Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Caused Minneapolis?
Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry ^ | 21 October 2003 | Les Fairfield

Posted on 10/22/2003 7:42:11 PM PDT by ahadams2

What Caused Minneapolis?

by Les Fairfield

What drove the Episcopal Church over the cliff at Minneapolis in 2003? What led the Church to approve homosexual practice, by approving the Rev. Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire?

Was it mere cowardice? A failure of nerve? A capitulation to the culture of white upper-middle-class American suburbia? In part the decision at Minneapolis grew out of all these causes. But the most important cause was theological.

In the 1960s the leaders of the Episcopal Church revived a non-Christian religion called "Catholic Modernism." And that theological faux pas led directly to the approval of homosexual behavior.

Where did that religion come from? It's important to understand the history of Catholic Modernism, so that we can recognize its continuing power amongst the liberal leadership of the Anglican Church.

The religion of "Catholic Modernism" had its beginning two hundred years ago, in Berlin in the 1790s. A young German Reformed pastor named Friedrich Schleiermacher lost his faith. His sophisticated friends had persuaded him that "science had disproved Christianity" (as if science could do any such thing). Schleiermacher's response to this challenge was pre-emptive capitulation. All right, he said. Science has won. The universe is a closed system, Jesus was a mere human, miracles cannot happen. The Bible is all wrong when it talks about history.

But, he said, do not despair. Let us redefine Christianity. Let us make Christianity a religion of subjective experience, not a religion of historical revelation. Schleiermacher argued in fact that one generic human experience underlies all human religions, not just Christianity. He called it an experience of "absolute dependence" or "god-consciousness." This experience is available in all cultures – not that everyone actually has it, but they all can have it if they try. In every culture, people who enjoy this "god-consciousness" then talk about it, write stories about it, cultivate it, and try to make it happen again. So all holy books – including the Bible – are purely human artifacts. They are purely human responses to the experience of "god-consciousness." The same is true of all ethical systems, all forms of worship, all systems of personal piety. They are all human constructions.

Then who was Jesus? Schleiermacher answered that Jesus was the first man in history to achieve 100% "god-consciousness." He represented a new stage in human evolution. And people who "live in his story," who choose Christianity as their religion, have the best chance of achieving this deepest of human experiences. So join the Christ-ian Church! Try it and you'll like it.

Schleiermacher's contemporary in Berlin, the philosopher Georg W. F. Hegel, clarified two points that the Reformed pastor had wisely left vague. Hegel explicitly declared that the word "god" now meant the Spirit of the Universe. This "god" was totally within the cosmos, the energy driving its upward evolutionary spiral. And likewise this "god" was totally impersonal. It was a "Force" or an "Idea" but you couldn't talk to it. And significantly, it never talked to you. As C.S. Lewis once wryly said of this non-Christian religion, "Nothing to fear – better still, nothing to obey."

In the late 19th century this religion captured the minds of more and more leaders of the emergent Anglican Communion. It seemed sophisticated and inoffensive to the Darwinian worldview. But many of these "Modernists" (as they called themselves) cloaked their non-Christian religion in the trappings of Anglo-Catholicism. Gothic architecture, medieval vestments, elaborate ceremonial all combined to disguise the apostasy of these Anglican leaders. Keep all the old words, keep all the old symbols – but change all the meanings. And don't tell the laity.

Catholic Modernism briefly repented during the years from World War I through the early Cold War, in the face of all the catastrophes that wracked the globe. A chastened "neo-orthodox" theology recognized human sin and our need for a divine Savior. But in the 1960s the "Boomers" left that humility behind, and the wealthy white Anglican Church in the West rushed back to embrace Catholic Modernism. J.A.T. Robinson's famous manifesto Honest to God led the way. John Macquarrie offered the same brand of Catholic Modernism in his classic theological textbook, Principles of Christian Theology. The word "god" means an impersonal Force within the universe. Jesus was just a man. The Bible is a purely human artifact. And experience is the essence of religion, and our highest authority.

Some Anglican theologians took this train of thought one step further. Sexual experience, they argued, is the place where all human beings can achieve "god-consciousness." If this "god-consciousness" is the deepest experience that a human being can have, and if sex is where you find it most readily, why then – everyone has the right to sex. However and with whomever. Assuming two or more consenting adults.

So the decision at Minneapolis to approve homosexual behavior didn't come out of thin air. Nor was it merely the victory of a well-organized pressure group. In fact it was a logical consequence of the non-Christian religion that Catholic Modernists in the Anglican Church have been promoting for more than a century. That religion is neither "catholic" nor actually very "modern" any more. It's clawing its way into the 1820s. It's time the Anglican Communion gave this pagan religion the same decent burial to which history has already consigned it.


TOPICS: Activism; Apologetics; Current Events; Mainline Protestant; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: anglican; apostasy; bishop; church; communion; conservative; ecusa; episcopal; gc; heresy; homosexual; response; tesm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

1 posted on 10/22/2003 7:42:13 PM PDT by ahadams2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ahadams2; Eala; Grampa Dave; AnAmericanMother; sweetliberty; N. Theknow; Ray'sBeth; mel; ...
Ping.
2 posted on 10/22/2003 7:42:44 PM PDT by ahadams2 ( Anglicanism: the next reformation begins NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Akron Al; Alberta's Child; Andrew65; AniGrrl; Antoninus; apologia_pro_vita_sua; ...
Interesting take on Catholic Modernism and its origins.

3 posted on 10/22/2003 8:14:58 PM PDT by Loyalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ahadams2; All
This certainly explains a lot about the heretical bishops.
4 posted on 10/22/2003 8:19:28 PM PDT by No_Outcome_But_Victory (Liberals: Nothing to fear – better still, nothing to obey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loyalist
Agree that it's interesting, and his take on the influence of German philosphy seems spot on, but I don't know why he had to condemn Anglo-Catholicism. To my knowledge, Anglo Catholics never gave into modernism. Other sins, maybe.
5 posted on 10/22/2003 8:23:01 PM PDT by Martin Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Martin Tell
You wrote " but I don't know why he had to condemn Anglo-Catholicism. To my knowledge, Anglo Catholics never gave into modernism. Other sins, maybe."

Oh man don't pitch me softballs like that! :-)

leaving alone the "other sins" I think he ran into the problem I've noticed in many folks who don't take time to study the issue in depth. It is *not* Anglo-Catholics who bought into all this nonsense, but rather the "affirming catholics" (i.e. the ones who pretend to be Catholic, but have no real steadfast rules) who are the problem here.

I would submit that what you're seeing here is the effective use of the 'affirming catholics' of their pseudo-catholic camoflage, which has caused this confusion.

6 posted on 10/22/2003 8:38:26 PM PDT by ahadams2 (Anglicanism: the next reformation is beginning NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ahadams2
Great post. We are currently studying Schliermacher in EFM. (That means 'education for ministry' and yes, it is part of the Episcopal church). Whatever the bishops may do, there is still work to be done equipping the saints, now more than ever.
7 posted on 10/22/2003 8:49:23 PM PDT by EBITDA ("Open war is upon you, whether you would risk it or not." (Aragorn))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EBITDA
I should pay better attention to whom I am responding. I'm sure you already know what EFM is. And I imagine you know it's weaknesses and limitations.

Good catch on the distinction b/n Anglo-Catholics and 'moderns'.
8 posted on 10/22/2003 8:53:04 PM PDT by EBITDA ("Open war is upon you, whether you would risk it or not." (Aragorn))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ahadams2
Perhaps the problem might be blamed on "Modernists," but please don't blame Catholicism. This term "Catholic Modernist" as described in this article appears to have nothing to do with orthodox Catholicism. Which of course is not to say that we did not have the Modernist controversy in the Catholic Church in the early decades of the 20th Century. But I wonder if the author of this article is trying to blame the Catholic Church for Anglican problems? I'm sure I'm just being over-sensitive.
9 posted on 10/22/2003 9:28:21 PM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ahadams2
read later
10 posted on 10/22/2003 9:37:58 PM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
My appologies if this article offended you - in no way was the author attempting to blame Roman Catholics for the problems in the Episcopal Church. Rather, he was using the term "catholic modernist" which those folks used for themselves - it isn't anymore a reflection of Roman Catholicism than those "catholics for abortion" or whatever they call themselves... We know they aren't real Roman Catholics, I guess the author figured everybody else did as well..
11 posted on 10/22/2003 9:40:18 PM PDT by ahadams2 (Anglicanism: the next reformation is beginning NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ahadams2
Bumpus ad summum
12 posted on 10/22/2003 9:48:14 PM PDT by Dajjal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam; ahadams2
"Which of course is not to say that we did not have the Modernist controversy in the Catholic Church in the early decades of the 20th Century."

If it was only in the early decades of the 20th century, many of our current problems would not exist - it is still there in many places and it needs rooting out.

The author is quite right to identify Schleiermacher and Hegel as 2 of the progenitors of modernism. It made its entry into the Catholic Church as a result of their influence on Catholic theologians - particularly in Germany France and England. It has also badly affected Catholic scripture scholarship for several decades.

Although he uses the term "Catholic modernism", this curse did not originate within the Catholic Church, but it was within the Church that it was identified as a system and "synthesis of all heresies" by such great Popes as Pius IX, Leo XIII and St. Pius X.
13 posted on 10/23/2003 3:04:05 AM PDT by Tantumergo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ahadams2; Sister Rose
Beat me to this post on this one.

I read this in print over the weekend. Note, Fairfield uses the phrase "cloaked in Anglo-Catholicism" referring to the "Catholic Modernists". They love the trappings of ritual rather than the Truth behind the ritual. Les is not slamming real Catholics or catholics in any sense. He's slamming the pretend ones who deny the power of God's Word.

The Left Reverend Spong and ohers of his ilk used these 19th Century critical methods to ridicule God's Word. The so-call historical critical method was debunked by the Dead Sea Scrolls and other discoveries. It was Spong and his ilk that are behind the times. The Son of God, the Second Person of the most Blessed Holy Trinity really did come to earth, born of a woman and lived among us. He died an excruciating, painful death as payment for all and God the Father raised Him from the dead. He has ascended to the Father and sits at His right hand to return at the time of the Father's choosing.

Someone posted earlier on these threads that a lot of anglican clergy commit perjury every time they take their vows because they don't believe what they have have sworn to. People like Griswold and Spong must cross their fingers behind their backs every time the creeds are recited because they certainly don't believe them.

14 posted on 10/23/2003 4:46:54 AM PDT by Credo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Martin Tell
"To my knowledge, Anglo Catholics never gave into modernism. Other sins, maybe."

Modernism has been described by Pope Pius X as "the synthesis of all heresies". The Anglican Church gave in to this system long ago when they broke off with Rome, leaving themselves as usurpers of the name "Catholic". There is an Episcopalian Church nearby me, (the American branch of the 'Church of England'); the pastor is a lesbian. Her lover lives in the 'church' with her.

15 posted on 10/23/2003 5:35:27 AM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ahadams2
Overall, this is a good popular explanation of these trends and how they culminated where we are today. He makes a few mis-steps, and as others have pointed out, the term "Catholic" here means Anglo-Catholic, or that branch of the Church of England which still considers itself to be part of the universal Catholic Church, and not some group of dissenters. One mis-step was to blame the revolution of the sixties upon "boomers." The baby boomer generation would have been teenagers or even younger, and they certainly cannot be blamed for something like Vatican II (as an example of the religious revolution in the sixties).

Some Anglican theologians took this train of thought one step further. Sexual experience, they argued, is the place where all human beings can achieve "god-consciousness." If this "god-consciousness" is the deepest experience that a human being can have, and if sex is where you find it most readily, why then – everyone has the right to sex. However and with whomever. Assuming two or more consenting adults.

This is pretty scary, because I see the same thing in the "theology of the body" in the Catholic Church. The difference is that JPII restricts the sex to 2 married partners. But there is the same sense in which sex becomes some sort of redeeming sacrament. It is the same philosophy, but with some "Catholic" restrictions. "Experience 'god-consciousness' in sex, but only with your husband or wife."

16 posted on 10/23/2003 7:02:10 AM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ahadams2
Bumped and referenced from the Anglican Directory page.
17 posted on 10/23/2003 7:47:15 AM PDT by Eala (FR Traditional Anglican Directory: http://eala.freeservers.com/anglican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader
So are you saying all Anglicans since the Sixteenth Century are heretics? Respectfully, the witness of John Donne, C. S. Lewis, T. S. Elliot and countless others, states otherwise.
18 posted on 10/23/2003 7:47:49 AM PDT by Martin Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Martin Tell
Respectfully, the witness of John Donne, C. S. Lewis, T. S. Elliot and countless others, states otherwise.

John Donne. I studied him reasonably closely in college, and he was definitely a closet Catholic, like Shakespeare. His religious leanings were definitely towards the Catholic Church, but he faced a choice between poverty, isolation, possibly even imprisonment and death as a Catholic, or worldly success and position as an Anglican. One also sees in his poetry the pressure of finances and the responsiblity of trying to support his family. He chose the easy path rather than the crown of martydom.

C.S. Lewis. I was recently reading one of his letters in which he uncharacteristically becomes vehemently angry. Why? Because an associate wants to pin him down on a doctrinal issue. This is something that he refuses to do. He will not under any circumstances go beyond a "mere Christianity" and take a stand on actual doctrine. This is a very nebulous version of Christianity.

I don't know too much about T.S. Elliot, but I admire the other 2 writers very much as writers. As witnesses for Christianity, however, they demonstrated a lack of faith and courage when push came to shove.

19 posted on 10/23/2003 9:13:14 AM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
they demonstrated a lack of faith and courage when push came to shove.

Becasue they weren't RC. OK I understand where you are coming from, even if I disagree.

20 posted on 10/23/2003 2:56:06 PM PDT by Martin Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson