Christianity Liberalism Sex and sexuality the Church Theology

Christianity and Liberalism – Do Progressives and Biblical Christians Agree on 90% of Doctrines? AP

This article was published in Australian Presbyterian

Do Progressives and Biblical Christians agree on 90% of Doctrines?

Professor Dorothy Lee of the Trinity Divinity College, the University of Melbourne, told the Anglican General Synod that all the members of the Synod agreed on 90% of doctrines.   She elaborated on this to John Sandeman in a fascinating article published in Eternity – https://www.eternitynews.com.au/australia/do-conservative-and-progressive-christians-agree-on-90-per-cent-of-what-we-believe/?utm_source=pocket_mylist

Professor Lee gave a list of ten points which at first glance most Christians would hold to. She thinks that her ten points are enough to unite us.   But if we examine them a little more closely, and more importantly look at the actions of the ‘progressives’, we realise that there is little meaningful basis for unity.  I note in passing that Lee set up two groups within the Anglican church: Catholic and evangelical. It would be truer to reality to describe the two groups as bible believing Christians, and progressives. Official Catholic doctrine on social issues such as SSM and abortion is much more aligned with evangelicalism that it is with liberal ‘progressive’ Christianity.

In order to advance this ‘unity’, Professor Lee and Bishop Matt Brain from Bendigo moved this following motion at the Synod.

“That this General Synod

  1. acknowledging that there are several theological and spiritual cultures within The Anglican Church of Australia,
  2. recognising that the persons within each culture adhere to it for reasons of belief conscientiously held in adherence to Holy Scripture as well as social identity, and
  3. welcoming the strengths that our diverse unity brings, therefore calls on all Anglicans regardless of their cultural identity to:
  4. respect one another’s cultures,
  5. build on what we hold in common,
  6. affirm that the separation of any one of us diminishes us all, and
  7. where we differ seek, ‘in the spirit of Philippians 3:13, “forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead”, to discover each other’s faith as it is today and to appeal to history only for enlightenment, not as a way of perpetuating past controversy’  so that the gospel we proclaim may be attractive to the widest range of Australians to whom we seek to minister.”

In response Mark Thomson, Principal of Moore Theological College in Sydney, moved this amendment.

“This General Synod:

a. Rejoices in the Christian faith professed by the Church of Christ from the time of the New Testament, and in particular set forth in the Creeds;
b. Joyfully recommits to respectful and reverent reading, teaching and preaching of the canonical Scriptures as our ultimate rule and standard of faith, inspired by God and containing all things necessary for salvation;
c. and humbly re-expresses its determination to obey the commands of Christ and teach his doctrine as these are given to us in Scripture.”

This passed by 119 to 113.  To my mind it is incredible that any professing Christian leader would vote against such a motion – but 113 did.    But then the progressives withdrew their motion.  Why?   How did it contradict what went before?

I’m sure there were some theologically naïve people who genuinely do think that we are agreed on 90% of doctrines and that somehow unity could be maintained.  But I suspect the real reason for this motion was the internal politics of the General Synod.  The progressives, despite getting the bishops to prevent the Synod from upholding the biblical teaching on marriage, and so enabling them to continue to practise their anti-Christian doctrines, were acutely aware that the mood within Australian Anglicanism has shifted away from them.   The house of laity and the house of clergy were largely against them.  Most of the committees are now run by evangelicals.  When they are in a minority the progressives suddenly become remarkably ‘tolerant, diverse and loving’.   But in reality they despise, and do not respect, the theology of biblical Christians.   In the Church of Scotland, the progressives used similar language to Dr Lee – until they got into positions of power.  What was ‘descriptive’ and permitted – soon became prescriptive and mandatory.

The progressives want to be able to carry on with their attacks on Anglican and more importantly biblical teachings, without having action taken against them.   They know that they cannot win any theological discussion, but they think they can appeal to the soft centre, argue for unity and confuse the issue.  That is why Archbishop Phillip Aspinall put out a pastoral letter which shows their true colours.  https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d0b6225d1f5490001c5c757/t/62b63bcdfd8b381bc81d26e8/1656110078180/Synod+2022+President%27s+Address.pdf

He rejoiced that 40% of the Synod voted in favour of same sex partnerships, accused the General Synod of not being open to different perspectives, complained that with one exception every person elected to committees was evangelical, and argued that modern knowledge negates the biblical teaching about sexuality and gender.

Others such as the Bishop of Newcastle and the Bishop of Gippsland in Victoria have argued that there is ‘no obstacle’ to blessing same sex marriages in the Australian Anglican church.   Whilst calling for ‘respect’ they will continue to undermine the teaching of the Anglican church – and more importantly the teaching of Scripture.  By their fruits you shall know them!

Let’s return to this question of whether Professor Lee is correct in saying that we agree on 90% of doctrine.  I was particularly interested in this because Dorothy Lee was brought up in a conservative Presbyterian manse in Scotland.   Her father was one of my predecessors in St Peter’s Free Church of Scotland, Dundee.  Both she and I now serve in the Anglican church in Australia. But there the similarities end.  Professor Lee has a progressive, modernist view of Christianity.  I am the opposite.  I have seen what such a view has done in my own native country – and in others throughout the world.   Liberal theology is the poison that kills the Church. Imagine there are two glasses of water in front of you – one is 100% water; the other is 90% water and 10% cyanide. Which one would you drink?  Would the 10% make any difference?!   Paul puts it this way when talking about how the Galatians were turning away from the Gospel: “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough” (Galatians 5:9).

Speaking of Galatians – if you think that what I have written above is a bit harsh and unloving, just read what Paul says to those who turn away from the Gospel!  It’s worth quoting in full.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.  8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse! Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people?If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ  (Galatians 1:6-10).

The progressives seem much more concerned about whether the church wins the approval of human beings, especially those who are the cultural gatekeepers in our society.   They argue that we need to accommodate the Gospel so that it appeals to them. But Paul argues that to do such is to turn it into a different gospel.   He is passionate about it because he is passionate about Christ – not because he likes theological fights or is playing church politics!

Professor Lee is an intelligent woman – she must know that the differences in doctrine are far deeper than her motion and her comment in the Eternity article suggest.    We don’t agree on God, Jesus, the Bible, the Cross, the Church, salvation, heaven and hell and ethical teachings.  This is a different gospel.

Rather than ‘forgetting what is past’, we should learn from history – or we will be doomed to repeat it.   For example, take the case of Gresham Machen, Professor of New Testament at Princeton Seminary between 1906 and 1929, who left Princeton to found Westminster Theological Seminary and then left the Northern Presbyterians to form the Orthodox Presbyterian church.  He wrote a prophetic book, Christianity and Liberalism, which should be required reading for all Australian Anglicans and Presbyterians who want to avoid the fate that is currently happening to mainline Protestant denominations in the UK and UK.

“A terrible crisis unquestionably has arisen in the Church. In the ministry of evangelical churches are to be found hosts of those who reject the gospel of Christ. By the equivocal use of traditional phrases, by the representation of differences of opinion as though they were only differences about the interpretation of the Bible, entrance into the Church was secured for those who are hostile to the very foundations of the faith.”

“It is often said that the divided condition of Christendom is an evil, and so it is. But the evil consists in the existence of the errors which cause the divisions and not at all in the recognition of those errors when once they exist.”

“Here is found the most fundamental difference between liberalism and Christianity—liberalism is altogether in the imperative mood, while Christianity begins with a triumphant indicative; liberalism appeals to man’s will, while Christianity announces, first, a gracious act of God.”

The progressives, with their moralistic doctrines, and their bowing to the idols of contemporary culture, are arguing for a policy of ‘live and let live’.  If ‘moderate’ evangelicals listen to their plea they will soon find it is ‘live and let die’.  There has never been a church which has prospered by following the spirit of the age.    As Dean inge put it: he who marries the spirit of this age, will be a widower in the next!

Another  example is the collapse of the Church of Scotland.   I am currently doing some research and writing on the last heresy case to be held in Australia – that of Dr Peter Cameron of the Presbyterian Church in Australia – who was disciplined by the Presbyterian Church for espousing the same theology as the progressives in the Anglican church today.  At the time the press and media lauded him as the future of the Church.  Yet four decades later he is long gone and largely forgotten – and the Church he originally came from is on the brink of extinction.  Progressive theology kills.

So, what should the evangelicals do?  We must not accept the poisoned chalice held out to us by the progressives.  There is no way that we should drink the liberal Kool Aid!  Instead we should seek real biblical unity with other like-minded biblical Christians especially in the face of a militant progressive secularism which is seeking to cancel us!  But we need to remember the words of Thomas Manton, spoken to the English Parliament in 1647: “Unity consists in an agreement in the truth, not in a coagulation of errors”. We should work as far as possible with those with whom we have a disagreement on secondary matters. But we can never work with those who would deny Christ, the Scriptures and the very heart of the Gospel.

Instead of accepting meaningless cliches about us all being one in Christ (impossible when we do not agree which Christ!), we should challenge and debate the false theologies, exposing them for the vacuous and dangerous myths they are (see for example this debate with Rev. Dr Scott McKenna – https://theweeflea.com/2015/10/06/the-scottgate-tapes-a-revealing-insight-into-the-current-state-of-the-church-of-scotland/).   And we should put into practice the words of Mark Thomson’s amendment to the Synod.  Let us joyfully obey, worship and proclaim Christ, as he is given to us in the Scriptures!

What a same-sex marriage vote reveals about the Anglican Church of Australia

A Theological Conversation with Scott McKenna – FULL TRANSCRIPT

 

8 comments

  1. “We should work as far as possible with those with whom we have a disagreement on secondary matters. But we can never work with those who would deny Christ, the Scriptures and the very heart of the Gospel.”

    True and again my mind goes back to the so-called “emergent church” with leaders such as Brian McLaren and the meeting at the former International Christian Church where if I recall correctly I mentioned his response to a question I posed about truth and him quoting Romans 14 with if you do anything to distress your brother, you have not acted in love. And to the attempt of the “emergent church” of being incarnational me saying isn’t that what the church has always been intending which was met wiht your passionate agreement.

    So liberalism / evangelicalism I would suggest to any reasonable Christ centred person is not the issue at core but merely in principle the separation into two tribes and the kind of factions that Galatians 5 describes as “acts of the flesh”.

    Liberalism in and of itself is not a concern. In principle diversity is good and beneficial to all. It’s how this has been applied that is the issue and to think that this is to be resolved wiht more fervent evangelicalism is to fall into the trap of sinning in anger.

    Liberalism / Evangelicalism – in principle these are two sides of the same coin.

    However the zeitgeist is more in line wiht liberalism and this is where the issue lies – “wiht the spirit of the age”.

    Andin the light of that – I appreciate the quote you made David of anyone being married to the spirit of the age being widow of the next.

  2. ‘Professor Lee has a progressive, modernist view of Christianity.’
    I wonder if it would be more correct to say post-modernist view of Christianity.

  3. I think part of the problem is that the secular society around us is increasingly moving away from Bible teaching while still trying to hold on to the fruits it produces. Some so-called Christians seem to have bought into the humanist lie that human nature is essentially good and can produce these fruits on its own, without any input from God or the Bible, and they naively assume that as long as we produce Christlike behaviour then the unbelieving world will like us (and if it doesn’t then we are being hateful and exclusionary).

    I am beginning to suspect that progressive Christians aren’t actually Christians at all, but secular humanists in Christian clothing, whether they realise it or not. Their concerns, their teachings and their solutions are all firmly based in this world and human effort. They have no room for repentance or transformation of heart and mind, and that is the underpinning of the entire gospel.

  4. The Bible pointing us to Holy Tradition (The Apostle’s Creed) marks an important boundary line. Liberal and heretical nonsense often reveals itself when opposition to the Apostle’s creed is apparent. A great moral compass is abortion in my estimation. Christ ensouled as a human from conception, humans ensouled and different from animal embryos, plus maternal-paternal conscience crying out against abortion, are all very clear observations. Maybe evangelicals can afford to be more gentle on sexuality? Celibacy and traditional marriage versus the rest looks like rough justice. But it’s a fair and simple position. All are prone to lust in youth, but as people get older it’s less of an issue. Is there infinitely more harm in one scrape of the abortion curette than any expression of sexuality between consenting adults? With current abortion stats should Christians focus much more on heterosexual sin?

  5. As a young Christian in the 1970’s one of my friends left a mainline Protestant denomination and joined the Baháʼí faith. When I heard of this I got very curious–even picked up several of their publications and read them, and then engaged in conversation with a local leader. His main thesis was similar to Prof. Lee’s–“90% of what all major religions believe is essentially the same.” When I began listing what I saw as obvious contradictions to this, he dismissed every point in one of 2 ways–either I didn’t understand the theology of my own Christian faith, or I didn’t understand the teachings of the other faiths. Each dismissal was accompanied by what I recognized as quotes from ʻAbdu’l-Bahá–the author of their holy books. These quotes all sounded wonderful–the kind of one liners you often hear from New Age teachers that sound great but ultimately are meaningless. When I brought up the law of non-contradiction I received more ʻAbdu’l-Bahá quotes which seemed to convey that it was ok for 2+2 to equal 5. I suspect at this point a conversation with Prof. Lee might be as frustrating. It does not matter that 90% of your vocabulary is the same if you have disconnected it from its original meaning…

  6. Hello David,

    Thanks for this article. Your quotation of Machen leads me to the suggestion that “progressive” is not the right adjective for theological liberals. It’s too generous to their way of thinking. Maybe better would be “regressive” — going back to the old, outmoded, discredited liberalism of the 19th century!

    Interestingly, Dr Dorothy Lee is the daughter of a predecessor of my own, in the Manning River PCEA Congregation. My wife knew her, growing up in the St Kilda, Vic. PCEA where her Dad was minister(1959-66), and we renewed friendship in the 1970s. The Rev. Mr Lee demitted St Kilda in order to take up the call to St Peter’s. He subsequently returned to Australia in 1970 and served in the Manning R. PCEA until he ‘retired’ in the early 1990s.

    Another major protagonist in the Anglican General Synod (GS), Dr Matthew Anstey, is the son-in-law of another faithful, Reformed minister, a predecessor of mine in the Reformed Church of Canberra.
    It is sobering to observe that both these teachers have embraced regressive theological liberalism, notwithstanding the orthodox teachings to which they were exposed.

    While it was good to see that evangelical majorities emerging at the GS, it is a tragedy to observe the level of regressive thought in the Anglican Church of Australia. It’s hard to see how such a divided house can continue to stand, and I wonder how much longer before a separation takes place. One thinks of faithful Church of England ministers, like Ryle, Stott and others, and how they were unable to ‘stop the rot’ (even if they may have slowed its ‘progress’ somewhat). If only Aussie Anglicans would discover biblical ecclesiology, and renounce 4.5 point Calvinism… They might find a home in the Presbyterian Church!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: