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….
The Blog of David Robertson
The Blog of David Robertson
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….
These revisionist priests are just making it up as they go along. Their morals are terribke too.
I am grateful to God that the Southern Cross Diocese continues to grow so that authentic Anglicanism returns to Brisbane and bears witness to the scriptures and leads to souls being saved.
Yes @Sam. At least “consumers” have a choice now between the liberal Christianity of Anglican Church Southern Queensland and the orthodox, Biblically-faithful Christianity of the Diocese of the Southern Cross. It is up to each parishioner now to decide which path he or she wishes to follow.
Brisbane has never had a strong evangelical Anglican culture so ot is exciting to see it grow. After so much pain and hurt caused by the current generation of priests in the Brisbane diocese, Southern Cross is an exciting new beginning. What an adveture to embark on for Christ!
Going forward, I’d love to see a satellite campus of Moore College founded in Brisbane in the future in order to train a new generation of Anglican ministers. They will be needed to rebuild the church.
re: Catt and his apparent endorsement of Weimar homosexual culture, the ironic thing is that the German Christians who sided with Hitler with their Positive Christianity were the liberal theologians and pastors of their time. When you move away from the Bible, you can twist your morals to justify anything.
re: discussion about John Anderson, I know he is a devout Christian and I also know he has always been haunted by the fact he accidentally killed his younger sister with a cricket ball as a child. 🙁 That makes it all the more baffling to me that he felt he could support the Iraq War knowing it would lead to massive death and suffering for the Iraqi peope and would see families torn apart. I agree that if some Christian members of the Coalition could have stood up to Howard and the Americans and crossed the floor on this issue, like some Blairites did in Britain, it would have made a difference and restored a degree of trust in democracy in this country. Yes I too would love to hear how he recociles all these things in his mind. Maybe he could give these running wounds in Australian Christian society some closure after twenty years by telling us honestly what happened regarding the Iraq decision and how he justified it.
I also agree that if Crisafulli becomes Queensland premier in October, I am sure he will find the Anglican Church Southern Queensland and APCVA lobbyists yo br annoying little gnats constantly trying to bother him with their ridiculous woke agenda. Gone are the days of the Anglican Church being the Tory Party at prayer indeed. Today they are more like the Greens on a meditation retreat. 🙁
I will continue to pray for Southern Cross and the growth of an evangelical Calvinist Anglican culture on Brisbane going forward.
Reading through this entire thread we have revisionist priests in Brisbane who
-reject the ten commandments
-reject doctrine
-reject Christ’s statement that you need to be born again
-don’t believe in the scriptures
-don’t believe in the devil
-don’t believe Jesus was the Son of God
-don’t believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ
I realise most Brisbane priests only uphold some of these statements but if you take all of these statements together, that doesn’t leave much does it?
All they have is a social gospel religion based around current left-wing ethics-especially those relating to homosexuality, transgenderism and feminism-and a hollow form of ritualism that they are attempting to use to bind their community together.
A few more for your list:
-reject the Apostles’ Creed and think it should be scrapped
-deny homosexual activity is a sin
-deny acting on transgemder impulses is a sin
-deny the historicity of the infancy narratives
-blather on about the occult (astral planes and Jung) from the pulpit
-reject penal substitutionary atonement
-deny the historicity of the Ascension
🙁
Christianity helped create our individualised culture in the west. Catt wants to reject that and return the west to collectivist thinking:
“Firstly, it reminds us of the focus of Jesus’ ministry. Jesus was focused on
heralding the Kingdom or, as I like to call it, The Commonwealth of God.
He spent his time setting people free from oppressive structures, practises,
and attitudes. His ministry challenged the empire and those in power,
including the religious authorities. So, it is the nations that are called to
account.
Secondly, reading with a focus on nations rather than people frees us from
self-indulgent thinking. Our individualised culture leads us to think that
everything, including salvation, is an individual and personal affair.
Reading with a focus on nations invites us to see that this gospel is not
about us seeking to work out whether we are a sheep or a goat. Rather
what matters is the system of which we are a part. It is our culture and
our national attitude that tends towards one of the two behaviours:
towards enacting acts of mercy or pushing the vulnerable further into
places of intolerable suffering. So instead of scrutinising the behaviour of
individuals, we need to be scrutinising our national behaviour. How do we
make Australia a more generous and caring country?, is the question that
bubbles up for me.”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/115ZoM8MRnH8y77KnQLDIopd_CxJtyn7K/view
Jesus tells us His kingdom is not of this world though. On Palm Sunday, the people were expecting a national liberator from the oppression of the Romans. Jesus never speaks out against their cruelty. He tells the people to pay their taxes to Caesar. He is not specifically calling Rome to account at any time.
The rejection of individual accountability for one’s own salvation is most troubling though. The New Testament indicates time and time again it is the faith of individuals that leads them to salvation. Abraham is called out of his nation onto his faith-journey for instance.
In this next example, Jenks talks about how each “afterlife” of Jesus is our own personal construction.
“We allow others the space to fashion the kind of Jesus aBerlife that is
most authentic for them, and—we hope—they allow us that same freedom as well.”
Creating Christ in your own image?
“The different forms of Christianity that developed inside the Roman Empire but also beyond
its borders, constituted multiple afterlives of Jesus.
Well beyond the explicit contours of Christianity we can discern numerous afterlives of
Jesus…
Not every afterlife of Jesus is authentic (even if they pay the bills) and some are clearly toxic.”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10eDi1qpPLvxlvOK8UhFFV_3j2XcwKcbF/view
One more from Catt:
“The reason I mention the role of happenstance is because sometimes,
looking back at our life, we come to believe that everything that has
happened to us was inevitable.
When we think along that trajectory, we start talking about God having
a plan for our lives in the sense that God planned every step and event;
that as we walked through our life God’s plan for us was taking place.
Now, that is a very fine and beautiful and meaning making take on life
when our life is going well. To see it all as the unfolding of something God
has desired for us and planned for us is lovely and comforting if that is
how our life has been.
It becomes quite toxic, however, when we form the view that the
negative things that have happened to us, the abuse that has happen to
us, are somehow part of God’s plan, given that it, too, has that same
sense of inevitability attached to it.
It is important and helpful, I think, to counter this view by reminding
ourselves that happenstance, as Rowan Atkinson says, has been at play
in our lives. So much of what has happened to us has happened by
coincidence and accident. This unravels the idea that God had designed
an inevitable plan for the unfolding our lives in terms of the steps and
invites us to enter some very different territory.’
https://drive.google.com/file/d/103rmRib2s_VcFrhpe_8F0wCvlFLw4uLH/view
Catt is here rejecting the doctrines of God’s absolute sovereignty and predestination in favour of blind chance. If you read the rest of the sermon, he seems to believe God travels alongside us in solidarity but it seems like a form of Deism where God is very hands-off or unable or unwilling to intervene in our lives. I wonder if he even begins to realise the broader theological implications of what he is saying to his congregation here.
It is even more offensive when he cites “the abuse that has happen {sic} to us” given his church’s coldness and lack of regard – indeed, even contempt for – abuse survivors.
Regard nations versus individual salvation, If I walked into the cathedral off the street searching for the way to be saved, I honestly think I’d be more confused than ever after that sermon.
Let’s think it through logically because I really can’t understand what Peter Catt is trying to say here. His soteriology simply doesn’t make any sense to me.
If salvation is based on a culture or nation does that mean you have to be part of a Christian nation to be saved? Nation-states as we know them now didn’t exist until a long time after Jesus, is that is an anachronism for a start so what exactly does he mean by nation or cuoture?
If he does mean nation-states as we know them now, where does that leave the few underground Christians in a decidedly unchristian country/culture like North Korea? Are they doomed because of the surrounding culture?
If we are collectively judged as a nation on “enacting acts of mercy” then that is a works-righteousness scheme of earning salvation and an act of absolute heresy.
Let’s think further though. Let’s assume all of this is correct. We know Peter Catt apparently likes the Weimar Republic because of its toleration of homosexuality and other forms of sexual deviancy. Does that mean the Weimar Nation will be saved? Is that everyone who lived in Weimar cities? Are they all collectively saved? Hitler and Himmler lived in Weimar Germany. Are they saved? Lutherans, particularly those in rural regions like East Prussia, were adamantly opposed to the decadence of the Weimar cities. Are they lost because they did not show “acts of mercy” by opposing sodomy while atheists who did are saved?
Cultures can change over time. Weimar Germany became Nazi Germany. If I lived through both the tolerant period and then the Nazi period, notable for its absence of acts of mercy to put it mildly, would I be saved or not? I could go to the grave in 1945 without assurance of salvation while someone who died in 1932 would get a free ticket.
What happens if I am an emigrant or hold dual citizenship between a tolerant nation/culture and a less merciful one? How am I judged then?
Homosexuality only became a major political issue in recent decades in most western nations. If our culture had a blindspot before are we all damned or do God’s morals shift and he only judges us when each new item appears on a nation’s political agenda? If we don’t vote for Peter’s radical progressive left for legitimate reasons, are we damned? Can’t there be multiple legitimate viewpoints to an issue? How can we always jusge what is the most merciful option? Idls my salvation in tye habds of my political leaders? What if they lead is to become a less compassionate culture despite my personal stance? Is my salvation in their collective hands? What if I wish to live as an apolitical person? Is everything, including our salvation,, ultimately a political act instead of a personal faith relationship with Christ? How are non-democratic nations judged?
Okay, now let’s assume he didn’t kean nation-states. In Jesus’ time, the nation of Israel consisted of the twelve tribes so there was an ethnic understanding of nationhood. Well, like many Australians, I have mixed ethnicity. In my case, I am predominantly a mix of northern European ethnic groups but you could simplify it to say I am broadly a mix of Germanic and Celtic ethnicities. Am I to be judged on the culture of these two ethnic “nations”? How would that work, given I live on the other side of the world from where the majority of them reside. If Celts perform more acts of mercy than Germanic people how would I be judged? In a multi-cultural society if, say, Asian-Australians perform more acts of mercy than European-Australians are they saved while we are condemned? How does God judge the value of each act? How are we to know if our group/nation has done enough to “earn” salvation? What if our children turn out bad? Are we accountable for that? Do they undo the good we have done or is each generation judged separately?
I can also see how judging a group based on the value of their works and their nation/ethnicity/blood is also eerily similar to Nazism and the way in which they judged the value of human life.
These are just really basic questions that come to me straight away from that sermon. Peter seems to believe in works, not faith, no individual accountability, no condemnation of any form of sexual deviancy, and a corporate scheme of salvation where every act is politicised and every political act is religious-ified and only cultures that are “tolerant” and politically active in pushing progressive agendas have any hope of salvation and where a personal relationship with Jesus counts for naught and where there is never any assurance of salvation for our personal identity group or ethnic ghetto because we can never be sure if we were welcoming enough or kind enough or how our blindspots will be judged. It sounds like a form of hell.
I think he means nation-states in the modern sense because he specifically mentions Australia and we are a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society and a contemporary sovereign political unit.
Well maybe we should lobby the Immigration Minister to invite in more philanthropists, doctors, environmentalists and social justice warriors to boost our nation’s works righteousness score. /sarcasm
Sorry, I couldn’t resist that dig at the Brisbane Anglicans’ logic .
Seriously though, this means that we have now reached the point where different dioceses within the Australian Anglican Communion are telling their parishioners diametrically opposed things about how to be saved. 🙁
From those quotes, I read it that Peter Catt is rejecting the doctrine of the salvation of individuals (through faith alone) and is saying that works righteousness is the path to salvation (and that this is a whole-of-nation responsibility). Is that what he is saying?!
That is the most shocking, far-reaching thing I have read from the Brisbane progressives aside from the denial of the bodily resurrection of Christ. They cannot possibly claim to be Christians now, surely. This is madness.
I promise I will pray for Southern Cross too, though I do not belong to a Southern Cross parish (I left ACSQ for a different denomination). @TheWeeFlea, Pastor Robertson, is Glenn Davies aware of exactly what the Brisbane Anglicans are saying?! 🙁
Also they have a low view of scriptures and reject at least some of God’s law so how do they know what constitutes an “act of mercy” in God’s eyes? How do they know God thinks these acts are good? Where is the yardstick? Is it the acts themselves or the culture that facilitates them that we will be judged on? Catt seems to imply it is the latter from my reading of it. If we overcome adversity caused by cultural resistance to perform an “act of mercy” does that count for anything then? What about if our culture encourages it but we do not infividually pull our weight?
Yes give Catt’s arguments any more than ten seconds’ thought and yiu realise they make absolutely zero sense and are full of self-contradictions.
As we were saying on the previous page, they really don’t care about our souls or eternal salvation at all, do they? They are too busy playing politics and feeding their own egos. Stepping away from the orthodox, accepted view of salvation to promote a pet fringe theory is more evidence of that. Their hubris must be enormous.
Even other churches that incorporate a form of works righteousness, like Roman Catholicism, don’t have this notion that salvation is for arbitrary corporate bodies like nation-states and not individuals.
The sad thing is I feel as impotent as Catt’s god when it comes to changing things in the Diocese.
Some more. Here he claims the Emmaus story is an allegory because Emmaus does not exist.
“The fact that Emmaus is a mythical town – there is no such
place near Jerusalem…”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1104umdYEpNiVADm7SoeL7fH110__Vnz_/view
Actually, there are several possible locations, including one in Gaza about 75 km from Jerusalem.
In this one, he treats a late date for Mark as fact and argues that the formation of house churches was in response to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple.
“The Gospel according to Mark was written in a time of violent upheaval
for the Jewish people. In the year CE 70 following a long period of siege
the Roman legions invaded Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple. The
loss of that central meaning-making symbol threw the Jewish population
across the Empire, which in those days included the fledgling Christian
community, into disarray.
In response to the collapse of the Temple cult the Jewish community in
Antioch developed two responses. The first was what came to be known
as Formative Judaism, a movement led by the Pharisees who had the
capacity to do theology in the absence of the Temple. The second was
that devised by the followers of Jesus within the Jewish community.
These set themselves up as a community that had the hallmarks of being
a household; a household that gathers around Jesus, and lives in a way
that challenges the life and ways of the Empire by living the life of God’s
Commonwealth.”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19Mi8w_7CKvCZjLGva-bMKJphS7GMPEoO/view
Again his focus is on challenging empire which is a bit rich since Catt is very much part of the establishment himself. He is the Dean of a cathedral in a somewhat-Anglican country and the Bishop, his boss, is known to dine with the governor of Queensland and leaders of the armed forces on occasion, so you can’t get much more establishment than that. His lack of self-awareness is stunning! I suppose if you reject the notion of individual salvation you inevitably have to look to the political though. I doubt God is only going to save Australia if we all suddenly vote Green like Catt though. Where is the role of faith?
Infancy narratives not historical, again through speculation as to how they were written.
“The fact that the two birth stories are the result of a
Midrashic process also explains why they both have a theological rather
than historical focus.”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11r7s_lHyGejOxpgvP19gHXY_yObkuFZ1/view
More quotes from Jenks.
“There is much more happening in that phrase than proof texts plucked from
ancient scrolls as talking points for later Christian spin doctors.”
He attacks reformation hermeneutics. He also quotes Crossan in the sermon.
Now let’s go full Anglo-Catholic:
“To step inside this awesome church is to cross from everyday life into a liminal space where
the distant past remains strangely present in stone and text, music and ritual. The lingering
aroma of incense as we enter the Cathedral draws us into the great back story of faith.”
Very flowery. I really haven’t felt anything like that in the cathedral. I see a ridiculous, dark and gloomy anachronism and waste of money where heresy is preached and homosexuality is promoted.
Speaking of which, here is yet another Cathedral sermon promoting sodomy and sin:
“It is time that ‘we’ (and I mean ‘we’) let go of the need for the marginalisation
of LGBTIQ people. There is NO approba;on in Holy Scripture that recons with
human sexuality based on orientation. None. The no;on of sexual orientation
was not defined un;l 1890 when the word ‘homosexual’ was termed. In fact,
during much of the time of the writers of Holy Scripture, there was the idea
that a person could be ‘aHracted’ to either sex.
Dear Church,
It is time that ‘we’ embrace the living and loving of two people choosing to live
in faithful relationships – regardless of their gender. There is NO condemnation
in Holy Scripture against two people of the same sex living in a faithful
committed mutually respectful relationship. None…. Enough of the marginalisation and subjugation of women and Queer people. Enough of the slavery to broken patriarchy… Sadly, similar
arguments were used against the abolition of slavery that are used against
Queer people. The exclusion and marginalisation of Queer people will be like the issue of
slavery where future generations will weep for the countless generations lost
to the abusive misuse of Holy Scripture.”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10sHF_PeVmpW80DA7DQ8H2PqNDVWTb2DD/view
Obscene.
I was just reading this new Christian question and answer entry on another site and it seems incredibly appropriate to the Brisbane Anglican situation.
—
Q. Can we call ourselves Christians while denying the physical resurrection of Jesus? Should we take the Bible literally or interpret it? [Patrick]
A. From the moment we open the Bible, we will interpret it. To say otherwise would be to lie. The most literalist readers will also interpret it, choosing one verse rather than another to answer the question that is bothering them. To choose is already to interpret. Reading the Scriptures, a vital gesture for Christians, consists of appropriating a word that has preceded us, and that will succeed us. We read it with what we are. We interpret it, which does not mean that we do not take it seriously, and that we do not carefully consider its details.
In this case, the resurrection is not a detail! Both the gospels and Paul’s letters insist on the bodily dimension of the resurrection. Thomas is invited to put his fingers in the stigmata of the Resurrected One. Paul fights in the Churches the Gnostic spiritualists who thought that bodies do not take part in salvation, and he delivers to the Corinthians a profound meditation on the subject (1 Corinthians 15). It is of course possible to want to deconstruct these texts to make them simple symbols of the gift that God gives us of life; renowned theologians have done so by intellectualizing or spiritualizing the resurrection.
However, the interpretation that has prevailed over the centuries and that the Churches have never ceased to confess through the Apostles’ Creed remains “the resurrection of the flesh” . This promise is beyond our understanding and resists our intelligence, that is certain, but to renounce it means to turn one’s back on an essential point of the Christian faith and to render it vain, according to the words of the Apostle Paul.
—
I hope this helps any readers out there who have been misled by the Brisbane Anglicans.
That is perfect. I too pray it will help someone who has been left confused or lost by the progressive christians’ false teachings.
God must have led you to find that post tonight and share it here.
Re collective versus individual salvation, that belief is not confined to just Catt. I was at synod years ago and a different priest gave a speech in which he worked himself up into a hysteria because he was afraid that the government’s refugee policies would collectively condemn all of us, as a nation, to hell. He was literally in tears by the end of his speech. It was disgusting to see a grown man act like that.
This revisionist priest was a victim of his own errant theology and lack of belief in individual accountability and personal salvation through faith alone.
No one corrected him or refuted his claims in the responses that followed his address. This heresy evidently has a number of believers in the diocese.
I just remembered Katharine Jefferts Schori promoted collective salvation. Maybe the Brisbane Anglicans latched onto the idea after hearing it from her. 🙁
Here is the Southern Cross minister’s open letter to Aspinall.
https://anglican.ink/2022/07/11/an-open-letter-to-the-archbishop-of-brisbane-phillip-aspinall/
It confirms bullying is rife in the Diocese (he was laughed at and became a pariah as soon as he mentioned he was trained at Moore College).
I don’t understand where Aspinall’s hatred of evangelicals came from. I know he comes from the evangelical Diocese of Tasmania where he, Bishop Newell and Louis Daniels formed part of a minority Anglo-Catholic faction but he would have known most, if not all, the evangelical ministers down there are not stupid rabidly fundamentalist anti-intellectual flat-earthers or however it is he caricatures them. Somehow though he has developed a visceral hatted of all things evangelical and a particular obsessive rivalry, so it seems, with the Doocese of Sydney. He also even held George Carey in contempt.
I wonder what started him down this very liberal path. It is ironic because elsewhere Calvinists are often called the intellectuals of Protestantism and, as others have expressed earlier in this thread, progressive christianity bears the hallmarks of an anti-intellectual movement so it seems a bit like Aspinall is projecting. Now he has ironically pushed things so far that Southern Cross has had to step into his patch to ensure there are orthodox Anglican parishes in Brisbane. He has left the door wide open to invite his “enemy” in just to make sure Brisbane is being evangelised abd catechised properly.
The letter guves great insight. All that talk about being “welcoming” and “inclusive” from the Brisbane Anglicans doesn’t count if you are a Moore College graduate or a Calvinist.
I just learnt something interesting. Moore College has volunteered to store the Huguenot Society of Australia’s archives in its library for posterity.
Furthermore, Saint Swithun’s Parish in Pymble, Sydney, hosts an annual Huguenot commemorative service.
It really is a huge indictment of Brisbane Anglicans that they see these people as enemies. The Huguenots died in their tens of thousands for their faith and yet these Brisbane Progressives mock those who hold the same beliefs as them and attempt to undermine Calvinism, all while introducing their own man-made innovations. With that mindset, Brisbane Anglicans/progressive christians would have been among the Huguenots’ persecutors if they’d been around in the 1500s. We are blessed that all they can do today is mock, bully and ostracise, as bad as that is. I am thankful they do not have the temporal power to hurt us amymore. They truly are the heirs of Archbishop Laud and his cronies, aren’t they?
It seems to me the Brisbane Anglicans like to call black white and white black. Aspinall tries to claim his ultra-liberal beliefs are the middle ground and denigrates traditional evangelical Anglicanism as extreme! He claims Calvinists are unthinking fundamentalists whereas everyone ekse has traditionally considered them to be the intellectuals of the church. Instead, he tries to paint the progressive christians as the true intellectuals while person after person in this discussion thread has provided evidemce they are an anti-intellectual counter-reformation movement. Up is down amd down is up in Aspinall’s world.
I have never even set foit in a Sydney Anglican church but it is heartening that they support the Huguenots’ legacy. They are their theological heirs, after all.
Thanks for sharing his letter. I am just a member of the laity but I had similar experiences to those the priest has documented.
Because I am a Calvinist/low church Christian, I was bullied by my priest (someone whose name has already appeared several times in this discussion thread) and by a clique of parishioners she had gathered around her in our church, some of whom were parish councillors.
Since leaving the Anglican church for a different denomination I have thrived. God led me out and He’s now nourishing my soul in a Biblical, faithful denomination. Praise be unto His name.
I am very glad things worked out well. I am praying for you.
I will pray too. If you read through the previous pages of this discussion, bullying seems to be a common theme a number of us have experienced so you are definitely not alone. I am glad things are working out well at your new church. Blessings.
In this article, Peter Catt attacks the doctrine of male headship because of concerns about domrstic violence.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2015/6-march/news/world/doctrine-of-headship-linked-to-cases-of-domestic-violence
This ties into thectime period when Julia Baird and other ABC types were attacking Sydney’s stance on the doctrine. To me, it is a little reminiscent of the Prohibition mentality in America. A minority of people abuse a gift they have been given and cause a great deal of harm, so the heavy handed solution is to try to ban it for everyone. Even though the doctrine he wants banned is something that has been mandated by God as essentially good for us in this case. His arrogance knows no bounds. 🙁
Anyway it’s easy to see the hidden agenda behind his apparent concern for battered wives. As always, it is patently obvious that this is yet another attack on the Bible in the name of progressive social values by Peter Catt. 🙁
I can’t find it again now but Catt wrote another similar piece that he was upset when female members of his congregation left a Bible study to go home to prepare dinner for their husbands. He wasn’t upset that they were being “Marthas” and putting housework and family ahead of God. No, once again it was the male headship issue and being dutiful, submissive wives that upset him. 🙁
Catt seems to revel in being a contrarian, attacking doctrine after doctrine, orthodoxy after orthodoxy, in order to hollow everything Christians believe out of the faith.
Yes he’s using the horrific tragedy of domestic violence to launch a broad attack on male headship.
It is politically astute of him because who wants to argue the case for male headship that and risk appearing “in favour” of domestic violence?
Thankfully, the purported causal link between male headship and DV has now been debunked.
https://m.facebook.com/silverstreetbaptist/posts/the-abcs-mediawatch-program-touches-up-the-shortcomings-of-recent-abc-programs-o/1507513955952111/?wtsid=rdr_02Kl5VTAUo1kRDa3p
No, I can’t find that article at all now sorry but I did find another one which I hadn’t seen before which is another real eye-opener. This is probably the most extreme public statement Peter Catt has made on same-sex marriage:
“The Anglican dean of Brisbane, Peter Catt, says marriage equality is needed for “human flourishing and good order in society”.”
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/nov/19/marriage-equality-will-give-hope-the-faith-leaders-backing-same-sex-union
If it is a “need” and not a want, how did society maintain good order for thousands of years without it? He is implying it is something absolutely intrinsic that our civilisation must have. He thinks this sinful act is fundamental to society and human flourishing. 🙁 These progressive christians still shock me with how far they are prepared to go with the claims they make just when I thought I’d heard it all. There really is something satanic about all of this as it would take a truly diabolical imagination to come up with these utterances, particularly since these people have infiltrated the clergy and (falsely) proclaim their views are in anyway Christian.
I am in despair over this wickedness. I am going to retreat and pray a while.
Thank goodness we have a God of Truth and Justice watching over His flock in Brisbane who has provided for us and guided many of us away from this wicked, fallenchurch and its group of false shepherds. May God protect all true Christians from their lies and bless all who read this discussion. I hope more people escape and are not led astray by their false words.
Yes, he’s arguing that SSM is not just “needed” for a small minority of people but that it is an overwhelming force for good for society as a whole. Diabolical indeed. 🙁
Where does it all end? Where is the accountability for these people and the bishops who endorse their views? How long until this woke heresy fad burns itself out?
I will devote this evening to praying about this issue too.
I was reading about the upcoming Qld election this morning. A person commented that Brisbane is a Catholic town which is why South-East Queensland tends to vote for Labour and the Greens while the rest of the State is very deeply conservative.
That might partly explain why Anglican Church Southern Queensland is trying to target this demographic, at the expense of Biblical truth.
I hadn’t thought of that. Brisbane was settled a little later than the evangelical cities of Sydney and Hobart. It was opened to free settlement in 1838, which coincides with the rise of the Oxford Movement in England, hence its Anglo-Catholicism. The early priests who came out were part of the Anglo-Catholic fad and that has remained part of the Diocese’s culture ever since.
I’ve never looked into the city’s Roman Catholic history though.
The extreme liberalism of the progressive christians is a new phenomenon that can be traced to the last few decades under Aspinall. As noted earlier in this discussion thread, a number of the senior Brisbane Anglicans who have hekd positions of power under Aspinall have links to the Westar Institute and the Jesus Seminar. Heretical preachers, like Spong, who were banned from preaching in Brisbane by Archbishop Hollingsworth, were suddenly welcomed in by Aspinall to promote their views.
I pray Southern Cross can break and remould the culture of the Diocese. Even just presenting a choice of a different kind of Anglicanism will hopefully give some of these ageing liberal Anglo-Catholic parishioners pause for thought and hopefully encourage them to think more about doctrine and what they truly believe instead of towing tge Diocese line with a degree of spiritual apathy as I frequently observe now.
Since the progressive christians constantly trumpet love and tolerance as the core of the faith and the core of Christ’s teachings and proclaim love over doctrine, I think this quote from Martin Luther’s Second Lecture on Galatians proves to be a worthy antidote to their false teachings:
“This is the true meaning of Christianity, that we are justified by faith in Christ, not by the works of the Law. Do not let yourself be swayed here by the wicked gloss of the sophists, who say that faith justifies only when love and good works are added to it. With this pernicious gloss they have darkened and distorted some of the finest texts of this sort. When a man hears that he should believe in Christ, but that faith does not justify unless this “form,” that is, love, is added, then he quickly falls from faith and thinks to himself: “If faith does not justify without love, then faith is vain and useless, and love alone justifies; or unless faith is formed and adorned by love, it is nothing.”
In support of this wicked and destructive gloss the opponents cite this passage from 1 Cor. 13:1–2: “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, and if I have prophetic powers and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” They suppose that this passage is their wall of bronze. But they are men without understanding, and therefore they cannot grasp or see anything in Paul. With this false interpretation they have not only done injury to Paul’s words but have also denied Christ and buried all His blessings. Therefore this gloss is to be avoided as a hellish poison, and we must conclude with Paul: By faith alone, not by faith formed by love, are we justified. We must not attribute the power of justifying to a “form” that makes a man pleasing to God; we must attribute it to faith, which takes hold of Christ the Savior Himself and possesses Him in the heart. This faith justifies without love and before love.
We concede that good works and love must also be taught; but this must be in its proper time and place, that is, when the question has to do with works, apart from this chief doctrine. But here the point at issue is how we are justified and attain eternal life. To this we answer with Paul: We are pronounced righteous solely by faith in Christ, not by the works of the Law or by love. This is not because we reject works or love, as our adversaries accuse us of doing, but because we refuse to let ourselves be distracted from the principal point at issue here, as Satan is trying to do. So since we are now dealing with the topic of justification, we reject and condemn works; for this topic will not allow of any discussion of good works. On this issue, therefore, we simply cut off all laws and all works of the Law.”
Francis Turretin wrote that the Church has always had many enemies, “some open and disclosed, publicly presenting themselves enemies of the Christian name, others hidden and disguised, attacking Christ under the name of Christ Himself.” Progressive Christianity is an example of the latter. There is nothing new under the sun. We can take heart in the fact that none of these movements survive long-term. These wicked priests and their movement will soon be gone at the time of God’s own choosing.
Another attack on Scripture by Catt this Sunday.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19hYMN03efbBMEtw80hxSIu6cHIaP0D5t/view
Pastor, the Facebook post from Aug 6 entitled “Truth-telling rejection or an embrace?” has APCVA using Scripture to blatantly try to emotionally blackmail people into voting a certain way:
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=931486202342288&id=100064427511823
For people who don’t like Scripture they seem happy to use (and twist) it when it supports their polirical agenda.
I just read it. Yes, I agree. Barraclough is saying don’t vote for Dutton in the upcoming federal election because he doesn’t support the Aboriginal “truth-telling” sham and if you oppose the “truth-telling” you are going against God’s word.
Since Barraclough is an ordained minister I’m wondering if he has broken the law with that post. He must be skating on awfully thin ice.
Bishop Jeremy Greaves’ “pride” sermon and apology to LGBT people.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19ixwg40v2E6I5TKtx7it82ndY9pa1rkE/view
🙁
That sermon is vile. Once again God’s words are twisted and a false gospel is preached. It is also a good example of what we were discussing on the previous page, of how priests like Jeremy Greaves, Peter Catt and Jeanette Jamieson-Foard deliberately use buzzwords like being “welcoming” and “tolerant” to promote their liberal agenda, all while making traditional, evangelical Anglicans and all other Bible-believing Christians feel deeply unwelcome at their churches.
In yesterday’s sermon, a Brisbane Anglican priest unambiguously declared that she considered Bible accounts to be (fictional) “stories”.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19lLHtKFXOBC6i7Qf0Wh7xtptUPqieAPp/view?usp=sharing
I think this is the first time one has stated this so clearly in print. (She does still seem to believe in the reality of God and, possibly, the Devil though).
If this is their belief, then surely from their woke point of view, utilising Bible “myths” at all is a white western appropriation of Jewish culture.
Thinking about it some more in the cold light of day, it is odd that the priestess rejects the historicity of *this particular story* from the Bible in the name of “science” but indicates she believes in God.
If she was a materialist who rejected all the miracles of Jesus and His divinity, that would at least it would be consistent. However, since she believes in a supernatural God then why not believe in a supernatural war against evil?
I can only conclude it is because this account is contained in the Bible, a book the authority of which the Brisbane Anglicans are determined to undermine. 🙁
Yes! It is an entirely supernatural story so what can science-which studies the natural-possibly have to say about it one way or the other?!
She says she believes in God and in evil so why does she dismiss the Bible’s account of God mandating a war against evil? It is another sermon that you really is strikingly illogical as soon as you give it a moment’s thought.
Folks you’ll be interested to know I was talking to a QLD police detective at an event. I know QLD Police has a bad reputation these days but this bloke was one of the decent ones. I asked him about the Anglican Diocese’s misconduct and he became quite emotive. He obviously couldn’t go into details but he told me there was a LOT of anger in the police force and in the general community about the child sexual abuse and about the church’s alleged obstructions of justice in providing compensation.
He was really irate at the church hierarchy and senior clergy for all they have allegedly done. A lot of what they have done is common knowledge among the police but their hands are tied at pursuing them any further at the moment.
The church has by and large lost its moral authority in Brisbane and it has nowhere near the establishment influence it once had though tyere are still vestiges of this.
Thanks for sharing.
The Anglican parishioners I know, many of whom opposed(!) the Royal Commission, seem to have their heads buried in the sand about how reviled the church has become over its handling of child abuse and the survivors’ reparations battles.
Thank you for sharing with us @Barbecue Guy. I am glad the police and the wider community areaware of what has happened and aren’t taken in by Diocesean propaganda. Though such knowledge brings God’s church into further disrepute, the church has only itself to blame.
To change the subject, the last two sermons preached at the Cathedral in the posts above leave me in a state of deep despair once more at how far into wickedness and false teaching the church has fallen.
I am just grateful that we still have some other denominations like the Presbyterian Church of Australia, the Lutheran Church of Australia, the Seventh Day Adventists, the Dutch Reformed and, now, the Diocese of the Southern Cross faithfully preaching the Bible and sound, orthodox doctrine to the people of Brisbane.
God, in His providence, has provided us with these diverse denominations. When some fall into apostasy, the others remain firm and resolute and take their place.
I saw this succinct definition of Protestantism from a European pastor online today.
“A Protestant is, first and foremost, a Christian. That is to say, a disciple of Jesus Christ. His faith in Jesus Christ is particularly “colored with Protestantism” according to several well-known criteria. Among them, his trust in the sole authority of the Scriptures collected in the Bible, inspired by the Holy Spirit, to enlighten his conscience and found his convictions. Thus, a Protestant will not believe in this or that dogma or article of faith according to his tastes or preferences, but if it is in accordance with what the Bible says (even when what the Bible says offends or disturbs him!).”
By this reasonable definition, the Brisbane Angkicans are not Protestants. Theirs is a kind of liberal Deist religion with a curious mixture of seemingly-incompatible Christian, scientific-rationalist and postmodern New Age elements mixed in.
Did you people ever read this article? It is a good rebuttal of Catt and Edser from the time of the S. S. M. debate.
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/christianity-has-no-room-for-homosexuality-20150820-gj3feh.html
Apologies if it has been posted in this thread before but, even if it has, it is probably worth re-reading anyway to remind ourselves of basic Christian truths in a time when these people are spreading so many false claims and confusion.
Jenks’ take on this week’s theme is very New Age-influenced:
“RE-ENCHANTMENT of the vast universe is a spiritual project for our times. It may be the mission of St Paul’s Church to help the people of Ipswich reimagine our world as “enchanted,” rather than a mechanistic system driven by chemicals that shape our moods.
We are slowly learning to move beyond mechanistic explanations of reality to embrace the dance of creation as both an expression of cosmic energy (what people of faith describe as divine love) and as a dynamic process that responds to our attention (or lack of attention).”
https://gregoryjenks.com/2024/09/28/with-angels-and-archangels/?amp=1
I left the Anglicans through God’s grace. I wonder if Greaves, Catt, and Jenks are trying to convince others or themselves with their crackpot ideas?
They are trying to convince themselves that they are Christians.
God be praised for calling you out, Sylvie! I hooe you are at a church now where the gospel is faithfully taught.
I’ve been looking at some old Jenks lectures. He is, of course, not a creationist:
“We are, of course, not dealing with history here.
Rather, we have a beautiful story of a God who rolls up her sleeves and get her hands dirty as she fashions a living being from Earth.
I remind you that this is not something that ever happened, but it is a story that is fundamentally true.”
He then takes a more pantheist turn:
“More than that, God has assumed Earthliness through the incarnation.
If we affirm that God was present in Jesus, then we must also affirm that God has entered into Earth, and not simply into humanity.
Some of our most creative theologians in the past few decades have encouraged us to think of Earth as the Body of God.
We easily speak of the God ‘in whom we live and move and have our being’.
As Earthlings all of us, we can also affirm that in Earth we encounter a continuing (eternal) expression of Emmanuel, God with us; indeed, God as one of us.
God as Earthling.
Let me reiterate that these are thoughts to explore, not doctrines to embrace.”
https://gregoryjenks.com/2018/04/21/earthlings-first-and-last/?amp=1
On the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ:
“The traditions associated with Holy Week and Easter lie at the heart of the Christian faith dealing, as they do, with the character of Jesus, the circumstances of his death and the affirmation that not even death could prevent the successful outcome of the divine program (the good news of God’s alternative empire) which Christians believe to have been expressed (indeed, embodied) in and through his words and actions.
There are doubtless historical elements in all this, however inaccessible to us after two thousand years, and no matter how variously weighted by those studying them. There is also a powerful mythology at work here, as the imagination of faith sees through and beyond the historical details to catch a glimpse of a transforming reality; a faith to live by.
Our primary access to both the history of Jesus and the myth of Jesus is through story, and it is that story which Christian communities around the world will recount all over this week, this ‘Holy Week’. Like the Native American storyteller quoted in Marcus Borg, Reading the Bible Again for the First Time (p. 50) we may find ourselves saying:
Now I don’t know if it happened this way or not,
but I know this story is true.”
Also:
“This resurrected and much beloved ‘Son’ is not simply Jesus, but all of us—together. Not just homo sapiens, let alone homo christiani—but all of creation. This is not simply a recurrence of universalism, but a reclaiming of Paul’s vision of cosmic salvation extending to the whole of creation.
Understood this way, the resurrection of Jesus is not only the action of a generous and faithful God at the very heart of life, but also the charter for a Christian mission in the global village. The purpose of Christianity is not to gain adherents from other spiritual communities, but to pray and work for the coming of God’s kingdom, for the resurrection of all creation, for the day of cosmic liberation. This is a vision that can shape the way people of Christian faith understand God, the world, and ourselves. It is a broad and generous vision. It offers a basis for lives that are holy and authentic. It might even allow us to form and sustain communities of faith where the ‘dangerous’ memory of Jesus is kept alive, and where “the future of what Jesus started is being lived out.”
https://gregoryjenks.com/2014/04/13/holy-week-and-easter-2014/?amp=1
One more:
“One of the ways in which the resurrection of Jesus is both ‘good news’ and transformative is the value it assigns to life rather than to martyrdom. At a time when religious extremists have both the inclination and the capacity to destroy life for the sake of their beliefs, the resurrection offers an opposing paradigm of faithfulness: Choose life! God is not in the business of recruiting martyrs for the cause, but she is in the business of creating life, blessing life, sustaining life, and restoring life.”
https://gregoryjenks.com/2014/04/13/holy-week-and-easter-2014/?amp=1
Has Jenks never read of the martyrdoms, starting with Stephen, in the Bible and how they cry out under the altar in Revelation? Has he never studied Foxe or Crespin and how their accounts of martyrdoms sustained and strengthened Christians facing trials in times of trouble? They died because they were convinced of the truth of their faith – and its historicity.
I’ve waded through this entire thread. I am surprised my parish hasn’t been mentioned yet. I won’t name it but let’s just say it is a suburban Brisbane parish. We have many of the same problems mentioned here, bullying, an unwelcoming attitude, cliques and rampant liberalism.
I’ve also been to functions at inner city parishes. At one event an elderly gay priest started telling our table about his toga fetish. At another I met Peter Catt. The perception he gave me is that he does not truly care about victims of paedophilia. He came across as very different from his public persona. He was angry at the victims. He came across as a nasty arrogant little man unfortunately. Please pray for new leadership in the Diocese and a new attitude among clergy and parishioners.
It is Reformation Sunday so it is probably a good day to share this attack on the Gospel from Catt:
“Likewise, in many quarters the rich and relational purpose of Christianity has been reduced to individual salvation: cheapened to getting one’s ticket to heaven.”
https://anglicanfocus.org.au/2021/08/09/solidarity-in-the-age-of-me/
What an insult to all the missionaries and others who bear witness who reach out to help save the souks of others! What an insult to all those who, in response to their free gift of salvation, have performed works of love for their neighbours and their communities.
Catt clearly does not know Christ at all and has never been a Christian, it is clear, from his attempt to twist the Gospel’s good news of free salvation by faith alone into something selfish. He knows nothing of God’s grace.
This is further proof that Anglican Church Southern Queensland is controlled by clergy who are not, and have never been, Christians in any meaningful sense. As this discussion thread has demonstrated time and time again false teaching upon false teaching abounds in the Diocese.
One of the lay leaders at the Brisbane Anglican Cathedral is an openly-homosexual person named Blair Martin. Last year he wrote an article about the “queer connections to Christmas celebrations”:
https://qnews.com.au/the-historic-queer-connections-to-christmas-celebrations/
With regard to the infancy narratives in the Bible, he has this to say:
“Not to mention the whole thing is based on a purported series of events (that stretch credulity) that gave rise to a dominant world religion that hasn’t been kind to the diverse gender and sexuality community on the whole.”
Also I came across an interview with a former Brisbane Anglican layperson who attended a liberal parish who is now a bishop in a gnostic/occult church, the Apostolic Johannite Church . He notes the similarities between progressive Anglicanism and gnosticism in that they both oppose doctrine but emphasise the importance of (seven) sacraments and apostolic succession:
“The way it’s similar to my childhood is the particular parish I grew up in and I think this is characteristic of the progressive end of the Anglican Communion in general, is that people weren’t terribly worried about exactly what you believed about anything and that’s very much in common with the church I’m in now. In a mainline church there is at least an insistence that we ought to all be believing the same thing about what it is we do. In the AJC there’s an absolute insistence in freedom of thought so the difference between a mainline understanding of the sacraments and the AJC’s understanding of the sacraments is that we regulate really strictly what we do and who’s allowed to do it. We’re strict on apostolic succession. We’re strict on the words of institution must be pronounced in the Eucharist. Baptism must happen in the Trinitarian name. You know it’s Catholic sacramental conformity but what that all means is completely up to the discernment of the individual person. So for some people they’re participating in the Eucharist as a symbolic act. For some people they’re participating in the Eucharist as a magical operation in which the divine energy is being outpoured into the community and that’s all fine.”
https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/religionandethicsreport/the-colourful-consecration-of-a-gnostic-bishop/4042562
There is an interesting discussion of Catt’s views here:
https://www.truthchallenge.one/blog/2011/11/
“Open-minded, inclusive practice means that homosexuals are included in the name of inclusion, tolerance and open-mindedness. Do you notice what he missed out in what was reported?
The Courier-Mail did not provide one statement from Rev. Dr. Catt on what the Bible says about homosexuality. There was not a word about the content of anything in I Corinthians 6:9-11… Liberal, inclusive, open-mindedness means that the full story of God’s view of homosexuality (and all other sin) as portrayed in the Bible is censored. Also, theological liberalism has a low view of the Scriptures as the authoritative Word of God, so it’s not surprising that that this liberal view downplays the importance of a biblical view of sexuality, including homosexuality.”
This discussion forum has frequently mentioned how some of these Brisbane Progressive Christians oppose the whole idea of having doctrine. I just found someone’s blog post critiquing Catt for this stance:
https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14760&page=0
“In Peter’s representation of it, systematic theology represents the authoritarian, doctrinaire style of Christianity from which narrative theology heroically rescues us. This is quite odd. Any history of twentieth century theology would quickly reveal that systematic theologians were prominent in the development of narrative theology. Many of the seminal texts of narrative theology were penned by people who, if not self-described systematic theologians, were and are deeply committed to the systematic aspects of Christian theology…
True, the word doctrine carries an awful lot of baggage. But, really, doctrines are nothing more than the shared intellectual commitments, which sustain and legitimate certain practices of particular communities. Often they are articulated as the explicit teachings of a particular community; more likely they are implicit… I suspect that the critique of doctrine in much contemporary church discourse is not really a critique of doctrine or even of being doctrinaire, but a critique of certain doctrines and their replacement by others.
In fact, it is actually quite dangerous to pretend that we don’t have doctrines or to try to avoid them. Once we recognise what they are and how they function they can become open to scrutiny, critique and development…
… consider the doctrine of the resurrection. In his article, Peter speaks of honouring the diversity of the New Testament resurrection narratives instead of ‘harmonising them into a tidy doctrine’. Agreed. But does that mean that there can be no doctrine of the resurrection, even an untidy one? And can it really be claimed, as Peter did, that for all their unevenness and diversity, those narratives had no interest in the nature of Jesus’ risen body? True, the resurrection narratives function at many levels. But surely one of them is precisely the nature of Jesus’ body.
These narratives played a role in early Christianity’s explanation of its new and strange hope. The first Christians did not hope for immortality of the soul, or some new path to heaven, or for some esoteric spiritual experience. Authentic Christian hope was and is quite different from these escapist ideologies. Rather, it was and is about God’s investment in the material stuff of this creation.
That is why the language of ‘new creation’ is an important theme in the New Testament. The early Christians developed this theme only because of what they believed – and had experienced – of Jesus’ bodily resurrection. Developing a doctrine of the resurrection did not amount to tidily harmonising the biblical narratives. But those narratives did feed a Christian doctrine of the resurrection, which marked out a novel understanding of hope. Indeed, attending to that doctrine will help, not hinder, Christians to tell God’s story and to perform the Christian drama.”
One more fact worth noting, from a piece published two years ago:
https://anglican.ink/2022/05/11/whither-the-australian-anglican-church/#google_vignette
“Much secular commentary has assumed that the conservative side of this divide is doomed to cultural irrelevancy and decline. In fact, the opposite is true, as theological progressivism is everywhere associated with denominational decline, while conservatives thrive. An example can be seen in North America, where the continuing Episcopal Church, which has embraced same-sex marriage, is in steep decline while the breakaway Anglican Church in North America, which maintains a conservative position, is growing rapidly.
In Australia, the contrast between theologically conservative and progressive Anglican dioceses is stark, as revealed in a 2014 General Synod report on denominational viability. At the time of the 2011 census, the conservative Dioceses of Sydney and Armidale had, respectively, 9.7% and 7.9% of census Anglicans in church on any Sunday, while progressive Brisbane and Perth managed to attract to church only 2.1% and 2.6% respectively of census Anglicans.
The current dominance of conservatives at the Australian Anglican General Synod reflects their greater success at retaining and growing their membership. For example, the Brisbane and Sydney Dioceses historically have had approximately the same number of nominal Anglicans as measured by census responses, but by 2011 conservative Sydney had more than five times the overall Anglican attendance of progressive Brisbane.”
This article is hard to read and full of typos but it too notes the similarities between Progressive Christianity and Gnosticism:
““Robert Gagnon, a professor of New Testament theology at Houston Baptist Seminary, described the movement [Progressive Christianity] as a form of Gnosticism, referring to a heresy that has surfaced in various periods of church history. Followers of Gnostic cults claimed they possessed esoteric or mystical knowledge that is not accessible to the uninitiated and the impure, Gagnon said, a belief that often leads to obsessive or outlandish sexual practices, like radical abstinence and purity, or libertinism and licentiousness…”
“‘They’re only for subversion until they’re in power,’ Gagnon said. ‘And then they’re adamantly opposed to subversion.’””
https://theothercheek.com.au/progressive-christianity-and-a-queer-future/
A Nigerian pastor identifies the satanic flaws with Progressive Christianity:
” The authoritative truth of the Bible, which is divinely inspired and permeates every aspect of life, is denied by progressive Christianity.
The Progressive Christianity movement started in 2006 with the goal of presenting a Christian lifestyle that was different from how true Christianity was perceived by the general public.
Progressive Christians reject the notion that God despises homosexual sin. However, in actuality, you need to be cautious of the following:
1. Progressive Christianity does not hold Jesus in high esteem. The way progressive Christians see Jesus Christ is simply one of their defining characteristics. They contend that Jesus is more of a moral model for us to follow than the divine Son of God. Of course, we emulate Jesus, but progressive Christians emphasize this over recognizing His divinity.
2. Moralism, not salvation, is the primary goal of progressive Christianity According to progressive Christianity, being a good person is the only requirement for living a Christian life. It is a moralistic religion because it emphasizes morality rather than the gospel of salvation.
3. Progressive Christianity minimizes the severity of our sins. Progressive Christianity downplays the concept of sin, and it has no interest in discussing God’s wrath against sinners. Their idea is that doing what seems right to you and being kind to your neighbors is all you need as a Christian. Therefore, the death of Jesus on the cross isn’t really something that saves you if you actually practice and preach mostly moralism and that there is no real sin.”
He then goes on to teach people how to fight against it by upholding the primacy of scriptures, holding to the sanctity of human life and sexuality and preaching the Gospel of salvation.
https://www.ibelieve.com/christian-living/progressive-christianity-and-satanic-deception.html
One last item. Another comparison of Progressive Christianity with Gnosticism.
“New Testament Professor Peter Jones documents the “striking parallels between the ancient heresy of Gnosticism and the spirituality of New Age thinking and the post-modern worldview” (Spirit Wars, 1997, p. vii). The dangerously deceptive doctrines battled by Paul, Peter, John and other early Apostolic leaders are being revived today with a vengeance—yet the average person is largely unaware of the real source of ideas promoted under the guise of progressive Christianity… Marcion’s attempt to call into question the inspiration of Scripture by listing supposed contradictions between the Old and New Testaments finds ready listeners today—even among professing Christians! For Gnostics, Bible prophecy was myth or allegory without literal historical meaning—a view that also finds supporters in modern mainstream Christianity (see Chadwick, p. 37).
The parallels between ancient Gnostic ideas and modern Christian theology are not accidental. Today we are witnessing “an orchestrated attempt in Christian liberal circles” to present Gnostic writings “as a valid, alternate, even superior expression of early Christianity” (Jones, p. viii). Modern radical scholars are attempting to rehabilitate Gnostic texts and are even suggesting that such writings—clearly labeled as heretical in the early centuries of the Church—be added to the New Testament canon! But why is there such an interest in Gnosticism on the part of liberal theologians?
The reason is simply that ideas promoted by the Gnostics in the first and second centuries are very popular today! Gnosticism was a theology of liberation—promoting unlimited human freedom! Gnostic teachers wanted an “adult Christianity” that was “liberated from the everlasting references to Genesis and the Mosaic commandments” (Lacarreire, p. 103). Their goal was to break the “mooring ropes” that tied human conduct to the Bible. Sound familiar? For many Gnostics, “total insubordination was lauded as the road to liberation” (Ibid., p. 74). Their practice of communal sex, attempts to gain a state of spiritual ecstasy, refusal to work, desiring to live as philosophical vagabonds, would blend easily with the hippies of the 1960s. Former rock star John Lennon once commented “It seems to me that the only true Christians were the Gnostics” (Jones, p. ix).
But that is not all! Gnostic texts “are employed [by liberals] to justify women’s ordination, the goddess character of the Holy Spirit, the moral appropriateness of abortion, the feminist re-interpretation of culture, and much more” (Jones, p. 90). These common interests reveal why New Testament scholar Peter Jones asserts, “Gnosticism was the earliest expression of ‘Christian’ liberalism” and that “modern liberals only imitate their long-lost cousins, the Gnostics” (p. 64)….
As the 21st century dawns, several powerful social movements are reviving Gnostic ideas. Peter Jones states “feminist thinkers have discovered the revolutionary character of Gnosticism as it applies to gender and patriarchal civilization” and that “an egalitarian, non-patriarchal vision constitutes the agenda of cutting-edge theology, sociology, and global politics in the West. Gnosticism and feminism are a match made in heaven” (Jones, p. 162). He quotes a feminist who states, “Gnosticism is becoming a powerful influence in feminist research into the overthrow of the male in the divine” (Ibid.).
Feminists want to change Western society, and they realize that “to change the civilization built on the Bible, you must change the Bible” (Jones, p. 81). This is why liberals and radical feminist theologians want to include Gnostic texts as an authentic view of early Christian teaching—equal with the Bible! Theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether asserts, “Feminist theology must create a new textual base, a new canon… Feminist theology cannot be done from the existing base of the Christian Bible” (Ibid., p. 82). Asian feminist theologian Chung Hyun Kyung has stated, “feminists are free to use the ancient Gnostic texts, originally rejected as heretical, because the Christian canon was created by men” and that “women are not obliged to accept a book… they had no part in framing” (Ibid., p. 88). Feminists view the orthodox Bible as a tool “for social control through the patriarchal suppression of women” (Ibid.). They like the Gnostic Gospel of Mary because it places Mary Magdalene at the foundation of Christ’s church, rather than the Apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:19-20; Matthew 16:18; Galatians 1:17-19). Women took unprecedented leadership roles in many early Gnostic sects (After Jesus, p. 131).
Today’s radical feminist theologians have developed what they call a “ritual of exorcism” to expunge Bible verses that describe different roles for men and women, such as Ephesians 5:22-24 and 1 Peter 3:1-6 (Jones, p. 82). Like the Gnostics, they use verses they like, and discard verses with which they disagree! Feminists create an androgynous deity by their support of sexually inclusive terms in new biblical translations. To understand the Bible, feminist theologians assert, “new rules will require feminist interpreters to assume that Scripture is not the word of God… is not a container of revelation” and to “correct as we read” (Ibid., p. 120). In other words, everything in the Bible “must be re-interpreted by feminist interpreters” which is just what the Gnostics did (Ibid.).
Many Christians today simply do not grasp the real intent of feminist theology. Radical feminist Naomi Goldberg has stated, “the feminist movement in Western culture is engaged in the slow execution of Christ and Jehovah. Yet very few of the women and men now working for sexual equality within Christianity and Judaism realize the extent of their heresy” (Ibid., p. 195). She blames “God the Father of Judeo-Christian Scripture as the architect of the patriarchal society” and states that “like patriarchy, this God will have to go” (Ibid., p. 180). Patriarchy refers to the authority of the father. In her words, “We women are going to bring an end to God” (Ibid.). This would include rejecting His laws found in the Bible—which was also the Gnostic mission! Goldberg has predicted, “when feminists succeed in changing the position of women in Christianity and Judaism, they will shake these religions at their roots” (Ibid., p. 181). Remarkably, very few theologians acknowledge that Bible prophecy reveals women will push to dominate society as the end of the age nears (Isaiah 3:12)…
Spong made headlines a decade ago when he ordained a homosexual priest. The radical bishop has asserted, “Feminism and homosexuality lie at the heart and soul of what the Gospel is all about” (Jones, p. 192). Spong feels “the church should bless and encourage same sex marriages” (The Arizona Daily Star, Sept. 25, 1999). Spong would agree with radical feminist theologians—and Gnostics—that “the Bible is full of rhetoric and concepts we do not and can not believe” (Ibid.) such as guidelines for sex role differentiation and prohibitions against homosexuality. He also echoes sentiments of early Gnostics who wanted an adult Christianity when he asserts, “I’m anxious to open Christianity so it can be everything it can be… a more enlightened Christianity” (Ibid.). Spong is simply advocating the same goal as the Gnostics—the destruction of biblical Christianity!
Today the Christian view of sex and gender roles is under attack. Liberals say biblical guidelines limit human freedom—but the real reason for this attack goes much deeper. Jones quotes a common lesbian assertion that “compulsory [biblical] heterosexuality is the very backbone that holds patriarchy together,” that homosexuality will break that backbone and that “lesbian, bisexual and gay issues… are wedges driven into the superstructure of the heteropatriarchal system” (Ibid., p. 179)…
The modern return of Gnosticism—a belief system that rejects both God and His laws—is no coincidence. It was actually prophesied! The Bible warns that the end of the age would be marked by lawlessness (Matthew 24:11-12) and that it would be related to a movement that was “already at work” in the days of the Apostles (2 Thessalonians 2:7-8). The early Gnostics were major antagonists of the Apostles and, just as liberals today, they preached a very deceptive message. This is why Paul warned the Galatians against believing a different gospel (Galatians 1:6-9), and why he instructed Timothy to “guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and vain babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge [gnosis]” (1 Timothy 6:20).
Gnostic ideas are the product of intelligent yet profoundly misguided minds. Gnosticism—ancient or modern—is a dangerous deception. Social movements built on these perverted ideas will lead to disaster. Societies that reject moral guidelines in favor of unfettered human desires are headed for trouble! The God of the Bible thunders: “Because you have rejected [My] knowledge, I also will reject you… Because you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children” (Hosea 4:6). The revival and embrace of Gnostic ideas by liberal professing Christians is a case of history repeating itself…”
https://www.tomorrowsworld.org/magazines/2000/july-august/a-different-gospel
I don’t have the article now but I also saw a Progressive Christian arguing for New Age-style energy healing to be incorporated into the movement to compete with Pentecostal faith healers.
I just made one more discovery. There is a book called The Beliefnet Guide to Gnosticism and Other Vanished Christianities by a person named Richard Valantasis.
The preface to this book was written by none other than the late Marcus Borg, one of the founders of the Progressive Christianity movement! I wonder what parallels Borg himself drew between Gnosticism and his Progressive Christianity movement? I will have to track down a copy to see what he wrote.
Hope I didn’t overpost with all those messages yesterday, Pastor, but I thought it was key information to share. Here is a little bit more. It turns out Borg wrote a novel and there is an interesting review of it online.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/marcus-borgs-putting-away-childish-things-a-review/
Here are some key quotes from it:
“The inhabitants of Borg’s narrative world talk and think about sex, a lot. Traditional Christians are viewed as anti-homosexual, while (predictably) the progressive characters affirm homosexual behavior as legitimate for Christians. Ironically, though conservative Christians are portrayed as being obsessed with sex, it’s Borg who gives us the sexual history of two main characters in the first two chapters. It’s as if Borg can’t develop the main characters of his story without telling us about their past dalliances. It may seem that I am nitpicking here, but this point needs to be made: progressives like Borg seem to combine sexual expression and identity in a way that is historically unprecedented.”
This next ine is interesting. Rejecting the concept of authorial intent and proclaiming the “death of the author” has been a significant movement in literary studies since the 1960s. It normally refers to finding meaning in the text. Borg, the theologian, goes far, far further than any professor of literature I’ve ever encountered, though. Instead of merely interpreting the text’s meaning on his own terms, he decides to reinterpret the very genre it is written in! Luke tells us at the outset he is writing history but Borg decides to ignore this and reinterprets the text as a parable. This is structuralism taken to the point of absurdity and shows Borg either didn’t understand what “rejecting authorial intent” meant or that he was, tragically, deliberately misusing the concept to further his own agenda:
“Borg never discusses the authorial intent of the Gospels. Kate Riley [the main character in his novel] hints that Luke may have been putting together his birth narrative in a way to bring out themes which will later play a big part of the story. But the supreme question is: Did Luke intend to convey truth in parabolic form? Or was Luke intending to provide us with an historical account of these events? Surely Luke’s prologue should play a part in this discussion. But Borg never mentions it.”
This, of course, leads to Borg taking things to his ultimate conclusion of attacking the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Christ. He rejects historicity and believes personal subjective exlerience is the only “truth” we can know. (Isn’t that what we are warned of in the Book of Judges, every man doing what is right in his own eyes without an ultimate yardstick of objective truth? )
“When all is said and done, personal experience has the last word. Factuality isn’t what matters. In fact, believing in a literal resurrection of Jesus might very well be one of the “childish things” we should now put away. Freed from the chains of historicity, we can revel in our personal knowledge of the divine.
Despite the initial attraction of being freed from historicity, it’s Borg’s worldview that leads us to being chained. Erin is chained to her conversion experience as just an experience. What she has experienced is all she can know. When Christianity’s truthfulness is narrowed down to one’s experience, Christianity becomes much more narrow than Borg would like to admit.”
Like the sources I found yesterday, the reviewer ultimately concludes that Borg/Progressive Christians are closer to a form of Gnosticism than anything else:
“Kate Riley believes our current separation of politics and religion is unbiblical. She points out how the Gospel stories counter Roman imperial theology. On this point, Riley (and I assume Borg) is correct (although this reading can be overstated and over-applied).
But Borg fails to see that by divesting the Gospel stories of their factual content, he loses the very essence of what made Christianity subversive. The Roman Caesar was not threatened by first-century Marcus Borgs (who would best fit in the category of one of the ancient Gnosticisms). Caesar was threatened by a community who believed that the heart of Jesus actually began beating again on Easter morning. It’s the bodily resurrection of a crucified Messiah that has political consequences, not the politically innocuous emphasis on spiritual resurrection we find in Borg’s work.”
Here is an article by the late Borg about the Ascension that illustrates his approach:
https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/christianity/2000/05/the-ascension-of-jesus.aspx
“For reasons I will now cite, it is manifestly a symbolic or metaphorical narrative.”
Luke stated at the outset that he was writing a history. Why say this if parts of his narrative are to be understood as pure metaphor? It would only be setting false expectations for the readership and lead to confusion on their part.
As I said above, the “Death of the Author” movement was about the readership interpreting the text for themselves and finding their own meaning in it, because the intentions of the original author and the reaction of his original intended audience are essentially unknowable. We are not first century Jews and lower-class/slave-class Gentiles living under Roman oppression in a Middle Eastern culture so we will react differently to the text than them. Borg takes this approach far beyond that of any literary scholar however and decides to redefine the genre itself of the work to suit himself. He is not being honest with the text. He might as well try to redefine Macbeth as comedy and Twelfth Night as history on a whim. It is the same thing.
“I am convinced that there were literalists and non-literalists in early Christianity as well as now. ”
There is no evidence of this until the emergence of the two school of Alexandria and Antioch as others on here have mentioned.
“The author of Luke-Acts was very sophisticated, and my hunch is that he or she intended some stories to be understood non-literally.”
In that case, “he or she” is a very poor writer indeed as “he or she” does not understand their audience very well. Most lower class and slave class people would have limited education and most would have indeed been illiterate and rely on others to read it out to them in their church community. If the stories were not meant to be taken literally, surely the writer shoukd have made this clear to the “less sophisticated” members of his audience. “He or she” had already set an expectation at the outset that they were oresenting a history and that the text was to be understood as such, so the reader is not to be blamed if they mistake non-literal parts for literal parts. There is nothing in the text ti hint at a change of genre. All Borg has succeeded in doing is making the author of Luke-Acts seem like a poor writer who was trying to be too clever for “his or her” own boots and who ended up clumsily misleading the less educated members of “his or her” text’s audience. It also hints at a mindset that perhaps Christianity can only be fully understand by an educated elite and not the common fishermen and uneducated rural folkJesus preached to in Galilee or the aforementioned Gentile slave class Paul interacted with.
Borg presents arguments without historical evidence, twists genres to suit his agenda and ends up destabilising the trustworthiness of the text in his attempted attack on the historicity of Luke’s work. It is little wonder he was considered very much a fringe thinker by serious theologians.
Luke was trying to communicate the Good News to as wide an audience as possible, the majority of whom he understood with have little to no formal education. He clearly set expectations from the outset as to what genre of text he was writing and even affirmed to his correspondent the amount of historical research he had undertaken to ascertain the correct facts. He holds the readers by the hand, telling them what he has done and what kind of text they are about to read so that they do NOT confuse genres!
One can have a personal response to the text and let it speak to one’s own circumstances and needs – in this sense, the “Death of the Author” and subjectivism can be very useful and, indeed, even Godly, if we considered Scripture a living set of texts that set up a mirror to reflect our souls at us and give us answers, consolations, rebukes and a guidemap in whatever life situation we face. We cannot be intellectually dishonest though and twist the genre or meaning of scripture to suit ourselves and our modern mores as Borg does here and elsewhere in his writings. It is pure sleight of hand.
These two article tells me all I need to know about Borg’s beliefs and, by extension, those of the Brisbane Anglicans:
https://juicyecumenism.com/2015/01/26/death-marcus-borg-christian-panentheist/
https://religiondispatches.org/a-dismayed-democrat-reads-the-bible/
From the first of those links:
“Even though he professed Christianity, Borg was frank about rejecting nearly all core Christian beliefs. The “pre-Easter Jesus is a figure of the past, dead and gone. He isn’t anywhere,” with talk about his corpse or an empty tomb merely “irrelevant distractions.””
No resurrection, no death of Jesus to pay for our sins, no personal God, no specific afterlife, no forgiveness, no grace and an untrustworthy Bible that Borg “spiritualises away”. He replaces all of this with wishy-washy panentheism, New Age nonsense and a shamanic Jesus and a call to political action against oppressive structures. Basically the current-day Democrat Party at prayer.
He and his ilk have nothing to offer. The truth is not in them.
Greaves allegedly denies the Second Coming according to this church:
https://www.risenchurch.org.au/risen-blog/will-jesus-return-why-does-it-matter
I learnt something interesting today. As we know, Catt likes to explore the supposed ‘spiritual” aspect of quantum physics in his sermons and his chapter of the Brisbane Anglicans’ book:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2013/05/book-review-anglican-bibliology-for-a-progressive-audience/
It turns out this kind of thought is quite widespread (well, widespread enough to have its own Wikipedia page):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism
To quote:
“Quantum mysticism, sometimes referred to pejoratively as quantum quackery or quantum woo, is a set of metaphysical beliefs and associated practices that seek to relate spirituality or mystical worldviews to the ideas of quantum mechanics and its interpretations. Quantum mysticism is considered pseudoscience and quackery by quantum mechanics experts.
Before the 1970s the term was usually used in reference to the von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, but was later more closely associated with the purportedly pseudoscientific views espoused by New Age thinkers such as Fritjof Capra and other members of the Fundamental Fysiks Group, who were influential in popularizing the modern form of quantum mysticism”
In particular I can see the 1960s-70s phase of the movement bears striking similarities to aspects of 21st century Progressive Chrustianity:
“In New Age thought
In the early 1970s New Age culture began to incorporate ideas from quantum physics, beginning with books by Arthur Koestler, Lawrence LeShan and others which suggested that purported parapsychological phenomena could be explained by quantum mechanics.
In this decade, the Fundamental Fysiks Group emerged. This group of physicists embraced quantum mysticism, parapsychology, Transcendental Meditation, and various New Age and Eastern mystical practices.”
Also see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_Fysiks_Group
Sothis is more evidence of what others on here have claimed, that Prigressive Christianity is a strange mixture of Christianity, New Age/Eastern religion and pseudoscience with some amount of roots in the 1960s counterculture.
Not getting much peace over the holiday season-I saw the absolutely disgusting article on the ABC this morning.
https://amp.abc.net.au/article/104601466
When my blood stopped boiling, I thought I’d look up this Doctor Anne Pattel-Gray and, sure enough, she is part of the Progressive Christianity movement.
“Common Dreams: Sacred Earth, Original Blessing, Common Home, was the 5th Progressive Christianity Conference, for which Matthew Fox was one of keynote speakers along with Dr Anne Pattel-Gray, Dr Norm Habel, Rev Rod Bower, Rabbi Jonathan Keren-Black, Commissioner Ro Allen and Rev Dr Margaret Mayman.”
https://visionandaction.com.au/a-very-welcome-pause/
I also found she wrote another article for the ABC a while ago, full of woke leftism attacking “colonial Christianity”. It sounds like she wants to syncretise Christianity with Aboriginal animist spirituality with her talk of the Creator Spirit. She also promotes the “stolen generations” lie. What does the Bible say about bearing false witness, Doctor Pattel-Gray?
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/anne-pattel-gray-liberating-theological-education-from-colonial/14109136
APCVA posted the obituary for Muriel Porter’s late husband, the Rev Dr Brian Porter, on their Facebook page a few years ago.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=517940420363537&id=100064427511823
The obituary doesn’t state that Brian Porter was a Progressive Christian but he was, at a minimum, a fellow traveler.
Most Australian Anglicans would know Muriel Porter for her polemical attacks on the Diocese of Sydney in books and newspaper articles and her support for same sex marriage and the ordination of women so I am wondering if she self-identifies as a Progressive Christian too.
This post on the APCVA FB page by Michael Furtado is interesting too.
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=796290769195166&id=100064427511823
“… yet another victory for those committed to recognising the role that cultural change plays in influencing public morality.”
Does this mean he believes that morality is relative and dependent on the fashions and mores of any given period? Would he still feel this way if there is a cultural backlash and homosexuality is seen as sinful again by the culture later on? I wonder how he feels about tye backlash against woke that partly explains the re-election of Trump?
“Resistance of some Churches…”
So the Churches should be dictated to by public morality instead of standing apart? We should be following the culture as well? We shouod follow what is fashionable?
“… progress of Christianity towards a path that blends revelation with reason and, in recent times, also with human understanding and love.”
No doubt reason, human understanding and “love” trump revelation in his view.
One further thought: does this mean he respects the culture of countries in the Global South, like Uganda, where homosexuality is considered an offence against public morality, or is it only enlightened western culture with its aforesaid emphasis on “reason” that counts in his eyes? Wouldn’t that be cultural imperialism, Mr Furtado?
I thought of something else. Some people in earlier stages of this lengthy discussion mentioned how it was liberal Christians who conformed to the prevailing culture of Nazi Germany with the Hitler-approved “German Christian movement.”
Sure enough, they were right:
“This method often led to questioning the inerrancy of Scripture and traditional doctrines, such as the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus. German scholars like Julius Wellhausen and Rudolf Bultmann were prominent figures in promoting higher criticism. Bultmann, for instance, advocated for demythologizing the New Testament, interpreting supernatural elements in existential terms rather than as historical facts.
This academic trend profoundly influenced the theological training of many German Protestant clergy. Seminaries and theological faculties incorporated higher criticism into their curricula, producing a generation of pastors who viewed the Bible more as a historical document than as the inerrant word of God. This shift laid the groundwork for theological liberalism within the mainline churches, characterized by a more flexible approach to doctrine and an openness to reinterpret traditional beliefs in light of contemporary knowledge and societal values.
The theological liberalism fostered by higher criticism led to a significant number of German Protestant churches aligning with contemporary cultural and political ideologies, including those of the Nazi regime. The Deutsche Christen (German Christians) movement exemplified this alignment. This movement sought to reconcile Christianity with Nazi racial and nationalist principles, advocating for a version of Christianity that supported Aryan supremacy and anti-Semitism.
The Deutsche Christen pushed for the removal of the Old Testament and any Jewish elements from Christian teachings, reinterpreting Jesus as an Aryan figure and aligning church doctrine with Nazi ideology. Their willingness to adapt or abandon traditional Christian doctrines in favor of political expediency is indicative of the liberal theological approach they adopted. This doctrinal flexibility allowed them to conform to the cultural and political demands of the time, ultimately leading to the church’s complicity in supporting Nazi ideology. The Deutsche Christen prioritized political alignment with the Nazi regime over maintaining theological integrity. This political expediency is more characteristic of liberal theological movements, which may be more inclined to adapt their beliefs to align with broader social and political trends.”
https://www.monergism.com/reformation-theology/blog/conformity-over-conviction-theological-liberalism-and-its-failure-resist
“… the theology of the Nazified churches grew out of liberal theology, including higher Biblical criticism. This strain of religion was so anti-Bible, so culture-conforming, so anti-Christ, and so anti-salvation that there is no way that it can be classified as Christian. And it was certainly anti-Lutheran, making a point of repudiating everything that Lutherans believe, teach, and confess.”
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2020/06/the-liberal-theology-of-the-nazi-church/
How is any of this different from Progressive Christianity now? The only change is that the church is conforming to the radical left rather than the far right. These people have learnt nothing from history.
Catt grandstanding in public, calling for an investigation into alleged genocide in Gaza. A cynic would say he is trying to make political mileage out of human suffering.
https://m.facebook.com/AProgressiveChristianVoiceAustralia/
He has two Aboriginal flags behind him but bo Australian flags. I hope he is not trying to perpetuate the discredited black armband view of history that there was a genocide of Aborigines too.
Found this somewhat related article from a number of years ago by Catt.
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/the-first-casualty-of-war-20190424-p51gp9.html?fbclid=IwAR3VqKTa2Hdxbb3WL0WWMcP9z62eBLSBz7gVn0md8Abpx0_Y3ph_hw1LlHo
“The question I have been holding as I have re-read some of the poetry is, what if we too told more of the truth on Anzac Day? How would that shape our approach to war and to peacemaking?”
and
“Imagine what Anzac Day would be like if, along with our remembering of the bravery, we also recalled the banality. The waste. The insignificance before the war machine of those who died.”
and
“Imagine what Anzac Day would be like if, along with our remembering of the bravery, we remembered the self-absorbed madness of the leadership.”
Well, it was thoroughly taught for the folly it was when I was at school. In fact, there was no emphasis on “bravery” at all. The various causes of the war were examined in a great deal of detail too.
Then, at Uni, we studied the poetry Catt applauds here like the works of Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon.
Therefore education doesn’t seem to be the answer, Rev. Catt. You are putting up strawman arguments. Maybe this is because it shows that, despite the long-standing Leftist belief, better education doesn’t mean society really is progressing at all.
As said elsewhere, Catt is no pacifist. He wouldn’t be fit to tie the recently-deceased Simon Townsend’s shoelaces.
Rather Catt seems to be rather sympathetic to ordinary soldiers with statements like these.
“how we might encourage those who serve to be whistle-blowers?”
and
“the execution of deserters, many of whom had what we now call PTSD, and the effect that murdering the deserters had on their mates when they had to shoot them.”
and
“how the living betray the dead and how the returned are abandoned by the society they risked all for.
What if on Anzac Day we spoke of all these things, and of those who died by suicide once home?”
This next aspect is where his thinking becomes confusing though. He is prepared to critique Just War Theory:
“what if, on that day, we challenged the idea of the Just War?”
Fair enough. However, he then seems to endorse it in the very next sentence:
“what if we resolved to use war judiciously”
Isn’t Just War Theory meant to be just that, the judicious use of war in very limited circumstances? Anyway, his call to use war “judiciously” and his support of soldiers clearly shows Catt and his Progressive Christian ilk probably wouldn’t see eye to eye with Christian pacifists.
As for the last poem, “two wrongs don’t make a right” and, while I am citing cliches, “it takes two to tango” so it is not just the fault of “the patriachy” alone if women become pregnant out of wedlock. More lazy thinking, Rev. Catt.
One more post that caught my eye. Calling this “gorgeous” shows how skewed their moral compasses are.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=583222100502035&id=100064427511823
This is what “speaking to truth to power” really looks like, Rev.. Catt. Tye Progressive Christians will have a fit as their woke views on Australia Day have just been demolished with a few simple facts:
https://www.skynews.com.au/insights-and-analysis/australia-day-belongs-to-the-people-clover-moore-tony-armstrong-among-those-who-contributed-most-to-the-vilification-of-our-national-day-over-the-past-year/news-story/7c9afd198843b1a53661cfb34ab85e25?amp&nk=a5eb7ca2fdae1f8dbae6d23b6dc00772-1737851699
They love the Budde sermon of course.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1027812729376301&id=100064427511823
Spot on, mate.
https://www. skynews.com.au/insights-and-analysis/christianity-in-australia-and-beyond-is-caving-to-the-progressive-cultural-elite-heres-how-it-can-break-free/news-story/edaaaae9d05d0cd749f29ffca4c9e56a
“When Christians distance themselves from biblical truth in order to seem compassionate or open-minded, they end up supporting ideologies that contradict the core of what Christianity teaches.
Fear of rejection by the broader culture often drives this behavior: losing respect from politicians, academics, or media influencers can feel like a kind of social death.
Rather than endure ridicule, Christian leaders trim doctrine until it neatly fits secular norms.
Scripture becomes a footnote rather than the foundation.
This dilution of faith is spreading.
In Australia and beyond, congregations, colleges, and various media outlets often champion popular views that conflict with historic teaching, leaving the average believer confused, adrift, and thoroughly disillusioned.
Where churches once preached self-sacrifice and moral conviction, many now emphasize personal fulfillment or political correctness.
Professors at Christian institutions echo the same talking points as their secular peers, and Christian writers or journalists sometimes go out of their way to mock or distance themselves from their own tradition.”
I am surprised none of you have mentioned Warwick yet – another rural church with a woke pastor.
“A WARWICK church leader has indicated that while his church had a sacred view of marriage, he believed there was a generational shift in support of same-sex marriage.
As the debate surrounding same-sex marriage continues following a momentous decision in the United States Supreme Court, St Mark’s Anglican Church Reverend Rod Winterton has expressed a more progressive personal view than his conservative Catholic counterparts.
Reverend Rod Winterton described the Anglican Church as ‘broad’ and said it was ‘far from homophobic’.
“In my previous parish two of my clergy were gay and in a long-term monogamous relationship,” he said.
“It’ll be a couple of generations before we see a lot of gay weddings in the church – at this stage I’d say there would be some sort of a formal blessing of a same-sex union.
“It’s a generational shift – it’s just a feature of modern life and each of us has our own thing.””
https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/warwick/reverend-points-to-generational-shift-on-samesex-marriage/news-story/28a0c272707e9824ddd59fd5b1fbec18
The previous parish he mentions is Green Hills which is in inner city Brisbane and is another prog one.
Regarding previous discussions on Ispwich, I wonder if Gregory Jenks was sent their as “punishment” to reeducate the parishioners after they rejected the trans priest Steve/Selina McMahon.
I also heard on the grapevine that the Sunshine Coast is desperately short of priests now. Deborah Bird has left the woke Maleny parish. Palmwoods doesn’t want to combine with the Maleny Parish permanently after she was also babysitting them short term so they are trying to make do without a permanent pastor either.