Episcopal Stations of the Cross: Christianity Today Blows It Again

[Note:  Since this blog article was originally posted Edith Humphrey converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church.  The theology of the EOC churches is notably semi-pelagian and not monergistic.  Ironic that Dr. Humphrey remains a professor at a mainline "Presbyterian" seminary.  It only shows how far down a seminary and a denomination goes when it rejects Scripture as the final authority and the classical Reformed confessions of faith.  In the place of Scripture common grace, general revelation and reason become the ruling authority and from there relativism and irrationalism are the final word.  Note that Dr. Humphrey was at one time ordained with the Salvation Army.  Does anyone doubt that Arminianism leads to Rome or Constantinople?  Think again!  Click on the title above to see the Christianity Today article.  2/27/2012.  Charlie.]

In a recent critique, Christianity Today criticized the Episcopal Church for advocating a replacement of the traditional liturgy for the stations of the cross with goals for eliminating world poverty in the third millennium. While this was a worthy attempt at a critique, Christianity Today woefully blew it by distorting the Gospel themselves.

The author of the article, Susan Wunderink, quotes from Edith Humphrey, a professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary (Presbyterian Church USA, which is itself liberal) to show Humphrey's disagreement. However, in posting Humphrey's remarks Wunderink tacitly endorses Humphrey's own distortion of the Gospel in Matthew 25's parable of the sheep and the goats:

"Like the song, "God Has No Hands But Our Hands," it forgets the sovereignty of God," she said. "God does use us, but he's the initiator. It's so sad to see the gospel diluted to simply being kind to others. I don't think that a gospel like that really communicates the grandeur of God and what he's done for us in Christ."

So far so good. However on page two of the article, Humphrey goes on to say:

The Episcopalian materials urge meditation on Matthew 25, Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats, as "the mandate of Episcopal Relief and Development." Humphrey emphasized that there is much justification for the principles of the Millennium Development Goals in Scripture, but said that's not the point of Jesus' parable. Jesus, she said, was talking about how he will honor non-Christians' mercy and service to his representatives.

"It simply shows to me a lack of care in using the Scriptures in context," Humphrey said.

And here is the problem with Professor Humphrey's criticism of the liturgy. She herself winds up distorting the Gospel by allowing that "non-Christians" are somehow going to be saved simply by the good works that they did in mercy to Christ's "representatives." This is just another example of how Christianity Today has implied that justification is by faith plus works or has attacked the doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide), a cornerstone of the Protestant Reformation and the very Gospel itself. It seems obvious to me that Miss Humphrey is supportive of the Anglo-Catholic tradition which denies the doctrine of justification by faith alone which is taught in Scripture and in the English Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. Either that or her liberal theology has biased her against the exclusiveness of the way of salvation through the cross of Jesus Christ. It is indeed a sad day when an allegedly "evangelical" magazine pushes works righteousness as a means of justification before God for salvation.

The truth is that Matthew 25's parable of the sheep and the goats is directed to Christians in the visible church. By their fruits you will know who is a genuine Christian and who is not a genuine Christian (see Matthew 7:15-23). Likewise, in the final judgment many false Christians in the church will be exposed as goats and not sheep. Those who turn out to be false Christians will be lost. But this parable in no way implies that we are justified before God on the basis of our own merits, good works or any such thing. When interpreted in the total context of the Bible, including the pauline passages, sanctification is a necessary result of being justified by faith alone. However, sanctification is merely an outworking of a genuine conversion, the fruit of justification by faith alone. It is not and cannot be the means of justification before God for Christians or even non-Christians for that matter.

The fact that Jesus is talking about Christians is obvious from Matthew 25:34 where he refers to election from before the foundation of the world and verse 37 where he refers to them as "righteous." Since we know from Paul's apostolic teaching that the "righteous" are righteous by faith alone, then Matthew 25:37 cannot possibly refer to "non-Christians" as Miss Humphrey contends!

Miss Humphrey has betrayed her misunderstanding of the Gospel and so has Miss Wunderink by printing the comments without further criticism or remark. Miss Wunderink in effect has implied that Humphrey's remarks are correct, which they are not.

The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion clearly disagrees with Humphrey's interpretation of the Gospel:

XI. Of the Justification of Man.

WE are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort; as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

XII. Of Good Works.

ALBEIT that good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God's judgement, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

XIII. Of Works before Justification.

WORKS done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea, rather for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.

This is just another frustrating example of the ignorance of so-called "Evangelicals" who have no clue as to what the Gospel actually is. I am beginning to wonder if Christianity Today has any right to make any claims about the Gospel at all since the magazine is continually getting it wrong. I am by no means a "fundamentalist." I am merely a Protestant who holds firmly to the doctrines of the Bible and stands in the tradition of the Protestant Reformers.

May God have mercy!

Addendum:

Article XVIII

Of obtaining eternal salvation only by the name of Christ

They also are to be had accursed that presume to say that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law and the light of nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out to us only the name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.

(See:  Stations of the Cross — Without the Cross  and Stations of the Millennium Development Goals
for the context of my comments and quotes for this article).

03/08/2012.  Addendum 2:  Since this story was written Edith Humphrey has converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church.  See:  Edith Humphrey:  About Me.  Apparently Pittsburg Theological Seminary does not have a problem with having professors on board who are not Protestant or Reformed or even Presbyterian.   See:  Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.  You will also notice that she was ordained with the Salvation Army for five years.  Does anyone doubt that Arminianism leads to Rome or Constantinople?  Think again.

Charlie

Addendum:  Matthew 7:21-23 makes it clear that the unrighteous think their works will justify them.  Only those who trust in the merits of Christ are truly justified and that justification is by means of the gift of faith alone.  The ground of justification is the objective work of Christ on the cross.  (John 19:30).

Christianity Today's, "The Transgender Moment," Misleads

Unfortunately, Christianity Today is showing an increasingly liberal bias on a number of issues involving theology and morality. The latest article on the transgender condition is no exception. While it is important to be compassionate to those who are caught up in sinful lifestyles and sinful ways of thinking about psychological disorders, it is just as important to hold the line rationally against irrational arguments defending such sinful behavior and corruption.  (Cf.  Proverbs 4:23; Proverbs 23:7; Matthew 15:19).

Moreover, Evangelicalism as a whole is losing ground to irrational liberalism on a number of fronts, including homosexuality and the transgender problem. I attribute this to a growing liberalism in Christian institutions of higher learning which are employing "Evangelical" professors who have graduated from liberal seminaries. The by-product of being educated in liberal institutions is that Evangelicals have not thought through the conservative side of things in detail and in great depth. They have merely been forced to study the details of the liberal side from a post graduate perspective.

While some Evangelicals do manage to survive and to challenge liberal theological biases, most to one degree or another are tainted and begin to overthink issues to the degree that nothing is certain anymore. The appeal to "compassion" on certain issues like the transgender condition is usually an appeal to subjectivism and emotivism rather than a solid rational basis for the position being argued.

Even more disturbing is the way that a solidly biblical response to a transgendered person is distorted and deliberately misrepresented in the media. For example, one transgendered man was told he could not minister or hold a position of leadership or membership as long as he acted against biblical principles. He and his family were welcome to continue attending services and other functions of the church, however.   The transgendered man and the liberal media distorted this response by saying that the man was no longer welcome to attend the church, which was far from the truth.

(See "Walking A Fine Line,"  http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/february/26.56.html). 

Be that as it may, this is a compassionate response to a rebellious and sinful person who stubbornly refuses to repent or see the truth. Excommunication means that a sinful rebel is not allowed to partake of the Lord's supper or to hold membership in a church, though they are allowed to attend. Furthermore, shunning is not part of excommunication despite the misrepresentation of the liberal media.

In my opinion, Evangelicalism is going soft because of a lack of solid biblical theology due mostly to the pragmatic approach of the church growth movement and the charismatic/pentecostal emphasis on subjective, ecstatic experience as opposed to a solidly biblical and rational approach to ethics, morality, and social mores. The only hope for Evangelicalism is a return to a Reformation approach to truth. This would call for a more classical theology based on a biblical worldview.

The idea that Kantian philosophy has totally demolished the rationalism of the Enlightenment and the Protestant Reformation is bogus, in my opinion. The scientific establishment today seems to operate very well on modernist predispositions. This is particularly true of evolutionary science, astronomy and medicine. But when we examine psychology and sociology we see what is typically called "soft" sciences that operate much more on postmodernist and irrational biases that have little to do with the scientific method.

Hence, we see more emotivist arguments for psychological disorders like homosexuality and transgenderality. The fact that Evangelicals are calling for more compassion for those caught up in both of these sinful rebellions against God's law is a symptom of the influence of liberal propaganda within the Christian ranks. Rather than caving in to pressure from the world, Christians ought to be more willing to prophetically challenge the liberal bias of the world with an intellectually engaging response that leaves little doubt for the basis for the Christian position. While liberals will no doubt still disagree, the Christian response ought to be so well thought out that those in the opposition have no doubt that the Christian worldview is solidly rational and legitimately valid.

Instead, what we are getting from the likes of Christianity Today and a whole host of so-called "Evangelicals" is compromise and a slippery slope to accepting evil as good. The Bible prophetically predicts such compromise in passages like Isaiah 5:20.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20 KJV)

It is my most sincere hope and prayer that Evangelicalism will return to its confessional and biblical roots in the Protestant Reformation before its slide into the abyss of moral relativism reaches its culmination in destruction. While standing for biblical truth and God's law may seem harsh, grace and compassion are absolutely impossible apart from acknowledging that we are sinners in need of regeneration, repentance, and conversion. Those who wish to be compassionate to sinners of all sorts must be willing to tell them of their lost condition and their sinfulness before a holy God. Grace, mercy and forgiveness are impossible so long as the sinner continues in ignorance and outright denial of their lost condition and their rebellion against God and His law. The duality of law and gospel makes this approach to evangelism essential and non-negotiable, which is why Evangelicalism in general has lost its foundation in Christ and the truth. As the old hymn says, "On Christ the solid rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand."

Lord have mercy!

Christ have mercy!

Lord have mercy!