REC Presiding Bishop denounces Critical Race Theory and hyphenated Christianity in address to the church’s General Council

Paul Edgerton • June 16, 2021

Below is excerpted the part of the report germane to sexuality and race. The Presiding Bishop's full report to the 56th General Council is linked HERE.

For my most extensive exhortation, I call upon all of us to respond to encroaching cultural and social worldviews among Scripturally committed churches with a Gospel and Biblical worldview. All too often when the church attempts to be, “all things to all people that by all means we might save some,” she allows culture to seduce her into introducing secular thinking and concepts that insidiously confuse, confound and even violate foundational Biblical commitments (1 Corinthians 9:22, ESV). Far too often St. Paul’s statement about becoming all things to win some by finding common ground with the world, fails to heed the apostle’s other statement, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Romans 12:2). For St. Paul, the will of God is clear in how we are to interface with the culture to win some to Christ. Whatever common ground with the world that St. Paul suggests in one passage, should not be interpreted to mean conformity to the world’s, secular thought. Rather, St. Paul calls for transformation to a “Christian mind,” in the words of the Anglican scholar, Harry Blamires, who wrote a book by this title. Elizabeth Elliot, popular Anglican, Christian author refers to conformity to the world as capitulation. She grew up in the Reformed Episcopal Church and became the wife of Jim Elliot, one of the seven Wheaton graduates and missionaries in the 1950s, who were martyred by the Auca Indians in South America while attempting to spread the Gospel to these lost people. She once observed about the will of God: “The will of God is not something you add to your life. It’s a course you choose. You either line yourself up with the Son of God…or you capitulate to the principle which governs the rest of the world.” In light of Scripture’s call to be transformed by the mind of Christ, and not “capitulate to the principle that governs the rest of the world,” I would like to address two different challenges for the church with summaries of a Biblical world and life view regarding them.

The first concerns ministry within the Anglican Church in America in support of a statement out of the College of Bishops that addresses a group of Anglican Christians struggling with same-sex attraction. They prefer to identify themselves as “same-sex Christian,” “Gay-Christian,” or “Gay-Anglican.” The context for the need to produce the statement was that our Archbishop and bishops were asked by one of the Anglican seminaries to offer guidance as to the advisability or not in the use of these designations. For clarification, the purpose of the statement was not a complete Biblical analysis of homosexuality, since much of this work has been done already, and the Constitution and Canons of both the ACNA and REC are clear that any form of homosexual behavior is sin according to the Scriptures. The particular group in question agrees that homosexual practice is wrong. The report out of the College of Bishops, Sexuality and Identity: A Pastoral Statement from the College of Bishops, therefore responded to the specific request with a narrower but important purpose. For your information, Bishop Walter Banek and I participated significantly in the task force appointed to write the statement. I was given a major role in the final editing. The statement summarily does, however, present our Biblical commitments to the Scriptural standard of marriage and morality. To the specific purpose for which it was written, the statement concludes for a number of reasons why sexually hyphenated designations of Christians struggling with same-sex attraction is neither Biblical, historical, nor pastoral. The statement also reassured these misguided believers of our commitment to love, help and care for those Christians wrestling with this disorder. It was unanimously approved by the College of Bishops in January 2021.

However, subsequent to the release of the statement there was ongoing discussion and unsuccessful pushback attempts on the part of a few. Yet, as the vast majority in the ACNA and the College of Bishops remains steadfast with the statement, there will be continued effort to clarify and help our brothers and sisters dealing with same-sex attraction. In the spirit of contributing further Scriptural instruction and light on inappropriate, sexually hyphenated language for Christian groups, I therefore offer the following. It is a summary of the Biblical world view of sexuality touching the matter, as reflected in the wisdom of the College of Bishops’ statement.


(1) Although some Christians have always in the history of the church dealt with same-sex attraction in the context of homosexual disorder, Scripture nowhere speaks of same-sex attraction as a Biblically sanctioned category. James does refer in his epistle to, “lust conceived as giving birth to sin” (James 1:15). No doubt temptation is not sin. However, James is not suggesting that sin is only in the action, the birthing of it. He’s doing the opposite. He uses conception and birth language to explain how the two are one. The beginning of the birthing of sin is at the desire and attraction level of conception. This is where giving into temptation, sin, starts and is to be resisted. For example, if a married man said he was attracted to other women besides his wife, but he does not intend to act upon such an attraction, how would Biblical wisdom respond? According to James it’s the beginning of lust even if the man says he does not want, nor intend to have sex with other women. In other words, the attraction itself speaks of an evil that is not allowed by the prior relationship of the man to his wife. Furthermore, pastoral experience in the church reveals, that attractions beyond one’s spouse do lead to action, even if the latter was not initially intended. Other Scripture expands on the limits of attraction only permitted prior relationships.

The apostle Paul expresses the limits imposed by prior relationship in terms of only two possible relational attractions for Christians, singleness bound to the Lord in celibacy, and Biblical marriage to a spouse (1 Corinthians 7:24- 40). Regarding marriage, he advises to remain in the state in which a married person finds himself/herself. That is, the prior relationship governs any other relationship and attraction, such as the example to which I just referred. Importantly, concerning the single or celibate person, St. Paul Biblically reasons the same way. The difference is that the prior relationship for the single person according to St. Paul is to the Lord. Similar to marriage, he advises to remain in the state to which one is called. But single and celibate Christians are to have a unique singular relationship to the Lord that is to be jealously guarded in the same way as a married relationship between husband and wife. In explaining this bond, he uses very precise language touching on attraction when he says, “The [Christian] woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit” (1 Corinthians 7:34 NASV). Notice that St. Paul adds with reference to the single Christian, “and spirit.” He’s not only concerned about faithful action, “the body.” He also speaks of the “spirit” of the single person, which encompasses attraction and desire. His point is that the prior relationship of a single and celibate person to the Lord limits attraction only to Him. St. Paul argues that this is a strength in the Kingdom of God. The advantage of the celibate call commended by St. Paul is that there are no other attractions and therefore distractions from serving the Lord. Any other attraction involving the “spirit” of a single person is explained as in some sense drawing the celibate from singular attraction to the Lord. The only possible exception for the single person to be attracted to another besides the Lord according to St. Paul would be if the celibate were to be called toward and into Biblical marriage. For the apostle, there are only two Biblical attractions, the singular attraction to the Lord, and the exclusive attraction to one’s spouse. There is no suggestion anywhere in the Scriptures that there’s a third category of same-sex attraction. Without any clear Biblical evidence for using sexual hyphenations in the church with reference to those of the same gender, therefore, such designations should not be used to categorize Christians.

(2) Biblical friendship is permissible and commendable, but Scripture does not hyphenate Scriptural friendships with sexual words. The Bible has much to say regarding godly friendships. If the word attraction only means wanting to have a friendship with someone of the same or opposite sex there is nothing inherently wrong. This is good. But here again, Scripture never involves sexual words and their connotations with Biblical friendship. It doesn’t hyphenate the word sex with any relationship for that matter. Furthermore, not even Biblical marriage is described as opposite-sex attraction with sexual language. Godly marriage according to Scripture is in its essence companionship, expressed in God’s purpose to provide for Adam “a helper fit for him,” that is a companion (Genesis 2:18). And even this kind of companionship is limited to the marriage of a man and woman. So why bring sexual language into desire for friendship if Scripture does not? It is especially unwise to do so given our culture when the church struggles with not being conformed by wrong sexual worldviews and language.

(3) For all of these reasons, the church has never approved moral and sexual hyphenations such as “same-sex or gay-Christian,” let alone “gay-Anglican.” We don’t speak of adulterous, kleptomaniac, lying or any sort of Christian with moral hyphenation. We don’t even refer to Christians who struggle with alcohol as “alcoholic-Christians.” Rather, the church has only encouraged sub-groupings and hyphenations associated in terms of worship, service, and mission. This is demonstrated all through the history of the church from monasticism to mission. Grouping around desire is self-serving, not other-serving as the Scriptures call us to be and do. Then pastorally speaking, to put oneself in a social context of the same sexual attraction for which action on the attraction is forbidden is unwise. This would be like putting a man struggling with lust for other women into a Bible study with recovering prostitutes. It’s not a pastoral approach for healing a sexual disorder.


Therefore, I exhort us to resist the language and categories of sexual attraction and relationship, that neither Scripture nor the historic church’s understanding of the Bible would permit. At the very least, such novel language pulls the edge of a secular, homosexual worldview into the church. At worst, it could lead, as attraction consistently does, to homosexual behavior that has so divided the 21st century church. Let us resist any trace of conformity to the secular worldview. At the same time, I call us to love all sinners including homosexuals and those struggling with homosexual inclinations. In this we must strive to welcome and show them that Jesus Christ and His church loves, accepts and wants pastorally to help them. All the while, however, we must with God’s help, remain steadfast and clear on God’s view of human sexuality, Biblical marriage, and sexual desire, attraction and behaviors.

A second cultural concern where we must not be conformed to the world but be transformed in Christ concerns the church’s response to the sins of racial prejudice, hatred, and violence in our society. In recent months we have seen tragic, unjust, and unacceptable use of force in racially oriented crimes. These situations have included “the bad cop,” as well as retaliatory groups answering hate with hate and equal prejudice. Although not everyone is a racist, nor do these kinds of tragedy mean that all police are racist, Christians must speak the truth in love and peace with the standard of the Word of God. This calls for the application of a Biblical world view to provide not only the Scriptural understanding of race, but to avoid being conformed to the world by secular racial theories. While models such as Critical Race Theory may at some points offer useful information, they are not necessarily Biblical nor Christian in their premises, principles, and practices. They can even at times become explicitly anti-Christian displaying another kind of religious prejudice. And since they are only theories, they can offer misinformation or exclude key information. Moreover, these secular racial theories in the hands of some biased researchers unfortunately succumb to atheistic totalitarian, Marxist ideologies.

Christians therefore must be extremely careful not to rely on secular theories and worldviews regarding any subject such as race and racism. Non-Christian viewpoints entering the Kingdom of God can confuse, mislead, and conform God’s people to the world instead of transforming their minds to the will of God. When this happens, our answers then become no different from a fallen, sinful mind, failing to offer true Scriptural solutions to cultural problems. I know some believe that if we concede to secular viewpoints where we can, some might be won to the Biblical view. Unfortunately, the opposite has proven to be the case throughout Christian history. When the church does not maintain a clear Biblical world view, demonstrating where Scripture actually has the better idea and approach, the unbeliever doesn’t truly convert and the church all too often becomes more like the world rather than vice versa. Worse, in cultural issues such as race we can lose sight of the main thing that is to be the main thing, the Gospel of the love of Christ that is the only true way for removing prejudice and for reaching all ethnicities. To help us stay in the will of God and not be conformed to the world on such an important issue, I present a brief summary of the Biblical world and life view of race that the church uniquely has to offer all societies especially at this time.

(1) The early chapters of Genesis teach that God created humanity in His image, Imago Dei. This distinguishes humans from all other creatures. The Hebrew words and language for the Image of God in humanity have been defined as mental and spiritual faculties that people share with God, the appointment of humankind as God’s representatives on earth, and a capacity to relate to God. All three of these elements of Imago Dei reveal humans as essentially religious. The word religion comes from the Latin, religio, meaning to bind or covenant. Not only are humans in the Image of God essentially religious but they are made to have covenant only with the One, True, God who made them. In this, humans are formed first and foremost to worship God. They are created doxological creatures before anything else. God also shaped other aspects into humanity such as economics, education, politics and even race. Yet all of these are not the essence of the Imago Dei in mankind. Though important and equal elements of humanity, they are secondary to the Imago Dei. They are to be subordinated to God and His covenantal will for humanity. And if humanity allows these other components such as economics, politics or even race to deny or neglect humanity as essentially religious, these areas can actually become a replacement religion. Here is a key place where secular, non-creationist worldviews and racial theories err. Regarding race, they can begin to define race in importance over religion. And in this they can be and are often antagonistic to Christianity.

The Biblical creationist worldview does teach that God created humans with different colors of skin, but it’s a very different understanding from nonChristian views of ethnicity. St. Paul says, “And he [God] made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26). Some translations such as the King James Version and others interpret the phrase “one man” as “one blood.” Actually, the Greek text only says “one,” as in, “God made from one every nation of mankind.” Either way, in one man including his blood, all the people and nations originated. This is why the Anglican Evangelical scholar John Stott observes, “Both the dignity and the equality of human beings are traced in Scripture to our creation.” The Biblical view has historically been that all humanity is actually one race as in one blood in many ethnicities. This is reflected in the origin of the English word “race.” It probably comes by way of the Italian word, razza, from the Latin radix, which means root. The Biblical view of race is that there is one root to one man with one blood. As the saying goes, “we all bleed red no matter the color of our skin.”

Important for us to note, the Biblical creationist model of humanity as one root, blood and race with many ethnicities, was challenged by Enlightenment, evolutionary, and Darwinian theories in the 18th and 19th centuries. They abandoned race in terms of common root and blood. They started redefining race in terms of physical features. They further categorized these racial features into an evolutionary scheme seeing certain ethnic characteristics as less evolved than others. This led to totalitarian abuses of races defined as less and more human. Nazis and Marxists of the 20th century, even declared some races as subhuman, resulting in genocide committed against millions of Jews and other races. Sadly, even some Christian theologians over the last two centuries have been lured away from a creationist to an evolutionary view of race. They too fell into the trap of racist perspectives. Yet it must be understood that they abandoned a thorough Biblical creationist worldview to arrive at errant racial conclusions. This points not only to the difference between the Biblical creationist world view, but it also alerts us to the danger of Christians using secular, evolutionary theories to address the problems of race. And when secular race theorists attempt to use evolutionary models to correct the problems of racism, they commit other errors because of the explicitly atheistic premises of any non-creationist worldview.

(2) The Biblical world view of race teaches that Adam and Eve’s sinful rebellion against God resulted in segmenting humanity in terms of ethnicity. God created one race, one blood in different colors united by grace. Sinful, fallen humans divided the one race, one blood of humanity by subjugating races according to national power structures. Although God did form tribes and nations, he did not make one race more pure than another (Genesis 10). He made all races equal and called for every person to be treated equally. His blessing and cursing were not on one race or tribe due to ethnicity but faithfulness or unfaithfulness to His covenant (Genesis 9:25). St. Peter says, “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34). The Word of God in passages such as this one actually provides a fuller, more accurate, and truly corrective understanding of racism than secular theories. Holy Writ teaches that the specific sin of racism is the spiritual problem of hate and prejudice against and preferential treatment of one race above another due to ethnicity. The Bible reveals that sinful “partiality” toward certain humans and races, to use St. Peter’s language, is the cause of racial prejudice. The Scriptures even go to a deeper root source of the sin of racism. The origin of all sin is pride leading to hatred, anger and violence. Racial arrogance is in the fallen heart of prejudice resulting in hatred that elevates or denigrates a person on the basis of the color of skin. The Scriptures in this spiritual assessment present a critical sin view of racism, with which secular theories are not concerned in their analyses.

In addition, Scripture teaches that all of humanity represented by Adam and Eve fell into sin (Romans 5:12). The apostle concludes, “All have sinned and fall short of God’s glory” (Romans 3:23). Everyone in every race is a sinner. No one person or race is exempt from the effects of sin. However, although humanity became totally depraved this does not mean that every person has become utterly depraved. There’s a big difference between totally and utterly. Total depravity means that humans in every aspect of their person – mind, emotion, and will – became tainted and enslaved by sin. This is not the same as utter depravity. The phrase utter depravity suggests that every sinner commits every sin. This goes beyond the Scriptural teaching of the effect of the fall. By God’s restraining common grace every human does not become so utterly depraved that he/she commits every sin. Just as not every individual is a murderer, or robs a bank, not every person participates in the sin of racism. On this point, secular racial theories like CRT actually exceed the Biblical doctrine of sin by effectively accusing all humans of certain races of the sin of racism. They say things like, “all white people are racists.” This kind of generalization is not accurate according to Scripture or experience, any more than it would be to say that every human is a murderer. It’s reducing individuals of a race to utter and not just total depravity. It is more Scripturally precise to say all races have racists but not everyone in a given race is a racist.

Thus, because of a more accurate evaluation of racism as a sin problem, a Biblical worldview provides a spiritual solution of true love for God and neighbor leading to peace that goes to the source of fallen pride and hatred regardless of the racial sins of prejudice and abuse. Only by turning to the God of the Bible can sinful, racial injustice be overcome. In the words of Ken Ham and A. Charles Ware in their book, One Race, One Blood, “race is a sin issue not a skin issue.” The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. reflected this Biblical viewpoint when he said, “I look for the day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin but the content of their character.” To quote St. Peter again, “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” The only, ultimate solution to the sin of racism is the “Fear of the Lord and obedience to Him,” the Gospel, which is the Biblical doctrine of salvation.

(3) The third aspect of the Biblical world view of race is redemption in Jesus Christ that restores God’s intended created purpose of one race, one blood in many skin colors. As the Scriptures say, “So God loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son to the end that all who believe in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). St. Paul explains, “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who has made us both one and broken down in His flesh the dividing wall of hostility” (Ephesians 2:13-14). The blood of Christ unites our blood into the original, created purpose of God that sin jeopardized. St. Paul says elsewhere that as we receive by faith what he calls, the blessed or consecrated “bread and cup,” “we share in the Body and the Blood of Christ.” Furthermore, he adds that as “we share in the Body of Christ, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of one bread” (1 Corinthians 10:16-17). According to the Biblical worldview of salvation, union in and by means of Jesus Christ is the ultimate solution to joining together all ethnicities. Christ is the only One who can break down all racial “dividing walls of hostility.” This unity in diversity of one body one blood is indeed the picture of heaven as described by the Apostle John in the Book of Revelation. Seven times we’re told that the redeemed community of humans in heaven has been redeemed from, “every tribe and language and people and nation” (5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15). Do you think the New Testament is trying to make a point about race? As Ham and Ware say, “the move from race relations to grace relations” redeems humanity to what God intended at creation.

Among the early church fathers such as Tertullian and Origin of Alexandria, they often referred to this aforementioned Biblical teaching as Christ’s redemption forming into one race all ethnicities in the church. This is not to say that all ethnic distinctions are removed or no longer recognized or important. Redemption does not make God’s people color blind but ethnically appreciative. The early church fathers further explained their insight by pointing out that the New Testament speaks of only three races: Jew, Gentile, and the Church. In Scripture the distinction is actually threefold in this sense, the Jewish race, the Gentile races including all ethnicities, and the Church in which the ethnicities of the world are and can only be truly united. In the Kingdom of God all ethnicities are equal and to be equally reached in Christ with no preference for any single race apart from the others. There is no east nor west, no north nor south. The dividing wall between Jew, Gentile, and all races is torn down by the Gospel. To quote our wonderful invitation in Holy Communion, “All who love our Divine Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity are affectionately invited to the Lord’s Table.”

Furthermore, the early church fathers also taught from the Scriptures that though Christ makes all one, God does not neglect ethnicity by redemption. Rather, grace leads the church to recognize that each race brings gifts into the church to form a whole. Like the oneness of marriage, unity does not remove diversity. A man and woman, by becoming one in marriage, do not cease to be male and female. Their unity is in complementing each other with the diverseness that each brings to the unity. Diversity is good, and unified in Christ. In the church, all races are brought into God’s Kingdom to contribute to each other, that all together might reach all the ethnicities of the world for Christ. This is the redemption in Christ that also restores humanity.

(4) The final aspect of the Biblical world view is restoration in Jesus Christ to love, care for, and include all ethnicities. This is sometimes called sanctification of character leading to loving God and one’s neighbor. We see restoration at work in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10). The Good Samaritan not only saves the man near death. He picks him up, takes care of him, and leads him to a hospital where he can be fully restored. Regarding the sin of racism, Jesus Christ not only takes away hate, but He puts love in the heart for all people, regardless of race, creed or color. This is the restoration effect of redemption in Jesus Christ. It’s Christians who write hymns like, “Jesus loves the little children; all the children of the world; red, brown, yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight; Jesus loves the little children of the world.” Not only are colors and races precious in Jesus’ sight. God restores them to the preciousness of their racial identity in Jesus Christ.

In addition, concerning Gospel restoration from racism, secular racial theories generally fail to recognize how Jesus Christ and Christianity have the greatest story of restoring all races, especially ones of color, with the Gospel and a Biblical world view. Ironically, one of the positive methods of secular race theories is called storytelling. They use skillful storytelling techniques to correct false narratives and add important aspects to history. No doubt some erring interpreters of Scripture for a brief period once misinterpreted the curse on Canaan in the Old Testament to be on Ham resulting in racial stigmatizing (Genesis 9:25). Although the faulty interpretation has been acknowledged, corrected and rejected, the larger narrative of the overall positive effect of the Gospel and its stories in Christian history has been mostly neglected by secular racial theorists. In fact, it can be argued from any objective reading of the last two thousand years, the most effective and only real freedom humanity has ever known has resulted from Christianity’s impact. Even today, look at where there is still open slavery practiced. It’s places Christianity either has never had influence or has been rejected and oppressed. Islam for example, has throughout its entire history produced one oppressive slave state after another even down to the present. Slavery is still practiced in Islamic countries. Secular race theories conspicuously neglect this travesty as well as the true Christian story. They will note the importance of the abolitionists in the 19th century. What they fail to emphasize is the significance of their Christian commitment that led to their abolitionist views. They will mention sometimes the remarkable story of overcoming slavery and racism in England by courageous Anglican Evangelicals like William Wilberforce and John Newton who authored the great hymn, Amazing Grace. What some don’t mention is John Newton’s own testimony of how he was changed from being a slave trader, by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ, to become a champion for the very people whom he had hated and enslaved.

Though Christians are sinners saved by grace and not perfect in this life, the prevailing Gospel story regarding race is overwhelmingly constructive. One of the most powerful stories of Christian restoration is the first African Bishop, Samuel Ajayi Crowther (1809-1891). When only twelve years old, his family was captured by Muslim slave traders in Western Africa. Traveling in the captors’ slave ship, a British Royal Navy Squadron of Ships enforcing the ban on slave trade intercepted the vessel. Crowther converted to Christianity through English missionaries. Eventually called into the ministry, the English Church Missionary Society provided for his education at Oxford University where he earned a doctoral degree. Upon returning to Nigeria with the CMS, he became the first Anglican African Bishop. During the same period, Henry Townsend, was a 19th century Anglican missionary to the West Coast of Africa in the area of Abeokuta, Nigeria. He encountered slave markets. On a certain day he attended one, bought a slave, and right in front of everyone after he had purchased the man, unshackled his chains, and set him free. That act became a powerful Christian witness for the man and his culture. Both men worked together to spread the Gospel and stop the evil slave trade.

There is also our own history in the Reformed Episcopal Church. It is a classic example of how Jesus Christ changes people from being racist. The first Reformed Episcopal bishop in South Carolina was Peter Fassyoux Stephens. He was the white Commandant of the Citadel in Charleston and fought for the South in the Civil War. After the war was over, Christ moved in his life. He took up the cause of freed African American slaves. He worked to reform the educational system in South Carolina so that African Americans could receive an education. And when the Episcopal Church would not ordain African American Christian men called into Holy Orders, he ordained them after they had left the Episcopal Church. He, together with these faithful lay and clergy African Americans, began a grand work for Christ. It continues to this day as a key witness in and from the Reformed Episcopal Church in the Diocese of the Southeast.

These are just some among myriads of stories in Christian history of how Jesus Christ can and does restore a lost humanity from racism and ethnic prejudice, if a person will truly believe in Him and embrace the Holy Scriptures’ model for living. Jesus Christ was not a white Caucasian. He was a Jew, and He was “woke,” before any of us. He has awakened His followers throughout history down to the present. Faithful Biblical Christians are already indeed “woke.” Our society needs to hear the Christian story of redemption and restoration in Christ alone.

I could go so much further with this exhortation calling us to a Gospel and Scriptural model of race. I’ve only touched the surface with the Biblical world view of creation, fall, redemption and restoration regarding ethnicity. Much more needs to be done in articulating a Biblical Race Theology. If it’s Scriptural, it’s not a theory. Much more can be developed on the Biblical perspective, as well as critique of secular approaches. This is the only way to become all things to all that some might come to Christ, without at the same time being conformed to the world. This is our responsibility as Christian scholars and believers in keeping the main thing the main thing. It is only the Gospel that redeems and restores humans to love, to respect, to honor, to care for, and to reach, all ethnicities. We must always, by God’s grace, keep the main thing the main thing, attempting to reach the world for Christ. We should also remain vigilant in keeping the main thing the main thing in our work together in the Reformed Episcopal Church. To this end close to home, I offer a final second exhortation as we stand together as a Reformed Episcopal Church of many ethnicities.


Second in these challenging times of racial turmoil, I exhort us to renew our stand with our African American brothers and sisters, especially our fellow Reformed Episcopalians. I believe we can strengthen our work together first by weeping with those who weep. My/our hearts go out especially for our African American brothers and sisters who have lived once again through a painful period and witnessed racially oriented crimes. We are all grieved and concerned. But for our African American brothers and sisters, old wounds have been reopened from the recent abuses in our culture. Although not all in our society are racist, it has pointed out the need for reform among some our law enforcement agencies. We should realize the effects of these tragic events on our brothers and sisters, hurt with them, uphold them, pray for them, and weep with those who weep. At the same time in our stand together to proclaim Christ, particularly those of us in the Anglican Church in North America and in the Reformed Episcopal Church, let us not lose sight of the difference between faithful, Biblical and believing Gospel churches and the unbelieving culture. I don’t know of any lay or clergy in the ACNA or the REC who are racist. Some may be confused and frustrated, but the word racist does not apply to our fellow Biblical Anglicans. I ask us not to be confused with the confusion in our society to the extent that we forget the distinction between lost sinner without the grace of God and saved sinners by grace in Biblical churches. I know we have so much more in which we must be sanctified. I realize that in our increasingly diverse society, we in a Biblical church must reach all diversities with the Gospel. In calling us to stand with our fellow African American Reformed Episcopalians, I ask that they minister to us and help us better to fulfill the Great Commission to all ethnicities of the world and in our ministries together. All of our churches need more ethnic diversity. Finally, as part of this second exhortation, though many of us may not have experienced the same kind of oppression in our own recent histories, I also hear in Scripture that, “there is no sin that is not common to humanity.” I’m reminded of the words of Brother Lawrence in his classic, Practicing the Presence of God, “If we’re truly devoted to doing God’s will, pain and pleasure won’t make any difference to us.” We weep with those who weep and work for a better day when we may rejoice with those who rejoice.

I come to the end of my report to this 56th General Council with the theme, “Not my will, but Thy will be done.” I have summarized where, by God’s grace, we have continued to walk together in God’s will. God has given us many victories over the last, extended triennium. I have also exhorted us in a number of areas where I pray by God’s grace, we will continue in His will. In this as you can see, I also have been compelled by my teaching office and responsibility as a bishop and as your Presiding Bishop to offer Scriptural guidance regarding two social and cultural areas. I have drawn from St. Paul, who says in the will of God we are to be transformed to think Christianly with a Biblical world and life view, and not to be conformed to nor confused by the world’s secular models. As my grandmother used to say, “Eat the cherries but spit out the pits.”

(First Things) A Wafer-Thin Practice

By Paul Edgerton • May 15, 2020
Who would have thought that a virus would make us reflect deeply on what it means to be the church? Yet COVID-19 has brought into sharp relief the basic divide in North American Christianity between those who think of the church as a voluntary association of like-minded individuals and those who believe it is the real body of Christ, into which we are incorporated. The emphasis on the individual in large swaths of contemporary culture results in an anemic ecclesiology, as the recent crisis makes clear. John Williamson Nevin, one of the key representatives of German Reformed Mercersburg theology, sharply attacked the revivalism of his day, commenting in his 1849 article on “The Sect System”: “The sect mind . . . in proportion as it has come to be unchurchly and simply private and individual is always necessarily to the same extent unsacramental.” Abraham Kuyper, the great Dutch Reformed theologian and statesman, observed in his 1898 Lectures on Calvinism that “Calvinism, by praising aloud liberty of conscience, has in principle abandoned every absolute characteristic of the visible Church.” He described it as “a liberty of conscience, which enables every man to serve God according to his own conviction and the dictates of his own heart.” Baptist theologian Curtis Freeman, in his 2014 book Contesting Catholicity , similarly laments “soul competency”—the radical emphasis on individual conscience—which, beginning in the nineteenth century, has come to dominate Baptist theology. Nevin, Kuyper, and Freeman all share the same concern about the inversion of the relationship between the church and the believer. The Internet has been abuzz lately about virtual communion: Why not have the priest do his thing in front of the camera, while we partake by ourselves looking into the screen—with social distance serving as one of the few remaining ritual demands? Read the whole article

Micah Hogan - A REFORMED LITANY OF THE SAINTS: AN ANGLO-CATHOLIC SPECULATIVE REBUTTAL

By Paul Edgerton • November 7, 2019
What follows is speculative theology. I do not claim that it is right, only that it is possibly right. At the transfiguration, Jesus talked with Moses and Elijah. For in the Lord’s glory is revealed the invisible presence of his saints, who stand in his presence and with whom he converses. Furthermore, Jesus said, not to them but to us, “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father” (Jn. 14:12), and we are called his body (1 Cor. 12:27). This leads to a theological principle: what Jesus does, we do in and through His doing it. If this principle is true, then we must say that we also stand atop Mt. Tabor conversing with the saints in Christ’s own voice, with and as Christ’s own tongue. This, I argue, is the only way we can biblically understand colloquy with the saints. Any speech apart from the transfigured Christ is necromancy, for “whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (Rm. 14:23) but “to the pure all things are pure” (Tit. 1:15). This calls for a reimagining of the popular imagination of the intercession of the saints. We might well agree with Article 22 of the 39 Articles that some Romish medieval conceptions of the invocation of the saints are “a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.” To many, the reason for calling upon the saints is because they serve as mediators unto God.1 But “there is only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). For in this conception, the saints are not mediators to Christ, but Christ is the mediator to the saints. As Bonhoeffer famously said in The Cost of Discipleship: “ [Jesus] is the Mediator, not only between God and man, but between man and man.”2 For it is only in and as the transfigured Christ that we can address the saints. But what then of the practice of saintly intercession? Pleas for intercession and hymns of veneration are, after all, the two forms of speech permitted by Christian grammar between the holy living and the holy becoming. And indeed, proper veneration leads to pleas of intercession, if indeed the speech is mediated through Christ. For a saintly speech that stopped at veneration without intercession would either fail to return to the world of becoming, or else would turn intercession into direct petition and thus transform veneration into adoration, which is tantamount to divine hate-speech. But how, we must ask, can we ask the saints for intercession through the lips of Christ, if indeed we do not consider them as mediators? Because Moses and Elijah, and all the faithful, ultimately do not stand outside of the Son, but are addressed through the Son because they too stand within Him in glory, as His transfigured body. When we ask the saints’ intercession, we are asking the intercession of the whole Christ. Our prayers are joined with the prayers of all the faithful people. For the realized solidarity between all of God’s people, whether on earth or in heaven, is the prayer of the Son (Jn. 17:21). Thus pleas for saintly intercession are, in fact, the partial answering of our very pleas, by nature of what Christian prayer genetically is. For all Christian prayer is Christian insofar as it harmonizes with the formula given by our Lord: “Our Father, who art in heaven…” . And, part of our Lord’s prayer is indeed that it would be “on earth as it is in heaven.” Thus every ora pro nobis, every plea for saintly intercession is a partial fulfillment of the telos of prayer itself: the restoration of the cosmos as God intends it to be and “through [Christ] to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross” (Col. 1:20) And this, again, is why it is important that it is through the transfigured Christ that we pray. For in the transfiguration of Christ upon Mt. Tabor we see the first-fruits of the transfiguration of the world, where “God will be all in all.” It is through this first-fruits of transfiguration that we pursue the transfiguration of the entire earth by joining it to heaven—and this happens partly through the intercession of the saints. 1. See for instance Thomas Aquinas, Summa III. 26.1: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4026.htm 2. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship: Anniversary Edition (London: SCM Press, 1959), 49.

Wang Yi - Letter from a Chinese Jail: My declaration of faithful disobedience

By Paul Edgerton • December 19, 2018
On the basis of the teachings of the Bible and the mission of the gospel, I respect the authorities God has established in China. For God deposes kings and raises up kings. This is why I submit to the historical and institutional arrangements of God in China. As a pastor of a Christian church, I have my own understanding and views, based on the Bible, about what righteous order and good government is. At the same time, I am filled with anger and disgust at the persecution of the church by this Communist regime, at the wickedness of their depriving people of the freedoms of religion and of conscience. But changing social and political institutions is not the mission I have been called to, and it is not the goal for which God has given his people the gospel. For all hideous realities, unrighteous politics, and arbitrary laws manifest the cross of Jesus Christ, the only means by which every Chinese person must be saved. They also manifest the fact that true hope and a perfect society will never be found in the transformation of any earthly institution or culture but only in our sins being freely forgiven by Christ and in the hope of eternal life. As a pastor, my firm belief in the gospel, my teaching, and my rebuking of all evil proceeds from Christ’s command in the gospel and from the unfathomable love of that glorious King. Every man’s life is extremely short, and God fervently commands the church to lead and call any man to repentance who is willing to repent. Christ is eager and willing to forgive all who turn from their sins. This is the goal of all the efforts of the church in China—to testify to the world about our Christ, to testify to the Middle Kingdom about the Kingdom of Heaven, to testify to earthly, momentary lives about heavenly, eternal life. This is also the pastoral calling that I have received. For this reason, I accept and respect the fact that this Communist regime has been allowed by God to rule temporarily. As the Lord’s servant John Calvin said, wicked rulers are the judgment of God on a wicked people, the goal being to urge God’s people to repent and turn again toward Him. For this reason, I am joyfully willing to submit myself to their enforcement of the law as though submitting to the discipline and training of the Lord. At the same time, I believe that this Communist regime’s persecution against the church is a greatly wicked, unlawful action. As a pastor of a Christian church, I must denounce this wickedness openly and severely. The calling that I have received requires me to use non-violent methods to disobey those human laws that disobey the Bible and God. My Savior Christ also requires me to joyfully bear all costs for disobeying wicked laws. But this does not mean that my personal disobedience and the disobedience of the church is in any sense “fighting for rights” or political activism in the form of civil disobedience, because I do not have the intention of changing any institutions or laws of China. As a pastor, the only thing I care about is the disruption of man’s sinful nature by this faithful disobedience and the testimony it bears for the cross of Christ. As a pastor, my disobedience is one part of the gospel commission. Christ’s great commission requires of us great disobedience. The goal of disobedience is not to change the world but to testify about another world. For the mission of the church is only to be the church and not to become a part of any secular institution. From a negative perspective, the church must separate itself from the world and keep itself from being institutionalized by the world. From a positive perspective, all acts of the church are attempts to prove to the world the real existence of another world. The Bible teaches us that, in all matters relating to the gospel and human conscience, we must obey God and not men. For this reason, spiritual disobedience and bodily suffering are both ways we testify to another eternal world and to another glorious King. This is why I am not interested in changing any political or legal institutions in China. I’m not even interested in the question of when the Communist regime’s policies persecuting the church will change. Regardless of which regime I live under now or in the future, as long as the secular government continues to persecute the church, violating human consciences that belong to God alone, I will continue my faithful disobedience. For the entire commission God has given me is to let more Chinese people know through my actions that the hope of humanity and society is only in the redemption of Christ, in the supernatural, gracious sovereignty of God. If God decides to use the persecution of this Communist regime against the church to help more Chinese people to despair of their futures, to lead them through a wilderness of spiritual disillusionment and through this to make them know Jesus, if through this he continues disciplining and building up his church, then I am joyfully willing to submit to God’s plans, for his plans are always benevolent and good. Precisely because none of my words and actions are directed toward seeking and hoping for societal and political transformation, I have no fear of any social or political power. For the Bible teaches us that God establishes governmental authorities in order to terrorize evildoers, not to terrorize doers of good. If believers in Jesus do no wrong then they should not be afraid of dark powers. Even though I am often weak, I firmly believe this is the promise of the gospel. It is what I’ve devoted all of my energy to. It is the good news that I am spreading throughout Chinese society. I also understand that this happens to be the very reason why the Communist regime is filled with fear at a church that is no longer afraid of it. If I am imprisoned for a long or short period of time, if I can help reduce the authorities’ fear of my faith and of my Savior, I am very joyfully willing to help them in this way. But I know that only when I renounce all the wickedness of this persecution against the church and use peaceful means to disobey, will I truly be able to help the souls of the authorities and law enforcement. I hope God uses me, by means of first losing my personal freedom, to tell those who have deprived me of my personal freedom that there is an authority higher than their authority, and that there is a freedom that they cannot restrain, a freedom that fills the church of the crucified and risen Jesus Christ. Regardless of what crime the government charges me with, whatever filth they fling at me, as long as this charge is related to my faith, my writings, my comments, and my teachings, it is merely a lie and temptation of demons. I categorically deny it. I will serve my sentence, but I will not serve the law. I will be executed, but I will not plead guilty. Moreover, I must point out that persecution against the Lord’s church and against all Chinese people who believe in Jesus Christ is the most wicked and the most horrendous evil of Chinese society. This is not only a sin against Christians. It is also a sin against all non-Christians. For the government is brutally and ruthlessly threatening them and hindering them from coming to Jesus. There is no greater wickedness in the world than this. If this regime is one day overthrown by God, it will be for no other reason than God’s righteous punishment and revenge for this evil. For on earth, there has only ever been a thousand-year church. There has never been a thousand-year government. There is only eternal faith. There is no eternal power. Those who lock me up will one day be locked up by angels. Those who interrogate me will finally be questioned and judged by Christ. When I think of this, the Lord fills me with a natural compassion and grief toward those who are attempting to and actively imprisoning me. Pray that the Lord would use me, that he would grant me patience and wisdom, that I might take the gospel to them. Separate me from my wife and children, ruin my reputation, destroy my life and my family – the authorities are capable of doing all of these things. However, no one in this world can force me to renounce my faith; no one can make me change my life; and no one can raise me from the dead. And so, respectable officers, stop committing evil. This is not for my benefit but rather for yours and your children’s. I plead earnestly with you to stay your hands, for why should you be willing to pay the price of eternal damnation in hell for the sake of a lowly sinner such as I? Jesus is the Christ, son of the eternal, living God. He died for sinners and rose to life for us. He is my king and the king of the whole earth yesterday, today, and forever. I am his servant, and I am imprisoned because of this. I will resist in meekness those who resist God, and I will joyfully violate all laws that violate God’s laws. First draft on September 21st, 2018; revised on October 4th. To be published by the church after 48 hours of detention. Appendix: What Constitutes Faithful Disobedience I firmly believe that the Bible has not given any branch of any government the authority to run the church or to interfere with the faith of Christians. Therefore, the Bible demands that I, through peaceable means, in meek resistance and active forbearance, filled with joy, resist all administrative policies and legal measures that oppress the church and interfere with the faith of Christians. I firmly believe this is a spiritual act of disobedience. In modern authoritarian regimes that persecute the church and oppose the gospel, spiritual disobedience is an inevitable part of the gospel movement. I firmly believe that spiritual disobedience is an act of the last times; it is a witness to God’s eternal kingdom in the temporal kingdom of sin and evil. Disobedient Christians follow the example of the crucified Christ by walking the path of the cross. Peaceful disobedience is the way in which we love the world as well as the way in which we avoid becoming part of the world. I firmly believe that in carrying out spiritual disobedience, the Bible demands me to rely on the grace and resurrection power of Christ, that I must respect and not overstep two boundaries. The first boundary is that of the heart. Love toward the soul, and not hatred toward the body, is the motivation of spiritual disobedience. Transformation of the soul, and not the changing of circumstances, is the aim of spiritual disobedience. At any time, if external oppression and violence rob me of inner peace and endurance, so that my heart begins to breed hatred and bitterness toward those who persecute the church and abuse Christians, then spiritual disobedience fails at that point. The second boundary is that of behavior. The gospel demands that disobedience of faith must be non-violent. The mystery of the gospel lies in actively suffering, even being willing to endure unrighteous punishment, as a substitute for physical resistance. Peaceful disobedience is the result of love and forgiveness. The cross means being willing to suffer when one does not have to suffer. For Christ had limitless ability to fight back, yet he endured all of the humility and hurt. The way that Christ resisted the world that resisted him was by extending an olive branch of peace on the cross to the world that crucified him. I firmly believe that Christ has called me to carry out this faithful disobedience through a life of service, under this regime that opposes the gospel and persecutes the church. This is the means by which I preach the gospel, and it is the mystery of the gospel which I preach. The Lord’s servant, Wang Yi First draft on September 21st, 2018; revised on October 4th. To be circulated by the church after 48 hours of detention.

(First Things) Abigail Rine Favale–Evangelical Gnosticism

By Paul Edgerton • April 26, 2018
I teach in a great books program at an Evangelical university. Almost all students in the program are born-and-bred Christians of the nondenominational variety. A number of them have been both thoroughly churched and educated through Christian schools or homeschooling curricula. Yet an overwhelming majority of these students do not believe in a bodily resurrection. While they trust in an afterlife of eternal bliss with God, most of them assume this will be disembodied bliss, in which the soul is finally free of its “meat suit” (a term they fondly use). I first caught wind of this striking divergence from Christian orthodoxy in class last year, when we encountered Stoic visions of the afterlife. Cicero, for one, describes the body as a prison from which the immortal soul is mercifully freed upon death, whereas Seneca views the body as “nothing more or less than a fetter on my freedom,” one eventually “dissolved” when the soul is set loose. These conceptions were quite attractive to the students. Resistance to the idea of a physical resurrection struck them as perfectly logical. “It doesn’t feel right to say there’s a human body in heaven, when the body is tied so closely to sin,” said one student. In all, fewer than ten of my forty students affirmed the orthodox teaching that we will ultimately have a body in our glorified, heavenly form. None of them realizes that these beliefs are unorthodox; this is not willful doctrinal error. This is an absence of knowledge about the foundational tenets of historical, creedal Christianity. Read it all .

Fr. Erlandson - The Bible AND the Church - not the Bible OR the Church - Titus 1

By Paul Edgerton • April 20, 2018
In a few short verses in Titus, St. Paul establishes the foundation for a good church. Though his commandments to Titus are not comprehensive, they do give us a crucial and fascinating insight into both the first century Church and into what Paul considered most important. The two most essential points may be summarized by saying that Paul believed and taught that the apostolic teaching and the apostolic ministry were utterly dependent on each other and that together they constituted the essence of the apostolic church. It has often been said (because it is often true) that Catholics (by which I mean more than just Roman Catholics) tend to emphasize the church (apostolic ministry), while Protestants emphasize the gospel (or apostolic teaching.) What is interesting is that in three consecutive books of the Bible (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus), the apostolic teaching of Paul is that the apostolic ministry, which means especially (but not only) the ordained clergy, is essential to teaching and guarding the apostolic teaching. Contrary to some Protestants who think that the Bible or Word of God is sufficient in and of itself (in a distorted version of sola Scriptura ), Paul clearly believed that the ordained clergy and the institution of the Church was essential to the preservation of the Word of God. More than this, if we look carefully and honestly at what Paul says in these 3 books, we have to admit that having ordained clergy who are able to pastor and teach is actually an essential part of the very apostolic teaching we so cherish. To believe, as some do, that the Church is any collection of Christians who happen to get together, and that they have the right to determine what the Bible means by themselves, is very far removed from what Paul actually teaches. This is clear not only from the general teaching of Paul in these books but also in verse 5 of Titus 1. Paul commands that one of the first things Titus must do if he is to set the churches in order is to ordain elders in every city, as he had previously commanded. This is exactly what we find the early church doing in Acts 14:23 – appointing elders in every church. Because Titus clearly had oversight of more than one church, he is often seen as one of the first bishops, not merely in the sense of being an overseer or elder but also in the sense of being a pastor to pastors. Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus are his last letters, at a time when the shape of the apostolic church had taken a more definite shape. We also know from other sources that by the end of the first century bishops as a separate office existed and soon became universal. Why does Paul consider the apostolic ministry of the ordained clergy so highly? Because these men are the heirs of the apostles themselves. To them especially has been entrusted the things of God (verse 7 – they are stewards of God), and they are the ones who have special authority to teach the apostolic teaching. There is also a special urgency to Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus. He knows that he will soon die and no longer be able to carry out his apostolic ministry. What is most on his mind? Again, that the apostolic teaching be preserved by ordaining blameless elders. How can he be sure that his apostolic teaching will be faithfully transmitted to the next generation and to the new churches? By ordaining apostolic ministers who have the same authority that the apostles had to guard the faith, and to teach the truth. Though Paul knows that God is faithful to His promises and cannot lie (verse 2), Paul recognizes that he is one of God’s elect ministers (verse 1) to whom the gospel has been entrusted. He must now entrust to faithful men (1 Timothy 2:1) what Jesus Christ entrusted to him. It is precisely because of the high regard Paul has for God’s inspired Word that he also highly regards the office of elder and commands such high standards for such leaders. Once again, the apostolic teaching must be guarded by apostolic ministers. What does all of this have to do with you? Simply this. If you want to be faithful in reading God’s Word and understanding its teaching, then you need to be submitted to those to whom the apostolic ministry has been entrusted. I’m not talking about turning off your mind and slavishly accepting everything anyone calling himself a pastor says. God forbid! Anyone who knows me or who has heard me preach knows that I am constantly saying that “all members are ministers.” Every baptized Christian has been anointed to be a minister in God’s kingdom, and therefore we all have a part in guarding the Word in our lives. But I do mean that if we say we take the Word of God seriously, then we need to be humble before it, including the parts that teach that the Word of God has been especially entrusted to the ordained clergy. Even the teachers and pastors of the church must be submitted not only to what the Bible teaches but had better be submitted to the larger Church and what the Church has always taught. I encourage you, then, to consider the way you read and understand the Bible. While it is entirely appropriate to take what Paul commands Timothy and apply it to our own lives, so that we cherish the Word of God and guard it with our lives, we need to make sure we are reading it, meditating on it, and living by it in the context of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. This will require that some of you are willing to read what other Christian teachers have taught over the last 2000 years, and not just what has been written recently or from the point of view of one church or denomination. It will require that we read the Bible together , as God’s people. I feel privileged to be able to share the Word of God with each of you every day. How cool would it be if it were possible for a church to gather together to read the same Scripture every day and meet to discuss it and pray over it? I know that some of you as couples are already reading and praying together over God’s Word: what a godly example you are to us! Prayer: Father, thank You for giving us the words of life and for providing for the teaching and guarding of Your Holy Word by those whom You have appointed as elders. Create in me a heart to seek You through Your Word each day, and give me a humble and teachable spirit that I might better hear and obey You. Point for Meditation: Reflect on your growth in understanding the Word of God. What people or tools have been especially helpful in nurturing your better understanding and application? In what ways may God be calling you to refresh your love and understanding of God’s Word. What means of better hearing and obeying His Word has He given you that have been left unused? Resolution: I resolve to consider how I may minister at my local church to support the ministry of the Word. Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/giveusthisday/monday-of-trinity-22-titus-1/#Tlt6s6usX2zLUUse.99

Easter Message fromArchbishop Beach

By Paul Edgerton • April 2, 2018
“Jesus speaks life into a culture of death. The resurrection makes all the difference.” Click the image to listen to an Easter message from Archbishop Beach.

The Fire, Lord, Not the Junk Heap

By Paul Edgerton • March 16, 2018
An Ash Wednesday Reflection from SC Bishop Mark Lawrence The famous radio personality and early pioneer of television, Arthur Godfrey, grew up in an era very different from today. It was a time when a boy could wander down to the blacksmith shop on a lazy afternoon and watch the smithy work at his anvil and forge. It was a favorite past time of the young Godfrey. Sometimes he would watch the blacksmith sorting the scrap metal. The man would pick up a piece of metal from a holding bin, turn it this way and that in his large hands, then either toss it into the fire to be softened and hammered into some useful tool, or thrown into a junk heap to be discarded. From this experience Arthur forged a simple prayer which he used all his life. Whenever seized by his own sense of sin or some personal moral failure he would pray—“The fire, Lord, not the junk-heap.” It is a prayer that captures two essential dimensions of Ash Wednesday and Lent— a prayer for pardon and a prayer for purity. Let’s take pardon first. “Two men” said Jesus “went up to the Temple to pray, the one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.” So begins a parable appointed to be read in the daily office for Ash Wednesday—Luke 18:9-14. At first blush it seems quite simple. Most of us have heard it before; but if you read it again and again with the purpose of explaining it to others you may find, as I often have, it is a most disconcerting parable. This is not two men just happening to drop by the synagogue or church around the same time to pray about a problem in their lives. This is going up to the Temple for the evening sacrifice—the place of atonement. The Pharisee prays “standing by himself;” the Tax Collector prays “standing far off.” The Pharisee is definitely thinking about himself, his spiritual journey, how he’s doing (a very good practice after all)—and he rightly evaluates as he thinks of others, “There but for the grace of God go I.” That is he is thankful he is not guilty of the sins of so many others—and for a moment God is addressed. Yet, then a dangerous movement takes place. His focus shifts. Rather than continuing to look up to God his eyes look downward not merely upon the behavior of others but toward actual people— “even this tax-collector.” Most of us know this long gaze cast at the other’s sin from the vantage point of our successes—however we may measure success or spiritual maturity—Bible reading, prayer, helping others, generosity, volunteerism, recycling, tolerance towards others beliefs, etc…. But suddenly with this gaze we find ourselves standing with the Pharisee and our spiritual or inner life like his turns sour. This Pharisee despite all his religious striving (after all he fasts twice a week and gives 10% of his income—what priest would not want him in his congregation?) hasn’t an ounce of humility. Certainly he has a moral conscience. It tells him “do this, don’t do that; this is right, this is wrong.” But it seems to focus only on his behavior not towards his heart. His conscience is like a plow that only scrapes along the surface of his soul. Its blade has not dug deep enough to break up the hard ground of his self-righteousness. He is a man who has forgotten his need for forgiveness; he seeks no communion with the Unseen because his eyes have grown weary with what they have seen; he has no desire to be something better because he is weary with what he is. His is a religion that keeps him tied to surface needs. If there has ever been a time he felt the lamb of the evening sacrifice was being slaughtered and cut for him—its blood spilled for his sin—it has long since been forgotten. Just a little sprinkling of incense upon the coals of a side altar is sufficient for his insignificant trespasses…. His is the sort of religion found in many places today that allows a man to keep his self-righteousness — or a woman to keep her superiority over others – intact. And that my friends is too often my problem too—so, frankly, giving up chocolate, or meat or even an evening cocktail just doesn’t allow the blade of God’s plow to dig a deep enough furrow for true repentance or to receive through faith the needed forgiveness that yields a corresponding love for God and others. (Luke 7:40-50) The tax collector’s prayer in contrast is disarming: “God, be merciful to me a sinner!” He doesn’t look or ask for some divine process within his soul to make him right in the sight of God; he doesn’t even ask for God to make a right spirit within him; rather he looks only toward an act of God given on his behalf. Yet this is the prayer that receives the sentence of justification pronounced by the One—who on the cross became the Lamb of the Sacrifice—who is himself both Priest and Victim. Jesus declared it was the Tax-collector, not the Pharisee who went home with his life right in the sight of God. Martin Luther once counseled a troubled believer after his conscience had been convicted and forgiveness proclaimed, “You should not believe your conscience and your feelings more than the word which the Lord preaches to you…. This is the real strength to trust God when all your senses and reason speak otherwise; and to have greater confidence in Him than how you feel.” And so here’s a good prayer for Ash Wednesday as we begin another Lenten season: “God be merciful to me a sinner!” So, then, what about Purity? Is this not also a theme of Ash Wednesday? Well, yes, and here too a text of Holy Scripture emerges from the day’s assigned liturgy: Psalm 51. This psalm which David prayed after Nathan preached the word that harrowed the king’s conscience and brought him to his knees was not a prayer that asked for pardon alone; the sense of pardon also brought a yearning for purity: “Create in me a clean heart, O God and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Holy Spirit from me.” His pardoned and penitent heart seeks God’s grace for holiness, purity and transformation; for that which he does not have in himself, cannot give himself, and certainly does not deserve for himself. The relationship in our lives between the prayer for pardon and the prayer for purity is akin to the relationship between justification and sanctification. As the theologian, Donald Bloesch notes succinctly: “Justification confers a new status whereas sanctification instills in man a new character.” Ash Wednesday and Lent puts us in mind of our need for each. While affirming the priority of the prayer for pardon (the tax collector’s prayer that looks to Christ’s justifying work on the cross); so also there is a place for the prayer for purity (the prayer of David for the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit in our lives). Both movements are found in Arthur Godfrey's profound but simple prayer, "The fire, Lord, not the junk heap."
More Posts