TEC loses another one

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.

"Do not be anxious about anything. . ."

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

Same-sex 'marriage' and the persecution of civil society

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.

Check it out! (This article relates directly to the material from the book, Nation of Bastards. Click here for more... )
H/t to Fr. Bausch.

Lean not . . .

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

Carl's most excellent comment: UK opposition leader backs abortion of babies with disabilities

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.

The paradoxes of Christianity

As I read and re-read all the non-Christian or anti-Christian accounts of the faith, from Huxley to Bradlaugh, a slow and awful impression grew gradually but graphically upon my mind -- the impression that Christianity must be a most extraordinary thing. For not only (as I understood) had Christianity the most flaming vices, but it had apparently a mystical talent for combining vices which seemed inconsistent with each other. It was attacked on all sides and for all contradictory reasons. No sooner had one rationalist demonstrated that it was too far to the east than another demonstrated with equal clearness that it was much too far to the west. No sooner had my indignation died down at its angular and aggressive squareness than I was called up again to notice and condemn its enervating and sensual roundness. In case any reader has not come across the thing I mean, I will give such instances as I remember at random of this self-contradiction in the sceptical attack. I give four or five of them; there are fifty more.

Thus, for instance, I was much moved by the eloquent attack on Christianity as a thing of inhuman gloom; for I thought (and still think) sincere pessimism the unpardonable sin. Insincere pessimism is a social accomplishment, rather agreeable than otherwise; and fortunately nearly all pessimism is insincere. But if Christianity was, as these people said, a thing purely pessimistic and opposed to life, then I was quite prepared to blow up St. Paul's Cathedral. But the extraordinary thing is this. They did prove to me in Chapter I. (to my complete satisfaction) that Christianity was too pessimistic; and then, in Chapter II., they began to prove to me that it was a great deal too optimistic. One accusation against Christianity was that it prevented men, by morbid tears and terrors, from seeking joy and liberty in the bosom of Nature. But another accusation was that it comforted men with a fictitious providence, and put them in a pink-and-white nursery. One great agnostic asked why Nature was not beautiful enough, and why it was hard to be free. Another great agnostic objected that Christian optimism, "the garment of make-believe woven by pious hands," hid from us the fact that Nature was ugly, and that it was impossible to be free. One rationalist had hardly done calling Christianity a nightmare before another began to call it a fool's paradise. This puzzled me; the charges seemed inconsistent. Christianity could not at once be the black mask on a white world, and also the white mask on a black world. The state of the Christian could not be at once so comfortable that he was a coward to cling to it, and so uncomfortable that he was a fool to stand it. If it falsified human vision it must falsify it one way or another; it could not wear both green and rose-coloured spectacles. . .

I take a third case; the strangest of all, because it involves the one real objection to the faith. The one real objection to the Christian religion is simply that it is one religion. The world is a big place, full of very different kinds of people. Christianity (it may reasonably be said) is one thing confined to one kind of people; it began in Palestine, it has practically stopped with Europe. I was duly impressed with this argument in my youth, and I was much drawn towards the doctrine often preached in Ethical Societies -- I mean the doctrine that there is one great unconscious church of all humanity rounded on the omnipresence of the human conscience. Creeds, it was said, divided men; but at least morals united them. The soul might seek the strangest and most remote lands and ages and still find essential ethical common sense. It might find Confucius under Eastern trees, and he would be writing "Thou shalt not steal." It might decipher the darkest hieroglyphic on the most primeval desert, and the meaning when deciphered would be "Little boys should tell the truth." I believed this doctrine of the brotherhood of all men in the possession of a moral sense, and I believe it still -- with other things. And I was thoroughly annoyed with Christianity for suggesting (as I supposed) that whole ages and empires of men had utterly escaped this light of justice and reason. But then I found an astonishing thing. I found that the very people who said that mankind was one church from Plato to Emerson were the very people who said that morality had changed altogether, and that what was right in one age was wrong in another. If I asked, say, for an altar, I was told that we needed none, for men our brothers gave us clear oracles and one creed in their universal customs and ideals. But if I mildly pointed out that one of men's universal customs was to have an altar, then my agnostic teachers turned clean round and told me that men had always been in darkness and the superstitions of savages. I found it was their daily taunt against Christianity that it was the light of one people and had left all others to die in the dark. But I also found that it was their special boast for themselves that science and progress were the discovery of one people, and that all other peoples had died in the dark. Their chief insult to Christianity was actually their chief compliment to themselves, and there seemed to be a strange unfairness about all their relative insistence on the two things. When considering some pagan or agnostic, we were to remember that all men had one religion; when considering some mystic or spiritualist, we were only to consider what absurd religions some men had. We could trust the ethics of Epictetus, because ethics had never changed. We must not trust the ethics of Bossuet, because ethics had changed. They changed in two hundred years, but not in two thousand.

This began to be alarming. It looked not so much as if Christianity was bad enough to include any vices, but rather as if any stick was good enough to beat Christianity with. What again could this astonishing thing be like which people were so anxious to contradict, that in doing so they did not mind contradicting themselves? I saw the same thing on every side. . .

I wished to be quite fair then, and I wish to be quite fair now; and I did not conclude that the attack on Christianity was all wrong. I only concluded that if Christianity was wrong, it was very wrong indeed. Such hostile horrors might be combined in one thing, but that thing must be very strange and solitary. There are men who are misers, and also spendthrifts; but they are rare. There are men sensual and also ascetic; but they are rare. But if this mass of mad contradictions really existed, quakerish and bloodthirsty, too gorgeous and too thread-bare, austere, yet pandering preposterously to the lust of the eye, the enemy of women and their foolish refuge, a solemn pessimist and a silly optimist, if this evil existed, then there was in this evil something quite supreme and unique. For I found in my rationalist teachers no explanation of such exceptional corruption. Christianity (theoretically speaking) was in their eyes only one of the ordinary myths and errors of mortals. They gave me no key to this twisted and unnatural badness. Such a paradox of evil rose to the stature of the supernatural. It was, indeed, almost as supernatural as the infallibility of the Pope. An historic institution, which never went right, is really quite as much of a miracle as an institution that cannot go wrong. The only explanation which immediately occurred to my mind was that Christianity did not come from heaven, but from hell. Really, if Jesus of Nazareth was not Christ, He must have been Antichrist.

And then in a quiet hour a strange thought struck me like a still thunderbolt. There had suddenly come into my mind another explanation. Suppose we heard an unknown man spoken of by many men. Suppose we were puzzled to hear that some men said he was too tall and some too short; some objected to his fatness, some lamented his leanness; some thought him too dark, and some too fair. One explanation (as has been already admitted) would be that he might be an odd shape. But there is another explanation. He might be the right shape. Outrageously tall men might feel him to be short. Very short men might feel him to be tall. Old bucks who are growing stout might consider him insufficiently filled out; old beaux who were growing thin might feel that he expanded beyond the narrow lines of elegance. Perhaps Swedes (who have pale hair like tow) called him a dark man, while negroes considered him distinctly blonde. Perhaps (in short) this extraordinary thing is really the ordinary thing; at least the normal thing, the centre. Perhaps, after all, it is Christianity that is sane and all its critics that are mad -- in various ways.

G. K. Chesterton
Orthodoxy, Chapter VI, The Paradoxes of Christianity

California parents: Information for those with children in public schools

From the California Catholic Conference, a handy-dandy synopsis of what parents of public schoolers need to know about their rights. Read the entire info here (also available in Spanish).

An excerpt from the two-page brochure [boldface mine]:

. . . By law, at the beginning of each school year, public schools send home many documents. In one of these documents, the school district will be giving notification that the school assumes approval of all of the school’s curriculum and activities.

In other words, if a parent or guardian does not approve of any of the topics mentioned above he or she must notify the school. If the parent or guardian does nothing the school officials can and will assume approval or an “opt-in” to the school’s entire program.

However, the language explaining the school’s policy regarding “opt-in” and “opt-out” is written in “legalese” and can easily be overlooked or misunderstood by families.

In plain words:

• Parents or guardians who object to certain education offered to their children must specifically request that they be excused, i.e., they must “opt-out,” or the school assumes that permission for the students to participate has been granted.


• In order to make that “specific request” a parent or guardian must complete an “opt-out” form. A standard “opt-out” form can be obtained from the school office.


• A signed “opt-out” form must be submitted for each student and for each type of objectionable activity from which that student is to be excused.


• An “opt-out” form for each student is only considered valid for the current school year—and must be resubmitted annually.


• All parents or guardians have the right to be informed of the content and approximate date of presentation of all materials and subjects.


• In addition, all parents or guardians have the right to examine copies of all tests, questionnaires, or surveys that inquire about students’ or their parents’ personal beliefs, family life, religion or sex practices.

Confidential Medical Services

From the time students enter the 7th grade in a public school, they are granted complete freedom for purposes of securing confidential medical services, which may include contraceptives, abortions and psychotropic drugs.

That policy is the result of a 1997 court decision (American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren) which extended the “right of privacy” to minors. The California Supreme Court ruled that a minor’s right to privacy superseded the minor’s parents’ rights as guardians.

In addition, in 2004 California’s Attorney General Lockyer wrote an opinion supporting that school policy, saying:

“We conclude that a school district may not adopt a policy pursuant to which the school will notify a parent when a student leaves school to receive confidential medical services.”

Confidential medical services may include abortion, birth control, AIDS treatment and/or psychological analysis.

Ordinarily, parents or guardians must grant written permission for their children to participate in off campus activities or to receive over-the-counter medication from school personnel. However, when a student requests confidential medical services, then he or she can actually be released without parental knowledge or permission during school hours to receive those services.

Like the notification regarding “opt-out” for objectionable educational activities, at the beginning of each school year, parents or guardians are notified of this public school policy for students in grades 7-12.

And like the notification about the availability of an “opt-out,” the information about the policy of releasing students for confidential medical services may also be overlooked or misunderstood. . .

Heretical Friday: Antinomianism

Antinomianism

From the Greek, anti, against, and nomos, law (lawlessness)

Taken in its general sense, Antinomianism is the heretical doctrine that Christians are exempt from the obligations of moral law, the idea that members of a particular religious group are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality as presented by religious authorities. Antinomianism is the polar opposite of legalism, the notion that obedience to a code of religious law is absolutely necessary for salvation.

The doctrine of Antinomianism in general terms, although not using the specific word, can be traced in the teaching of the earlier heresies. Certain of the Gnostic sect — possibly, for example, Marcion and his followers, in their antithesis of the Old and New Testament — held antinomian or quasi-antinomian views. It is generally understood that Antinomianism was professed by more than one of the Gnostic schools.

Certain heretical sects in the Middle Ages practiced sexual license as an expression of Christian freedom. In the Protestant Reformation, theoretical antinomian views were maintained by the Anabaptists and Johannes Agricola, and in the 17th century, Anne Hutchinson was persecuted for supposed Antinomianism. Romans 6 is the usual refutation for Antinomianism.

The specific sense of Antinomianism comes from its use by Martin Luther during the Protestant Reformation. Luther used it to designate the teachings of Johannes Agricola, who, pushing a mistaken interpretation of the Reformer's doctrine of justification by faith alone to a far-reaching conclusion, asserted that, “as good works do not promote salvation, so neither do evil works hinder it; and, as all Christians are necessarily sanctified by their very vocation and profession, so as justified Christians, they are incapable of losing their spiritual holiness, justification, and final salvation by any act of disobedience to, or even by any direct violation of the law of God.” (New Advent)

The starting-point of the Antinomian dispute began with a disagreement between Agricola and Philipp Melanchthon in 1527 as to the relation between repentance and faith. Melanchthon urged that repentance must precede faith, and that knowledge of the moral law is needed to produce repentance. Agricola gave the initial place to faith, maintaining that repentance is the work, not of law, but of the gospel-given knowledge of the love of God. The resulting Antinomian controversy (the only one within the Lutheran body in Luther's lifetime) continued until Agricola was apparently satisfied in conference with Luther and Melanchthon at Torgau, December 1527, but his eighteen Positiones of 1537 revived the controversy. Agricola was consistent in two objects:

• In the interest of the doctrine of sole fides (faith alone), to place the rejection of the Catholic doctrine of good works on a sure ground;


• In the interest of the New Testament, to find all needful guidance for Christian duty in its principles, if not in its precepts.

From the latter part of the 17th century, charges of Antinomianism were frequently directed against Calvinists, on the ground of their disparagement of "deadly doing" and of "legal preaching." The controversy between Arminian and Calvinistic Methodists produced as its ablest outcome John Fletcher's Checks to Antinomianism (1771–75).

Theological charges of Antinomianism typically imply that the opponent's doctrine leads to various sorts of licentiousness and that the antinomian chooses his theology in order to further a career of dissipation. The conspicuous austerity of life among surviving groups of Anabaptists or Calvinists suggests that these accusations are often, or even mostly, made for rhetorical effect.

Impugned alike by the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church and by the disavowals and declarations of the greater Protestant leaders and confessions or fomularies, since Antinomianism verges on discrediting the teachings of Christ and the apostles and is inimical to common morality, the antinomian heresy is a comparatively rare one in ecclesiastical history, and, as a rule, where taught at all, one that is kept in the background or practically explained away.

Sources:
Bartleby.com
New Advent
Wikipedia

Previous heresy posts:
Albigenses
Donatism
Gnosticism
Manichaeism
Modalism
Nestorianism
Pelagianism

The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock

Just because . . . I memorized most of this in college - I can't remember why now (I always liked the lines, "Do I dare to eat a peach?" and "In a minute there is time/For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.").

S’io credesse che mia risposta fosse
A persona che mai tornasse al mondo,
Questa fiamma staria senza piu scosse.
Ma perciocche giammai di questo fondo
Non torno vivo alcun, s’i’odo il vero,
Senza tema d’infamia ti rispondo.


LET us go then, you and I,
When the evening is spread out against the sky
Like a patient etherised upon a table;
Let us go, through certain half-deserted streets,
The muttering retreats
Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels
And sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells:
Streets that follow like a tedious argument
Of insidious intent
To lead you to an overwhelming question …
Oh, do not ask, “What is it?”
Let us go and make our visit.

In the room the women come and go
Talking of Michelangelo.

The yellow fog that rubs its back upon the window-panes,
The yellow smoke that rubs its muzzle on the window-panes
Licked its tongue into the corners of the evening,
Lingered upon the pools that stand in drains,
Let fall upon its back the soot that falls from chimneys,
Slipped by the terrace, made a sudden leap,
And seeing that it was a soft October night,
Curled once about the house, and fell asleep.

And indeed there will be time
For the yellow smoke that slides along the street,
Rubbing its back upon the window-panes;
There will be time, there will be time
To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet;
There will be time to murder and create,
And time for all the works and days of hands
That lift and drop a question on your plate;
Time for you and time for me,
And time yet for a hundred indecisions,
And for a hundred visions and revisions,
Before the taking of a toast and tea.

In the room the women come and go
Talking of Michelangelo.

And indeed there will be time
To wonder, “Do I dare?” and, “Do I dare?”
Time to turn back and descend the stair,
With a bald spot in the middle of my hair—
[They will say: “How his hair is growing thin!”]
My morning coat, my collar mounting firmly to the chin,
My necktie rich and modest, but asserted by a simple pin—
[They will say: “But how his arms and legs are thin!”]
Do I dare
Disturb the universe?
In a minute there is time
For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.

For I have known them all already, known them all:—
Have known the evenings, mornings, afternoons,
I have measured out my life with coffee spoons;
I know the voices dying with a dying fall
Beneath the music from a farther room.
So how should I presume?

And I have known the eyes already, known them all—
The eyes that fix you in a formulated phrase,
And when I am formulated, sprawling on a pin,
When I am pinned and wriggling on the wall,
Then how should I begin
To spit out all the butt-ends of my days and ways?
And how should I presume?

And I have known the arms already, known them all—
Arms that are braceleted and white and bare
[But in the lamplight, downed with light brown hair!]
It is perfume from a dress
That makes me so digress?
Arms that lie along a table, or wrap about a shawl.
And should I then presume?
And how should I begin?
. . . . .
Shall I say, I have gone at dusk through narrow streets
And watched the smoke that rises from the pipes
Of lonely men in shirt-sleeves, leaning out of windows?…

I should have been a pair of ragged claws
Scuttling across the floors of silent seas.
. . . . .
And the afternoon, the evening, sleeps so peacefully!
Smoothed by long fingers,
Asleep … tired … or it malingers,
Stretched on the floor, here beside you and me.
Should I, after tea and cakes and ices,
Have the strength to force the moment to its crisis?
But though I have wept and fasted, wept and prayed,
Though I have seen my head [grown slightly bald] brought in upon a platter,
I am no prophet—and here’s no great matter;
I have seen the moment of my greatness flicker,
And I have seen the eternal Footman hold my coat, and snicker,
And in short, I was afraid.

And would it have been worth it, after all,
After the cups, the marmalade, the tea,
Among the porcelain, among some talk of you and me,
Would it have been worth while,
To have bitten off the matter with a smile,
To have squeezed the universe into a ball
To roll it toward some overwhelming question,
To say: “I am Lazarus, come from the dead,
Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all”—
If one, settling a pillow by her head,
Should say: “That is not what I meant at all.
That is not it, at all.”

And would it have been worth it, after all,
Would it have been worth while,
After the sunsets and the dooryards and the sprinkled streets,
After the novels, after the teacups, after the skirts that trail along the floor—
And this, and so much more?—
It is impossible to say just what I mean!
But as if a magic lantern threw the nerves in patterns on a screen:
Would it have been worth while
If one, settling a pillow or throwing off a shawl,
And turning toward the window, should say:
“That is not it at all,
That is not what I meant, at all.”
. . . . .
No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be;
Am an attendant lord, one that will do
To swell a progress, start a scene or two,
Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool,
Deferential, glad to be of use,
Politic, cautious, and meticulous;
Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;
At times, indeed, almost ridiculous—
Almost, at times, the Fool.

I grow old … I grow old …
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.

Shall I part my hair behind? Do I dare to eat a peach?
I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.

I do not think that they will sing to me.

I have seen them riding seaward on the waves
Combing the white hair of the waves blown back
When the wind blows the water white and black.

We have lingered in the chambers of the sea
By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown
Till human voices wake us, and we drown.

T.S. Eliot
(1888–1965)

Grace abound

And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work.

II Corinthians 9:8

In another nutshell: Bishop Larry Benfield, Diocese of Arkansas

From Bishop Larry Benfield, Diocese of Arkansas [boldface mine]:

I was impressed with the quality of almost all the comments. People had put serious thought into what they said, and the comment of the day for me was one about how the Trinity itself (which is the heart of our theology, after all) is able to live simultaneously in conflict and love. The example given was that of the Son in the Garden of Gethsemane and his prayer to the Father. Surely the Anglican Communion can learn to live with this same sort of loving disagreement, the speaker reminded us.

Did I miss something here? There was and is no disagreement, no conflict among the Persons of the Trinity. Jesus was always in the Father's Will. He did not argue or refuse. He asked (as we should when we pray) "if it be possible" that the cup should pass from Him "nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." And when it did not, He obeyed.

And I haven't even been to seminary!

For those who may have forgotten their Bible verses, Matthew 26:36-45 is one place to start:

Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder.

And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.

And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.

And he came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy. And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.

Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

A journey. . .

Joy, which was the small publicity of the pagan, is the gigantic secret of the Christian. And as I close this chaotic volume I open again the strange small book from which all Christianity came; and I am again haunted by a kind of confirmation. The tremendous figure which fills the Gospels towers in this respect, as in every other, above all the thinkers who ever thought themselves tall. His pathos was natural, almost casual. The Stoics, ancient and modern, were proud of concealing their tears. He never concealed His tears; He showed them plainly on His open face at any daily sight, such as the far sight of His native city. Yet He concealed something. Solemn supermen and imperial diplomatists are proud of restraining their anger. He never restrained His anger. He flung furniture down the front steps of the Temple, and asked men how they expected to escape the damnation of Hell. Yet He restrained something. I say it with reverence; there was in that shattering personality a thread that must be called shyness. There was something that He hid from all men when He went up a mountain to pray. There was something that He covered constantly by abrupt silence or impetuous isolation. There was some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth; and I have sometimes fancied that it was His mirth.

G. K. Chesterton
Orthodoxy, Chapter IX

Archbishop of Sudan press briefing

From Cherie Wetzel for Anglican Mainstream:

We have just had a briefing with the Archbishop of the Sudan, the Most Reverend Dr. Daniel Deng Bul. He informed the press room this morning that he would come and speak with us, since the Anglican Communion News Bureau running this conference, would not schedule a time for him to address the press.

The archbishop is young – I would guess that he is in his 40’s. He is very articulate and has an earned Ph.D. By his own admission, he has been an Anglican since he was a very small child.

His words are responses to questions asked. I think the questions are self-evident.

“Gene Robinson should resign for the sake of the Church and the entire Anglican Communion. We are pleading with them (the others at this conference) for the Anglican World, to not throw that away.

“We do not want to throw any people away, either. But we are here to determine how to remain united. That begins with forgiving one another for errors made. Gene Robinson is an error. The American church has not admitted they are wrong and we cannot forgive them until they do.

“I do not see a way out of these problems with the Indaba groups. The main issues have not been touched.

“300 bishops are not here because of Gene Robinson. Can he not resign to allow them to come? Why has he not done that?

“He is a human being and we are not throwing him away but the norms of the Anglican Communion have been violated. The question is not if Gene Robinson comes but what are we being challenged to do by GAFCON?”

“Let the Anglican world be united and be a normal, respected Christian body.”

“We have not punished the American church yet. We are asking them to repent. I am talking about the institutional church in America, no specific bishops. I am here to speak within the House. I cannot be silent on this issue; I must speak to the House for the reality I know with my people. I should not hesitate to be here since I have been an Anglican since I was a child.

When asked what would happen to the Communion if Robinson did not resign, the archbishop continued, “I cannot predict what will happen if he will not resign.”. . .

“This issue of homosexuality in the Anglican Communion has a very serious effect in my country. We are called ‘infidels’ by the Moslems. That means that they will do whatever they can against us to keep us from damaging the people of our country. They challenge our people to convert to Islam and leave the infidel Anglican Church. When our people refuse, sometimes they are killed. These people are very evil and mutilate and harm our people. I am begging the Communion on this issue so no more of my people will be killed.

“My people have been suffering for 21 years of war. Their only hope is in the Church. It is the center of life of my people. No matter what problem we have, no material goods, no health supplies or medicine; no jobs or income; no availability of food. The inflation rate makes our money almost worthless and we have done this for 21 years. The Church is the center of our life together.

“The culture does not change the Bible; the Bible changes the culture. Cultures that do not approve of the Bible are left out of the Church’s life; people who do not believe in the Bible are left out of our churches. The American church is saying that God made a mistake. He made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Adam.

“We will not talk to Gene Robinson or listen to him or his testimony. He has to confess, receive forgiveness and leave. Then we will talk. You cannot bring the listening to gay people to our Communion. People who do not believe in the Bible are left out of our churches, not invited in to tell us why they don’t believe. . .

Read it all.

Good people, bad people, truth and lies

From Jennifer at "Et tu?" (the diary of a former atheist) [boldface mine]:

. . . Without God -- or, to phrase it another way, without objective truth -- we are sailors without a compass, trying to rely on gut instinct to navigate troubled waters. It might work out some of the time, as is evidenced by the number of nonbelievers who are indeed "good people" most of the time. But it leaves us vulnerable to the legion forces that try to steer us off course, and it makes it almost impossible to weather a great storm. If we don't know the truth about who we are, why we're here, where we came from and where we're going, we're on shaky ground to begin with; and when we deny the existence of objective truth on matters of what is good and bad, what is right or wrong, we lose control of our own lives. The further we get away from the truth, the closer we get to becoming slaves of those ever-present, soul-killing voices, with names like Lust and Greed and Power and Selfishness and Status, that whisper in our ears, "It's OK, just do it. There's nothing wrong with that."

When I was an atheist, I thought I was more liberated than the people who believed in God. After all, I didn't have all their bizarre rules and regulations to bog me down. Now I realize that those "rules" that seemed so bizarre are actually a tool set, a key to unlock the shackles of sin, a compass and chart to navigate the troubled waters we all find ourselves in. Now I realize not only where that inscription came from, but what it means. To know God is to know the truth. And without the truth, we can never be free.

Read it all.

A thought . . . not mine

...All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well

Julian of Norwich
(c. 1342-1416)

My reaction to the Jerusalem Declaration and GAFCON

Others (Stand Firm, TitusOneNine, Fr. Dan Martins, Christopher Johnson, Ruth Gledhill, etc.) can parse over the details of the Jerusalem Declaration and the ins and outs of GAFCON – they offer tremendously valuable insight, questions, and understanding of what happened, what was agree to, and how that might play out. And Kevin’s coverage for AnglicanTV made all of us front-row participants at the event, for which we should offer [tangible] thanks [cough* donate now for his Lambeth trip *cough].

My admittedly superficial sense of the event, gathered from a great distance, is one of joy and fellowship.

Knowing some of the clergy from San Diego that went and having met some of the archbishops and bishops that were there, I can only say that any result, while maybe not perfect, would definitely have been made in intense and searching prayer with the wish to follow God’s direction and Christ’s commands under the discernment of the Holy Spirit.


There also seems to be a great sense of relief, and rightly so. GAFCON participants correctly realized that it would do no good, and was pointless, to discuss on and on, again and again, anything about the American church. Been there, done that (and been undercut by the Archbishop of Canterbury).

It is time to move on.

ECUSA is no longer an issue because ECUSA is no longer important. The Episcopal Church has removed itself from the greater part of the Anglican Communion in everything but name. The GAFCON bishops know ECUSA cannot be trusted, will try unendingly to bend others to her way, and will try to buy those that she can. So the only way to move forward is not to move ECUSA out of the way, but to just go over her and continue on. The Jerusalem Declaration gives a framework for doing just that. All of the energy that has been expended over the past five years or so to try to call the Episcopal Church to repentance can now be directed outward, to the Great Commission, and there are many ready to do that.

I am very happy for those churches in San Diego that have already moved under Anglican Primates and out from under the Presiding Bishop. I think that GAFCON and the Declaration will contribute greatly to their cohesion, unity, and fellowship. They are now in the forefront of the ongoing (and quickly gathering steam) Anglican renewal movement. They took the risks over the past several years and stepped out in faith: most left their buildings and all trappings of “normal” church, the ones that stayed are now under litigation from Bishop Mathes with the backing of 815, and all are relearning what it is to be a Christ-centered community. There is an energy, an excitement, and sense of freedom there that I pray continues on since there is also a lot of hard work to be done.

For the Episcopal churches still in the Diocese of San Diego that are at all traditional (and there are only a few left), I’m afraid it’s just a matter of time. Given Bishop Mathes’ most recent ordinations and the diocese’s ideas about “holy relationships,” he is moving further and further away from the Gospel. Once traditional rectors leave or retire, I cannot see +Mathes letting any orthodox, traditional, or Anglo-Catholic priest into the diocese. There would be no reason to – most of those upset with the direction of the Episcopal Church have already left in San Diego, not quite all, but most.

And I think +Mathes is not interested in keeping the orthodox, he is not interested much in the pew sitters in those churches, and he is definitely not interested being a “bridge builder” (his claim to fame at his election several years ago). He is interested in property. And given that the diocese is financially helping, in some form or another, over 50 percent of the churches in the diocese, money matters. Even with the real estate decline in southern California, there is some prime real estate that churches are sitting on that could keep the diocese going for quite a while (if only those darn reasserters would just leave already).

But for all of that, I feel strangely removed from it all, a little set apart – from whatever machinations Bishop Mathes may think up, from the activity at GAFCON, from the revisionists’ reactions (and I think they are protesting much too much – GAFCON has them shaken and a little scared).

Perhaps it is because we have left the Episcopal Church and have not yet landed anywhere. I also think it is because I feel some guilt that I should have, could have, done more at my church to help people realize what was going on. But Bishop Mathes was very clever – in his 2006 “pastoral” letter he implied very strongly that anything done to organize against the diocese’s actions or 815 (say, join the Network or make too many waves) would bring wrath down, not on me as a parishioner, but on my rector. Being a political newbie at this several years ago, that affected me. How could I rally and organize to do something that might get my rector fired? If I had known then what I know now, I would have approached it differently but then I was still trying to get my mind around lying bishops and heretical Executive Council actions.

And now, my family has left. Should we have stayed? No, not only were our reasons for leaving valid, but both my husband and I felt God was calling us out. But sometimes I feel like I abandoned something and in a few years if I happen to wander in, it will be unrecognizable to me.

I also think it is because I am still working through what it means to be a member of the “one holy catholic and apostolic Church” because, which church is that? How does one tell? Does it really matter which particular flavor of Christianity? Or does the Nicene Creed mean all of the followers of Christ together, only then becoming the Church as the Body of Christ?

So GAFCON has come in the middle of my ongoing, muddled discernment and gets short shrift in the process, I’m afraid.

Monday with G.K. Chesterton

Of all the weak-minded manifestations of the modern cowardice, perhaps the most contemptible is this assumption of a collective sensitiveness, this banding of a class together against its critics. If you think the London drama dull, it is an insult to actors. If you think the London streets ugly, it is an insult to architects. If you suggest that the London streets are dirty, it is an insult to the sacred Guild of Crossing-Sweepers. The whole of our moral indignation is to be reserved, apparently, to those who point out an evil; we are never to insult anybody except when we insult the insulter of wrong. We want to get rid of the whole idea of "insult" in this sense. A state of freedom ought to mean a state in which no man can silence another. As it is, it means a state in which every man must silence himself. It ought to mean that Mr. Shaw can say a thing twenty times, and still not make me believe it. As it is, it means that Mr. Shaw must leave off saying it, because my exquisite nerves will not endure to hear somebody saying something with which I do not agree. Freedom means that we cannot oppress each other. But unless we insult each other we shall never do anything.

G.K. Chesterton
The Illustrated London News March 17, 1906

H/t to Binky at Free Mark Steyn!

San Diego: Oh, so that's what this was about. . .

Just wondering.

From the San Diego Union-Tribune [boldface mine]:

The Episcopal Diocese of San Diego took another step toward the full acceptance of gays with the ordination of its first openly gay deacon.

San Diego Episcopal Bishop James Mathes downplayed the sexual orientation of a newly ordained deacon.

During a month in which thousands of same-sex couples were able to marry in California, Thomas Wilson was ordained to the transitional diaconate by San Diego Bishop James Mathes at St. Paul's Episcopal Cathedral. Wilson, who moved to San Diego eight years ago with his partner of 20 years, is expected to serve as a deacon for six months to a year before becoming a priest, Mathes said.

Yet the bishop downplayed the significance of Wilson's sexual orientation.

Mathes said he was not aware that a press release had been sent by the diocese with the headline: “Openly Gay, Partnered Deacon Ordained! First One in This Diocese Ever!”

“The Episcopal Diocese of San Diego calls and ordains gifted people,” Mathes said. “That's all this is.”

Wilson, 59, also downplayed the significance of his ordination. . .

So much for the "task force to study holiness in relationships" (resolution 08-09 passed at the February diocesan convention) - those relationships have, by this action, been declared "holy." No more "talking" necessary.

Read it all.

On gay marriage, Justice Antonin Scalia was prophetic

From the BibleBeltBlogger:

In June 2003, when the Supreme Court legalized homosexual conduct in all 50 states, the court insisted its ruling had nothing to do with gay marriage. ‘Baloney,’ Justice Scalia replied.

In Lawrence v. Texas, Scalia wrote in dissent that the court’s decision “leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. …Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. …This case ‘does not involve’ the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court.”

Scalia foresaw the “judicial imposition of homosexual marriage” in the wake of Lawrence v. Texas.

By overturning Bowers v. Hardwick, the 1986 decision upholding the states’ rights to criminalize homosexual conduct, the court was making gay marriage all but inevitable, he suggested.

He was right. Five months later, in November 2003, the highest court in Massachusetts ruled that laws barring gay marriage were unconstitutional. Earlier this year, California followed suit.

Dozens of states have passed constitutional amendments barring the recognition of same-sex marriage. But these laws will soon be tested.

I’m not arguing for or against gay marriage in this post — that’s a thornet’s nest for somebody else to poke with a stick. I’m just pointing out that Scalia was right about the consequences of Lawrence v. Texas.

Barring a constitutional amendment, it may be inevitable that gay marriage will, eventually, become legal in all 50 states. Here’s why. . .

Read it all, and realize that if states cannot determine who gets married, they certainly have no grounds to determine how many get married.

San Diego: A culture of self

From today's San Diego Union-Tribune Letters to the Editor page, a letter that perfectly captures what I thought when I saw yesterday's UT front page, complete with carefully selected pictures of same-sex couples getting "married," most with very young children in tow [boldface mine].

The front-page image in Wednesday's Union-Tribune is the saddest I can imagine. Two women holding two babies and getting married. This is truly awful. We can now see where the “tolerance” mindset has led us. It has led us into a moral and ethical wasteland, where moral judgments no longer hold any sway, and where everyone does whatever “is right in their own eyes,” to borrow a biblical passage.

Almost everyone agrees that a traditional two-parent family is the bedrock of society. And yet we have abandoned this for tolerance sake, and to make sure that no one anywhere is ever offended.

This kind of accommodation has led us down a path that is very wrong. It is God's design for children to be raised in an environment where they spend their formative years in the presence of a mother and father serving in their natural roles. This is the environment where the soul and psyche of a person should be developed. Now we are embarking on a grand experiment – with our children as the subjects – and who knows what is going to come out at the other end.

For the state to have allowed same-sex couples to wed is wrong, and to allow them to raise and adopt children is even worse. We have sown to the wind and we are going to reap the whirlwind, I'm afraid.

JIM KENNEDY
Normal Heights