal; stresses social justice as integral to Christian discipleship; takes the Bible seriously but not necessarily literally, embracing a more interpretive, metaphorical understanding; emphasizes orthopraxy instead of orthodoxy (right actions over right beliefs); embraces reason as well as paradox and mystery — instead of blind allegiance to rigid doctrines and dogmas; does not consider homosexuality to be sinful…”

    This part explains why Peter Catt would not join a mainstream Christian pacifist group. Unfortunately, it also shows him to be even more hypocritical than I previously thought:

    “Following Jesus is about nonviolently resisting imperialism. Following Jesus is about pursuing God’s vision for restorative and distributive justice instead of human tendencies for retributive justice.”

    The author’s note at the end clarifies some things too. It explains why someone like Catt can say he still believes Jesus is part of the Trinity while not believing He is God Incarnate in the orthodox/traditional sense:

    “Caveat: I do believe that Jesus was divine (in the way that you and I are), and that he’s the 2nd person of the trinity. Christians rightfully honor and celebrate Jesus as a unique and fully incarnate manifestation of God. I don’t believe that he’s literally God (at least not what most people tend to mean by that word). We live and move and have our being in God, so did Jesus. The trinity is a beloved Christian poem of who God is to us. But poems don’t literally define things. Like all art, and theology, they point to what is beyond them.”

    Of course the early church did not believe anything remotely like this. It really is a religion for atheists who don’t like Biblical Christianity. It allows people like Rod Bower and Peter Catt to claim to be Christians when they really aren’t. It has nothing in common with the actual teachings of Jesus Christ, despite what its advocates claim. No wonder ACSQ is in such a mess due to this anti-Christian faith.

  18. I’ve been thinking about this. Progressive Christianity is probably most akin to the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses: these groups all self-identify as Christian but they reject many of the classic tenets of Christianity twist and reinterpret the Bible’s teachings to conform to their own beliefs, and are not considered Christian by the mainstream churches.

  19. Normally unorthodox groups break away from an established denomination. What makes the Anglican Church Southern Queensland situation so unusual is that the unorthodox believers have come to dominate the dioceseband now through their recruitment and training practices they are reproducing themselves.

    Here is the dean”s latest sermon. He claims:

    * The water into wine story is a metaphor, not a record of an historical miracle

    * Traditional marriages (I assume he means arranged marriages) were about alliances between families to extend their power;

    * Women no longer have to obey in the marriage vows since they are increasingly equals.

    I am glad I am not part of that church.

  20. The last two paras seem like an attack on the traditional family “due to its “toxicity” and even contains an implicit endorsement of unmarried couples or at giving them equal status to married couples. It is very troubling to see a minister preach like this. No doubt this was informed by his feminism and promotion of homosexual culture.

    By contrast, my own pastor preached on the historicity of this miracle today and taught how marriage is about sacrificial love. His sermon, which would no doubt be considered “fundamentalist” by Cart because it argues that the miracle literally occurred contained far, far more spiritual depth and intellectual thoughtfulness than Catt’s progressive diatribe.

    I agree with the rest of you. The most disturbing thing is that these Anglican Church Southern Queensland ministers call themselves Progressive “Christians” while a multitude of their teachings and stances stand at direct variance to Christ’s teachings. They are a post-modern, New Age group that has branded themselves as Christian while promoting anti-christian stances.

    When these people eventually pass away, they are arrogant enough to think they are going to argue their way into heaven on technicalities – “I do believe in the resurrection, just not literally!” “I do believe Jesus is Lord – I just don’t believe He is literally God incarnate!” Well, it is between them and God but I wouldn’t like to be in their position on that day, especially since they are also leading their flocks astray with their ego trip-driven academic games and desire to refashion religion in their own image. They have made an idol of their own reason and seek the praise of the secular world with their PC liberal-left, secular teachings and downplaying of God’s Word and the rejection of the very doctrine He taught us through His mouthpieces like Paul.

    What a terrible tragedy for the city of Brisbane to have a wicked, wretched church like this. I will pray for them and for these heretical ministers so that some may even now repent and be saved. Thank goodness we still have faithful Anglican Dioceses like Sydney, Tasmania and Bathurst. God bless.

  21. My pastor also preached on the water into wine miracle this Sunday. He too affirmed that it literally happened. In addition, he pointed out the literary richness of the story -its parallels to the revelation of God to the Israelites on the third day in Exodus, the symbolism of the marriage between Christ and the Church, the similarities between Christ’s first and last words to Mary in John’s Gospel (His first revelation and God and His final crowning as king on the cross) and the fact that the wine we partake of in the Lord’s Supper is part of a neverending wedding feast. In short, our sermon was much richer and more of depth and thoughtful literary analysis of the text than Peter Catt’s radical approach. No doubt though he would dismiss us as fundamentalists because we are Bible-believing Protestants who also acknowledge the miracle really happened!

    It seems like the Progressive Christians put the Social Gospel and Love thy neighbour above all else. A noble goal but for the fact they then ignore all the minor laws and prophets that hang off the second great commandment and think they know best how to love our neighbour rather than listening to God’s guidance. Of course, their way of loving thy neighbour ends up being exactly the same as the secularlist left-wing socialist policies that have proved so disastrous in the past, like the political correctness gone mad of the Keating era and the current Greens. Therefore, they promote feminism, gay marriage, extreme forms of panentheistic environmentalism, and are unsure of where they stand on euthanasia or abortion. They claim to ignore doctrine and focus on moral behaviour but end up being deeply immoral hypocrites who fail to practice what they preach. As the person above said, they usurp the name Progressive Christians but they teach blatantly anti-Christian morals and beliefs.

    Peter Catt has turned the cathedral from an earthly glimpse of the New Jerusalem into a New Sodom and he has done so with Archbishop Philip Aspinall’s blessing.

  22. I’ve been reading a Dutch forum recently. Some pastors on there refute all of the things these Anglicans in Brisbane are saying.

    “An often heard statement that you may be familiar with is: “Not the doctrine, but the Lord.” Those are empty nonsense words that fit into the mindset that I will go into further below, because without doctrine the word ‘Lord’ has no meaning. As Jesus Himself says, “Why do you call Me Lord, and do not what I say?” (Luke 6:43-49). That is how you recognize a good tree: someone who listens to everything the Lord Jesus has said and who wants to focus 100 percent on it in all weakness. Who takes seriously everything the Lord Jesus has said, even if it sounds offensive and distinctive. For that is where the treasure of his heart is, with the Person and words of the Lord Jesus. As Peter accosted Jesus over and over again: “Lord, to whom else shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (John 6:66-68). The Lord Jesus is their only hold for them. And the fruit that comes out of it is the fruit of the vine that is in the true vine (John 15).”

    “In Gnosticism, however, it is about an immediate knowledge, a mystical knowledge, an experience, a direct contact with God (or the divine) outside God’s Word. Not all in Gnosticism believe in a God or in a divine being, they can also believe, for example, that God is in everything (pantheism), or that the divine is in ourselves, and there are all kinds of variations on that. But the core here is the direct way to God (or the divine) through mysticism. It may be clear that this opens the way to the realm of the demons.
    This has settled into the church in (at least) two ways:
    1. by the Roman Catholic Church, which has been practicing many mystical practices for centuries ”

    “The Bible is clearly antithetical in many ways. Right and wrong are clearly distinguished in many things. But in a thinking that is dominated by synthesis, that must be let go. The Bible is not formally rejected, but little by little the Biblical authority is being eroded. “The Bible contains many mistakes”, “That is your personal interpretation and that is only an interpretation”, “You should not pigeonhole God”, “God is greater than the Bible”, “No one has a monopoly on the truth ”, and so on, and so on. Banal subterfuge used as a justification to continue with the heartfelt practices. And lies of Satan that are a variation of “Is it really so that God has said…” And many are misled by this because it sounds so tolerant.”

    I hope this helps someone.

  23. Now for a much more salubrious source. This is from the Dutch Protestant forum I cited above again:

    “John says that in his day there were false teachers who denied Christ as the Son of God. He also calls them antichrists. And in our time you come across such modern theologians who deny Christ as God’s Son. But the antichrist of the end times will be concentrated in a person. That means that we cannot point to the antichrist today. What we do have to deal with in our time is that all kinds of anti-Christian symptoms can be pointed out. Lawlessness, sin is taking on frightening proportions today. The autonomous man has set God’s Law aside. Today the aim is to bring all religions together. They are all the same, they say. You can make it a world religion. More and more people think that there should be a central world government. It is impossible to predict how long it will take before the antichrist appears, but the contours of his coming are already becoming more visible in a godless world. Let us be vigilant and stand firm at a time when the coming of the antichrist is more and more prepared.”

    Again, I hope this alarming message helps some Brisbane Anglican parishioners or anyone anywhere under such liberal pastors.

    1. Also, “The conquest of the antichrist is in full swing. In the society of the peoples of the United Europe. Also in church and theology he has advanced to close to Christendom. Think of the perversion of theology, in which incessant attacks are made on the Deity of Jesus, after the attacks on Scripture as God’s infallible and most reliable Word. Think of the ever-growing ethical perversion (murder of the unborn, ecclesiastical ordination of gay couples).”

  24. Here is the Brisbane Anglicans’ new book, published by Westar, complete with a bizarre claim there was no such thing as Christianity until the third century AD and, of course, spurious claims that early Christianity was a utopia for gender fluid and same-sex attracted people:

    The history of their Australian Progressive Christianity conference. Anti-intlectuals claiming to have intellectual integrity. We can see an attack on the notion of Biblical inerrancy is at the heart of the movement so at least they are honest about preconceived biases:

    Finally, at least some of these Progressive Christians are now moving away from panentheism to pantheism:

  25. You guys are right about the Dean of Brisbane.

    What a piece of work.

    I am seeing more and more hate being poured out against Christians on Twitter every day. To see these liberals who deny the resurrection siding with the world to feather their own nests instead of abiding by God’s Word is deeply disappointing. Do these Quislings really think the world will stand by them if push comes to shove and a new wave of persecutions begins one day? The world would devour them just as it would the faithful ‘real’ Christians, without making distinctions.

    At least real Christians have the hope of a better afterlife. Without the resurrection, these pseudo-Christians have nothing. All their hopes are invested in the politics of this world. What sad, pathetic people.

  26. Two letters from these pseudo-Christians, fyi:

    It is shocking that high-ranking Anglican priests can turn against Christian morality and not be defrocked by their respective superiors. They are overturning every ethical principle on which Jesus stands, deny his Resurrection, reject the idea He is literally God incarnate and have the gall to still call themselves Christians.

    When did these anti-intellectual disbelievers take over the denomination? No wonder the Anglican church is considered a joke in so many quarters now.

  27. Greg Jenks launches into an arrogant rant against Greg Sheridan:

    I’ve also noticed something quite odd; for all of their talk about social justice and peace, neither APCVA nor any of its members whose accounts I have checked, like Catt or Deborah Bird, has tweeted anything about the Ukraine situation at all. No votes in it? Too complex for their simplistic , feel-good New Age answers?

  28. I see more and more what you mean. Another Brisbane Anglican Cathedral homily “celebrating” an openly-gay priest:

    “The Sacrament of the Eucharist… was an expression of the … erotic”

    and the “Divine Eros” indeed. 🙁

    Gregory of Nyssa had words about these people:

    “For he who is ambitious of showing that his own words are more authoritative than those of Christ, and of transforming the faith from the Divine Names and the sacramental customs and tokens to his own deceit,—what else, I say, could he properly be called, but only Antichrist?”

  29. Yeah, here Catt implies the resurrection is a metaphorical pattern for life, not an historical event:

    More progressive christian gobbledygook:

    Very upsetting. I agree with those who say they would be more honest if they just openly declared themselves atheists or deists and tried not to leech of the church’s prestige and power.

    Catt here denounces the ‘toxicity’ of the Australian Christian Lobby:

    He also tries to bait his local Liberal member with a media stunt:

    Odious little man. Again, a more honest man would leave the church if he doesn’t believe in Christian doctrine, morals and, especially, the resurrection.

  30. F. Le Rossignol that Facebook post where Peter Catt describes the Australian Christian Lobby as “toxic” is really interesting for another reason.

    The Green running that forum Catt went to, Stephen Bates, is openly gay himself and he is at the centre of a minor scandal at the moment for posting election ads with some pretty extreme sexual innuendo on Grindr, the dating app for homosexuals.

    It is funny isn’t it? Peter Catt is friends with the gay lobbyist Stuart Edser, he worked under Peter Rushton in Newcastle, and now he has a gay following at the cathedral up in Brisbane, Why would a straight man continuously surround himself with gays? If he were working to convert them to traditional Christian ethics, it would be meritorious. He isn’t though. Are they his powerbase? Is he a closet gay himself? Is he just an eccentric? Nothing adds up about the man.

    Also further to what you said about their silence on the Ukraine crisis none of the APCVA crowd are talking about Dutton’s war speech either or the military build-up that both Liberal and Labor are proposing. In fact the silence this election from them has been deafening. Catt’s involvement in this gay Green forum seems to be their only political effort judging from social media. Maybe APCVA is running out of steam.

    By the way, when I was up in Queensland I once met Suzanne Grimmett. She is the priest in charge at Indooroopilly but she sometimes preached at the cathedral. I wasn’t sure what to make of her but she seems to be another unorthodox liberal. At the very least she rejects substitutionary atonement as this sermon reveals.

    “When we interpret Jesus death on the cross as a necessary blood sacrifice as atonement for our sins, we are regressing to the kind of god Abraham expected to hear asking him to lay his son on that altar.”

    1. In response to Grimmett’s statement, this is from the French theology questions and answers site:

      Q. How do Protestants understand crucifixion? Is it a penal substitute expiation or another theoretical model like that of Abelard? [Rein]

      A. The vast majority of Protestants, following Martin Luther and John Calvin, understand the crucifixion in the same way as all Christians: according to the teaching of the biblical scriptures.

      The death of Jesus is the will of God: “This man [Jesus] has been delivered to you according to the decision that God had made and the plan that he had formed in advance”. (Ac 2.23). And Jesus obeyed the will of the Father: “[Jesus] humbled himself by becoming obedient unto death” Phi 2.8.

      Indeed, the meaning of Jesus’ crucifixion is expressed in the Bible with judicial and sacrificial language (the two go hand in hand): “The Son of man came not to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Mt 20.28), “Jesus was delivered up for our transgressions” (Rom 4.25), “you were bought at a price” (1 Cor 6.20), “He suffered our punishment, and we were acquitted […] the Lord made him suffer the consequences of our faults” (53.5-6)

      In summary, the punishment we deserve for our sins was taken by Jesus. Thus we are reconciled to God (Rom 5:10). It is out of love for us that the Father gave his son, this is how the word “grace” takes on its full meaning! Through the cross, God offers us forgiveness for free. What wonderful love! “Love consists in this: it is not we who have loved God, but it is he who has loved us; he sent his Son who offered himself as a sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins. (1 Jn 4.1)

      There is in Protestantism a minority of people who, like Abelard in the twelfth century, do not accept this teaching for moral reasons. Even for the disciples of Jesus, the idea was not easy to accept, Peter refused the idea of ​​Jesus going to the cross, and Jesus answered him with this warning: “Your thoughts are not those of God but those of men”. (Mt 16.23)

      As Paul teaches, the idea of ​​the cross is folly to many (1 Cor 1:17-25), but to those who accept it, the cross turns out to be “the wisdom and power of God.”

  31. Here is an interesting short clip by the A. C. L. talking about the decline of churches that adopt Progressive Christianity. It is also interesting to hear that most left-leaning Christians do NOT adopt Progressive Christianity.

    It will be interesting to read the results of the 2021 Australian Census when they are published in June to see how much the Brisbane Anglican numbers have fallen this time.

  32. These are some thoughts by respected theologians from a major question and answer site addressing some of the issues raised in this discussion. I have translated them into English for you.

    Q. Is the “Jesus Seminar” trustworthy? Some theologians deny that Jesus was bodily/physically resurrected. Is the resurrection just a myth? [Sophie123)

    A. The “Jesus Seminar” is a group of Anglo-Saxon historians seeking to establish the historicity of the life of Jesus. As a scientific process, this work seems to me no more or less trustworthy than any other. But as is often the case with science, it is a question of not considering that the results to which these researchers have arrived are the truth; on the pretext that they would use “objective” research methods. The methods used in history are always open to criticism and often allow their users to say what they want to say, while claiming to only observe their sources in a neutral way. Thus, to deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus is a historical opinion, proceeding from a particular interpretation of the sources, the Gospels. That people affirm that Jesus did not rise from the dead is their most absolute right, that they claim to do so based on a scientific approach as well. They simply have to accept that they are not or no longer Christians, because the physical resurrection of Jesus is a central element of the Christian faith (read again I Corinthians 15). Delimiting the space of one’s faith to what is only demonstrable or even conceivable is in fact a way of having confidence only in one’s reason… Which is one of the forms of idolatry.

    Q. If a “pastor” rejects the Creed (divinity, virgin birth, atonement, JC resurrection) is he a Christian? If he rejects the Sola (Bible authority, Jesus alone,..) is he still Protestant? [Nicholas]

    A. In the Bible (Acts 18, 24-28), Apollos had already begun to preach with enthusiasm many good things, when he lacked important elements of knowledge concerning baptism. After listening to him, Priscilla and Aquila filled in what was missing in his knowledge and he was encouraged by Christians to continue his ministry. He loved Jesus, he thirsted to know more, he continued the Lord’s work by progressing ever further in the grace and knowledge of God.

    To be a Christian is first of all to belong to Jesus and to have said “yes” to Him. The doctrine comes second and a fine understanding of it requires time, study and a lot of humility before God. Now, the Credo and the articles you mention (virgin birth, atonement, resurrection…), it is all the same elementary… The Church which has ordained a pastor who rejects these articles is cruelly lacking in discernment! Indeed, such a pastor is not yet a Christian and he is therefore seriously in danger to exercise such a charge. Pray for him, but flee his preaching.

  33. More of the same from the Brisbane Anglican Church. The Anglican poet R S Thomas is quoted approvingly where he claims the Resurrection is a metaphor.

    Compare that to the somewhat more sophisticated approach of a Belgian church sermon I was reading over Easter:

    “The Bible also insists that it is a bodily resurrection. It is not a resurrection “in the spirit”. All texts are clear and unequivocal. It is the body of Christ that is resurrected. The very one who was nailed to the cross and laid in the tomb. The Gospels do not end in the fog like the famous film by Franco Zeffirelli “Jesus of Nazareth”, but with a living Christ, risen in flesh and blood: “Seized with fear and fear, they thought they saw a spirit. But Jesus said to them, Why are you troubled? Why do you have these doubts in your hearts? Look at my hands and my feet: it’s really me! Touch me and see, for a spirit has no flesh and bones like you see I have. (Luke 24:39-43).”

    From another sermon by the same pastor:

    “Brothers and sisters, make it clear that in our church we believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is the strength of the Christian message. This is the strength of the gospel. Yes, He is truly risen!

    There is enough light for those who want to believe, but not too much so as not to force adherence.

    How well said! What a beautiful testimony! The conflict will remain until the end of time between the one who comes with a humble heart and who is ready to believe, and the one who refuses to believe. For the latter, the most convincing arguments will do nothing. It is the Spirit who convinces, who takes the Word and carries it into hearts to convince that Jesus is truly risen. You are free to choose. God does not force. Whoever wants to see will see this light, but whoever does not want to see it will never see it.”


    ““Why do you seek the living among the dead? Christ is not in the world of the dead. ” He’s not here. say the angels (v.6). Indeed, Jesus is not in the cemetery. He’s not on a crucifix either. He is alive. “He is risen. (Luke 24:6). “I was dead, and behold, I am alive forever and ever. said the Lord Himself in Revelation 1:18. One day, all men will be able to verify it. For all will appear before him, believers or unbelievers. (2 Corinthians 5:10). Our faith has nothing to do with occultism and spiritualism. We do not pray to a dead man, but to one who lives forever.

    The text of Acts (chapter 2) presents the same characteristics as that of Luke: there is history and theology. The two are inseparable. If Christ has not risen, if the event has not taken place, the doctrine has no meaning and neither has the Christian life. This is what Paul develops in 1 Corinthians 15. Everything is false if the event did not take place. History tells us what happened on the day of Pentecost: the first preaching of the apostle Peter, the first proclamation of the Gospel. We have the summary of Peter’s sermon, he evokes the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He approaches it and demonstrates it in two ways.

    First, he evokes the biblical texts and bases his preaching on them. He explains the Psalm of David which announces the resurrection of the Messiah: “For you will not deliver my soul to hell, you will not allow your beloved to see corruption. (Psalms 16:10). Who is this psalm talking about? From David? Nope ! David is in the grave. This psalm speaks of Christ, the Messiah. It is a messianic psalm. Here, then, is Peter’s second argument: we are witnesses to it: “It is this Jesus whom God raised up; we are all witnesses to it. (Acts 2:32). Pascal said: “I only believe in witnesses who are ready to have their throats cut.”

    My only hope in sharing these quotes is that they help save some souls from these false teachings.

    1. More insight into what the Progressive Christians [don’t] believe:

      “… the crucial difference for us, if we are modern intellectuals, is that we cannot, in our serious thinking avoid the critical awareness that we are drawing on past conventions of the symbolic expression of significance. We cannot but be aware that the symbols are symbols, the myths are myths. This does not mean that we just throw away the symbols and myths; quite frankly we cannot live without them. (If you are insistent that the stories and symbols must be literally true, you become a fundamentalist.) But it is good to remind ourselves that the power of a historical play by Shakespeare does not depend on the literal accuracy with respect to “the facts,” what happened historically. “Shakespeare” used sources that were accepted as historical accounts at the time, but which we now know were far from accurate. But historical accuracy is not what matters. What matters is the profundity of the exploration of the human condition that the writer evokes, via all the techniques of verbal creation. All of which means that we can surely still relate to and use stories and symbolic elements. We can recognize their power. We wouldn’t want to reject them: don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. We need to re-tell the stories in a way that they can speak to us.

      There is still one major problem, however, that relates directly to the idea of resurrection. All that we know about the evolution of living beings, and particularly the evolution of the human species, makes it very difficult to relate to the terminology of people who understood little of what we now know about the physical realities of human anatomy and physiology. Most notably, traditional symbolic physiologies of the human body—even such categories as body or flesh, breath or soul, breath or spirit; but also such ideas as locating the emotions in the kidneys, and thinking in the heart—are impossible for us. Paul’s speculative thinking about spiritual bodies, and the Gospels’ accounts of appearances of Jesus just do not make sense to us. And even such an idea as singing God’s praises, or enjoying the bliss of heaven, in some non-physical body: we can no longer think of aesthetics without taking consideration of the evolution of ears and eyes and mouth and tongue, and the incredible complexity of electrical impulses in the brain. We can perhaps think of some reality beyond our personal death, but we agree that we cannot know what it might be like, except that extrapolating from our current physical condition seems quite ludicrous.

      So if we can no longer conceive of a resurrected body enjoying eternal life—or even immortality of the soul—can we nevertheless re-formulate what it is that the writers are trying to convey via their myths and the elements of their symbolic world.”


      So they really see themselves as “modern intellectuals” do they? It seems like they are puffed up with pride., I think the case has been made on this thread that these people are really expressing a kind of anti-intellectualism.

      This second article was written by Ray Barraclough of APCVA:

      “Then there is the claim (repeated without any theological scrutiny by the media) that the 2019 federal election result was a “miracle” instituted presumably by the Prime Minister’s God. There is a history to this kind of claim stemming from the Christian scriptures. Without going into detail, a Christian scriptural passage, namely Romans 13:2, seems to buttress this claim by asserting that “[the governing] authorities have been instituted by God”.

      Usually it is the victor (or their religious supporters) who claim such a victory as a “miracle”. An anecdote from history. A conservative and devout colleague of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (with this biblical passage in view) sought unsuccessfully to persuade Bonhoeffer that God had raised up Hitler to rule Germany.

      Reliable news reports from America indicate that some 80% of white male evangelical voters helped elect Donald Trump as President of the United States. Does that show that the evangelical God has a preference for Trump’s rule? Is that to be regarded as another election miracle?”

      Aside from the attacks on God’s sovereignty, the comment about “the Prime Minister’s God”stood out to me. Is Barraclough/APCVA saying the orthodox God of the [Pentecostal] Prime Minister is not their god? Are they inferring we all make God in our own image? Does that include Progressive Christians themselves? Do they believe in an objective God beyond what we project?

      Brraclough goes on:

      “Such a claim may go down well in fundamentalist Christian circles but mature theology, and a knowledge of electoral history, leads to valid scepticism.”

      Again, they are puffed up with pride. They see themselves as possessing a more “mature theology” than all orthodox Christians throughout history (whom they label and throw in with the fundamentalists). Apparently after 2000 years, they and they alone, are suddenly the mature ones. I am sure that would be news to the many great theologians throughout history with whose great works these fringe Anglican and Uniting Church types cannot even begin to compare. They are farcically deluded.

  34. Breaking news – Louis Daniels has been extradited back to Tasmania to face an historic child sex charge.

    Louis Daniels was, of course, the priest that Aspinall allegedly covered up for, purportedly because he was part of Bishop Newell’s and Aspinall’s Anglo-Catholic faction in the otherwise-evangelical Tasmanian diocese.

    The Royal Commission ultimately found Aspinall not guilty.

  35. I have just been reading an article by Len Baglow who I understand is one of Peter Catt’s colleagues on the board of APCVA. His arguments are, frankly, offensive and arrogant as he tries to tell those of us who are not inner city elites what is good for us:

    “If in the last election you voted for the Liberals, the Nationals, One Nation or the UAP you voted for hell.

    Some progressives think that hell does not exist. However, if you work with and for the most marginalized people in our society you know that it does. Hell is the rubbish dump, just beyond our fine city walls, where we dump the poor, those on government unemployment benefits, asylum seekers, people with disabilities, people with low incomes or insecure work; the list goes on and on.”

    Well, as someone who has lived beyond the “city walls” in outer suburb, regional Australia and, yes, in housing commission areas, I can tell Baglow that many of those poor people in those areas do themselves vote for “the Liberals, the Nationals, One Nation or the UAP.”

    We remember the suffering inflicted on us by the ALP in the 1980s and 1990s. It is clear he has no real interest in listening to us or hearing us. This is more about preaching to his inner city cronies to vote for the ALP or Greens, not withstanding the very real suffering they have inflicted on us in the past. He apparently knows what is good for us and we, poor innocent souls on the “rubbish heap” outside the guilded walls of the inner city, evidently do not.

    He goes on:

    “Last week we elected a new Federal Government. If they deliver on their promises, the people dump will be smaller, but the pressure on Government will be tremendous. The rich and unscrupulous are powerful in this country and they control much of the media. They will hound this government, and if they cannot find weaknesses, they will invent them.”

    Trying to present the ALP as the underdog is ridiculous. Yes, Murdoch opposes them but they have the power of the trade unions behind them. As if there aren’t millionaires in the Labor Party.

    “The reign of love in which no one is excluded does not depend on Christ arriving on a cloud, but on us each doing our little bit.”

    He is probably saying this to link his piece to the fact it was Ascension Day last week. Of course, we can read a mocking tone into this statement as the Progressive Christians do not believe in a literal second coming as the story is a metaphor to them. As always, the Socialists think they can create heaven on earth throiugh political reform alone, without Christ. Ironically, it is they who inevitably create a hell on earth instead.


    1. @Bob, there is another newer post on that forum that tells me everything I need to know about what these “Progressive Christian” heretics believe:

      “…This was at a time before the church had the chance to make claims about a virgin birth and a physical resurrection, or elevate him to God’s right hand, or bestow upon him divine status, or credit him with miraculous feats in defiance of natural laws, or endow him with salvific powers….”


      “In the [Westar] Institute’s Jesus Seminar, the scholars found that the truly human Jesus had been hidden under layer after layer of Christian fictions.

      The trip of Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem, the shepherds in the fields and the three wise men were all stories that were created around the latter half of the first century in order “to satisfy growing theological interests”. Probably only an estimated 19 per cent of sayings attributed to Jesus by the gospel writers were thought to be authentic.

      The real Jesus was neither intentionally the founder of an institution nor was he divine. He was a Jewish sage whose one-liners and stories about how to live were addressed to his fellow Jews but which, once memorialised, spoke universally to the human condition.”

      There we have it in black and white. Those who subscribe to Progressive Christianity, like these Brisbane Anglican figures, deny that Jesus was divine. They follow the shoddy scholarship and bias agendas of the Westar Institute’s fringe scholars because they tell these priests what they want to hear.

      I am very glad I do not live in Brisbane. It is heartbreaking to see our Church led astray by these priests.

      1. I didn’t really conclude my thought on this the other day. By posting the prayer for the dead on the APCVA Facebook page, the Progressive Christians really are driving away anyone with low church leaning, quite aside from their heretical beliefs. They will therefore always be a minority within a minority and never gain the mass appeal that Catt evidently wants for them.

        Anyway another APCVA priestess is attacking the Sydney Anglicans at the moment with a series of hostile Tweets.

  36. Suddenly everything has changed. You people must be relieved that GAFCON has launched the Southern Cross diocese.

    It is sad it has come to this as Jesus’ prayer for Christian unity remains yet again unfulfilled but God also called Lot out of Sodom and Paul warned us to have nothing to do with Christians who indulge in sexual immorality. Also as Pastor David says those who deny the resurrection do not worship the same God as us.

    There is an interview with the first brave Brisbane pastor to break away here.

    His comments in that interview are telling.

    “The stakes were high: Palmer had previously given notice as the parish priest of St George’s Anglican Church Beenleigh, telling an “envoy” of the archbishop of Brisbane he was leaving to join Gafcon, a breakaway group that is dividing the Anglican church across the world.

    Gafcon, the Global Anglican Future Conference, says it’s fighting back against a “revisionist” interpretation of the Bible by the leadership of the Anglican church which has allowed the ordination of women, the blessing of same-sex marriages and more relaxed views regarding divorce.

    Palmer said when he was asked by the envoy why he was leaving to join Gafcon, he responded: “I cannot go along with same-sex blessings, I will not allow that to happen, and I’ve got to stand up to this”.

    Rather than serving his customary three months leave, Palmer said he was told that his service the following Sunday would be his last with the Anglican church.

    He said he negotiated to get an extra week of service – to allow his parishioners to “grieve” – given he had been at the church for more than six years.”

    Italics mine. I think that confirms everything people have said on here about Archbishop Aspinall.

    I only hope this hasn’t come too late since it sounds like many of you have already left the Anglican Church and found homes in other denoms.

    Hopefully this will help to change the culture in Brisbane. Best wishes to all of you up there and let us pray the Gospel spreads in your city and region once more through the efforts of these faithful servants of our Lord.

  37. Yes, God has really answered the prayers in this thread through the establishment of the Southern Cross Diocese.

    Thank you, Lord and Father, for using Glenn Davies and Richard Condie, as Your instruments to restore Your Gospel among Anglicans in Queensland. Support and protect Rev Peter as he bravely leads the way as the first minister to hold a Southern Cross service. We know things could not have kept on going on the way they had been in the Anglican Church in Brisbane. Thank You for Your timely intervention and may you use Southern Cross as your instrument to save many souls and change the culture of the troubled city of Brisbane. Amen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: