Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Brian McLaren sings the Sacred

This is what happens when you substitute human religious impulses for God-revealed truth. This man has forgotten the power of the gospel.

As far as gospel-truth, McLaren is no different than other anthropocentric panderers like Joel Osteen.

Singing songs like this, I'm not surprised he doesn't have the doctrinal fortitude to resist sycophantic submission to Islam. Now if he'd sung something like this, he would have known better.

Clyde McLennan - Stand up, stand up for Jesus (Webb)

Found at bee mp3 search engine


Anonymous said...

Saints preserve us--it's the 2012 Obama re-election campaign theme song!

David Fischler

Fr. Chris Larimer said...

Since today is the feast of St. Andrew and his companions, your oath is most apropos. Around 900AD Andrew, with John, Peter, and Anthony, were deported from Sicily to Africa by the Saracens, who occupied that land at the time. In Africa, they were tortured brutally and martyred for defending the faith.

Augustinian Successor said...


For your kind information, the Church of England (Continuing) opposes the use of the appellation, 'Father' in reference to priests. We are neither low nor high church. I bring up the Continuing Church since you have linked an article by our bishop, Dr. David N Samuel to your blog.

The prefix 'Father' is un-Anglican for the simple reason that it is un-Protestant.

It is NEVER used in the PROPER sense directly and personally way to officially ADDRESS a cleryman.

Thus, we cannot accept you as a confessional and classical Anglican until and unless you repudiate the title, 'Father.'

Fr. Chris Larimer said...

Them's pretty big chops for a guy whose email takes the papal title given to King Henry VIII and passed to his legitimate successors.

For your info, I call myself "Chris" and my professional cards have "The Rev'd Mr."

How do you know that "Fr." isn't the Latin "frater"? (Especially since I hang with a bunch of Baptists and low-church types who call themselves "brother so-and-so"?)

Further, I can't repudiate the title "Father" because each of my five natural children address me thus.

Being both confessional and exceptionally humble, I don't make qualms about what people call me - "Father" "Doctor" "Reverend" "Pastor" - I've been called each of these, and I haven't insisted on a one. I think it's rather Romanizing to worry more about how someone addresses you than the fact that you are in community with one another by maintain the bond of peace with the rest of the churches holding the ancient creeds.

Augustinian Successor said...

No, you don't call yourself Father so and so in the RELIGIOUS terms. In case it hasn't sunk it yet, the term smacks of popery. You are a papist, not an Anglican. You simply cannot mix Anglicanism with Romanism. The two don't go together. They are ANTITHETICAL to each other. Thus, I cannot recognise you as a genuine Catholic. A true Catholic repudiates the COMMON errors which have become official and integral to Romish faith and practice.

So stop fooling yourself and people. Newman was a third rate theologian, that's why he perverted to Rome. Pusey was also another third rate theologian which was he could find NO continuity within the Church of England.

So, listen up. Do yourself a favour. Get rid of the popish title Father and leave the whatever Anglo-Catholic jurisdiction, then only you are FREE to be ANGLICAN.

Fr. Chris Larimer said...

"The Rev'd Mr" - classical Anglican use that comes from the period leading up to the Reformation when a great deal of clergy received their Masters from Oxbridge. (c 12-1500) Thus, "Mr."

You yourself called one of your bishops "Doctor" = "teacher" or in Hebrew, "rabbi" - so quit kidding yourself that you're being obedient to Jesus who said to call no man "master" (Mr.) or "teacher" (Dr.) in Matt. 23:8–10.

Do you see what a silly and pointless objection you're making? I am a presbyter in the Anglican Church in North America. I know - we're small (roughly 700 congregations, as opposed to the ... what, 3 that are listed on the CofEC website).

I would say that both reactive Anglicanism and reactive Romanism are BOTH opposed to a deeper, less divisive, more unifying catholicism. Let us be catholics who uphold the faith as received in the ecumenical councils (including the soteriological position of Augustinianism outlined in the Councils of Orange and rediscovered during the Reformation) - and not fight about what other people want to call us.