Thursday, January 04, 2007
|
|
This is My Church. This is My Church Slimed By the WaPo.
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
5:02 PM
|
|
I mentioned some time back that my church-- The Falls Church in Falls Church, Va.-- was breaking away from other Episcopal Churches in what amounts to a pretty big shake-up for the Anglican Church.
I'm not a member, but I attend regularly, along with about 2,500 other worshippers, including Alberto Gonzales, Fred Barnes, and Porter Goss. It's a conservative, Bible-based church that thinks Jesus is "the way, the truth, and the life," and doesn't cotton to the "evolving" teachings of the Episcopal Church that aren't so sure about that whole Jesus thing, which is the entire basis of our faith.
It is a lovely church that welcomes people of all denominations, or no denomination in my case. It is a church that sends folks to build houses in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, that recently broke ground on a community building in urban, Southeast D.C. for ministry there, that brings children from other countries to America for complex cardiac surgeries they can't get at home, that sends missionaries beyond its walls, and that serves thousands of people within them. In short, it's a regular American church.
But how does the Washington Post characterize it? First paragraph:
Parishioners say it happens quietly, unobtrusively: As the sick make their way to the altar, some worshipers begin speaking in tongues. Occasionally, one is "arrested in the spirit," falling unconscious into the arms of a fellow congregant.
Now, I have seen people speak in tongues. I've seen it in Pentecostal services, and in non-denominational services in Georgia, when I was in school there. It happens. No problem with it. I was raised in the South. People love the Lord in many different ways. But I have been going to The Falls Church regularly for over a year, and I have NEVER, EVER, ONCE seen anything even remotely close to anyone speaking in tongues in that congregation.
When I read the lede, I had to check to make sure he was talking about my church, so far off was it from my own experiences. If anything, the congregation at The Falls Church is achingly normal, with its merino wool V-neck sweaters, and Vera Bradley diaper bags, and 2.5 children per family-- shaggy-haired, flip-flopped teenaged boys and dirty-blonde pre-teen girls flipping their first sets of highlights.
But noooo, in the Washington Post, the church is something else indeed (emphasis mine):
But the votes appear less sudden or surprising when one realizes that for more than 30 years, Truro and The Falls Church have been part of a "charismatic revival" within mainline Protestantism, said the Rev. Robert W. Prichard, professor of Christianity in America at the Virginia Theological Seminary in Alexandria.
Charismatic, in this case, refers to an ecstatic style of worship that includes speaking in tongues, a stream of unintelligible syllables signifying that the Holy Spirit has entered the worshiper. It is a hallmark of the fast-growing Pentecostal movement but unusual for Episcopalians, who are so thoroughly associated with solemnity and tradition that they are sometimes referred to teasingly as "the frozen chosen."
Yeah, that's us! Listen, I'm not saying it doesn't happen in my church sometimes, but I have NEVER, EVER seen it or even a hint of it, which makes me think this is a very unfair characterization. In my experience, we sing praise songs instead of straight-up hymns. We have a drum set in the sanctuary. Sometimes people raise their hands toward the ceiling while singing. Cuuhhhrazzy stuff, huh?
But to the WaPo writer--conservative congregation breaking off from the wise and kind liberals? Must be a bunch of backwoods, shine-swillin', snake-handlers, right Cletus???
Well, looky here:
Parishioners say the practice continues today in both congregations, though not at Sunday morning services. Some members have never seen it.
Coulda used that in the lede or near it for some context, no? But that would have ruined such a neat picture! Ooh, it gets better:
Unlike many Episcopal churches nationally, neither Truro nor The Falls Church was active in supporting the civil rights movement or in protesting the Vietnam War.
Snake-handling bigots and war-mongers! Is there anyone out there who thinks that little bit of "context" wasn't just a cheap shot? This church full of racists, by the way, is breaking away to join the lily-white Anglican province of Nigeria.
The last two paragraphs finally get down to the real disagreement between the conservative Episcopals and the Episcopal Church:
Many say the rift involves something deeper -- whether the Bible is the word of God, Jesus is the only way to heaven and tolerance is more important than truth. When he was a newly ordained priest almost 20 years ago, Wright said, he talked with several other priests about how to respond to a teenager who asked, "Do you really believe in the Resurrection of Jesus?"
"The rest of the priests agreed that it was a sticky question, and they felt that way because they didn't believe in it, but they didn't want to say so," he said. "That's where the Episcopal Church has been for the last 20 years. It's not where we are."
Yeah, we believe in Jesus. It is Christ that makes us Christians, and being a part of a larger organization that does not believe that, and that may someday keep my church from preaching that, does not serve Him. So, we break away.
The Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Oh, and the snakes and the tongues. Don't forget those.
I'm gonna e-mail this guy and find out if he got directions to the right church.
Update: My commenter Don makes a great catch. The writers of this article refer to the Episcopalians as the "frozen chosen," but that's a common nickname for Presbyterians.
Correction: There's some disagreement in the comments over whether "frozen chosen" refers solely to Presbyterians. In my experience, it is certainly most commonly used to refer to Presbyterians, but my commenters tell me it's not unheard of for it to be applied to Episcopalians. Apologies on that one.
I wrote an e-mail to the WaPo writers:
Dear Mr. Cooperman and Ms. Salmon,
I'm a blogger who also happens to attend The Falls Church. Your characterization of it as primarily "charismatic" and tongue-speaking based on a visit to the healing service was completely misleading. I've been attending the church for over a year, and have never seen anything even approaching tongue-speaking or "charismatic" worship.
I've been to Pentecostal services; I've seen people speaking in tongues. I know charismatic. To insinuate that The Falls Church is a church of that ilk is silly and inaccurate.
Which services did you attend, and how many, before you wrote this story? I imagine most people who've ever attended The Falls Church would quarrel with your characterization of it.
Also, the "frozen chosen" is a common nickname for Presbyterians, not Episcopalians.
I hope to hear back from you about how you came to characterize the church this way. Thanks for your time.
--Mary Katharine Ham
|
|
I read the original story. I never needed to set foot in the church to know it was fake and inaccurate. I was raised Methodist but walked away when the Church as a denomination seemed less interested in the Gospel and more interested in social engineering. (I am now a Missouri Synod Lutheran. They grasp original sin and the Gospel.) I have followed the struggle between some of the individual churches and the Diocese and national organization. Your church has a lot of support out here.
Janet from Tucson |
|
|
To the outcasts! Doesn't it feel good? Our congregation took a similar step away from the ELCA and went LCMC (Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ) Perhaps these Episopalian congregations need to form a similar group. |
|
For six decades of life I have been intimately asssociated with the Assemblies of God, wherein a more Charsimatic approach to worship is common, including glossolalia (Speaking in tongues or the language of angels). I have also studied theology exhaustively and in that regard I have familiarity with most Protestant denominations, the Roman Catholic Church and most so-called cults. I say the previous things about my background simply to assert that I am absolutely sure that "an ecstatic style of worship that includes speaking in tongues, a stream of unintelligible syllables signifying that the Holy Spirit has entered the worshiper" is NOT common within the Episcopal or Anglican churches worldwide, nor among Lutherans.
Therefore, I believe the writer of this article was deliberately trying to associate Falls Church with fundamentalist, evangelical churches like the Assemblies of God, so that he could use these manifestations of the Spirit as a means to make your church appear to be made up of weird, crazy religious nuts. My extensive knowledge of the Epsicopal Church is wholly contrary to that image. I must add I admire yours, Janet's and Falls Church's willingness to focus upon Jesus being the source of all life and the Divine Guide for all our affairs. Jesus said He, not doctrines, rituals or traditions, was to be imminent in all our affairs as individual Christians and in the Church.
It is critical for the MSM to paint anyone not supporting Gay Marriage or gay ministers, abortion or a host of other liberal social issues as being people of weak minds and on the fringes of society, so they can easily dismiss anyone with honest oppposition to these and other things they support and thereby further their extremely liberal, secular agenda in America.
I am sorry they chose to focus on Falls Church, but I agree with your church's stance and I pray for the strength of everone in that congregation to stand by Jesus and their core Christian beliefs, and that they not cave in when ridiculed, especially when such accusations against you are so clearly false. |
|
This is an awful thing to happen to anyone, and it's not as if this mistake is common, or that your church is really controversial. In other words, not only is it a harmful mistake, but it's not even an understandable one. Who is this guy, and what does he think he's writing?
I know how you must feel. And it isn't a good feeling. I hope you can get The Washington Post (which does have something to lose from inaccurate reporting) to print a retraction.
It doesn't usually correct all the misinformation, but a retraction makes you feel at least partially vindicated. |
|
|
Journalism today is simply shameful with reporters not bothering to report the truth or facts about much of anything. I.M. Neiman has it pegged accurately. The reporter should be fired for reporting his article as factual when it was nothing of the sort. My husband and I are tired of churches and their ties with the "religious left."I have been reading about the Falls Virginia church for some time, applauding its members' actions. My husband and I have left an ELCA church and are looking for a more conservative congregation. We have grown weary of contributing to a church that completely ignores those with conservative beliefs while taking money from both sides of the fence (so to speak) to fund all sorts of wacko left wing special interests (all the while telling churchmembers how to vote on election issues no less!) |
|
|
Our daughter discovered wonderful churches when she moved to Wash. D.C. area last March, and this is one she attends evenings. She is familiar with charismatic type churches, and evangelical churches, and would say that Falls Church does not exhibit charismatic type worship. So the author of the article must have been making up some of the facts to embellish his writing. Another example of dishonest reporting in the mainstream press. |
|
|
Not only is this WaPo writer a condescending dweeb, he's flagrantly inaccurate: I'm a Presbyterian (or was, up until that little divestment from Israell thing), and WE are the "frozen chosen"! Sheeesh, what a boob ! |
|
|
If all of you who are members of those liberal churches that are supporting abortion, homosexual marriage, anti-Israel positions, so-called global warming hysteria, and other socialist/communist ideas would take your MONEY and leave those churches, they would soon close their doors. If they don't, then those who are in agreement with their liberal ideas will have to give more of their money to that church to keep it open and will have less money to support other liberal causes. Try to find a church like the one in Falls Church that still believes the Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. Several people above have suggestions as to other denominations that still believe that the Holy Bible is the Word of God. Coral Ridge Presbyterian is another possibility for those who live close to it. I would recommend churches that have Bible or Independent in their names, because that way you avoid the problem of a hierarchy telling your church what to preach and what to believe and who to vote for during an election. I thought that it was against the law to tell people who to vote for and that the IRS would take away the tax-exempt status of a church that did that. Perhaps you that were in such a church and aren't anymore would like to tell the IRS about your experience. Maybe something would be done about this abuse, but then again maybe not if the IRS people are liberals who only want to threaten churches that aren't liberal. Black churches seem to be exempt for this particular prohibition as the Rev? Jesse and the other Revs? go to black churches before every election and ride the buses with the people to the polling places. |
|
I've *never* heard Piskies referred to as the "frozen chosen". As noted by others, that is reserved for Calvinists, mainly Presbys.
And I love how left-of-center writers, once they've established that you're an evil racist (outright or by insinuation), will then go on to criticize you for admiring or joining African clerics (here, it's Abp Akinola, for Catholics like me, it's people like Cdl Arinze). They will say that the only reason you like them is because of their "backward" theology, which is not as "developed" as what we in the "West" or the "North" have. Okay - so now who's being racist? |
|
It may seem like a simple mistake, but the "frozen chosen" mistake really underscores how little the writer knows about basic protestant theological differences. "Frozen chosen" is a quasi-derogatory term for Calvinists, referring to their belief in predestination.
It's no wonder the Post got this story so wrong. I'm sure to them, the whold "Christian thing" is completely foreign.
Can you imagine a similar mistake being made about a liberal entity?
'It is a hallmark of the fast-growing environmental movement but unusual for Sierra Club members, who are so thoroughly associated with solemnity and tradition that they are sometimes referred to teasingly as "Earth Firsters."' |
|
It is evident that the denominations that grow or the individual parishes that grow are the "conservative" (I like to say orthodox) ones that stick the closest to Christ's message.
Jesus did help people, but he also put people in their places if they were wrong. A point that the blogger made that hits home for me is about tolerance being more important than truth for liberals.
If you claim to be Christian, your ultimate goal should be Truth as found in Christ Jesus. Not how to make others feel good about being in their sin.
Prayfully, the Lord will make a way for all those (individuals and churches) that keep the focus on him.
We are to change the world for Christ, not change Christ for the world. |
|
|
While I understand why the folks at the Falls Church are concerned that the reporters did not take the time to fully reflect their community, I think you need to understand that the article was basically favorable to your church. As a Catholic, I was shocked to read that many liberal Episcopal priests DON'T BELIEVE IN THE RESURRECTION! While I'm hardly a theologian, I had the idea the resurrection is one of the pillars of Christianity. Episcopal priests who don't believe need a career change (and a serious re-examination of their conscious). I assume that many other readers were equally shocked. The article places the break-up of the Episcopal church in an entirely new context. The problems are much deeper than a flawed liberal reading of one point in the Bible. Mainstream Episcopal churches appear to have left Christianity. Your church really had no choice in its recent actions. I think you can thank the Post for making this point clear. Good luck with the clarifications on your concern. |
|
Given both a reference to the climate and to our liturgical style, we Lutherans jokingly refer to ourselves as the "frozen chosen" for years. Older members tell us it has been used at least since the beginning of the twentyth century.
Lutherans generally have a kind of Nordic/German stoicism natural to our subculture in the U.S. Our enlightened leaders lament this fact and frequently try to get the fold to "loosen up". This results in awkward displays of out of rhythm hand-clapping, this awful free style creation called "liturgical dance", and tepid attempts to shout of "amen" and "say it, brother" during the sermon. It just ain't in us. I quess we just won't get those Baptists to wander it and decide to stay.
To be quite honest, I've never heard "frozen chosen" referred to any other group. I know its nice to share; but we like to reserve the term for ourselves. |
|
|
Thank you for your post! The church we are no longer attending got around the IRS ruling by using the loophole whereby telling church members how to vote on issues and NOT the candidate. This way churches can say they are honoring the IRS rule, but of course they really are not. I agree with you wholeheartedly that if people would have the courage to LEAVE these kinds of liberal churches (and tell the church/synod loudly and clearly why)eventually churches would get the message. |
|
Mary K.,
I'm not going to comment on the meat of your article, others have already done that and it's clear enough to me anyway, but I will comment on your lead - you have attended Falls Church for over a year, but are not a member.
Why not? It seems you are happy there, you should take the next step and commit yourself to membership and the support of the congregation.
|
|
Some time back, the WaPo got hammered for referring to evangelicals as poor, dumb, and easily led.
That hit the fan, and, among other things, the WaPo was told, by virtue of serious research, that evangelicals are slightly more educated than the average population and slightly better off. Easily led is either proven or disproven by the splintering and growing factions.
Among the WaPo's many excuses was the acknowledgment that nobody on the paper was an evangelical, or knew one.
They said they thought they were telling us what everybody knows, anyway.
They didn't address the question of knowing something that ain't so to the extent that checking it is unnecessary, or that no other identifiable group would be subject to such insults.
That was a matter of laziness and incompetence.
The current issue is a matter of deliberate lying. The WaPo has progressed. |
|
You're getting bent out of shape for nothing re that 'frozen' remark. The writer just misquoted. Episcopaleans are not usually referred to as "the frozen chosen", but it's NOT unheard of. (Google "frozen chosen" Episcopalians, you'll get a thousand or so results.) Episcopalians are more commonly referred to as 'God's Frozen People'. (Google "God's Frozen People" Episcopalians, and you'll many more results.) By the way, these cutesy phrases are often more or less interchangeable. "God's frozen people" is used for other denominations as well.
This easy catch has me wondering what else you've flown off the handle about. You're not even a member of your church - do you REALLY know that speaking in tongues is not happening? Perhaps you should take a closer look around, since the writer did say many who attend weren't aware of the practice.
If you're going to be admonishing WaPo to get its facts straight, first get yours in order. THEN write. Plank, eye, you know? |
|
With all due respect, Don, I've been an Episcopalian for more than 30 years and although we claim no exclusivity on the term, we've always (self-deprecatingly) refered to ourselves as "God's frozen chosen." We use the term mainly to refer to parishes who cater to older parishoners, i.e. ones that still use Rite I Eucharist and have no youth program.
So using the term to refer to (some) Episcopal churches is not inaccurate. |
|
|
What's MKH got against Charismatic churches? |
|
In my experience, "frozen chosen" has always been used to refer to Presbyterians, but it seems it's not unheard of for Episcopalians. Thanks for the comments guys, and I'll update the post.
As for my own membership or lack thereof...I love the church, but I've loved every church I've ever attended, and I've never been a member of any of them. I do Young Life ministry, which takes up a couple nights a week, usually, so that's always been where my time committment is instead of ministry within a specific church. I should think about it with this church, though. I a little transient, usually don't stay in one place for long, so I've never bothered to join churches before. |
|
"Unlike many Episcopal churches nationally, neither Truro nor The Falls Church was active in supporting the civil rights movement or in protesting the Vietnam War."
This is not necessarily a cheap shot. It's true that churches change, and perhaps your church was not politically active at one time. That is not necessarily a bad thing, as it may have had a worthwhile focus elsewhere (feeding people, etc.). If the writer is trying to portray your church as politically backward because of how it spent the 60's, it may be something of a cheap shot. However, he is also clearly trying to describe the differences between your church and 'mainstream' Episcopaleans. If he's not lying, he has a legitimate point. Your church's history diverges from the Episcopal mainstream, and now you're breaking away.
Again, if you could look at it, well, the way Jesus would want you to, you might see a different story. You might also see your own church more dispassionately - and that might be uncomfortable? |
|
|
|
Ms. Ham,
I think there needs to be a clarification of sorts---nit-picky to some degree, perhaps, but actually quite important (IMO), and also indicative of another sort of bias/inaccuracy in play. I don't think it's accurate to frame the issue in terms of you and your congregation "breaking away", rather, those who no longer believe in the Divinity of Christ and His Resurrection have themselves broken away/cut themselves off from the life-giving Vine of historic Christianity... |
|
Don't be too tough on the reporters, MKH. From my experience, most of those in this profession have little understanding of any topic outside of it and much superstition and fear of what they are ignorant, i.e. everything. It's likely these writers haven't seen the inside of a church in years, possibly decades, and the fact that Falls Church and Truro are swimming against the Liberal Tide instantly sets off klaxons in the newsroom.
Our parish left the ECUSA nearly three years ago for the AMiA and we couldn't be happier under the auspices of our Rwandan Archbishop. TEC is dying of slow-motion suicide...it's no sin to not go long for the ride. |
|
Dave: As I said in the post, I don't have a problem with Charismatic churches. I've attended them and enjoyed them. I didn't mean to give that impression. What I wanted to point out is that the WaPo is falsely giving the impression that mine is a Charismatic church when it's not. The object of doing so is the make the church appear "strange" and "zealous" and "outside the mainstream" to the Beltway folks reading the article, most of whom are not familiar with Charismatic churches and the fact that most of those folks aren't crazy, either.
Mr. Snitch: Context is fine. If that little tidbit had been delivered without what seems like a concerted effort to paint The Falls Church as something it is not, I would not have been so suspicious. Unfortunately, they lost my trust at the lede. History of the church is important, but if these folks can't get the present accurate after seeing it first-hand, am I supposed to trust them to report history accurately?
Jeffersonian: I agree with you that many reporters aren't malicious in their misrepresentations. Doesn't mean they don't make me mad, nonetheless. I was a reporter. I covered many things I wasn't terribly familiar with before I started covering them-- volleyball, grieving families, NAACP meetings, collard-green cultivation-- but that doesn't mean I had to abandon all hope of understanding and reporting on them sensitively. Is it hard? Yes. Are people gonna make mistakes? Yes. Did I? Heck yeah. But these two aren't even trying. Anyone who attended The Falls Church even once would get an entirely different impression than what they presented. |
|
WaPo wrote: "Unlike many Episcopal churches nationally, neither Truro nor The Falls Church was active in supporting the civil rights movement or in protesting the Vietnam War."
And you added: "This is not necessarily a cheap shot."
In what universe? Certainly not in ours.
Mr. Sn, explain to me precisely why the writer felt those two particular items -- involvement in civil rights movement, involvement in Vietnam war protest -- were relevant to the article, but not other social issues. Clearly, our Humble Reporter believes those two are a litmus test of some sort, and of primary importance to the reading audience. And, may we incorporate social/political context in our evaluation of the writer's intent? MUST we pretend that no other articles have EVER singled out those historical items with a specific, manifest agenda? Might we not infer that the writer THIS time meant what other writers meant the last 8,392,573,691 times these were used?????????
The writer was a liberal. He was saying "These are hicks who don't give a damn about the poor, the blacks, or war. They're hypocrites." If he were writing in a vacuum, your sniveling apologetic might wash; but he's not writing in a vacuum, and we've heard it ALL before, hundreds of thousands of times.
I tire of leftists' attempts to make mean-spirited behavior seem acceptible. Why are so MANY leftists so COMPLETELY incapable of assessing themselves and their fellows honestly?
|
|
(1) Comics, aka "funnies"
(2) job classifieds if you're looking for a DC-area job (though you may find that "dice" works better--I did)
(3) real-estate classifieds--if you're looking for rentals, WaPo's "Apartment Showcase" is useful (but weigh against "For Rent" and "Apartment Guide/Shopper"); for houses, you could always walk into ReMax (or other realtor) office.
(4) auto classifieds--again, not as good as "Auto Trader" publication, and you may find better deals on ebay |
|
I'm an Episcopalian. I don't claim to know everything about our church, but that description in the WaPo was entirely bizarre. If it were a quiz, to guess which denomination they were describing, I wouldn't have guessed Episcopalian even if it were the last choice remaining. Those things just don't happen in Episcopal churches.
And we frequently refer to ourselves as the "frozen chosen" in my congregation.
|
|
|
I'm amazed that she is so angered by being called what the gospel says clearly that we should be--those who carry "Christ" the anointed One and HIs Anointing. With that anointing one naturally speaks in tongues, heals the sick etc etc--all those things that make everyone not a believer uncomfortable. After all, a LIVING God is not manageable. As for telling people what to vote for, any preacher who uses the word of God to show people what God expects them to support is not abusing anyone. Those on the outside need to keep quiet about what those in the church are doing. Those in the church should check out the words of Jesus "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give." Paul says, I wish you all spoke in tongues more than I. Hmmm seems like Ms Ham should get out her Bible and decide for herself what consititutes Christianity and stop worrying about the Left Press. Stop reading it. Stop supporting it. Start acting like a real Christian and the lefties will have little they can say. It's hard to overcome healthy bodies, healed finances, good marriages and a huge number of committed Christians who VOTE together for what is righteous, not what seem good to them at any given moment. |
|
A young boy was shocked to find that his neighborhood playmates had never been baptized. Thinking quickly, he led them all to the nearest church.
A janitor, the only person there at the time, opened the door and let them in. Upon hearing what they wanted, he led them into the bathroom, where he proceeded to sprinkle each of them with water from a toilet.
Walking home, the boys began to wonder what demonination they had joined.
"Well we can't be baptists," one boy said, "because they dunk you all the way in."
"Well, we can't be Catholics," another boy said. "They pour water over your head and light candles."
After further discussion, another boy finally interrupted in disgust. "Come on, guys, didn't you smell that water? We're 'piscopalians!" |
|
I very much appreciate your stand for the shocking concept of Christians being people who actually believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, and that the Bible is actually true. Thank you for your fervor and lucidity.
I must take issue with this, though:
"But to the WaPo writer--conservative congregation breaking off from the wise and kind liberals? Must be a bunch of backwoods, shine-swillin', snake-handlers, right Cletus???"
As a native of eastern Kentucky, a true "hillbilly", I'm not fond of your slam against "backwoods" folks as (apparently) unwise, unkind and freakish. And, although I've never attended a snake-handling church, I can assure you that the vast majority are not "shine-swillin'"; they would not drink alcohol at all. I'm quite tired of the idea that anyone living in small-town or rural America, especially in the Appalachians, are nearly all casting rejects from "Deliverance".
In your anger at a negative characterization of your group, you revealed your own contempt for (and lack of knowledge about) groups different from yours. I don't agree theologically with many beliefs of either snake-handlers or charismatic groups, but I do think they sincerely believe in the Bible and in Christ. In my judgment that makes them much more honest and spiritual than your average Episcopalian. And more YOUR brothers and sisters in faith than that average Episcopalian.
There is a lot of ignorance, small-mindedness and odd behavior in the "backwoods". But it's obvious the "big city" isn't immune to any of those. Try to brush a little less broadly with your comparisons next time out. |
|
You should write to the Post's ombudsman as well as to the authors of the article. This is the kind of thing she is on the lookout for, and you may get a mention in her column, for what it's worth.
And on frozen chosen, I recall that Bill Clinton referred to George H.W. Bush's Episcopalian religion as the frozen chosen, at Coretta Scott King's funeral. It caused a little stir at the time. |
|
I think Mary Katherine was referring to the WaPo's traditional characterization of Christians as "backwoods hillbillies," not insinuating that there was anything wrong with such people. MK doesn't seem to be the type of elitist that would cast aspersions on people who live outside of her little bubble, unlike the ENTIRE staff of the WaPo, which lovingly refers to most of America as "Flyover Country." (It's so bad that they even hired a reporter to do nothing BUT cover "Red States." His stories *always* read like foreign reports, that's how alien "Real America" is to them.)
Remember, it's ready, aim, THEN fire! MK's one of US, silly goose!
:)
Regards,
Brian L.
|
|
Christians "all look the same" to most liberals. That sort of broad brush is a primary indication of the anti-Christian bigotry of the liberals.
It also reminds me of the recent interview with the incoming House Intel Chairman who didn't know the difference between Sunni and Shia and obviously didn't think it mattered. This is another example of the total disconnect between liberals and anything other than hard core secularism.
|
|
|
The only time I've ever heard the term "frozen chosen" was when I lived in Alaska and my Jewish friend was about to have a baby. Her parents in California joked with her that she and her offspring would be the "frozen chosen." Jews being God's chosen people and all and Alaska being, well, you get the picture. |
|
"But to the WaPo writer--conservative congregation breaking off from the wise and kind liberals? Must be a bunch of backwoods, shine-swillin', snake-handlers, right Cletus???"
This was not a slime of country people at all. It's an attack on the WaPo types who think that's all conservatives/Christians/RedStaters/Southerners/Flyover folks are. If you'll stick around and read the blog, you'll find I, among other things, call North Carolina home, love all of the South, watch NASCAR regularly, moved to D.C. from a very small N.C. town that I hated to leave, and very frequently defend the very folks you think I'm insulting. Heck, I'm cooking collards on the blog today in HamNation.
In addition, in the post, I said specifically that I don't have any problem with Charismatics. I've attended charismatic services and enjoyed them. I can't speak in tongues, but that doesn't mean those that do are full of it. I'm from the South, for goodness sake. How would I have made it through 26 years if I hated on people who love the Lord a little more loudly in worship than I do?
Unfortunately, the Beltway types who read the WaPo, and the folks who wrote it, have undoubtedly spent very little time around Charismatics, and have very little understanding or tolerance for that form of worship. The writers portrayed Falls Church, inaccurately, as a Charismatic church, which means the story's not only wrong, but in the Beltway, much more likely to be detrimental to the church's image. |
|
When traveling I'm inevitably asked where I'm from, and when I respond that I'm living in Utah, I'm inevitable asked if I'm Mormon. Sometimes I respond that I am, sometimes not, because the subsequent conversation is hilarious. When I admit that I am not Mormon, about half the time that becomes license to complain about them. If I say I am Mormon I get a lot of questions about how many wives I have, etc...
Notably, Christians are sometimes the most hostile towards Mormons, so it was with some amusement that I read Mary Katherine's reaction to having her church misrepresented. Christian-bashing has become as acceptable as Mormon or Jehovah Witness bashing.
In my experience, liberal perspectives are nearly impervious to facts. The only thing that really works are threats of violence (Muslims have very few problems with liberal disrespect) and shame.
Perhaps the more-Christian-than-thou attitudes should be replaced with something along the lines of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend..." |
|
We could argue with Mormons are truly Christians or a cult since they add three additional books to the Bible (all of which disagree with the Bible on major doctrinal points) and they believe that Jesus is the brother of Satan and that God is Adam evolved -- just to hit a couple of the differences between Mormonism and Biblical Christianity. And, yes, I've read the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and Doctrines and Covenants. The "burning in the bosom" I felt was indigestion from the slander of the true word of God, the Bible.
Having said that, I agree with you on the charismatic issue, though I don't think MKH was bashing charismatic congregations. She says she's attended them and enjoyed the worship service. Her objection is to the mischaracterization of her church by a reporter with an agenda.
I live a long way from Virginia, in Alaska, where everybody comes from someplace else (unless you're born here), so we don't have any issues with "hill billies" or "shine-swillers" and the like. We have all the same congregations that exist in the Lower 48, but by and large, there's no parochialism associated with them. Episcopalians are not more educated or refined than Baptists who are not more educated or refined than any of the charismatic congregations. One of the richest men in town is a member of the Assemblies of God church. We have university professors who are members at my Southern Baptist church. The biggest church in town is a non-denominational charismatic church.
Like MKH, I've attended charismatic churches and found them to be interesting. As long as the members of that congregation are okay with letting me be the me God has asked me to be, I am comfortable worshipping with them. God has never lead me to speak in tongues and unless He causes that to happen, I won't be wrestling gifts from Him without His permission. I find that the charismatic congregations I've worshipped with sincerely desire to follow God, but tend not to look first at what the Bible says rather than drawing inspiration from their own (in my humble opinion) untrustworthy experiences. This is why I might worship with a charismatic congregation from time to time, but I'm a member of a Baptist church, because I find them to be much more founded on the Bible. This is not to say that the charismatics I know are not Christians, simply that I feel they leave themselves open to error by their lack of Biblical scholarship.
The fact is that any congregation that can agree with the basics of Christianity -- Jesus Christ crucified for the remission of sins and resurrected to break the bondage of death, individual salvation through belief in Jesus and confession of sin, and faith alone as the foundation of salvation -- that's a congregation that I consider to be part of the same Body as my own. We are family. We just perform different functions within that Body and that's a good thing. The Body wouldn't be as useful with all hands or feet or tongues or eyes. We need our parts in order to be all that Jesus would have us to be.
MKH, the word, by the way, is "lead" not "lede." But, that's not all that important. The fact is that the Episcopal hierarchy has lost its way and if the congregations cannot bring them back to sanity, then the congregations need to leave the denomination. That's painful, but it's inevitable. Seems like Truro and Falls Creek Episcopal churches know that.
The reporter definitely was spinning the shory, but probably not for the reasons cited. Some denominations keep ownership of congregational property and buildings with the main body. If they can claim that the congregation is deviating from the norms of the denomination, they have a reason to evict the congregation and install someone else in the building. It happened locally to a (I believe) Episcopal church that decided to leave the denomination. The congregation has been evicted from the building. I don't know if that might not be the case here, but it's something for the congregational leadership to be looking into. |
|
Tammy Bruce had it right about liberals-- she says they are malignant narcissists. Take a look at the description of narcissist, http://www.angelfire.com/zine2/narcissism/narcissism_checklist.html
Liberals think they are gooder, kinder, smarter, and generally all around better than us and of course, definitely smarter and more capable than the people they are trying to "helP'. Like the narcissists they are, they don't care if they are actually helpful, they just want to look helpful so they can be seen as saintly and smart. They reject God because recognizing God would require them to admit that there is some ONE in the universe who is smarter, nicer, kinder, wiser and better than they who makes rules that have to be followed. Therefore they have to put down anyone who does. And pretty much they have to put lots of people down all the time so that they can feel good about themselves. |
|
|
I guess if the Falls Church congregation wishes to separate from teh national Episcopal communion over doctrine and practices they find distasteful, that is their right. But they choose to affiliate with the Anglican church of NIgeria, whose Archbishop does not merely disapprove of the ordaning of gay clergy, he supports legislation limiting gays' civil rights of assembly and public acess toplaces such as restaurants and theatres. Is that the kind of leader these "mainstream" believers seek? Are these the policies they would like to see implemented in this country? |
|
1. In her original comments MKM made some very wise observations about this writer and some misinformation WaPo printed about Falls Church, and I did not sense any negative judgments of other Christians in any shape, manner or form, so how some saw such judgments in her comments is beyond me.
2. I also find it hard to believe that anyone could read the WaPo article and not come away with the idea that the writer was judging Falls Church as a backward, weird collection of Charismatic believers; and that fact was at the foundation of their leaving the American Episcopal Church over the the issue of gay ministers. It was a deliberate, biased article, designed to portray anyone not accepting gay ministers in the Church as being on the fringes of society and intellectually beneath liberal minded people.
3. AuroraWatcher said: "I find that the charismatic congregations I've worshipped with sincerely desire to follow God, but tend not to look first at what the Bible says rather than drawing inspiration from their own (in my humble opinion) untrustworthy experiences." I must take issue with that comment. I have studied theology and compartive religions for over six decades; further I have attended services of most Prostestant denominations and have read excellent books and articles by ministers in most of them. I have also been associated with the Assemblies of God, a charismatic, tongues speaking denomination for most of my life. Based on my direct knowledge and experience, I must say that I cannot find even the tinest shred of evidence that charismatics are mostly experience oriented versus having sound knowledge of the Bible. Some of the greatest theologians of the past century have risen from the charismatic movement and have produced a host of well written books on biblical doctrine that are not the least inferior to the best books by theologians of other Protestant Denominations, thus you have made a wholly false charge against them based not on malice but ignorance of these charismatic churches. I must add those involved in snake handling and some other things make me quite uncomfortable, but as long as they believe in Jesus, I keep my mouth shut and seek peace with all my brothers and sisters in Christ.
The Holy Spirit ministers to people in their own language and in a manner that speaks best to their personality and life experiences; and yet it is always the same Holy Spirit speaking the same words of truth. If the test of true Christianity is, as it should be, solely ones faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord; and that faith being based upon sound knowledge of the evidence about Jesus in Scripture, then all the differences in doctrines, ritual, and traditions aside, we are all of One Body, One faith and One Lord.
Lastly, I support Falls Church's decision about gay ministers as I do not believe anyone engaged in homosexual conduct is qualified for ministry; but like most true Christians I love homosexuals as much as anyone else, as they are human creations of God; and as He loves the world and through Christ has offered a free salvation to whosoever believe in Him, I must truly love everyone. We will win others by lovingkindness, yet we cannot lower God's Holy standards in the process |
|
OK, I'm Catholic, but I was there the week after the "faith healing" bit occurred, with my girlfriend, who is a member. I actually saw the references to the faith healing in the flyer in the pews, and I have to admit, I gave her no end of grief about her flaky church. The preacher even referenced the fact that "some" (ahem, "all") may think their faith healing was a little flaky, "but it really works." Throw in the fact that the preacher spent 20 minutes explaining how the church was better off with the African branch of the church, and I realized why I was Catholic in the first place. Should be easy to get the girlfriend to see the light and join the real Church.
Satan, be gone! |
|
|
A reporter for a major newspaper, misrepresenting Christianity? That's unusual. I've never seen _that_ before. |
|
While Bible believing Christians may not see the Washington Post's characterizations as insulting, it is clear from reactions on the left that they were perceived as such by their intended audience. For example, check the comments on the WaPo site, or read Andrew Sullivan's related post. Obviously these church members are not good "conservatives of doubt" but uneducated, closed-minded, hateful, neo-con Bible-thumpers, much like the Taliban (per Sullivan).
To the Washington Post, terms such as "charismatic" or "fundamentalist" are pejoratives. Speaking in tongues or prayers for healing are quaint absurdities in this age of enlightenment.
I don't think anyone has commented on the mention of a ministry to "help people leave the homosexual lifestyle," another presumed indication of how bigoted these so-called Christians are. Don't they know that changes in sexual orientation must always be a one-way street (from hetero- to homo-sexual)? A person desiring or experiencing a change in orientation must never be allowed to seek spiritual guidance or support during the transition. A married clergyman can "come out" as gay but a lesbian college student could never fall in love with a man after graduation, unless she was pressured to do so by heterosexist societal influences.
Finally, the target of the WaPo's scorn is, of course, a predominantly white congregation. They would not be so eager to explore the "intolerant" religious views of Hispanic or black churches. They don't want to alienate reliable liberal voting blocs, or to reveal their racist belief that minorities are just too stupid to know any better. |
|
Omaha 1: Yours was a very thoughtful, intelligent response to this issue, you deserve applause for your excellent effort.
Someguy: Your response was very judgmental and intolerant of those who worship and serve Christ outside the confines and dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. I must inform you that: 1. The real Church is not an ecclesiastical organizaion, nor it is made up of rituals, traditions or a dictatorial clergy. 2. The real Church is those members of the body of Christ, placed there by faith in Him; and this Church can be found in many Christian sects and denominations, while it can never be the exclusive property of any such organizaion.
From this first this issue has been about a liberal media that is hostile to Christianity and intolerant of anyone or anything not subscribing to their leftist, secular views of the world. MKH was rightly offended that her congregation was marginalized because of an act of conscience, and she was rightly offended that the report of the spiritual atmosphere of her congregation was deliberately mischaracterized.
This was never about which church is the right church or which way to worship God is the right way; it was and remains about a MSM hostile to Christ and the Church and which demands that people of faith either submit to their liberal views; or the MSM will force them onto the fringes of society, and make sure they do not feel welcome in the public square. |
|
I also attend The Falls Church and have been for several years. I've also been a member at a Presbyterian church in the past and can confirm that the Presbyterians are the "frozen chosen" because of their Calvinistic belief that believers in Christ are predestined, or chosen, to be Christians. There's a lot more to Calvinism, which I won't go into, so research it to see what I mean. But I can understand the error since the typical Episcopal church does feel very formal, very similar in worship style to the Catholic church.
As a regular attender at The Falls Church I agree that I have NEVER seen or heard anyone speaking in tongues. NEVER in 4 years. Not saying that it doesn't happen, just saying that it isn't prevalent, so that was a misrepresentation of our congregation. Yes, we do have a more relaxed, contemporary worship at 11:00am, but it's mostly just guitars and drums and people raising their hands while singing. If you attend 9:00am it's more traditional with the choir and minister in robe. There's an even more traditional style in the Historic church at 8:00am, but with 4 kids I can promise you I've never gotten to church at 8:00am!
I know that people have seen angels at the healing services. I was skeptical when I first heard this, but apparently several people all reported seeing the same thing, so at some point I just figured that I have to believe them even if I didn't get the opportunity to experience it!
I've never actually seen Fred Barnes at church myself, but I have seen Alberto Gonzales including his security detail. I don't know that he's a regular attender, but I guess he has sort of a non-traditional job, so maybe he just can't get there every week.
I think it's interesting that the Washington Post even cares about our church and the vote. They don't care about anything else we do! But it sure was fun to jump on us and accuse us of hating gay people and being snake handlers!
Please don't believe what you read without checking it out for yourself.
|
|
|
|