One of my first shoe postings (a year ago October) was on boots, accompanied by the Nancy Sinatra song, “These Boots Are Made for Walking.” That was a little more prescient than I knew.
So in that spirit, here are some more boots for walking:
and with that, this blog is done.
Thanks for reading and commenting, and thanks especially for all of the support.
To God be the glory!
From Bishop Michael Garrison and the Episcopal Diocese of Western New York, trying to put the best possible spin on the news that the rector and a large part of the congregation of St. Bartholomew's Church are leaving (but, hey, the diocese keeps the property, so "All is Well" although it seems as though Bishop Garrison is seeking an amicable parting, much to his credit) [boldface mine]:
On Tuesday, October 7, 2008, the Rt. Rev. J. Michael Garrison, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Western New York, met with the Rev. Arthur Ward, rector of St. Bartholomew’s Episcopal Church. During that meeting, Ward informed Bishop Garrison of his desire to disaffiliate himself from the Diocese of Western New York, and to transfer from the jurisdiction of The Episcopal Church to a different Anglican entity.
He also declared that other clergy affiliated with St. Bartholomew’s and some portion of the congregation also intend to leave the Episcopal Church. Ward and others who share his convictions plan to vacate the property at Brighton and Fries Roads before the end of this year.
“People may come and go, but St. Bartholomew’s Episcopal Church in Tonawanda will continue,” state Bishop Garrison. “We are ready and able to carry on with worship, pastoral care and administration. We stand ready to support and work with continuing Episcopalians who have been a part of St. Bartholomew’s, as well as those who have felt disenfranchised by the position of its leadership.
“It is my intention that Fr. Ward’s departure be handled as sensibly and amicably as possible. He has indicated to me that the time has come for him to seek to continue his priesthood in a different branch of Anglicanism. I respect his right to follow his personal conscience in this matter.”
Episcopalians from the congregation of St. Bartholomew’s who have any pastoral needs and those who wish to learn about the continuing worship schedule at St. Bartholomew’s Episcopal Church are encouraged to contact the diocesan office. . .
From BabyBlue Online:
I've learned this afternoon that the leadership of the Common Cause Partnership is meeting this week to discuss the mission and vision of a new orthodox Anglican structure in North America. . .
Please keep these leaders in prayer as they meet at the Church of the Epiphany in Herndon, Virginia.
Final thoughts to finish my series outlining why my family and I believe it is time for us to leave the Episcopal Church (read Part 1: A brief history, Part 2: A crack appears, Part 3: The deluge, Part 4: The end, and Part 5: A new beginning. . .)
I thought about writing a long post on how my family made the decision of which church to join, but Martial Artist beat me to it, so I thought I would post his comment, which is much better written than anything I could do.
The only difference between us is that while MA will start RCIA in November, I have already begun the classes at my local RC parish and am slowly working my way through the Catechism. (I have reformatted MA’s comment here for easier reading and have boldfaced some sentences.)
If, after going through RCIA (which I will likely enter in early November after I have returned from my present vacation and my last sea deployment of this year) I continue to hold the conclusion that my understanding of the Gospel is in full accord, or where it is not that I am prepared to assent to the teachings of the magisterium without reservation, then I will, at the Paschal Vigil (I prefer not to refer to it by a name that references a Celtic fertility goddess) I will seek acceptance into the Roman Catholic Church. This will not be as a reaction to TEC or Anglicanism, which is a separate, but not wholly unrelated, issue, but because I will have concluded that the Roman Catholic Church embodies the fullest understanding of Christ and the Gospels on earth. That is, in my mind, both a necessary and a sufficient condition to do so.
I am on vacation visiting my mother. She was raised as a Roman Catholic, but left the Roman Church for the LCMS when she married my father in 1942 at the age of 18. She is now 84, suffering from macular degeneration, and rarely gets to church unless driven. My wife and I, therefore, insisted on being fully available to see to it that she got to her regular congregation (about 20-25 minutes drive from her house) on the Sunday we were visiting.
The minister who preached the sermon made a very interesting statement about the LCMS church and the doctrine of sola scriptura. He said that all that is needed is scripture, not interpretation and not tradition. The clear implication (indeed, the several sentences he devoted to expanding on the doctrine made it almost explicit) is that each believer needs only the bible and the Holy Spirit.
Even based solely on my experiences with TEC over the past 38 years, I see this as an obstacle to joining any sola scriptura denomination. My reasoning is as follows: The Bible is composed of words. Words have meanings, both denotational, and connotational. It is not uncommon that a word or phrase has multiple meanings, whether denotational or connotational. If I am to be confident that I understand the application of scripture to any particular question, and to deal with the multiple meanings and the fact that some scripture is literal and historical, and some is allegorical and allusional, I (and every other individual in the denomination) will have to give up most of our other activities, including those that provide our sustenance, to have the time to ensure we fully and understand precisely how to apply scripture correctly to any given question or issue.
Clearly, some proposed responses will be obviously contradictory to scripture, but the current unpleasantness teaches us nothing if not that different readers will tend to apply it differently. The foregoing does not even begin to address the question of finding the time to master Hebrew, Syriac, Greek and Latin as those languages were used in the relevant time periods. My conclusion is that I shall ultimately have to rely on someone else to carry most of freight in getting to that unambiguous understanding that I need to live my life in accordance with the Gospel and God’s will.
Stated another way, I have to trust someone to have the correct interpretation of the scriptures that applies to at least some of the questions to which I am going to need the answer. I either do the interpretation myself, working to hear the Holy Spirit, and hope I don’t mishear, or I will have to trust it to someone more knowledgeable than I am, whose judgments I have tested enough to trust. So Pastor Mueller is demonstrably wrong in his statement, assuming, as I did and do, that he meant it literally. And while tradition does not trump scripture, it is an invaluable aid, along with the ecumenical councils, in understanding how those earlier, and therefore closer in time to the divinely inspired human authors of scripture, understood them, not that they anticipated the current issue/question, but that I can extrapolate, or interpolate, from their reasoning from the relevant scriptures as they applied them to their similar issues, in order to help discern the correct answer to my issue.
If I finish reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church and have found no issue on which I cannot submit myself to her teachings, then why would I persist in maintaining a schism the causes of which have been appropriately addressed? To do so on the basis that Catholicism had not successfully “proven” their understanding would require me to assume that I know more than they do, perhaps as much as God himself—a highly unlikely, and in the latter case, demonstrably false, assumption.
Finally, this individualistic assertion, that each believer is his own interpreter of scripture, appears to me to be a major contributing factor in the disintegration of TEC. If a Christian denomination has no magisterium, in the sense of an authoritative teaching authority, then it will always be more open to apostasy and heresy than a denomination that does have such an authority. I think it is also a major contributor to the always increasing number of Christian denominations, particularly within protestantism.
This absence in TEC is, I think, its (possibly) fatal flaw, and, to the extent that it is present in other parts of the AC, their (possibly) fatal flaw, as well.
So sad to see.
When I first moved to D.C. after college, I attended Christ Church (actually taught Sunday School there) for several years. I guess it's ironic that when my husband and I became engaged and wanted to get married in my home church in Charleston, the rector there said that would be fine, as long as we did our pre-marital counseling at The Falls Church with John Yates - who knew that according to the Diocese of Virginia, we were still on Christ Church land??
From the Washington Times [boldface mine]:
Christ Episcopal Church of Alexandria, one of the most venerable parishes in the Diocese of Virginia, has joined a historic lawsuit against several Northern Virginia parishes attempting to leave the denomination.
Members of the 235-year-old parish were informed Sunday at a parish meeting that the diocese will represent them in the largest property dispute in Episcopal Church history, taking place at the Fairfax County Courthouse. The multi-trial case will resume Oct. 14.
Circuit Court Judge Randy I. Bellows has dealt three consecutive defeats to the diocese and the denomination in their battle to retain millions of dollars of property held by 11 churches that fled over issues of biblical authority and the 2003 election of the openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.
The diocese will cite 18th-century cases to argue that the Falls Church, a 276-year-old congregation that is the oldest of the departing parishes, cannot lay claim to its property on 5.5 acres in the city of Falls Church. Attorneys have produced two 18th-century land deeds that say Christ Church possesses the property.
The deeds, dated March 19 and 20, 1746, say the land was owned by "Truro parish," the designation for Colonial churches in Pohick, Alexandria and Falls Church. The diocese unearthed two U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 1815 and 1824 saying that Christ Church, founded in 1773, is the successor to Truro parish and that the Falls Church was a ward of the Alexandria congregation.
The diocese's attorneys say they can prove that Christ Church still owns about 2 acres of what the Falls Church occupies. That part of the property includes the "historic" Falls Church - a brick building completed in 1769.
In order to argue this case in court, the diocese needed Christ Church's permission to act as its proxy. Although the diocese notified opposition attorneys on Sept. 5 that it would represent Christ Church, it was not until Sept. 22 that the vestry, or governing board, was told of the matter. The vestry approved it Sept. 24.
Parishioners were not so accommodating. On Sunday, some worried that Christ Church's involvement - however distant - in a lawsuit could make its finances precarious. The church has a $135,000 deficit, and only 507 of its 2,459 members - or one-fifth - actually give.
"There were quite a few people who were stunned and said, 'We don't need this,' " said one former vestry member who asked to remain anonymous. "[Parish leaders] didn't give it much time.". . .
Today and tomorrow the California Supreme Court will finally hear the litigation between Bishop Bruno and the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles and the Anglican churches in the area who left the diocese and kept their property. Will the Court follow the precedent of "neutral principles" or not?
For more background on this, watch my interview with Eric Sohlgren, attorney for St. James Newport Beach and others on AnglicanTV.
A run-down of all the documents pertaining to the case:
S155094
Episcopal Church Cases
Expanded background summary (PDF, 9 KB)
Case information, including Supreme Court docket entries
Court of Appeal opinion (PDF)
Petition for review (PDF, 4,368 KB)
Answer to petition for review (PDF, 622 KB)
Reply to answer to petition for review (PDF, 676 KB)
Bunyan et al. brief (PDF, 2,186 KB)
Episcopal Church's brief (PDF, 2,052 KB)
Bunyan et al. reply brief (PDF, 1,763 KB)
Amicus curiae brief (Charismatic Episcopal Church) (PDF, 745 KB)
Amicus curiae brief (Diocese of San Joaquin) (PDF, 1,389 KB)
Amicus curiae brief (Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church) (PDF, 2,067 KB)
Amicus curiae brief (Iglesia Evangelica Latina) (PDF, 1,496 KB)
Amicus curiae brief (Kirkpatrick) (PDF, 1,174 KB)
Amicus curiae brief (Lee) (PDF, 1,292 KB)
Amicus curiae brief (Poch) (PDF, 1,885 KB)
Amicus curiae brief (Presbyterian Lay Committee) (PDF, 2,063 KB)
Amicus curiae brief (Presbytery of Hanmi) (PDF, 2,035 KB)
Bunyan et al.'s response to amicus curiae briefs (PDF, 2,046 KB)
Episcopal Church's response to amicus curiae briefs (PDF, 1,818 KB)
Answer brief to amicus curiae briefs (PDF, 2,302 KB)
And here's the live-streaming info from SanDiegoAnglicans:
Event Date: 10/07/2008 9:00am - 10/08/2008 5:00pm
Event Address: (updated: there seems to be conflicting information on the sites referenced below about whether this is being covered by streaming video or not. It does look like it will be carried on Cox Cable Public Access, which is channel 23 in southern areas).
Watch streaming video of this week's California Supreme Court oral arguments.
http://www.calchannel.com/
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/riv-oralarg.htm
From BabyBlue Online, a list of upcoming events:
October 8 - TEC/Diocese of Los Angeles vs Anglican Congregations (Appeal before the California Supreme Court)
October 14 - TEC/Diocese of Virginia vs CANA, Virginia (significantly scaled-down to focus on whether the VA Division Statute also applies to three smaller properties)
Oct. 20-23 - TEC Executive Council, Helena, Montana
Oct. 21-22 - Anglican Awakening - Akron, Ohio
Nov. 4 - Election Day, USANov. 7 - Diocese of Pittsburgh Special Convention - Pittsburgh, PA
Nov. 7-8 - Diocese of Quincy Annual Synod, Quincy, Illinois
Nov. 13-15 - Anglican Awakening, Amesbury, MA
Nov. 14-15 - Diocese of Ft. Worth Convention, Bedford, Texas
Dec. 1-3 - Common Cause Partnership Council
Dec. 15-19 - Windsor Continuation Group Meeting, Mustang Island, Texas
Jan/Feb 2009 - Anglican Primates Meeting, Bahamas
Kevin Kallsen of AnglicanTV will be live streaming the Diocese of Pittsburgh Convention starting Saturday morning, October 4.
Diocese of Pittsburgh Convention
Online TV Shows by Ustream
Please help with AnglicanTV's Travel Expenses:
From one of the letters at EpiscopalLife Online [boldface mine]:
Upon reading the article "Not so alien" (September), I thought that it might be worthwhile for me to share my experience of visiting the headquarters of our church in Manhattan.
First, when I arrived in front of the entrance, I did not notice either the Episcopal flag or emblem anywhere outside the building. Given the propensity of New Yorkers to be "in your face," I am wondering if it is not being unduly modest. I am proud of being Episcopalian and would have smiled had I seen the shield or flag that represents something so dear to my heart.
When I entered, I was confronted with two persons at a table to the right of the entrance. They were obviously there to screen people who want access to the building. It was all very businesslike.
Silly as I am, I had imagined that someone would be in the lobby to greet me (a wandering soul) and tell me "estas en tu casa," as the Latinos would say (i.e., "welcome to your home"). Obviously, it would not be efficient to have someone there just to greet people and make them feel at home; however, that building is where our Presiding Bishop spends much of her time, and you would think that we would not want to miss an occasion to demonstrate that Episcopalians welcome all who approach us.
It was, all in all, a very disappointing experience. Perhaps my comments will help make our headquarters a little more in tune with the tradition of hospitality. Small gestures such as welcoming strangers do indeed often have far greater impact than could be rationally expected.
Via email:
HERNDON, Va. (October 2, 2008) – The Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) is announcing the formation of a Great Lakes District that includes a growing number of congregations in the area. The affirmative vote to create the new district was taken at a recent CANA Council gathering in Akron, Ohio.
“The formation of a Great Lakes District within CANA is an exciting new development. In the short time of CANA’s existence we have grown to more than 70 congregations and 150 clergy in 21 states plus the District of Columbia. We look forward to continued growth throughout the upper Midwest as our congregations shine the light for Anglicanism rooted in Biblical truth and reach out in the love of Jesus Christ to the least, the last and the lost,” said CANA Missionary Bishop Martyn Minns.
The new district is comprised of 13 congregations in three states and is modeled after the Fairfax-based Anglican District of Virginia, which was the first district to be formed within CANA. The Great Lakes District will be led by CANA Suffragan Bishop Roger Ames of Akron, Ohio, and will be governed by a board and a synod council.
“The vote to formally create the Great Lakes District within CANA was a clear acknowledgement of the strength of the orthodox Anglican movement in our area. Over the past few months, we initiated work on our set of bylaws and our constitution that are modeled after CANA’s Virginia District. We are thankful for this new structure that has been created to help us live within the Anglican way. A focal point for the Great Lakes District will be on starting new churches throughout the region. We are grateful for the opportunity to further Christ’s kingdom in the Great Lakes area,” said CANA Suffragan Bishop Roger Ames.
The parishes that comprise the Great Lakes District include: St. Luke’s Angli! can (Fai rlawn, OH), Church of the Holy Spirit (Akron, OH), St. Barnabas (Bay Village/Cleveland, OH), St. Anne’s (Madison, OH), Christ the King (Columbiana, OH), Holy Trinity (Milan, OH), Christ the King (Lexington, MI), St. Andrews (Lewis Center/Columbus, OH), Anglican Church of the Good Samaritan (Cleveland Heights, OH), and St. Michael the Archangel (Westfield, IN), a gathering of four parochial mission churches that includes St. Anne’s (Anderson, IN), St. Matthew’s (Nashville, IN), St. Patrick’s (Noblesville, IN), and St. Paul’s (Greenfield, IN).
Did you know that our very own Bishop Mathes here in San Diego is on this task force, the House of Bishops Task Force on Property Disputes (as he continues to sue several churches here who are unable to continue in heresy)?
And remind me again why a task force on property disputes is commenting on an issue of "abandonment of communion"??? Huumm???
So when they try to tell you the action against Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh has nothing to do with holding on to the property or keeping the money, just remind them that their own Task Force on Property Disputes is issuing info on Bishop Duncan's deposition - not exactly in their purview.
Questions and Answers about matters involving the Bishop of Pittsburgh
Meeting of the House of Bishops, September 2008
Q: Why is the House of Bishops contemplating action against Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh?
A: At its meeting Sept. 17-19, the House of Bishop will be considering the report from its Title IV Review Committee, which certified in December 2007 that Bishop Robert Duncan had "abandoned the communion of this church," primarily because he has been involved with actions and decisions to remove the Diocese of Pittsburgh from The Episcopal Church and affiliate it with the Province of the Southern Cone. Under the provisions of Canon IV.9, this certification goes to the House of Bishops for it to consider whether or not to depose Bishop Duncan.
The House of Bishops' Task Force on Property Disputes, through its work to protect property assets within The Episcopal Church, also has concluded that Bishop Duncan openly renounced the discipline of The Episcopal Church, which constitutes abandonment of the communion of this church and requires his removal from ordained ministry, or deposition.
Q: What does "abandonment of communion" mean?
A: The Canons of The Episcopal Church define abandonment as "...an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of this Church ..." (Title IV, Canon 10, Sec. 1)
Q: What kind of things has Bishop Duncan done to constitute this "open renunciation"?
A: Bishop Duncan has actively worked to remove the Diocese of Pittsburgh from the authority of The Episcopal Church. (see House of Bishop’s Property Task Force Memo. "Evidence of Abandonment by Bishop Duncan") He has supported and encouraged the diocesan convention to change its constitution to accomplish this. He also has sought out affiliation with the Province of the Southern Cone, located in South America. All these actions point to his open and conscious renunciation of the authority of The Episcopal Church for him personally and, he hopes, for the entire diocese under his care.
Furthermore, he has used assets of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh to accomplish this goal, and he has stated that he does not now, nor will he, have any obligation to protect the assets of the Diocese of Pittsburgh for the use of The Episcopal Church.
Q: What has caused this rift between The Episcopal Church and Bishop Duncan?
A: This case is about Bishop Duncan's actions, not about his beliefs. For years Bishop Duncan has been a leading spokesman for conservative theological positions. But there are a wide range of theological convictions within The Episcopal Church, and there is room for all those within the church. The issue here is that he has renounced the authority of The Episcopal Church over him and seeks to have his diocese adopt the same policy through a vote of its convention.
Q: The final vote by the Pittsburgh Diocesan Convention to split from The Episcopal Church doesn't take place until October 4. Why not wait until after then?
A: While the House fervently hopes that the Pittsburgh convention may yet decide not to vote to sever ties with The Episcopal Church, action involving Bishop Duncan is not tied to a vote on that date. Any action by voters in the Diocese of Pittsburg does not lessen the culpability of Bishop Duncan, since he is encouraging his diocese's departure from The Episcopal Church and is actively working to that effect. Whether or not delegates to the Pittsburgh convention vote to follow Bishop Duncan's abandonment of The Episcopal Church is one thing. That Bishop Duncan already has abandoned The Episcopal Church through an open renunciation and repudiation of its discipline is another, and already is well established.
Also, should the House wait until after October 4 to consider action against Bishop Duncan, the matter normally would not come up again until the spring meeting of the House in March, 2009. People in the Diocese of Pittsburgh, both supporters and opponents of Bishop Duncan's theology, have said that waiting until then to finalize the matter would leave the diocese in far too long a period of limbo to be sustainable. Acting before October 4 also would have significantly positive effects in protecting the assets of the Diocese of Pittsburgh for use by Episcopalians.
Additionally, because the Title IV Review Committee has certified that Bishop Duncan has abandoned the communion of this church, the canons call for consideration of such matters at the next meeting of the House after such a certification.
Q: Is this action just about trying to keep property in The Episcopal Church?
A: This matter, at its root, is about maintaining accountability for one's actions as a bishop within The Episcopal Church. However, there are a complex set of pastoral imperatives involved as well. As Bishop of Pittsburgh, Bishop Duncan controls millions of dollars in assets within the diocese. In a hierarchical institution like The Episcopal Church, canon law vests ultimate ownership of parish property with dioceses, and diocesan property with the wider Episcopal Church. Property is owned not for the benefit of individuals but of the church as a whole.
We are sacramental people who believe in the importance of "outward and visible signs." What happens to the sacred spaces in Pittsburgh matters a great deal to the many faithful members there who want to remain in The Episcopal Church and who have worked hard and given sacrificially to support these facilities. It is the obligation of The Episcopal Church to make certain that property intended for use by Episcopalians is available to future generations of Episcopalians for worship and for mission.
The House of Bishops Task Force on Property Disputes
The Right Reverend Stacy Sauls, Bishop of Lexington, Chair
The Right Reverend Jon Bruno, Bishop of Los Angeles
The Right Reverend Mark Hollingsworth, Bishop of Ohio
The Right Reverend John Howard, Bishop of Florida
The Right Reverend William Persell, retired Bishop of Chicago
The Right Reverend Dean Wolfe, Bishop of Kansas
The Right Reverend Mark Andrus, Bishop of California
The Right Reverend Philip Duncan, Bishop of Central Gulf Coast
The Right Reverend James Mathes, Bishop of San Diego
From Hening in the comments below [boldface mine]:
This past weekend I made the decision to tender my resignation in TEC. This means giving up the opportunity of being ordained along with losing contact with those that I have had the honor of teaching and loving within the Spirit of God.
The flaunting of the gay lifestyle is something that has become part of everyday life in New England. Having a post-op trans-gendered person attending church functions and confusing the young children is shapes of things to come with new deacons and priests. Even though that is all out of place and outside of the community Paul preached about, it was the promotion of genocide that finally tore me away from my church.
I will either wind up in an African parish with hopes to continue towards the priesthood or an Antiochan Orthodox parish, where my wife would like to attend. My last official act after turning in the church keys, the website password, ending Taize worship bulletins, finishing my vestry tenure and saying farewell to my charges in youth ministry is to write a letter of resignation to the bishop, and pray that it might actually express the horror of what TEC has become in a short time.
This is why I could not stay in the Episcopal Church.
From Stand Firm [boldface mine]:
". . . As a Christian who is privileged to be an Episcopal priest and equally privileged to be President of the New Jersey chapter of the Religious Coalition of Religious Choice, I couldn't be more proud of my church for its compassionate, pro-life stand.
Yes, I said PRO-LIFE. Even a quick read of the official position of TEC will leave no doubt that we, as a church, are supportive of the life of the embryo / fetus, the life of the mother, and the life of the family.
I am proud of my church that it, like I, and like many, many Episcopalians abhor abortion as a method of birth control - which is crystal clear after reading our position on abortion and our funding of the RCRC (let those who have ears, hear . . . and intellect, think).
I am proud of my church that we have resisted the emotionally manipulative pictures of abortion and pre-term abortion which are tragically necessitated by the harsh realities of those involved. . .
I am proud of my church that every woman - yes, including the life of a woman who is a priest, married or not, - can make the painful, awful, life-determining decision about whether or not she can make a commitment to the embryonic life she carries in her body, depending on the opinion of her physician and pediatrician, her assessment, based on the opinion of the probability of the support of the father of her potential child, and the ability of her family and community to support her decision. . .
I am proud of my church which understands that the advance of diagnostic procedures still falls far behind the information needed to make a timely decision about the lifelong commitment to a new life, necessitating the "pre-term" (aka "partial abortion"), which, at this point in time, is perfectly legal and, therefore, cannot be called "murder" - any more than the execution of a profoundly retarded person who has committed murder. . .
I am proud that The Episcopal Church supports the sex education which is championed by NCRC to avoid pregnancy in the first place, including the choices of abstinence, birth control, and, if tragically necessary, abortion.
I am proud that The Episcopal Church respects the "dignity of every human being" in our baptism covenant and prays, during that baptism, that the child receives "the gift of wonder of all of God's creation."
I am proud of The Episcopal Church and our baptismal covenant, which is not replicated throughout the World Wide Anglican Communion and, perhaps, ought to be.
What greatly distresses me is that there are those who would triumph the simplicity of their own state of sin so that others might feel guilty about the difficulty and complexity of the reality of their own morality.
Blessings,
(the Rev'd Dr) Elizabeth Kaeton"
Yes, you read that right. According to the Swan of Newark, our baptismal covenant requires that we support abortion.
I have to admit, this resonanted with me. I remember this debate and that I had no idea who Admiral Stockdale was - I just followed the media circus. It wasn't until years later that I learned about his record and his heroism. We need to always remember that those running for public office are not caricatures of media projection, but real people deserving our fair hearing and consideration.
From Kathy Shaidle at five feet of fury [non-italic boldface mine]:
His son writes:Anyone over 30 will probably remember the spectacle. (...)
My father, a bona fide war hero, was trying to adapt to a format of discourse utterly foreign to him.
The debate hall was noisy, hot and nasty. My mom took a bad fall just before coming out to sit down. She, the strongest woman I know, broke into tears as she was overcome with emotion. Her four sons tried to console her.
Dad entered the race reluctantly, and only due to the deep gratitude he had for the aid Mr. Perot extended to him and my mom while he was a prisoner of war in Vietnam.
As everyone saw that evening, he was not a politician. He was a fighter-pilot ace, a Medal of Honor recipient, and a wonderful dad and human being. During his eight years as a POW, he slit his scalp and beat his face with a stool to prevent his captors from parading him in the streets for propaganda purposes. He gave starving men his food rations when he himself was starving. And at home, after his release in 1973, he was a respected leader, scholar and writer. He considered himself a philosopher.
I watched that debate too. I knew nothing about Stockdale; in fact, I don't even remember him being introduced as "Admiral". Not that that would have mattered to me. I was still a vestigal lefty, military-hating peacenik, although just barely.
I squirmed in my seat as Stockdale struggled to fit his answers into the tiny allotment of time, and the audience snickered.
Somehow, the next day, amid all the vicious mockery of Stockdale's performance, and of Perot for selecting him, I learned about the Admiral's past as a brave POW, and his current life as a college professor. Perot must have said as much in an angry post-debate interview.
That evening, my then-best friend (now my key ex-9/11 friend, as I call them) came over. She repeated all the late night talk show hosts' jokes about Stockdale, and -- to her surprise, and mine -- I exploded:
"Don't you know this guy was the leader of his fellow POWs, who kept them going all that time? Don't you know the guy teaches, like, rhetoric or something at some Ivy League college? Jesus, we complain that politicians speak in soundbites and when someone comes along who doesn't, we complain about that! "
Chastened, my friend admitted she hadn't known or thought of any of that. And why would she have? In those pre-internet days, that's just how it was for most people. . .
Some people call themselves "9/11 conservatives" but I guess I'm more a "Stockdale" conservative myself. It had nothing to do with anything Stockdale said that night -- any policy ideas or great philosophical notions (which he wasn't able to articulate in the format anyway...)
It was the reaction of kneejerk liberals and leftists to Stockdale's performance that turned me off -- just as most people join or leave religions based on [ed. not] upon apologetics and theology but upon the behaviour of other believers. . .
Christopher Johnson nails it [boldface mine]:
. . . To put it bluntly, if you have not left the Episcopal Organization by now, you will never leave it. If TEO’s wholesale abandonment of orthodox Christianity, its fawning prostration before the secular culture, five years worth of deceptions and lies designed to advance the interest of its Homosexual Party and the cowardly refusal of Lambeth Palace to do anything at all about any of it have not convinced you to move on, nothing ever will.
Face facts. All you are doing by remaining an Episcopalian is delaying the inevitable. This doesn’t affect my church, you tell me. My rector/bishop is impeccably orthodox. He may well be.
But bet your retirement on this; his successor will be less so and his successor even less than that. Before you realize what’s happened, you may find yourself with a rector and/or bishop who uses “Godself” in his sermons and preaches next-to nothing about sin or the Resurrection but quite a bit about whether “justice” is being done to the “LGBT community.”
This is why I hope for the sake of the Anglican tradition, that a conservative North American province is formed as soon as possible, whether or not Rowan Williams, Katharine Jefferts Schori, Fred Hiltz or anyone else approves. And conservative Anglicans should not wait for a province to be awarded to them. They should simply announce its existence.
What if my gracious lord of Canterbury calls the action “unhelpful and premature?” What if the Anglican Consultative Council is bribed by Trinity(Wall Street) jack convinced to refuse recognition to the new province? Non-recognition should change nothing.
Conservative Anglicans should immediately begin to set their own policies, call their own ”Lambeth Conferences” and issue their own statements. In other words, they should start acting as though the Archbishop of Canterbury no longer existed.
But without the Canterbury connection, these churches would no longer be Anglican. What of it? As a body, the Anglican Communion is a little more than a century old. The “apostolic” nature of the Church of England itself rests on a shaky rhetorical sleight-of-hand and the Episcopal Organization’s “historicity” is even dicier than that.
Western Anglicanism is not advancing the Gospel in any meaningful way. To those Anglicans truly interested in doing the work the Master assigned them, groups like the Episcopal Organization and the Anglican Organization of Canada are dead weights. Why not cut them loose?. . .
From Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit:
A READER AT A MAJOR NEWSROOM EMAILS:"Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its working."
I asked permission to reprint without attribution and it was granted. . .
One observation from a layman and one from a bishop, both arriving at basically the same conclusion - the Episcopal Church as we knew it is toast, and burnt toast at that.
From Captain Yips [boldface mine]:
. . . And revulsion over the descent of what’s left of The Episcopal Church into mere lawless chaos. With the contrived and illicit expulsion of the Bishop of Pittsburgh, the House of Bishops, the same House that tolerates the manifold inanities of John Spong, that couldn’t bring itself to bring James Pike to account, has declared its absolute irrelevance - to anything. How the vote was contrived and excused is not terrifically important. With it, the EpiscoLeft has declared that the revolution must go forward.
I am, happily, out of TEC and won’t return. The fight in the Diocese of Chicago was lost a long time ago, probably when I was in my 20s, and when we didn’t know there was a fight on anyway. . .
. . . Once again within a few months the landscape of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion has changed—as if Gafcon and Lambeth were not enough. What does this deposition mean? Frankly, it is still unfolding, but I offer the following reflections:
• The House of Bishops whether intentionally or not has enhanced the power of the Presiding Bishop. With consequences far beyond the deposition of The Rt. Reverend Robert Duncan, this vote by interpretation and application of Title IV.9, has established invasive reach for the PB. It is now possible for a sitting bishop of TEC to be deposed without prior inhibition or trial, rendering superfluous the role of the three Senior Bishops of the House. Beyond this is the quizzical ruling that it takes more votes from the House to receive the resignation of a retiring bishop then to depose a sitting one! Then there is the curious fact that it takes a two-thirds vote of the house to overturn a ruling of the chair, thus when combined with rendering moot the role of the senior bishops and the plain reference to a needed “majority of the whole house entitled to vote” in Title IV.9—there is enhanced power to the PB regardless of who may hold the chair, now or in the future. A development mercurial indeed, when one considers the PB and House of Bishops have repeatedly declined the authority to speak on behalf of The Episcopal Church when queried for commitments by the Communion’s Instruments of Unity; deferring instead to the authority of General Convention. . .
All of this leads me to believe that the challenges that lie before a predominately conservative diocese like South Carolina have now been enormously increased if only because of the perception of our parishioners and clergy—but, more pertinently from what I fear is a failure of the present House of Bishops to realize just how far from historic Christianity our church has drifted. To many of our minds this, far more than Pittsburgh’s present challenge to TEC’s discipline and polity, is what has led to this current crisis. Beyond this the checks and balances previously given to us in the Constitution & Canons seem profoundly weakened. Phrases long understood as clear apparently can be spoken of as ambiguous. If what appears to be the plain meaning of a canon can be dismissed with apparent ease and with no recourse; if the request from such a monumental gathering as Lambeth 2008 urging greater dialogue and forthright conversation within the body of Christ seems to count for so little here in the first action of the House—even after so many TEC bishops report being profoundly moved by the grace exhibited toward us from those provinces grieved and hindered by our prior actions; and when there seems to be so little recognition that it has been the very actions of our General Convention and HOB in recent years that has so alienated dioceses like San Joaquin, Pittsburgh and others that their laity and clergy vote in such large majorities to remove accession clauses—judicious governance and Christian unity will drain like water from an opened hand. One might have wished for a more generous spirit and greater patience toward our own aggrieved members. Indeed one has to wonder where such tone deafness and purblindness come from. . .
Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.
Philippians 4:6-8
I haven't seen this movie yet, but I have heard about it and plan to go.
From SanDiegoAnglicans.com:
A "two-thumbs-up" recommendation for Fireproof (out this weekend) from Fr. Eric Menees, Rector of Anglican Church of the Resurrection, San Marcos, who attended the pre-release review. If you don't already know, Fr. Menees is especially qualified to recommend to recommend a film with a first responder theme; he serves as chaplain to several emergency services groups in North County.
From an email to his parish. . .
Via email from Bishop David Anderson of the American Anglican Council [boldface mine]:
Dearly Beloved,
There are a number of issues to look at this week. In the United States, the financial crisis continues to deepen, with concerns about jobs, homes, and savings being an increasing topic of conversation among ordinary folks. People are not of one mind as to what the solution is, but with the people feeling uncertain, churches and charitable organizations may feel the impact of this insecurity. Another area that individuals, churches and organizations are looking at is the security and strength of their personal bank accounts, and whether the US Government provides insurance for those accounts. Some people and organizations may be thinking they have more insurance for their bank accounts than they really do. Sitting down and talking with your banker about your situation might be a good thing to do fairly soon.
I would urge churches especially to look at their financial assets, talk to their banker, and see if they need to spread their accounts over two or more banks, so that each account is fully FDIC insured. It also calls to mind the fact that we ought not to put our trust in wealth, but in the one who saves us, blesses us, and provides for our needs.
On a happier note, support for Bishop Duncan is pouring in from around the world. Of course, The Episcopal Church doesn't much care whether the Anglican World disapproves of the way she handled the situation, she would say that the rest of the world was just ignorant of the facts as she has determined them, and if they were properly briefed, they would naturally agree with her. Six English bishops have said that they continue to regard Duncan as a bishop in good standing in the Anglican Communion, and this is in addition to messages sent from all corners of the Communion.
Now the countdown is on to the Pittsburgh Diocesan Convention on October 4 - what will happen? Will Katharine Jefferts Schori attempt to intervene in the proceedings, or will she wait until the meeting is concluded to take any actions she may be planning? I suspect a great many would agree with the Rt. Rev. Colin Basley, who wrote a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury calling for the immediate suspension of the Episcopal Church from any further participation in activities of the Anglican Communion, and calling for recognition of a new orthodox North American Anglican Province named Common Cause Partners Federation.
In many ways, the spiritual/ecclesiastical Anglican Communion meltdown is comparable to the financial meltdown in the US business world. In the latter, people bought sub-prime loans that were in effect bad paper, passed them on to others as if they were the real thing, trust was broken, and lies and deceit led to the economic ruination of many - and it isn't over yet! In the spiritual/ecclesiastical realm, church leaders in North America put together sub-prime, bogus spiritual truths, passed them on to others as if they were the real thing, persecuted those who raised the alarm, and as a result, trust has been broken, lives spiritually ruined, lies and deceit have caused many to leave their churches and reorganize in line with traditional Christian beliefs, and this is leading to the ecclesiastical ruination of many. The problem with spiritual ruination is that you might wind up in hell (yes, that place that TEC leaders don't believe in - or if it does exist, only a few of us will be in it!).
Meanwhile, the bishop of Washington DC, John Chane, has sued the Central Union Mission over their receipt of government funds to provide help for the homeless in the city. The Mission is a Christian organization, and as part of their feeding and assistance program, they require those participating to attend nightly religious services. Why is Bishop Chane attacking those who help the poor and homeless? Could it be because the Central Union Mission has provided space for an Anglican congregation associated with CANA (St. Brendan's in the City), to hold weekly Sunday evening services? The official reason that Bishop Chane claims is that government help to Central Union Mission is supposedly a violation of the US Constitution, since they require attendance at religious services.
In his opinion, the government isn't supposed to give money to churches: separation of church and state and all that, you know. However, Chane is the bishop of the Washington National Cathedral, and one wonders if the Cathedral hasn't accepted money from the government in one form or another, perhaps for major events held there, or for arts programs, or some other types of event. We know that the Washington DC police department has a police radio relay unit at the very top of the main tower of the Cathedral, and one wonders what other joint ventures the Cathedral has had with city or federal government. It may be that Bishop Chane hasn't had time to see the plank in his own eye.
Let us hope and pray that the ministry of Central Union Mission to the hungry and homeless and to those who need to find God in their lives, is able to continue unimpeded by any Chane-sponsored litigation.
Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,
The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council
Check out Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson to see his 5-part interview with Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, author of Render Unto Caesar (a book well worth reading)!
H/t to Judith L.
Spring and Fall
to a young child
MÁRGARÉT, áre you gríeving
Over Goldengrove unleaving?
Leáves, líke the things of man, you
With your fresh thoughts care for, can you?
Áh! ás the heart grows older
It will come to such sights colder
By and by, nor spare a sigh
Though worlds of wanwood leafmeal lie;
And yet you wíll weep and know why.
Now no matter, child, the name:
Sórrow’s spríngs áre the same.
Nor mouth had, no nor mind, expressed
What heart heard of, ghost guessed:
It ís the blight man was born for,
It is Margaret you mourn for.
From Jeff at Protein Wisdom [boldface mine]:
. . . A free society cannot run this way. If information is power, those who control the information and its mainstream dissemination are in a position to act as the most important swing vote in any election. That the press has given up, at this late stage (and despite declines in readership and public trust), any serious attempt to report objectively suggests that we are now quite immersed in a battle for the very principles of a democratic republic. Progressives have decided that the ends justify the means — that lies in the service of greater truths (as defined by their own ideology) are both pragmatic and utilitarian measures to be adopted so that “we” can finally get things “right,” and accept government from a permanent political class, a new aristocracy, that will expand the federal government in ways that will protect us from ourselves, in the process, assuring that ever new generations will be reliable upon the good graces of the federal government for their survival.
The new media held promise for fighting back. But the left recognized this immediately and built a counter balance to the MSM fact-checkers — and, in a perverse expansion of their role as foils, these progressive “netroots” are now responsible for feeding stories to the mainstream press, a further assault on the Enlightenment mandate for the free exchange of ideas, and further proof that progressives are every bit the totalitarians and would be fascists that I have long suggested they must necessarily be, given the philosophical imperatives that underwrite their political philosophy. . .
For my part, I’d just like to again reiterate that, should the press be allowed to comport itself this way under the current mythology that it is dedicated to “objectivity,” then every election will be necessarily skewed — if not by Evan Thomas’ infamous 15 percentage points, than at least by a number significant enough that it could very well be the deciding factor in every major election.
At which point, we’re dealing with no more than simulacrums of free elections, and the idea that we live in a democratic republic is but a useful fiction we tell ourselves as we slide ever more toward western European socialism and away from the principles this country was founded upon.
What’s the solution? I don’t know. But my suggestion would be either a press that surrenders the pretense of objectivity all together, or else some brave upstart looking for market share to come in with a clean slate of dedicated reporters who are taught not to “frame” facts into narratives that deliver “lessons,” but are rather instructed to report basic facts, almost genealogically — and without even the trappings of narrative.
Even then, omission and sequencing can be used to affect interpretation; but at least such things are easily recognizable when the tropes of “storytelling” are entirely removed.
From Jay Sekulow on Beliefnet [boldface mine]:
In an inexplicable move, some religious organizations will host a dinner reception on September 25 for one of the world's most renowned terrorist supporters, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He has been asked to speak on the topic, "Has Not One God Created Us? The Significance of Religious Contributions to Peace." I stand with the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom in strongly condemning this move by the American Friends Service Committee, the Mennonite Central Committee, the World Council of Churches, and the Episcopal Church.
. . . On May 8, [2008,] in a speech to members of the Majlis (Iran's parliament), [Ahmadinejad] referred to Israel as "a stinking corpse" and little better than "dead rats." Ahmadinejad – who says the Jewish state plays the role of "the Little Satan" to the "The Great Satan" (the U.S.) and has pledged to "wipe Israel off the map" to bring about the revelation of the "Twelfth Imam" (a messianic Shiite figure) and the worldwide dominion of Islam - promised that those who "assist the Zionist regime…will burn in fire."
Ahmadinejad is a man who has repeatedly called for the annihilation of the Jewish state of Israel, rejects religious freedom, and embraces terrorism. It is well known that Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and is notorious for denying that the Holocaust occurred, saying of the West, "[t]hey have invented a myth that Jews were massacred."
Ahmadinejad has also warned that "[a]nybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."
Just recently, the Iranian Parliament voted in favor of a bill permitting the death penalty for "apostasy," i.e., voluntarily changing one's religious faith.
Under this law, "Christians, Baha'is, and even some Muslims would be vulnerable to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. . . . [T]wo Christians from Muslim backgrounds who are currently in prison for apostasy--Mahmoud Mohammad Matin-Azad and Arash Ahmad-Ali Basirat--could be given the death sentence.". . .
From Stand Firm, mousestalker makes a perspicacious comment in reference to the letter sent to Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh by Katharine Jefferts Schori [boldface mine]:
. . . A minor point, but does no one at 815 know how to write a letter anymore. When you’re being all chummy and collegial you get to use first names.
Example:
Right Reverend Frank Enbeans
Bishop of Bray, Bray City USA
Dear Frank,
It was swell seeing you at the auto de fa. I hope you can make the one in the spring. Best to Fanny and the kids,
Your sister in christ,
Katherine
For something formal, like a deposition, you write formally:
Right Reverend Robert Duncan
Bishop of Pittsburgh,
Dear Bishop Duncan,
It is my duty to inform you that the House of Bishops has deposed you. Your seat is therefore vacant and all honours, rights and privileges that formerly adhered to you are removed. Enclosed please find copies of documents showing the same.
Sincerely,
Katherine Jefferts Schori,
Presiding Bishop and Primate
End of letter writing lesson.
This is not a friendly letter. It cannot possibly be well meant. Don’t imply that it is. The Episcopal Church, as a church, has always been dodgy with its theology. I wish that were not so, but it is. What the Episcopal Church has always had until recently is manners.
The current leadership of the Episcopal Church, not just the ‘presiding bishop and primate’ but top to bottom are crass. What we have is a church being led by a bunch of louts in mitres. Ill bred, poorly educated, bad mannered thugs who have no idea of how to behave, no idea of how to treat people and no idea of the basics of human civilization.
The Presiding Bishop is the poster child for the principle that while most women have better manners than men, that is not true of all women. I doubt that teaching the episcopate proper theology would do any good. . .
From the Diocese of Virginia [boldface mine]:
The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia announced today that the trial scheduled to begin October 6 will focus solely on the issue of which properties occupied by the CANA congregations are actually subject to their 57-9 petitions.
Though loyal Episcopalians have expressed grave concerns about the validity and fairness of the voting procedures used by the CANA congregations, the Diocese will forgo judicial review of that process to focus on those issues that will most effectively and quickly return Episcopalians to their church homes and result in the overturning of the 57-9 "Division Statute."
The Diocese is preparing to mount a vigorous appeal that addresses the serious legal and religious questions and implications that have arisen from this unfortunate situation. The Diocese will explore fully every option available to restore constitutional and legal protections for all churches in Virginia.
In a trial beginning on October 6, the Court will examine precisely which property is subject to the Division Statute petitions filed by CANA congregations. The Court will determine several issues either before or during trial, including whether the congregation attempting to take the property actually owns the property they seek under its 57-9 petition, whether deed restrictions require the property to remain with the Episcopal Church, and, in one instance, whether a last-minute transfer of property was valid. Once these issues are decided, the Diocese will appeal the Court's rulings on the applicability and validity of the Division Statute.
"In the Episcopal Church, congregations exist because they are in communion with the bishop of a diocese, through recognition by diocesan governing bodies," said the Rt. Rev. Peter James Lee, Bishop of Virginia. "They cannot unilaterally disestablish themselves or remove themselves from a diocese, and take Episcopal property with them, using the secular court system to validate their actions."
The Diocese is steadfast in its goal of returning faithful Episcopalians to their church homes and restoring the full and time-honored protections of the First Amendment and the Virginia Constitution for religious freedom.
"The court proceedings of the past several months have shown that the Division Statute, which exists only in Virginia, is uniquely hostile to religious freedom and our faith. We are resolute in our commitment to pursue every avenue in seeking the return of Episcopalians who have been exiled from their church homes," said Bishop Lee.
The Diocese again noted the regrettable necessity of these proceedings. "While we have hoped that the CANA congregations would propose a reasonable alternative to litigation," said Henry D.W. Burt, Secretary of the Diocese, "the Church must vigorously protect the legacy of those faithful generations who have gone before for those who will follow."
A tale of two church responses.
On the one side, the Church of England (from Cranmer) [boldface mine]:
Cranmer is sick and tired of this utter nonsense. It makes the Church of England look and sound even more ridiculous that it already does - if that were possible. In the creation of a cohesive society and for the pursuit of the common good, it is conceivable that one might entertain an apology to the descendants of slaves for the role the Church played in that trade, and even to attempt some sort of bridge-building exercise with Muslims by apologising for the Crusades. But who exactly is the target audience for an apology addressed to Charles Darwin? Who is grieving for reconciliation?
Some scientists dismiss the gesture as ‘ludicrous’; Mr Darwin’s descendants describe it as ‘pointless’, and Ann Widdecombe wonders why the Italians aren’t apologising for Pontius Pilate.
The apology is written by the Rev Dr Malcolm Brown. It raises so many issues of credibility that Cranmer is at a loss to know where to begin.
Apparently, the apology is ‘for misunderstanding his theory of evolution’. Apart from the fact that the Church has historically ‘misunderstood’ far more important things, the Church of England did not actually ‘misunderstand’ Darwin’s theory at all, not least because (as always) it was divided on the issue. The bishops understood completely the significance of the nexus of the theory (and theory it remains) - that man is the progeny of apes. It really is so simple that even a bishop in the Church of England can comprehend it. Looking at the similarity between Mr Darwin and Dr Williams, it may indeed be adduced that they have a common hairy ancestor. But believers were and are divided into those who perceive this theory to be anti-Scripture and profoundly evil, and those for whom it is but another possible explanation of how God created, totally consistent with Scripture.
It is possible to be so preoccupied by atoning vicariously for the sins of one’s predecessors that one ceases to be aware of one’s personal failures and shortcomings. . .
The Vatican said on Tuesday the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible but planned no posthumous apology to Charles Darwin for the cold reception it gave him 150 years ago. ...
Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, the Vatican’s culture minister, was speaking at the announcement of a Rome conference of scientists, theologians and philosophers to be held next March marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s “The Origin of Species”. ...
“Maybe we should abandon the idea of issuing apologies as if history was a court eternally in session,” he said, adding that Darwin’s theories were “never condemned by the Catholic Church nor was his book ever banned”.
From George Conger:
There will be no consequences to the American church for its push for gay bishops and blessings, bishops attending the opening session of the US House of Bishops meeting in Salt Lake City said in closed door session on Sept 17.
On the opening day of the three-day special session, called by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori to discuss the 2008 Lambeth Conference, but amended on Sept 12 by the Presiding Bishop to act upon her motion to depose conservative leader Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan, the bishops offered their reactions to Lambeth.
From Steve Wood of the Diocese of South Carolina, thoughts on his recent meeting with the presiding bishop and six other rectors:
What I think:
I think that the financial challenges facing the reorganization of the National Church offices could be addressed with a return to creedal Christianity and a cessation of the lawsuits.
I think that the conservative/re-asserting remnant will get their legislative clocks cleaned at General Convention 2009.
I think that B033 is going to be repealed at General Convention 2009.
I think that the marriage (in States where the legislature or courts have ruled this legal) or blessing of same-sex persons will be authorized at General Convention 2009.
I think that the 2009 General Convention will modify the “Dennis Canon”, giving the National Church property ownership (it’s hard to remember that until 1979 PARISHES “owned” their property - not the Diocese or National Church).
I think that many in leadership at the 2009 General Convention will be content to walk apart from the Anglican Communion.
I think that based on the experience with women’s ordination the 2009 General Convention will debate, and defeat, a “conscious clause” with regard to same-sex ordinations and blessings/marriages.
I think that the above actions will render it impossible for anyone left from “my side” to remain within TEC (though, of course, some will).
What I hope:
That a new North American Anglican Province is formed in the very near future.
We went to Italy over Thanksgiving two years ago, and of course did the Florence tour and saw the David. I hope they don't have to put it under a protective cover - how sad.
From the Times Online (U.K.):
Four years after it was last cleaned and repaired Michelangelo's statue of David in Florence is "at risk of collapse", according to a restoration expert.Read it all.
Antonio Borri, professor of construction engineering at Perugia University and part of the team monitoring the statue's state of conservation, said that cracks which been repaired during a 2004 restoration marking the 500th anniversary of the statue's creation had re-appeared.
A seminar in Florence tomorrow will discuss the options for saving the statue, which is kept at the Galleria dell Accademia and attracts more than a million people a year. These include enclosing it in a protective covering to stop further deterioration and even closing it to the public altogether for a period.
Professor Borri, who is a Florentine, said that the cracks had "re-opened one by one. David is coming apart". He said the blame lay with traffic vibrations and the pressure of thousands of daily visitors. Michelangelo's masterpiece — held by many to be the most perfect representation of the nude male form ever sculpted — was also vulnerable because of its huge size and the poor quality of marble Michelangelo used, Professor Borri said.
He said that the statue was under "round the clock observation", and seismic monitors would be inserted under the statue's base to measure the vibrations. "We have got to do something quickly," he said. However Cristina Acidini, head of museums in Florence, played down the alarm.
Professor Acidini said: "We are evaluating what measures to take to protect the statue in view of its known fragility", but there was "no cause for immediate concern". The statue was being constantly monitored, and the only danger of collapse would be if Florence was struck by an unusually powerful earthquake. "But in that case the museum itself would be at risk, together with much of Florence's artistic heritage.". . .
From Hills of the North:
. . . That said, for all intents and purposes the Episcopal Church as a church died yesterday. In purporting to depose Bishop Robert Duncan, two-thirds of those bishops who attended the House of Bishops meeting did something so blatantly and brazenly unlawful under the canons and so patently violative of Robert's Rules that they in effect announced that within our church words and laws and truth no longer matter. All that matters is power. Not the power of the Gospel, mind you--but raw human secular power, exercised for political purposes. Those bishops who voted to depose (and the one cowardly Judas who changed his vote after being sure it wasn't needed to destroy his brother bishop) openly and proudly embraced what was a lie--that there had been abandonment of Communion--and did so by embracing transparent lies about what the canons and parliamentary procedure actually said. Those charged to guard the truth yesterday gleefully showed their fealty to the very opposite. . .
Years from now, this action by the House of Bishops may well prove to have been a tipping point for the Episcopal Church. There are many for whom this will be the final straw, not because they have any association or necessarily even agreement with Bishop Duncan, but because it reveals what a corrupt organization they find themselves a part of. Others will realize that they cannot any longer do business with (and certainly not follow) those for whom words are meaningless, law is nothing more than an instrument of power, and truth is nonexistent. And still others will leave weary of the fight, and yearning for spiritual refreshment they cannot get from what is now indisputably a secular organization (and actually something less than most secular organizations, since few could abide such dishonesty in their leaders). In short, the exodus of the orthodox will continue and likely accelerate. This is likely exactly what the Presiding Bishop and her minions want, as they undoubtedly believe that if all the retrograde evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics would just go away, there's no limit to the greatness a progressive Episcopal Church can achieve. The evidence, of course, has been quite to the contrary, but perhaps the accelerating membership loss will help put the lie to this fantasy. . .
Finally, it's worth considering what difference yesterday's events will have in an average Episcopal Church, ones such as our two parishes here. I think it's plain enough that there will be little if any effect in the short run. The chances that even a half-dozen parishioners knew the House of Bishops was meeting is pretty small, and fewer still probably have any idea who Robert Duncan is. What happened doesn't affect the work the altar guild has to do, or the music the choir is rehearsing. It doesn't affect a parish's social outreach. It doesn't change the liturgy (yet), or alter the service times. Certainly it won't occasion the interest of reorienting the furnishings in the church, or getting a new stained glass window. If the Presiding Bishop is betting on the ignorance or nonchalance of the average pew dweller, she is making a pretty sure bet.
That's not to say there won't be an effect eventually, and a pretty potent one. The average age of those in Episcopal Church pews is high and increasing, and it's not as if the average Episcopal Church is full of children and young people and young families. There's a reason churches all around ours are opening and growing, and ours are at best in a steady state, despite population growth. And the trajectory to which the larger Episcopal Church is now committed is not one that is likely to spur growth or giving. In time that will affect the average parish church, and the average parish church here. And some years from now when we wonder why our numbers are down, and why people aren't pledging, and why no new families are joining, and how this all happened, we will be able to point to the House of Bishops meeting of September 18, 2008, as the day our church, as a church, died.
For the most comprehensive round-up on the HOB actions against Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh and world-wide reaction to those actions, check out TitusOneNine!
From Ed Morrissey at HotAir [boldface mine]:
In yet another revealing moment for nationalized health care, a highly respected British ethicist said that dementia sufferers should get euthanized in order to preserve resources for healthier people. Baroness Warnock, described as “Britain’s leading moral philosopher”, said that the government should license people to be “put down” and stop being a drain on society:The veteran Government adviser said pensioners in mental decline are “wasting people’s lives” because of the care they require and should be allowed to opt for euthanasia even if they are not in pain.
She insisted there was “nothing wrong” with people being helped to die for the sake of their loved ones or society.
The 84-year-old added that she hoped people will soon be “licensed to put others down” if they are unable to look after themselves. …
Lady Warnock said: “If you’re demented, you’re wasting people’s lives – your family’s lives – and you’re wasting the resources of the National Health Service.
“I’m absolutely, fully in agreement with the argument that if pain is insufferable, then someone should be given help to die, but I feel there’s a wider argument that if somebody absolutely, desperately wants to die because they’re a burden to their family, or the state, then I think they too should be allowed to die.
“Actually I’ve just written an article called ‘A Duty to Die?’ for a Norwegian periodical. I wrote it really suggesting that there’s nothing wrong with feeling you ought to do so for the sake of others as well as yourself.”
Shocking? It shouldn’t be. When the State has the burden of providing “free” medical care, that care will get rationed in ways that are, unfortunately, all too predictable. Human life stops being sacred and instead becomes a commodity with a balance sheet. If bureaucrats decide that a particular life, or a class of life, has become a net negative, then eventually they will find ways to eliminate the liability.
Totalitarian governments have always worked this way; the shock comes from the same impulse occuring in supposedly enlightened democracies. We’re seeing a new kind of government these nanny states, though — a democratic totalitarianism that makes all of the choices for its subjects after they willingly give the bureaucracy the power of life and death over them. It’s a voluntary totalitarianism, and it starts by assigning government the role of caretaker from cradle to grave, the latter point coming at their choosing.
Western civilization built itself on the sanctity of human life and the rights of the individual. It doesn’t take much for Westerners to give up that birthright. The only incentive for voluntary slavery appears to be low-cost prescriptions and catastrophic hospital coverage. Once we buy into that system, all manner of personal choices get removed: the foods you can eat, the beverages you can drink, your pastimes, and apparently your right not to be murdered just to clear a hospital bed. . .
From Kevin at AnglicanTV, an interview with Bishop Robert Duncan of the Diocese of Pittsburgh:
You are welcome to embed this in your blog/website. However, you must credit AnglicanTV with a hyperlink.
And this is one reason why:
“Today’s decision was difficult and emotional but a necessary action to care for the order of the Church, the people of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, and the collegiality of the House of Bishops.”
From Newsbusters:
In stunningly self-centered, cruel fashion, Nicholas Provenzo, writer for the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism suggests that Sarah Palin’s decision to give birth to a child with Down Syndrome, is a financial burden that others are forced to suffer with.
Provenzo, who has written opinion pieces for the Washington Times, Capitalism Magazine, and the Atlanta Journal Constitution, as well as being a guest on Bill Maher’s former show, Politically Incorrect, makes his case for “the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome.”
The full first paragraph of the piece which is circulating amidst the blogosphere reads (emphasis mine):Like many, I am troubled by the implications of Alaska governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome. Given that Palin's decision is being celebrated in some quarters, it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)—a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny.
Morally justifiable reasons for killing a baby? There is no justifiable reason for taking any child's life, and to call it a moral obligation to society is undeniably one of the more disgusting things to be written by a human being, about another human being.
In fact, advocating the abortion of a child based on the potential of that child having a disease or imperfection of some kind raises echoes of Nazi Germany’s quest for an Aryan race.
The suggestion that another life should be ended based on the presence of an extra chromosome, and that another healthy individual’s own life is more precious because of that, is over the top narcissism.
Maybe this shouldn’t surprise quite so much. After all, it wasn’t too long ago that sick individuals were offering up baby Trig on ebay. We live in a society where skeptics simply can't admire someone who stands on their principals. They must tear them down by insinuating that such a move is merely a political prop. Or, in this case, they argue that choosing life was actually a selfish move. A stunning argument to say the least.
However, Mr. Provenzo demonstrates his own level of selfishness in his rant. He doesn’t go the typical route of the pro-choice crowd, but reveals some very bizarre reasoning for why it is Palin’s obligation to have killed her baby boy. . .
From the Times (U.K.):
Christian and other religious groups opposed to abortion were allowed to advertise on Google for the first time from today, after the search engine capitulated in the face of a legal challenge.
Google had banned pro-life religious groups from buying adverts against search terms such as “abortion” and “abortion help” but was forced to abandon its policy after it was accused of breaching equalities legislation.
The challenge was brought by the Christian Institute, a cross-denominational pressure group, who said that Google’s change of heart was an acknowledgement of the rights of everybody to hold an opinion on the subject.
Mike Judge from the Christian Institute said: “Google were taking adverts from pro-abortion groups, and our view is that was a free speech issue. What we want to do is set out the acts in a pretty factual and pretty sensible way”.
Google had been taken to court by the Christian Institute earlier in the year, arguing that its policy was in breach of the Equalities Act of 2006. Initially, Google said it would fight in the courts, but changed its mind over the summer. Its new policy applies globally.
Acknowledging that the issue of abortion was “an emotive subject”, Google said that it reconsidered its policy following the Christian Institute’s challenge, and said it would be “creating a level playing field and enabling religious associations to place ads on abortion in a factual way”.
However, it was unclear how Google would define the introduction of factual advertising. . .
From the Province VIII website [boldface mine]:
Province VIII representatives, who gathered Sept. 10-11 for their regular business meeting near San Francisco, also prepared for next July's General Convention by sharing the stories of their lives.
About 75 bishops, clergy and laity elected officers, approved a $560,000 triennial budget and celebrated the establishment of new ministries. They were also the first provincial leaders to participate in the public narrative project, expected to frame a mission conversation at the national governing convention in Anaheim, California.
The Rev. John "Jack" Eastwood, re-elected for a second term as provincial president, encouraged attendees also to "go back to their dioceses and tell the story of the province … of sharing a Pentecost vision of unity by doing together in faith what we cannot do alone."
Since the last triennium, provincial leaders have reduced administrative expenses significantly, while increasing program costs nearly two-fold to about $100,000, Eastwood told the gathering. . .
The Rev. Gregory Straub, Secretary of Convention and Bonnie Anderson, President of the House of Deputies, joined the gathering for a General Convention orientation session and public narrative training workshop.
Public narrative is a leadership art that can be used by members of the Episcopal Church to articulate individual and collective stories as well as the call to action emerging from those stories and communities, according to Anderson. It connects with the convention theme, "ubuntu … I am because you are" which recognizes interdependence with one another.
"Today we are the place where the pebble is thrown into the pond. Today we begin a journey to General Convention; we will learn a technique for having that conversation," Anderson told the gathering.
She described public narrative as a "tool to build bridges to relationships, relationships to each other" which grew out of a General Convention 2006 resolution (D043). The training will be offered to all provincial synods prior to July 8, when the 76th General Convention convenes.
Well-known musician Fran McKendree offered music and the gathering warmly greeted participants from the continuing Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, all of whom were "first-time" deputies to General Convention, according to the Rev. Mark Hall, diocesan canon to the ordinary.
"We represent about 1,500 people and 19 parishes and missions," he said, amid applause and a standing ovation. . .
Elected to the provincial court of review were: Bishop Barry Beisner of Northern California; the Rev. Ernest Cockrell (El Camino Real); and the Rev. Canon Kent McNair (Northern California) and the Rev. John Scannell (Oregon). Laity elected to the board of review were: Michael Dotten (Oregon); Donald Mullins (Olympia) and Miles Snyder (Northern California).
The dioceses included in Province VIII are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Eastern Oregon, El Camino Real (California), Hawaii, Idaho, Los Angeles, Navajoland Area Mission, Nevada, Northern California, Olympia, Oregon, San Diego, San Joaquin, Spokane, Taiwan and Utah.
If you want to understand what's going on with Bishop Robert Duncan in Pittsburgh, head over the the Anglican Curmudgeon and read, read, read:
Regular readers of this site will not be surprised by the announcement from the Presiding Bishop of her intentions to bring a resolution to depose the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh at the forthcoming fall meeting of the House of Bishops at Salt lake City. (A big tip of the Rumpolean bowler to Greg Griffith at StandFirm for making it available in advance.)
What may yet come as a surprise to some, however, is the brazenness with which the Presiding Bishop has laid out her plans in advance. She is without shame: she has announced to the House of Bishops, five days ahead of their meeting, the parliamentary rulings she will make on the canonical objections to proceeding with the resolution, and she lays out her specious, the-end-justifies-the-means reading of Canon IV.9 so there can be no mistake. (I had predicted such rulings would be made, but at the meeting itself---not five days in advance! I hope there will be some stalwart bishops present who will make the only response to such tyranny that can be made, and who by their departure will deprive those remaining of a quorum.)
The Presiding Bishop is a tyrant in episcopal garb. The tragedy is that she is aided and abetted in this power grab by so many Episcopal jurists, who now must be dubbed "soi-disant jurists."
(An aside: Up until now on this blog, I have striven to maintain the utmost civility and respect toward the Presiding Bishop, always addressing her by her proper title and name. With this latest dastardly and cowardly ukaze from her hand, however, I am forced to join the ranks of so many others who have lost their respect for her. From this point forward, I shall address her as: "The Chief Kaitiff of The Episcopal Church.")
The Chief Kaitiff first attempts to justify her crime against Canon IV.9 by summoning the support of her soi-disant jurists. . .
Correction: I took the headline from George Conger's blog and didn't notice that Barack Obama's first name is spelled wrong there [Barak], so I've corrected it above.
Original: "Separation of church and state" for thee, but not for me.
From George Conger [boldface mine]:
The Bishop of New Hampshire has broken with tradition and endorsed a candidate for political office. In a letter published on “LGBT for Obama,” a website that states it serves as the “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community’s online campaign to educate voters on John McCain’s anti-gay policies” Bishop Gene Robinson called on all LGBT voters to “put our differences and disappointments aside, and get behind the one candidate who has our interests at heart.”
On Sept 4 Bishop Robinson wrote LGBT voters were “faced with the most stark choice in recent memory, with ramifications for our community like no other. If nothing else convinces you to vote for Barack Obama, surely the likelihood of the next president appointing one, two, or possibly even three Supreme Court justices should do it.”. . .
Bishop Robinson said that the election of John McCain would lead to the packing of the US Supreme Court with justices that would rule against the recognition of gay marriages. “With Barack Obama, we have someone who is utterly sympathetic to our full and equal rights as citizens.”
He added that while Senator Obama “won’t say he’s for equal marriage rights” Bishop Robinson knew from his “own private conversations with him that he is totally in our court. I believe him, and I trust him, not to throw us under the bus when the election is over.”
An article by Bishop Martyn Minns, CANA, in the Washington Post:
At this juncture in our nation's history, it is vitally important that we separate the values that are worth fighting for from those that are simply matters of cultural preference. There are values that are universal and non-negotiable. I find them in the Bible and they have shaped my life.
It is in the Bible where you will discover the truth that every human life is of inestimable worth. You will find that God created marriage - one man and one woman for life. This is not some social arrangement that we can redesign at will; it is part of God's design for humanity.
However, for about the past forty years I belonged to a church that no longer advocates these values. In fact, it is attempting to deliberately replace our core values with some of the latest cultural whims.
That church is The Episcopal Church. It still has remnants of its rapidly fading prestige, but its current leadership seems to have lost its way and it has caused a major rift in the Anglican Communion.
The division within the Communion has been widespread and unbelievably painful. About half of the 38 provinces are in broken or impaired relationships. Dozens of dioceses are in disarray and hundreds of churches and millions of people have been negatively impacted by this fracture in our common life.
Here in the U.S., hundreds of clergy and congregations have come to the conclusion that, as a matter of conscience, they must separate from The Episcopal Church. This has produced a spiteful backlash from church leadership with reprisals against clergy and lay leaders and dozens of punitive lawsuits.
The lawsuits are a costly distraction at a time when there is a desperate need for articulate Christians to do the work of the Gospel and engage in the important debates confronting our nation. What is tragic is that a church that so often rails against the intolerance of biblical fundamentalism has now become aggressively intolerant towards those with whom they disagree. . .
From the Living Church [boldface mine]:
The Rt. Rev. Edward H. MacBurney, retired Bishop of Quincy, and Wicks Stephens, his lawyer, have reached an agreement under which Bishop MacBurney voluntarily submitted to discipline.
Last January, the Title IV [disciplinary] Review Committee issued a presentment against Bishop MacBurney for allegedly leading a service of confirmation at a congregation which had left the Diocese of San Diego in order to join the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone in South America. Bishop MacBurney was subsequently inhibited, or prohibited, from functioning in any way as a priest or bishop, pending an ecclesiastical trial which had been scheduled to be held in November.
In her “Sentence Upon Voluntary Submission to Discipline” dated Sept. 9, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori removed the inhibition against Bishop MacBurney and admonished him “not to repeat the actions which caused the presentment to be brought against him.” She also directed him to apologize “in writing to the Bishop of San Diego for not respecting his authority as the bishop of that diocese.”
Bishop James Mathes of San Diego, who originally had brought the complaint against Bishop MacBurney, said he was satisfied with the outcome. The process “held a bishop of the church accountable to his colleagues and this was a good thing,” Bishop Mathes told Episcopal News Service. He said Bishop MacBurney’s willingness to apologize for his actions “provided us a way to provide forgiveness.”
In an interview with a reporter for The Living Church, Mr. Stephens said that the sentence conformed to the terms which were agreed to before the voluntary submission was made adding that Bishop MacBurney is fully restored as a retired member of the House of Bishops, meaning he can again perform priestly and episcopal functions with the permission of the local diocesan bishop.
“I’m sure there are a number of diocesan bishops who would want to have an Anglo-Catholic bishop come and minister,” Mr. Stephens said. “This was a practical means of bringing him back.”. . .
From EpiscopalLife Online [boldface mine]:
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has removed the inhibition she placed in April on retired Episcopal Diocese of Quincy Bishop Edward MacBurney.
In a September 9 order, Jefferts Schori said that MacBurney had voluntarily submitted to discipline (Canon IV.2(9) and (10)) over a presentment which the Title IV Review Committee issued on Jan. 24, 2008.
Diocese of San Diego Bishop Jim Mathes, who originally asked for MacBurney to be disciplined because he conducted unauthorized confirmations in San Diego, told ENS September 10 that the order and discipline of the church had been "maintained and in some way enhanced by this process."
"Bishop MacBurney's decision is the result of my efforts and those of others to find a non-judicial outcome to an unfortunate event," Mathes said September 10 in his weekly email to diocesan clergy. "Today, the order of our church and the collegiality of the House of Bishops have been enhanced."
The process "held a bishop of the church accountable to his colleagues and this was a good thing," Mathes told ENS.
"I grateful to Bishop MacBurney for his role in this," Mathes said, explaining that MacBurney's willingness to apologize for his actions "provided us a way to provide forgiveness."
Jefferts Schori's September 9 order admonishes MacBurney to not make any other such visits and to apologize in writing to Mathes "for not respecting his authority as Bishop of that Diocese.". . .
From Michael Gerson at the Washington Post [boldface mine]:
. . . Trig's moment in the spotlight is a milestone of that movement. But it comes at a paradoxical time. Unlike what is accorded African Americans and women, civil rights protections for people with Down syndrome have rapidly eroded over the past few decades. Of the cases of Down syndrome diagnosed by prenatal testing each year, about 90 percent are eliminated by abortion. Last year the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommended universal, early testing for Down syndrome -- not just for older pregnant women. Some expect this increased screening to reduce the number of Down syndrome births to something far lower than the 5,500 we see today, perhaps to fewer than 1,000.
The wrenching diagnosis of 47 chromosomes must seem to parents like the end of a dream instead of the beginning of a life. But children born with Down syndrome -- who learn slowly but love deeply -- are generally not experienced by their parents as a curse but as a complex blessing. And when allowed to survive, men and women with an extra chromosome experience themselves as people with abilities, limits and rights. Yet when Down syndrome is detected through testing, many parents report that genetic counselors and physicians emphasize the difficulties of raising a child with a disability and urge abortion.
This is properly called eugenic abortion -- the ending of "imperfect" lives to remove the social, economic and emotional costs of their existence. And this practice cannot be separated from the broader social treatment of people who have disabilities. By eliminating less perfect humans, deformity and disability become more pronounced and less acceptable. Those who escape the net of screening are often viewed as mistakes or burdens. A tragic choice becomes a presumption -- "Didn't you get an amnio?" -- and then a prejudice. And this feeds a social Darwinism in which the stronger are regarded as better, the dependent are viewed as less valuable, and the weak must occasionally be culled. . .
Yes, +Lamb signed it, and for those of us in San Diego, +Mathes did, too, unfortunately.
Proposition 8, on the ballot in November, would amend the California Constitution to clarify that marriage is only between one man and one woman. This would reverse the California Supreme Court decision of earlier this year that recognized same-sex marriage. A short history of the definition of marriage in California:
In 1977 the California legislature explicitly defined marriage as a legal tie between a man and a women. The pertinent text is: "Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary." (Family Code Sec. 300.) This status quo position was strengthened in March 2000 when voters passed Proposition 22, an initiative statute which states: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." (Family Code Sec. 308.5.) The vote for the initiative was 61.4% to 38.6%.
As Episcopal Bishops of California, we are moved [ed.-by whom? The Holy Spirit? didn't think so] to urge voters to vote "No" on Proposition Eight. Jesus calls us to love rather than hate, to give rather than to receive, to live into hope rather than fear. On Tuesday, November 8th, voters in California will be given the opportunity to vote for or against Proposition Eight, which would amend the state's constitution to reserve marriage as only between a man and a woman. Since the California Supreme Court's ruling in May that civil marriage should be provided to all of the state's citizens whether the genders of the couple are different or the same, faithful gays and lesbians have entered into marriage as the principle way in which they show their love, devotion and life-long commitment to each other. Furthermore, marriage provides these couples the same legal rights and protections that heterosexual couples take for granted.
Proposition Eight would reverse the court's decision and withdraw a right given. Proponents of Proposition Eight have suggested that this amendment to the Constitution would protect marriage. We do not believe that marriage of heterosexuals is threatened by same-sex marriage. [ed.-What say you, +Beisner?] Rather, the Christian values of monogamy, commitment, love, mutual respect and witness of monogamy are enhanced for all by providing this right to gay and straight alike [ed.-and what is so magic about the number 2? Can't three people have these same values?]. Society is strengthened when two people who love each other choose to enter into marriage, engaged in a lifetime of disciplined relationship building that serves as a witness to the importance of love and commitment.
As bishops, we are not of one mind regarding how our Church's clergy should participate with the State in same-sex marriage. Some of us believe it is appropriate to permit our clergy to officiate at such marriages and pronounce blessings over the union; others of us believe that we should await consent of our General Convention before permitting such actions. Nevertheless, we are adamant that justice demands that same-sex civil marriage continue in our state and advocate voting "No" on Proposition Eight. [ed.-and we have now put the Episcopal Church in California outside of all other Christian faiths - but, hey, we still call ourselves part of the "catholic" church, so it must be true!]
General Convention 2006 in Columbus passed Resolution A095 that said, "Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 75th General Convention reaffirm the Episcopal Church's historical support of gay and lesbian persons as children of God and entitled to full civil rights; and be it further Resolved, That the 75th General Convention reaffirm the 71st General Convention's action calling upon municipal council, state legislatures and the United States Congress to approve measures giving gay and lesbian couples protection[s] such as: bereavement and family leave policies; health benefits; pension benefits; real-estate transfer tax benefits; and commitments to mutual support enjoyed by non-gay married couples and be it further Resolved, That the 75th General Convention oppose any state or federal constitutional amendment that prohibits same-sex civil marriage or civil unions."
We believe that continued access to civil marriage for all, regardless of sexual orientation [ed.-or number or consanguinity or age, etc., etc.], is consistent with the best principles of our constitutional rights. We believe that this continued access promotes Jesus' ethic of love, giving, and hope.
The Rt. Rev. Marc Handley Andrus, Bishop of California
The Rt. Rev. Barry L. Beisner, Bishop of Northern California
The Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, Bishop of Los Angeles
The Rt. Rev. Mary Gray-Reeves, Bishop of El Camino Real
The Rt. Rev. Jerry A. Lamb, Provisional Bishop of San Joaquin
The Rt. Rev. James R. Mathes, Bishop of San Diego
From LifeSiteNews.com [boldface mine]:
The Episcopal Church in California is taking up arms against Proposition 8, an amendment that would change the California constitution to preserve the integrity of marriage as being between one man and one woman. In the process the U.S. branch of the Anglican Communion is clashing with a huge interfaith coalition, including Christians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Hindus and Sikhs, which is simultaneously launching a campaign to promote the proposition.
Voters will have an opportunity on the 2008 California General Election ballot in November to support Proposition 8, which will reinforce the wishes of 61% of California voters who supported true marriage in 2000. The California State Supreme Court overturned the popular vote earlier this year by legalizing same-sex "marriage," outraging Californians who complained that a handful of activist judges managed to hijack the democratic process.
But the bishops of the Episcopal Church in California have joined the ranks of those working against Proposition 8. All six bishops in the state will officially protest the traditional marriage amendment, according to the Sacramento Bee. The Right Rev. Marc Handley Andrus, Episcopal Bishop of California, will hold a press conference at San Francisco's Grace Cathedral on Wednesday to represent the church's position, "calling for compassion, love and equal protections" for homosexual couples.
Last month Rev. Andrus, commenting upon the international Lambeth Conference of Anglican leaders, had praised the many gay and lesbian activists present for "coming to a place where...there were significant negative places of negative energy aimed at them."
Rev. Andrus will be joined by the Right Rev. Steven Charleston, Assisting Bishop of California, the Right Rev. Barry Beisner, Episcopal Bishop of Northern California, as well as other California Episcopal bishops, clerics and laypeople. Rev. Charleston, when asked whether he would yield to a call from the leaders of the worldwide Anglican Communion to return to traditional marriage values, said that he "would accept schism" rather than abandon the homosexual agenda.
In contrast, a large number of faith communities in California have publicly united in avid support of Proposition 8, and are warning voters that the continued dominance of homosexual "rights" in California law will inevitably lead to the marginalization of religious rights. The Orthodox Union (O.U.), one of the largest Orthodox Jewish organizations in the United States, points out that what appears to be freedom for homosexuals in fact means that religious people will ultimately incur the penalty of law for voicing any public opposition to the homosexualist agenda. "Religious institutions and people face charges of bigotry and could be denied government funding and more if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land," said the O.U. in a statement. (See http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/)
Although the California Supreme Court has assured religious objectors that same-sex "marriages" would not "impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization," many recall historical precedent that prove that the courts tend to define "religious freedom" very narrowly when such freedom has been viewed as a possible offense against recognized civil rights. (See L.A. Times article "Will Gay Rights Trample Religious Freedom?" www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/) Accordingly, members of religious communities across California have banded together to support Proposition 8 in an interfaith political advertising campaign on a scale unsurpassed in California's history. . .
Via email, from Bishop David Anderson of the American Anglican Council [boldface mine]:
Beloved in Christ,
In the United States, there is high interest in what will happen at the TEC House of Bishops meeting in late September. Will Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori heed advice being given her and leave Bishop Duncan alone for the time being, or will she proceed with her deposition plans for him? If she tries to depose him based on what he might do in the future, will she succeed or fail? Also, will the fact that the dioceses of Pittsburgh, Fort Worth and Quincy are all poised to take votes in their respective Diocesan Conventions with regard to separation from the Episcopal Church affect the proceedings?
Presiding Bishop Schori seems to have only one response to crises and that is to invoke the names of "Dewey, Sue'm & Howe" and commence litigation. We would suggest to her a great little book called "Getting to Yes" which might offer a few more options in conflict situations. If Bishop Schori opens up too much litigation all at once she may find herself in the same position that some nations have been - fighting in too many theatres of battle at once and unable to maintain adequate material and resources for each one. If she thinks she can use the trust fund reserve or the pension fund, she should look down the hall to the picture of Ellen Cooke, former TEC treasurer, who was sent to the "time out" box for just such actions.
North of the border in Canada, things are tense as the Anglican Church of Canada in the Diocese of New Westminster continues its assault on the orthodox Anglicans occupying their own property. The attacks by TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada on faithful Anglican believers continue unabated in courtrooms across the North American continent.
In the US, most of the churches that TEC is suing are still able to occupy their buildings and hold services while litigation is underway, whereas in Canada several churches have effectively been thrown out onto the curb, pending full trial. Cheryl Chang, a lawyer and legal director for the churches, reported that the judge "ordered us out at both churches and gave both churches to the diocese until full trial."
The reality is that the orthodox primates of the Anglican Communion can help those under attack in North America with provincial recognition and strong intercommunion and missional ties, but when it comes to litigation, the provinces overseas can do little to help us win the court battles.
Recognition of a new North American province for the orthodox, and revocation of provincial status for the Anglican Church of Canada and TEC would both be helpful, but the latter is unlikely.
Across the pond in the United Kingdom, the election of a new bishop for Bangor, Wales occupies much space in the news and on the blogs. As we reported last week from a reliable source, plans are afoot to place the name of Dean Jeffrey Johns on the slate. Since he identifies himself as a celibate gay priest who is in a registered civil partnership, his becoming an Anglican bishop would pose problems for a great part of the global Anglican Communion. With the opposition mounting and threats by one senior cleric in Wales to quit if this happens, one wonders if Dean Johns' name will be officially put forward, and if so, whether he would gain sufficient support for election. His elevation to the episcopacy would pose a significant problem for many bishops, archbishops and primates, yet in the case of New Hampshire in the United States, the diocese went ahead regardless of the problems caused.
Surely Archbishop Barry Morgan advised Dr. Williams about this prior to it becoming public; if not, the Archbishop of Canterbury (the former primate of Wales) might have just cause to be cranky when reading of it in the London papers. Although, since the release of the Pitt letters, it is painfully clear that the arch primate himself shares a sympathetic view of homosexual issues, surely for the sake of the church he is charged with defending he can arrange for this to be turned aside. As we noted last week, everyone is aware of the situation in advance of the election and there are therefore no free passes.
Some claim that since Dean Johns identifies himself as being celibate, thus meeting the letter of the church's official standard, and since civil partnerships are legal, there should be no obstacle to his appointment. But consider this: does the church's rule need amendment? Is a bishop in a same-sex civil partnership a wholesome example to the flock?
It is time for Christian leaders to be clear about what they believe, speak boldly and publicly in such a way that removes ambiguity, and let their yes be yes and their no be no. So much of what bishops and leaders say today is double-meaning spiritual mush designed to offend no one. The Good News of Jesus Christ requires plain, clear, simple speech that can reach both the executive in his corner office and the plough boy in the field. May we recover that virtue and grace.
Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,
The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council
From The Hill newspaper [boldface mine]:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has accepted an invitation from San Francisco’s archbishop to discuss whether she should continue to receive communion at the Catholic Church in the wake of comments she made about abortion.
San Francisco Archbishop George H. Niederauer said he had received letters and e-mails from “many Catholics” expressing dismay over Pelosi’s remarks, in which she said the matter of when life begins remained controversial within the church. He said many of them questioned whether she should be able to receive communion from the church. . .
Her comments have been criticized by several Catholic Church officials, and Niederauer described them as being “in serious conflict” with the church in the Sept. 5 issue of Catholic San Francisco.
Niederauer concludes that, based on Catholic Church statements, it is up to him as Pelosi’s pastor to address whether she may continue to receive communion. He then invites the Speaker “into a conversation with me about these matters.”. . .
In a Sept. 5 response hand-delivered to Niederauer on Friday, Pelosi thanks him for the invitation and his gracious remarks about her love for the church and her Catholic faith. . .
Niederauer quoted a section of the catechism of the Catholic Church to underline his point that when life begins is not controversial within the church. “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception,” according to the catechism. “Since the first century the church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.”
Niederauer also criticized an Aug. 26 statement from Pelosi’s office about her comments on “Meet the Press.” In the statement, Pelosi’s office said that while the Catholic Church believes life begins at conception, “many Catholics” do not agree with this view.
“Authentic moral teaching is based on objective truth, not polling,” Niederauer wrote. He noted that in 1861, polls in different states showed different views on slavery, but this did not mean that slavery was moral in one state and not in another.". . .
An article by Jennifer Roback Morse from the June 3, 2008 National Catholic Register On-line [boldface mine]:
Advocates of same-sex "marriage" present the idea as a step forward for tolerance and respect. But recent developments place that interpretation very much in doubt.
Legalizing same-sex "marriage" is not a stand-alone policy, independent of all the other activities of the state. Once governments assert that same-sex unions are the equivalent of marriage, those governments must defend and enforce a whole host of other social changes.
Unfortunately, these government-enforced changes conflict with a wide array of ordinary liberties, including religious freedom and ordinary private property rights.
It began with the persecution of Catholic Charities in Boston. The archdiocese eventually closed down its adoption program, because the state of Massachusetts insisted that every adoption agency in the state must allow same-sex couples to adopt.
Recently, a Methodist organization in New Jersey lost part of its tax-exempt status because it refused to allow two lesbian couples to use their facility for a civil union ceremony. In Quebec, a Mennonite school was informed that it must conform to the official provincial curriculum, which includes teaching homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle.
At last report, the Mennonites were considering leaving the province rather than permit the imposition of the state-sponsored curriculum on their children.
And recently, a wedding photographer in New Mexico faces a hearing with the state's Human Rights Commission because she declined the business of a lesbian couple. She didn't want to take photos of their commitment ceremony.
The underlying pattern is unmistakable. Legalizing same-sex "marriage" has brought in its wake state regulation of other parts of society. The problem is sometimes presented as an issue of religious freedom, and so, in part, it is. But the issue runs deeper than religious freedom.
McGill University professor Douglas Farrow argues in his book A Nation of Bastards that redefining marriage allows the government to colonize all of civil society.
If same-sex couples can marry each other, they should be allowed to adopt. Anyone who says otherwise is acting against the policy of the state. If same-sex couples can have civil unions, then denying them the use of any facility they want for their ceremony amounts to unlawful discrimination. When the state says that same sex couples are equivalent to opposite-sex couples, school curriculum will inevitably have to support this claim.
Marriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution. Men and women come together to create children, independently of any government. The duty of caring for those children exists even without a government or any political order.
Marriage protects children as well as the interests of each parent in their common project of raising those children.
Because marriage is an organic part of civil society, it is robust enough to sustain itself, with minimal assistance from the state.
By contrast, same-sex "marriage" is completely a creation of the state.
Same-sex couples cannot have children. Someone must give them a child or at least half the genetic material to create a child. The state must detach the parental rights of the opposite-sex parent and then attach those rights to the second parent of the same-sex couple.
The state must create parentage for the same-sex couple. For the opposite-sex couple, the state merely recognizes parentage.
In her essay in The Meaning of Marriage, Seana Sugrue argues that the state must coddle and protect same-sex "marriage" in ways that opposite-sex marriage does not require.
Precisely because same-sex unions are not the same as opposite-sex marriage, the state must intervene to make people believe (or at least make them act as if they believe) that the two types of unions are equivalent.
Public schools in California are soon going to be required to be "gay friendly." A doctor has been sued because she didn't want to perform an artificial insemination on a lesbian couple. A private school is in trouble for disciplining two female students for kissing. All in the name of supporting the rights of same-sex couples to "equality" with straight couples.
The fact that opposite- and same-sex couples are different in significant ways means that there will always be scope for the state to expand its reach into more and more private areas of more and more people's lives.
Perhaps some people think it is okay to shut down Catholic adoption agencies, because the Catholics have it coming to them: The Church's enemies are many. Perhaps some people don't care for Methodists, and don't care whether they lose their tax-exempt status.
But the Mennonites? These are the most inoffensive people on the planet. They have been pacifists for centuries. Their continued existence here in North America is a testimony to the strength of our ideals of religious tolerance and pluralism, in all the best senses of those terms. But now, in the name of equality of same-sex couples, the Mennonites are being driven out of Quebec.
Perhaps you think people have a natural civil right to marry the person of their choosing. But can you really force yourself to believe that wedding photography is a civil right?
Maybe you believe that same-sex couples are entitled to have children, somehow. But is any doctor they might encounter required to inseminate them?
Advocates of same-sex "marriage" insist that theirs is a modest reform: a mere expansion of marriage to include people currently excluded. But the price of same-sex "marriage" is a reduction in tolerance for everyone else, and an expansion of the power of the state.
It looks as though Bishop Anderson may have been on to something. From the Times (U.K.):
The gay clergyman whose abortive appointment as Bishop of Reading came close to splitting the Church of England could soon become Britain’s first openly gay diocesan bishop.
Dr Jeffrey John, the Dean of St Albans, who two years ago celebrated a civil partnership ceremony with another priest, is to be nominated as Bishop of Bangor in North Wales.
Liberals welcomed the news, but conservatives gave warning that it would aggravate the tensions over sexuality that are threatening to rend the Anglican Communion in two and revive the rancour that followed the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson in New Hampshire in the US five years ago. Since then, the 38 provinces of the Church have agreed to observe a moratorium on such consecrations.
Several candidates are likely to be nominated for the Bangor post, but Dr John has the support of senior figures in the Church in Wales, according to informed sources. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, whose authority does not extend beyond England, would have no power to prevent such an appointment. . .
Via email, the weekly message from the American Anglican Council and Bishop David Anderson, August 29 [boldface mine]:
Dearly Beloved in Christ,
This past week the GAFCON Primates Council (GPC) met for the first time and began the organizational process. Decisions about who will take the duties of the General Secretary and who will be the chairman were followed by decisions about forming a Secretariat to handle the everyday business affairs associated with the Council and setting up an Advisory Board.
It may be too early to say that the GPC is fully up and running, but they are now quickly putting in place the organizational infrastructure to provide for the role that they intend to play in the years ahead. Putting together a strong infrastructure to carry out the work of GAFCON and the related Primates is essential, and creating a sound funding base for it will also be crucial for its long term effectiveness.
Those in North America were naturally listening hopefully for word about a North American Province, and desiring to hear that one had now been established. In many ways that was an unrealistic hope, since this first meeting had to organize the Council itself, a singularly daunting task, but the statement that a priority will be given to the North American situation and the formation of a Province is helpful reassurance.
In another sense, however, it is not up to the GPC to create a North American Province; their decision is whether to recognize a body already formed. It is likely that the Common Cause Partners Federation will wish to petition the 2009 Council meeting for recognition, and with its organizational issues taken care of, the Council may give favorable consideration to that recognition.
What the GPC will need to keep in mind is that the revisionist heterodoxy demonstrated by the North American church leaders also has a pernicious grasp on a good portion of the British Church as well.
With regard to "moratoria" on electing/consecrating any new homosexual bishops in the Anglican Communion, the next chance of such an election isn't in North America. We have become aware through reliable sources that Dr. Barry Morgan is a man of his word - he previously has said, "I (Barry Morgan) would ordain Britain's first gay Bishop."
Wales is in an election process for Bishop of Bangor and the election has as one of its still-secret nominees none other than Jeffrey John, sometime bishop designee for Redding, who had to withdraw when the appointment created an uproar. Failing to take the prize home with him, he was given an appointment as a Cathedral Dean to console him, but it now appears that some stock options for the future were thrown in as well (Dean Jeffrey John is in a same-sex civil partnership).
The electoral college consists of the clergy of the diocese of Bangor and all of the Bishops of the Province of the Church of Wales. Although being on the slate is no guarantee of an election, it is clearly something that Archbishop Morgan desires, having said that practicing homosexuals should not be barred from becoming bishops, and having called the opponents of such consecrations "exclusive and narrow-minded."
Could this be happening without the Archbishop of Canterbury knowing about it? Perhaps in theory, but this is Dr. Williams' former Province where he was first a bishop and then the Primate, and one would have to conclude that this type of information, even if not properly made available to Canterbury, would be soon found out by his intelligence operatives.
Dr. Williams might well wish not to know until too late, so that nothing is left on his doorstep for evidence, but we do know that Jeffrey Johns and Rowan Williams have been friends for years, and that it was extremely hard for Dr. Williams to advise Johns that it was time to fall on his sword, figuratively speaking, hence the consolation prize of a deanship. I really doubt that Dr. Williams wishes to rain on Jeffrey's parade twice, and if Canterbury would like plausible deniability, it is understandable.
However, Dr. Williams, if you are on record as knowing about this, and the event takes place despite all the "moratoria" recommendations that were made, the Archbishop of Canterbury will not get a free pass on this one. The Welch electoral college meets on September 10th and the election takes place October 10th. Will Jeffrey Johns still be on the short list for the election? Will he actually be elected?
We have said over and again that the greater part of the tear in the Anglican fabric is over the issues of Christology and the Authority of Holy Scripture, and at least in the USA, the disagreements over sexuality are derivative from these fissures. The sad part is that the media doesn't understand the theological mischief that the American church is pushing, and sex and money sell newspapers. Further, when it comes to human sexuality, nothing is ever settled - by design. If those who advocate for the gay sexual agenda lose, they keep coming back, wearing down the orthodox with "conversation", which means, listen to them until your ears fall off and you give up. If they gain ground by court or compromise, it is only the staging ground for demanding more.
Enough of this foolishness. Those who want to talk the talk and promenade about in their ecclesial vesture, but can't walk the walk, need to be removed from leadership. So...perhaps if Canterbury were to make a phone call to a certain Dean, things could go away again as they did once before. It wouldn't solve any of the existing problems, but it would keep the Communion from sinking deeper into the mess it has already created.
Oh, for the clarity and purpose of GAFCON to spread Communion-wide!
Blessings and peace in Christ Jesus,
The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council
From George Conger writing in the Church of England Newspaper [boldface mine]:
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s decision to invite the American, Canadian and Central American bishops who consecrated Gene Robinson to Lambeth led to 214 bishops boycotting the conference, a study by The Church of England Newspaper has found.
A review of registration data and attendance figures gathered during the conference finds that 206 diocesan and 8 suffragan bishops declined to attend the July 16 to Aug 3 conference. While boycotts affected the 1998, 1868 and 1888 conferences—the 2008 boycott was the most serious challenge to the integrity of the meeting.
The Anglican Communion comprises 729 dioceses, missionary districts, and ecclesial entities divided into 38 provinces and six extra-provincial jurisdictions. Approximately 260 dioceses and jurisdictions within the Communion were not represented by their diocesan bishops at Lambeth. Not all absences were the result of a conscious decision not to accept Dr. Rowan Williams’ invitation to Lambeth.
A number of sees are vacant, while exigent circumstances prevented some bishops from attending. . .
Of those identified as absent by CEN, 214 bishops from 10 provinces made an affirmative decision not to accept Dr. Williams’ invitation due to reasons of conscience: Australia 7; Southern Cone 1; Episcopal Church 1; Church of England 3; Uganda 30; Nigeria 137; Kenya 25; Rwanda 8; South East Asia 1; and Jerusalem and the Middle East 1.
From Africa’s 324 dioceses, 200 diocesan bishops (61 percent) were identified as having refused Dr. Williams’ invitation. . .
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;
in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.
Proverbs 3:5-6
From Kathy Shaidle at five feet of fury:
The reason the MSM (and ordinary people) are ignorning the "Bishops smack down Nancy Pelosi on abortion" story is:
a) they are, as you [Hugh Hewitt] said on air, notoriously tone deaf about religious issues,
b) they agree with Pelosi on abortion anyhow; but most importantly:
c) they find it rich -- as I do -- that cardinals and archibishops can manage to shift themselves so rapidly when the issue is abortion, but kept their mouths shut for twenty years when children were being molested by their brethren.
The American Catholic hierarchy has NO moral authority now and may never recover it.
Pelosi is wrong and you and the cardinals are right.
It. Doesn't. Matter.
No one takes the American Catholic hierarchy seriously any longer, given their abdication of authority over the greatest in-house controversy in its history. . .
Well, now that Lambeth 2008 has come and gone, there is a definite diminution of blogging going on around the Internet. Some of it is because there’s just not as much going on (although don’t forget to check out BabyBlue’s CANA Council posts) but I think much of the decrease is because Lambeth changed little.
And with little change has come somewhat of a sense of ennui, of apathy, especially if one is in a traditional parish in a revisionist diocese.
There is no turning back, there will be no change within The Episcopal Church except continued movement away from the Gospel.
There will be no rescue – there is only slugging on year after year.
If one is firmly of the belief that he or she is following God’s will, while staying in ECUSA may be frustrating, there is a certain fulfillment in being obedient to the Lord (and the anxiety of “when are we going to leave?” disappears as well).
If one is not sure, it would be pure agony to remain in a church that no longer holds to a “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic” formula. Continued prayer and discernment are called for, and then action, no matter how difficult, is required one way or another. Stay or go, but do so out of conviction of the Father’s will. Don’t remain trapped in a lukewarm decision or let the paralysis of indecision eat away at one’s faith.
If one knows it is time to go, then the question is “to where?” And discernment is again essential (and difficult). I think GAFCON was (and is) a great idea. It illustrated for all that the Global South and its supporters have realized that ECUSA will not turn back, will not stop, so it’s time to move on in mission with those who trust the Lord.
Following biblical injunction, Global South primates tried talking with and confronting those they felt had moved away from Christ. Once it was clear that nothing would change, the Global South essentially dusted off their sandals and left - left not the Anglican Communion (clever, clever), but the poisonous atmosphere of heresy.
If GAFCON can continue on (and that’s a big if, with the elephant in the room of women’s ordination), I really do think that it will over time become, at the very least, the de facto Anglican Communion center.
From the Archdiocese of New York:
STATEMENT OF HIS EMINENCE, EDWARD CARDINAL EGAN CONCERNING REMARKS MADE BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Like many other citizens of this nation, I was shocked to learn that the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America would make the kind of statements that were made to Mr. Tom Brokaw of NBC-TV on Sunday, August 24, 2008. What the Speaker had to say about theologians and their positions regarding abortion was not only misinformed; it was also, and especially, utterly incredible in this day and age.
We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.
Edward Cardinal Egan
Archbishop of New York
August 26, 2008
An update from Kevin at AnglicanTV:
After long events like Gafcon and Lambeth it has been good to have a break. However, I am as interested in what is going to happen this fall as you are. So I am listing my schedule (subject to change) below.
Sept 15th I will be filming a POV (point of view) live stream from Trinity School for Ministry. You can find more info HERE
September 26-27 - ADV Council - Church of the Epiphany, Herndon, VA - Dr. J. I. Packer, Keynote Speaker -- Live Stream
October 1 -- Justyn Terry's Inauguration as Dean of Trinity
Oct 4 -- Diocese of Pittsburgh Convention -- Live Stream
You can follow my schedule "HERE Send schedule suggestions to anglicantv@gmail.com.
Posted by Fr. Eric Menees of the Anglican Church of the Resurrection, San Marcos (one of the San Diego churches that walked away from their property and is now under the Southern Cone):
This past Sunday, the Youth Groups of Resurrection, Sts. Timothy & Titus and Holy Trinity gathered together at Holy Trinity, Ocean Beach, for a mixer, beach party, pizza fest and some evangelistic action.
About 30 youth gathered from the three churches and marched down to the beach. After setting up camp at Life Guard Station Three and hitting the waves a group of the kids went up and down the beach handing out Christian Bracelets and asking people if they had any prayer requests that they could pray for. They were terrific evangelists!
After they trekked back to HT - O[cean] B[each] they shared in some great hymn singing, went through a ton of Pizza and then gathered for a short video & discussion on prayer. . .
From BabyBlue Online, a list of upcoming events of interest:
Been thinking about what comes next. Here are some of the events:
Sept. 3-4 - CAPA Primates and Standing Committee Meeting, Nairobi, Kenya
Sept. 12-14 - The PB Road Show in Augusta, Savannah and Statesboro, Georgia
Sept. 17-19 - TEC House of Bishops, Salt Lake City, Utah
September 26-27 - Anglican District of Virginia Synod, Herndon, VA
Oct. 4 - Diocese of Pittsburgh Annual Convention, Monroeville, Pennsylvania
October 8 - Trial: TEC/Diocese of Los Angeles and Anglican Congregations, California
October - Trial: TEC/Diocese of Virginia and CANA, Virginia
Oct. 20-23 - TEC Executive Council, Helena, Montana
Oct. 22-24 - REC General Council, Victoria, BC
Nov. 7-8 - Diocese of Quincy Annual Synod, Quincy, Illinois
Nov. 14-15 - Diocese of Ft. Worth Convention, Bedford, Texas
Dec. 1-3 - Common Cause Partnership Council
Dec. 15-19 - Windsor Continuation Group Meeting, Mustang Island, Texas
Jan/Feb 2009 - Anglican Primates Meeting, Bahamas
Feb. 9-13, 2009 - General Synod of the Church of England, London
Jan. 28-31, 2009 - AMiA Winter Conference, Greensboro, NC
Jan. 30-Feb. 1, 2009 - TEC Executive Council, Stockton, CA
April 20-22, 2009 - TEC Executive Council, South Portland, Maine
May 2009 - Anglican Consultive Council
July 9-12, 2009 - BabyBlue's 30th High School Reunion, Honolulu, Hawaii
July 8-17, 2009 - TEC General Convention, Anaheim, CA
July 10-14, 2009 - General Synod of the Church of England, York
Nov. 17-19, 2009 - General Synod of the Church of England, London (if needed)
From the Roman Catholic Diocese of Washington, a statement by Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl:
On Meet the Press this past Sunday, August 23, 2008, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi made statements regarding the teaching of the Catholic Church, human life and abortion that were incorrect.
Speaker Pelosi responded to a question on when life begins by mentioning she was Catholic. She went on to say, “And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition...” After Mr. Tom Brokaw, the interviewer, pointed out that the Catholic Church feels strongly that life begins at conception, she replied, “I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy.”
We respect the right of elected officials such as Speaker Pelosi to address matters of public policy that are before them, but the interpretation of Catholic faith has rightfully been entrusted to the Catholic bishops. Given this responsibility to teach, it is important to make this correction for the record.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear: the current teaching of the Catholic Church on human life and abortion is the same teaching as it was 2,000 years ago. The Catechism reads:
“Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception…Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.” (Catechism, 2270-2271)
The Catechism goes on to quote the Didache, a treatise that dates to the first century: “’You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.’”
From the beginning, the Catholic Church has respected the dignity of all human life from the moment of conception to natural death.
In a rare public rebuke of a top politician, the archbishop of Washington said Monday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was incorrect when she recently said the moment of conception has long been a matter of controversy within the Catholic Church.
In a release issued Monday night, Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl said Pelosi's comments on "Meet the Press" on Sunday "were incorrect."
Wuerl noted that Pelosi responded to a question on when life begins by mentioning she was Catholic.
The release quoted Pelosi as saying the church has not been able to come with a definition of when life begins.
“After Mr. Tom Brokaw, the interviewer, pointed out that the Catholic Church feels strongly that life begins at conception, she replied, 'I understand. And this is, like, maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy,' " the release said.
Wuerl strongly disagrees.
He said, "We respect the right of elected officials such as Speaker Pelosi to address matters of public policy that are before them, but the interpretation of Catholic faith has rightfully been entrusted to the Catholic bishops. Given this responsibility to teach, it is important to make this correction for the record."
Wuerl pointed out that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear, and has been clear for 2,000 years. He cited Catechism language that reads, "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception … Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.”
A Pelosi spokesman did not immediately comment for this article. . .
In an interview on C-SPAN that aired earlier this month, Pelosi was asked about how some church officials have raised objections about whether former presidential contenders — such as Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) — should receive communion.
Pelosi, a Roman Catholic whose district includes most of San Francisco, said she has not encountered such difficulties in her church.
“I think some of it is regional,” she said, “It depends on the bishop of a certain region, and, fortunately for me, communion has not been withheld and I’m a regular communicant, so that would be a severe blow to me if that were the case.”
A comment by carl at Stand Firm:
The ontological line between ‘born’ and ‘unborn’ is entirely arbitrary. If this argument rests upon the premise that parents should not be required to bear the burden of disabled children, then the argument justifies more than abortion. It justifies infanticide as well. For what if the condition is missed by the doctor? The parents could rightly say “We would have aborted if only we had known! It is not right that we be required to carry this burden involuntarily.” That arbitrary thin line which legally separates abortion from murder will not hold for long.
This attitude stems from one of the most pernicious presumptions of western man - that the purpose of life is to be ‘happy.’ The questions arise: “How can we fulfill our purpose in life if we can never escape the drudgery of caring for the needs of another; caring for one who will never have the capacity to materially repay the cost of silently carrying the load. And how can we continue on when the unfairness of it all is so visible; when we see others around us who have no such burden?” And always the question is asked by those who require no such care; who expect to never require such care. Woe unto them when they themselves need it.
The question of unequal burden is a question only God can answer. We have no proper recourse but to submit and do the work He requires, trusting that He does not require things without purpose. But we know that happiness is not His priority for man. I cannot imagine a more self-centered purpose in life than happiness. It is the very essence of pleasing the self, and a Christian should have no part in it. For us the purpose of life is not found in happiness, but elsewhere.Q. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.
I don’t see much about temporal happiness in that statement.
From the Telegraph (U.K.) [boldface mine]:
The old-fashioned attitudes and hierarchies of churches are causing a steep decline in the number of female worshippers, according to an academic study.
The report claims more than 50,000 women a year have deserted their congregations over the past two decades because they feel the church is not relevant to their lives.
It says that instead young women are becoming attracted to the pagan religion Wicca, where females play a central role, which has grown in popularity after being featured positively in films, TV shows and books.
The study comes amid ongoing controversy over the role of women in all Christian denominations. Last month its [the Church of England] governing body voted to allow women to become bishops for the first time, having admitted them to the priesthood in 1994, but traditionalist bishops have warned that hundreds of clergy and parishes will leave if the move goes ahead as planned.
The report's author, Dr Kristin Aune, a sociologist at the University of Derby, said: "In short, women are abandoning the church.
"Because of its focus on female empowerment, young women are attracted by Wicca, popularised by the TV series Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
"Young women tend to express egalitarian values and dislike the traditionalism and hierarchies they imagine are integral to the church.
"Women's ordination, as priests and now bishops, has dominated debate and headlines – but while looking at women in the pulpit we have taken our eyes off the pews, where a shift with more consequences for the church's survival is underway."
Her research, published in a new book called Women and Religion in the West, cites an English Church Census which found more than a million women worshippers have left churches since 1989. . .
In addition, the census is said to show that teenage boys now outnumber girls in the pews for the first time.
Dr Aune says the church must adapt to the needs of modern women if it is to stop them leaving in their droves.
She believes many women have been put off going to church in recent years because of the influence of feminism, which challenged the traditional Christian view of women's roles and raised their aspirations.
Her report claims they feel forced out of the church because of its "silence" about sexual desire and activity, and because of its hostility to single-parent families and unmarried couples which are now a reality for many women.
But it also says changes in women's working lives, with many more now pursuing careers as well as raising children, mean they have less time to attend church.
Dr Aune believes churches must now introduce services and activities that fit in better with modern's women's schedules, such as Saturday morning breakfast clubs. . .
Christina Rees, chairman of the pro-women bishop campaign group Watch, said the report highlighted the damaging effect that traditionalist attitudes within the Church of England are having on women.
She added that the introduction of female bishops will lead to a renewed interest in the church among young people and women in particular, despite the opposition to the historic step from Anglo-Catholics and conservative evangelicals who believe scripture and tradition teach that bishops must be male. . .
From Jill Woodliff, commenting at Stand Firm, a concise (and depressing) list of actions and events in which ECUSA failed to provide direction or discipline:
This is an excerpt of a much longer piece from Mark Harris, an Episcopal priest in the Diocese of Delaware, on his blog, Preludium [boldface mine]:
. . . Lambeth 2008 left things as they were, say, two weeks before it began. The status quo ante is just there. Nothing changed save the fact that people mostly kept talking, except for those who were not going to talk.
The strong possibility is that every element of the “status quo ante” will fail to be resolved in the near future. My sense is:
Moratoria concerning blessing and ordination of gay persons in relationship will not hold.
The Pastoral Forum, like its predecessor proposals, arises not from the affected churches but from some committee or commission of the “instruments of unity.” My sense is it will not be accepted by the Episcopal Church as it relates to dioceses who wish to leave the Episcopal Church. It seems clear that the Common Cause Partnership finds this proposal lacking as well.
The Anglican Covenant is an important exercise in finding a way to express the sense we have that there is a friend in the room, an inward and spiritual grace. It is only modest as a bill of particulars about the Anglican Communion or Anglicansim. If it contains clauses, appendices, or other addenda that require submission to the rule of an extra church council it will not easily be signed by any church that values its ecclesial autonomy. This is as true I suspect for the Church of England and the Church of Nigeria as it is for the Episcopal Church.
One thing we can be sure of is that the failure to complete any of these tasks will be blamed more and more on the innovative churches of North America (TEC and ACoC and increasingly on other Churches in the Anglican Communion who share some of their pastoral and prophetic concerns (Scotland, Wales, New Zealand, Mexico, etc.). While willing to share the “blame,” we should understand the blame game to be toxic and spiritually deadening. . .
Check out BabyBlue Online and her reports on the annual CANA council:
Have arrived in Akron for the CANA Council and it's a packed house. In fact, the session on the Prayer Book was so jammed that people were standing out in the hall listening to the session led by Bishop Martyn Minns because all the seats and floor space was filled to capacity.
There are lots of sessions going on - from sessions focused on evangelism, social justice, and mission partnerships, to church planting, healing, raising up the next generation of leaders, and an instructional session on the Eucharist service. . .
Via email, from the American Anglican Council, the weekly message from Bishop David Anderson for August 22, 2008 [boldface mine]:
Dearly Beloved in Christ,
Early this week I attended a Common Cause Partnership Lead Bishops' meeting, with discussions naturally centered around outcomes of the Lambeth Conference and the GAFCON Primates' Council meeting, and concerns for finally putting together a North American orthodox Anglican province. From there I went to a CANA-Nigeria Council meeting, with lay and clergy representatives from CANA congregations all over the USA. Visitors from other Anglican judicatories are also present observing the events, both plenary and breakout sessions.
These Anglican gatherings, such as CANA Council as well as AMiA's Winter Conference and ACN events, are so different from the atmosphere of stress and hostility that many experienced when still serving in liberal revisionist dioceses in the Episcopal Church. At these type of orthodox Anglican gatherings one can actually relax, move deeper into worship, accept sound teaching, and fellowship with others who are of similar faith. To God be the glory!
We note that a letter from Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh to Bishop Lillibridge of West Texas, which was forwarded with permission to the Windsor Continuation Group members, was leaked by someone either in Bishop Lillibridge's office or one of the Windsor Continuation Group members. Does the Windsor Continuation Group really wish to be in conversation with Bishop Duncan or the Common Cause Partnership Federation, a likely new Anglican Province in North America? There are ways to make slight modifications in a document and code them so that the miscreant identifies himself when he leaks a document. Perhaps next time, that might be an appropriate option.
One of the items that Bishop Duncan wished to protest was the treatment of border crossings as the moral equivalence of same sex marriages and gay bishops, a stance that previous Primates' Meetings refused to take. This new equivalence represents a steep moral decline on the part of the Lambeth leadership, and is further underlined by the thought that the orthodox Anglicans who have left, let me say it again, WHO HAVE LEFT the Episcopal Church, would EVER go back into the toxic theological quagmire of heterodoxy that is the leadership of TEC. We are not going into any holding bay; we are the victims and Lambeth is thinking of sending the abused back to the abuser rather than punish the abuser. But remember, if Dr Williams semi-secretly believes in the gay agenda, he cannot and will not ever really discipline TEC; rather, he would send the orthodox back for TEC to have a second go at them. I don't think the orthodox will buy that idea. That train goes to the death camp and we're not getting on it.
Andrew Carey, journalist for the Church of England Newspaper, has done a short but excellent recap on the Episcopal Church, and it is worth your taking a look. I think Andrew really gets it - now if only Dr. N. T. Wright would read, mark, learn and inwardly digest what Carey has said, the C of E would be in a better position to be a help to the Communion.
Now to close with a note of optimism: in northern Virginia, Judge Bellows has again ruled in favor of the local churches in the TEC & Diocese of Virginia lawsuit against the orthodox Anglican churches who left with their property. TEC & Virginia will keep suing and appealing, however, burning up money in lawyers' fees as part of a strategy. For churches to prevail over the bully TEC and the diocese, the churches need to have the local law on their side, the facts on their side, and enough money to stay in court forever. TEC loses on the law and loses on the facts, but if they can burn enough money, they can win by financially exhausting any opponent, as unjust as that is. But now I ask you, is a denomination like that where you want your children and grandchildren to go to church? When you go to a revisionist TEC diocese like Virginia, do you really want your Sunday morning offering to go not to the Glory of God, not to the heat/lights/salaries of a local church, not to mission work, but to persecute orthodox churches in order to force them out of their churches and onto the street? I would think that even the liberals and revisionists would get tired of that after while. For now, the orthodox Anglicans in the USA are praying for a final victory in Judge Bellows' court, and for TEC to move on to the MDG's that they keep talking about.
Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,
The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council
From the Abilene reporternews [boldface mine]:
The career of Bishop Catherine Roskam of the Diocese of New York has been built on her skills as a cross-cultural ambassador for the modern Episcopal Church.
She led the International Concerns Committee of her denomination's executive council, helped create her diocese's Global Women's Fund and has worked as a consultant on issues of cultural sensitivity. In some circles, she is known as the bishop who dared to rap during a "Hip-Hop Mass" a few years ago in the Bronx.
"My sistas and brothas, all my homies and peeps, stay up -- keep your head up, holla back and go forth and tell it like it is," proclaimed the bishop, in her benediction.
Thus, the diminutive, white-haired assistant bishop was an unlikely figure to inspire bold, angry headlines during the recent Lambeth Conference of bishops from the global Anglican Communion. . .
It was especially important not to inflame already painful disputes between Third World traditionalists and liberals in the United States, Canada, England and elsewhere.
Then, during planned discussions of domestic violence, Roskam spoke out on an unlikely topic -- bishops who beat their wives.
"We have 700 men here. Do you think any of them beat their wives? Chances are they do," argued Roskam, in The Lambeth Witness, a daily newsletter for gay-rights supporters in the 77 million-member Anglican Communion.
"The most devout Christians beat their wives. ... Many of our bishops come from places where it is culturally accepted to beat your wife. In that regard, it makes conversation quite difficult."
The key, she added, is that "Violence against women, and violence against children for that matter, is violence against the defenseless. With women, it goes hand-in-hand with misogyny."
The New York bishop's accusations rocked the conference, which was already tense because of the absence of about 280 conservative bishops -- many from Nigeria and Uganda -- who declined to attend because of the presence of U.S. leaders who backed the 2003 consecration of the openly gay and noncelibate Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. Only 617 Anglican bishops preregistered and some of those failed to attend, according to a report in The Living Church magazine. Thus, nearly a quarter of the bishops in attendance came from the small but wealthy U.S. Episcopal Church.
The most damaging part of Roskam's pronouncement was her tone of moral and cultural superiority, noted commentator Riazat Butt. It was easy for bishops from the Global South to read between the lines and find painful traces of colonialism.
"What bishops should be ... concerned about is her insinuation that a nonwhite culture leads to domestic violence and that white, Western culture is too civilized and too advanced to allow such atrocities to occur," argued Butt, in The Guardian. "Roskam fails to recognize that domestic violence affects people regardless of their class, ethnicity, religion, gender or geography.". . .
Now, a decade later [after Lambeth 1998], a female bishop from a liberal diocese in America provided new evidence that these kinds of cultural stereotypes are hard to bury.
This kind of guilt-by-association game is not going to ease tensions in the Anglican Communion, noted Archbishop of York John Sentamu.
"I have never beaten my wife, although I can't talk about other people," Sentamu told the London Times. "There is a danger of stereotyping people because of the culture they come from and assuming they must surely be doing it. ... I hope Bishop Catherine has got figures and numbers and people. Because if not, she is in danger of causing an unnecessary rumpus."
Posts
All Comments
