Sad News from Finland: First Woman Bishop Elected Who Can’t Even Recite, or Affirm, the Nicene Creed!
From my friend, Pastor Tapani Simojoki:
Dear Paul,
I don’t know if this crosses your news threshold these days — bad news in the Church are two-a-penny these days — but it’s a significant piece of news anyway, which I thought I ought to share:
+++++ Irja Askola was today elected as bishop of Helsinki, the first woman to become a bishop in Finland. She replaces Dr. Eero Huovinen, who retires this year after 19 years in office.
Having been ordained in 1988 (as one of the first women to be ordained in Finland) Askola is currently diocesan secretary in the diocese of Espoo, and has previously worked as an assistant pastor in Helsinki and in the European Conference of Churches. She has previously never held a leadership position. She will be consecrated on 12 September 2010.
English news source: http://newsroom.finland.fi/public/default.aspx?app=803&newsid=24739 ++++++
It was depressing watching her, during the ‘campaign’, squirm and prevaricate when asked about the Virgin Birth: “Well, it’s in the Creed and I happily say the Creed in church, but it’s not a doctrine that’s central to me. I’m not really sure what it means.” (My paraphrase) Then again, none of the candidates (2 women and 5 men) was able to recite the Nicene Creed from memory when cold-called by a journalist. Dark times!
Thanks for posting this. There’s now a more detailed item about this on the LWF website:
To set the context for the apostasy of the Church of Finland, the archbishop-elect Kari Mäkinen, who will be consecrated this Sunday, was interviewed about the importance of the virgin birth in the Apostles’ Creed. Here are some selected extracts:
“Q: Kari Mäkinen, are the virgin birth and resurrection real events?
A: To me, the creed is an expression and summary of the church’s common faith. Non-negotiable and unique. It is a confession of faith, subscription to which is more than my own faith or understanding. One can of course ponder and wonder at individual details, and ask what the church expresses or means by this.
It’s possible to ask, whether one’s relationship with the Creed would change decisively if research demonstrated that the virgin birth has entered the early church’s teaching only under the influence of the surrounding culture.
Q: Would it not be a problem for you if Jesus was born in a natural way and that it had come to be explained as a virgin birth as a result of Greek philosophy?
A: I don’t see a problem in this. I could still join in the Creed with my whole heart. I would try to understand how the church has wanted to express in this particular way that God was born as a man.”
I suppose one ought to be grateful that the archbishop-elect is of the opinion that this hermeneutic can’t be applied to the resurrection of Jesus, since that really is a non-negotiable in a non-negotiable sort of way.
Source: seurakuntalainen.fi.
It’s sad really the apostasy that exists.
I agree, as does St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 (verse 14, to be exact), that the resurrection is non-negotiable.
A Jesus who was born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified, died and was buried, and on the third day rose from the dead is a force to be reckoned with (to say the least).
But a mortal Jesus presents no threat to theologians who want to dump the God of Abraham for a sleek new god who is more to their liking. Furthermore, a mortal Jesus can be made to say and do anything they want, since there is no accountability and no judgment for being a false prophet.
What on earth does she mean by “non-negotiable?” I guess she means that the wording cannot be changed, but Christians are free to interpret the wording to mean whatever they want it to.
And what does she mean by faith? By faith we get together and recite old formulas that have no objective meaning. (And apparently, she can’t even do this) If this is Christianity, who in his right mind would want to be a part of it?
If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. The “faith” that the archbishop-elect confesses is futile and sinful.
A brief clarification:
The bishop-elect is a ‘she’, Ms. Irja Askola. That’s for the office of bishop of Helsinki.
The archbishop-elect is a ‘he’, Dr. Kari Mäkinen. From Sunday, he’ll be the archbishop of Turku.
These heretical bishops are simply being postmodern: subscribing with their mouths, while in their minds — and increasingly in public as well — redefining the terms so that what they confess has little or nothing to do with what the creeds actually say.