Response to Bishop Jim Njegovan’s
Thoughts for the Journey
February 2007
By: Father Larry Winslow
In many ways we
should be grateful to Bishop Njegovan for his thoughts in February 2007’s “Thoughts
for the Journey.” He has called to attention the fact that many Christians do
not study their faith sufficiently. The Bishop has called upon Christians to
truly study their faith and to strive to understand the foundations upon which
it is based. Christians need to be able to stand firm and to logically and
knowingly be able to present and defend the tenets of their beliefs.
Unfortunately,
while many are able to state what they believe and to stand firm in that
belief, they are sadly unequipped and unprepared to present and support the
Gospel in an evangelical manner. And, in line with Bishop Njegovan’s
admonitions, it is imperative that True Christians undertake a planned approach
to increasing their knowledge and ability to be missionaries of the Gospel
right in the time and place God has placed them.
But, this has to
be undertaken in a planned and schooled fashion. And, most importantly, such
study must be of material and authors that are centred upon the Holy Word of
God. Bishop Njegovan, in his pretence of being open to many forms of theology,
recommends the reading of material from “a wide range of theological
perspectives and scholars” as reviewed on the Diocesan WEB page. But, save for
reading undertaken to learn from where the heretical theories come in terms of
both authors and seeming logistical approach, to initially study works whose
authors are not centred upon God’s Word and the Truth contained therein is not
an economical use of time and does not lead to the strengthening of the foundations
of True Christian Faith.
Bishop Njegovan
references his experience at a conference with The Rev’d Dennis and Rita
Bennett. It is amazing that such an encounter could have taken place and not
led to a strong Biblically Centred life in the participant. This writer also
attended a three day conference with Father Dennis Bennett in the Diocese of
Toronto. And, the admonitions to learn our faith in Jesus Christ and to grow in
our understanding of the Christian foundations were certainly given. But, conveniently
it would seem, the context and direction of such studies seem to have been lost
upon the bishop.
The Bennett’s
centred their teachings upon the Holy Scriptures of God. In fact, in their book
“The Holy Spirit and You” they clearly state, “This is the all important
question. No matter how cleverly we may work out our theories, if they don’t
agree with the Scriptures, they are unacceptable.” Further, in the Teaching
Manual for this same book they admonish the leader, “The Bible is the inspired
record of God’s dealings with us, and our present experiences with spiritual
things must be in line with this record. If you can’t find your spiritual
experience in the Scripture, it isn’t in the mainstream, and if it is spoken against in the Scripture, you must
renounce it completely.”
In fact, the
Bennett’s so emphasised the Divinely Inspired Word of God in their teachings
that they would not abide anything that contradicted the same in any manner.
And, in cases where Holy Writ advocated something that the human mind could not
understand, they “recommend to you that, even though you may have difficulty
with these things in your mind, you come and experience God’s reality in the
fullness of the Spirit. Intellectual understanding will come later. As the
great St. Augustine of Hippo put it: ‘Credo ut intelligam,’ that is, ‘I believe
in order that I may understand.’” In this vein of theology believing God’s Word
even without understanding it in terms of purpose and rationale is to place
one’s faith totally and utterly in the Ultimate Goodness of Almighty God.
Further, as Anglicans who are determined to
follow the Anglicanism of the Reformation centred and predicated upon the
Infallible Holy Word of God, it is important to seek the concepts of those who
effected that Reformation. For instance, Thomas Cranmer once stated, “If there
were any word of God beside the Scripture, we could never be certain of God's
Word; and if we be uncertain of God's Word, the devil might bring in among us a
new word, a new doctrine, a new faith, a new church, a new god, yea himself to
be a god. If the Church and the Christian faith did not stay itself upon the
Word of God certain, as upon a sure and strong foundation, no man could know
whether he had a right faith, and whether he were in the true
It can be
remembered here that the Sin of Eve was one of placing herself and her desires
(judgments) on a par with and in the stead of those of Almighty God. When
today’s humanity reads Scripture and then knowingly goes against it saying that
we know better today they are committing the same sin over again.
Thus, in choosing
theologians to read one has to be certain that the writer is one who functions
in this vein. And, although such seems hard for the average person to
comprehend, the majority of today’s theological thinkers are more centred upon
the mind of man than upon the Word of God. Persons such as Bishop Benison of
Further,
Bishop Njegovan condemns Bible Believing theologians by placing them in a
category he refers to as ‘televangelists and “popular pastors” as though these
persons have nothing to say of any value concerning the Holy Word of God. It is
almost certain that he would include orthodox conservative evangelical teachers
such as Dr. J.I. Packer, Dr. John Stott, Dr. Michael Green, Dr. Marney
Patterson, Dr. Edith Humphrey, Dr. Oliver O’Donovan, etc.- to name but a few -
in this category of condemnation. And yet, these are all writers who uphold the
Holy Word of God as ruling supreme. Their theology (thinking or study of God)
emanates from the mind of God in His Holy Word. And these are the kind of
writers that the true Christian should be centering upon to strengthen the
foundations of Biblical Faith.
Further,
it is essential to beware of Bishop Njegovan’s references to such things as
Biblical Scholarship, the Creeds, the Thirty-nine Articles, and the teachings
of the Church as these, like his mea
culpa speech at Synod, are often fabrications intended to convey on the
surface thoughts that are far from the real meanings in the bishop’s mind. Just
as the bishop gave superficial assent to some Acts of Synod while planning to
undermine the intention of Synod via his personal subsequent subversive
actions, so his reference to these items is not above suspicion of intention.
He
accepts Holy Scripture as being the Word of God but under the “interpretation”
of himself and so-called “modern” scholarship (meaning scholarship that
revisits, revises, and reinterprets Holy Scripture according to their thinking
as opposed to the thinking of the Apostolic Tradition). The concept of the
intentions of the God Inspired authors and the understandings of those who
received them as transmitted to the Church according to the teachings of Jesus
and His Apostles (the Apostolic Tradition) is totally secondary to the mind of
modern man. While all Anglicans are expected to view the Holy Bible as BEING
the Word of God and containing all things necessary to Salvation (in accordance
with the 39 Articles of Faith), it is not so accepted in the minds of revisionist
liberals – who still maintain their orders despite their violation of their
vows. As Dr. John Stott writes in his work “The Incomparable Christ,” “For there is only one authentic Jesus, and
that is the Jesus of the Apostolic Witness in the New Testament. There is no
other.” Bishop Njegovan and the liberal school of
thought also see no contradiction in making all Scripture subject to a
multiplicity of modern human “interpretations,” which, in effect, says that
their god is a god of confusion and deception who allows many understandings of
his singular word.
As far
as the 39 Articles of Faith are concerned, the bishop accepts these “as they
are understood and interpreted today.” Again, as far as this approach is concerned,
the meanings of the Reformers and those who included them in the Book of Common
Prayer have nothing to do with their validity today. In fact, it is taught
throughout the liberal schools today and by several clergy in the Diocese of
Brandon that the 39 Articles are actually a political document of the 16th
century and have no relevance to today’s Church. And those teaching such are
ones who have signed assent to such in their Ordination Vows. Yet, despite
these teachings, they do not have the integrity to renounce the vows they made
based upon these articles.
Many revisionist
liberal persons follow the teachings of Spong and Ingham concerning the Creeds.
These teachings would deny the Holy Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the Atoning and
Redeeming effect of the substitutionary death of Jesus on the Cross, and the
victory of the Physical Resurrection of Jesus. They would say that the Creeds
are nice liturgical tools but without substance for today’s Church. Truthfully,
while he seems to be very friendly with Ingham, it is not clear at this point
that Bishop Njegovan would support these views.
While Bishop
Njegovan has made some salient points with his reference to Dennis and Rita
Bennett and his personal urging of Anglicans to improve their foundational understanding
of their faith, it is important to read critically “between the lines.” It is
necessary for True Christians to make certain their foundational material is
established upon the Rock of Jesus Christ - the Jesus of Holy Scriptures - and
not the foundational sand of the false christ and false spirit emanating form
the mind of revisionist/liberal humanity and being blamed upon the will of some
ethereal god.
It is hoped that,
in some way, this will help in putting the ranting in the “Thoughts for the
Journey” into perspective.