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.

A list

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:

• 8/08 S[tand] F[irm] reader points out that Rev. John Beverley Butcher is both an Episcopal priest and a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church.


• 6/08 Episcopal Life letter to the editor by Rev. John Beverley Butcher, author of The Tao of Jesus, recommends omitting the Nicene Creed. (Also on 8/08.)


• 6/08 Find webpage of All Saints, Corpus Christi. The purpose statement is “Celebrating the Divine in prayer and action.” Core values include “We are committed to finding innovative ways of experiencing God’s presence in all Sacred Traditions.”


• 1/08 Hindu-Christian interfaith service


• 1/08 Buddhist mandala constructed at Philadelphia cathedral


• 1/08 Native American smudgers at bishop consecration


• 12/07 Sacramento cathedral hostsTibetan Buddhists to construct mandala and hold Medicine Buddha Healing Ceremony


• 12/07 Seattle parish offers astrology workshop


• 10/07 Sufi dance taught in Seattle cathedral


• 9/07 Navajo teachers and medicine men help with a Navajo blessing ceremony during consecration of bishop


• 6/07 Interfaith baptism in Newark (Muslim and Jewish prayers added to Christian liturgy)


• 6/07 Episcopal priest in Seattle announces she is a Muslim.


• 5/07 A liberal Episcopal layman/ordained Sufi leads Sufi healing circle meetings at St. Philip’s Cathedral, Atlanta, GA


• 4/07 A copyrighted Liturgy of Invitation was celebrated by the Episcopal Committee on Science, Techology, and Faith. Readings included antitheistic philosophy.


• 9/06 A Tibetan Buddhist lama leads a guided meditation for EDS seminarians & faculty.


• 5/06 Episcopal Bookstore offers pagan book Love Potions for sale online.


• 4/06 Wiccan priest/Episcopal layman surfaces, having had essays published on the Oasis blog and Father Jake’s blog and Louie Crew’s blog.


• 4/05 Two Druid/Episcopal priests exposed in Pennsylvania.


• 5/04 A transgender shaman/pagan priest and a witch are featured speakers at a conference partly sponsored by the Episcopal Diocese of Michigan GLBT outreach group


• 1/95 Gaia mass in Grace Cathedral, San Francisco

Episcopal Diocese of San Diego: Task force to study holiness in relationships

Okay, here's a little stone bridge in the Episcopal Diocese of San Diego that is almost gone, but worth defending if anyone is interested in submitting their name for this task force (this resolution was passed at the most recent diocesan convention in February of this year):

Task Force to Study Holiness in Relationships

If you are interested, you may submit your name to be considered for the Bishop's task force to study holiness in relationships. Please email Bobbi Hoff, Executive Assistant to the Bishop: bobbi303@edsd.org.

RESOLUTION 08-09
Title: A Resolution Urging the Bishop to Form a Task Force to Study Holiness in Relationships and Blessings in Churches of the Episcopal Diocese of San Diego.

Be It Resolved that the Bishop of the Diocese of San Diego is urged to appoint a theologically diverse Task Force of clergy and lay people reflective of the Diocese, to study Holiness in Relationships and Blessings in Churches of this Diocese from the perspectives of holy scripture, church history and tradition; practical, pastoral and sacramental theology; and the movement of the Holy Spirit; and then prepare an academic paper on the subject to be presented to the 2009 Convention of the Diocese of San Diego, with additional recommendations as that Task Force might deem appropriate.
Be it Further Resolved, in advance of the presentation at convention, workshops be promoted throughout the diocese to engage congregations in this work and mission.

EXPLANATION OF RESOLUTION:
Whereas much of the conflict in the Episcopal Church concerns the issue of holiness in relationships, and
Whereas the Order for Marriage found in the Book of Common Prayer states that Christian marriage is between a man and a woman, and
Whereas, there are persons in the Episcopal Church (gay and lesbian, seniors and others constrained by financial concerns) who are in committed, monogamous relationships who wish to have their relationships blessed in the church by a clergy person, and
Whereas there are persons in the church, who because of their understanding of scripture and what constitutes a faithful life are opposed to such blessings occurring in the church, and
Whereas liturgical practices surrounding the blessing of unions are not consistent throughout the greater church, and
Whereas the House of Bishops in their September 25, 2007 response to “questions and concerns raised by our Anglican Communion partners,” noted that the 1998 Lambeth Conference called on provinces of the Anglican Communion to engage in a “listening process” designed to bring all Anglicans fully into the Church’s conversation about human sexuality and holy relationships, and
Whereas engaging in such a listening process is a fundamental step before engaging in any action on the matter.

Greg Griffith: Crystal Balls, July 2005

Perpetua, in the comments here, brought up Greg Griffith's July 2005 post, Crystal Balls. I thought it very worth posting here [boldface mine]:

I have found myself over the past year or so in the unfamiliar position of being asked by grownups (those with children and grandchildren, hugely successful careers, and true wisdom, all gained only after the kinds of struggles that lie in my future) how I think it is we got ourselves into this situation with the Episcopal Church, and where I think it's headed.

To be sure, more than one person I've met in the course of this debate has told me I have more opinions than sense. They may well be right, but in this case I have an explanation that has resonated with almost everyone to whom I've given it. The rough outline is buried somewhere deep in the archives of Stand Firm, so a few people reading this may vaguely recognize it. It has been the touchstone for many hours-long conversations.

Think of the whole of the Episcopal Church as a pew full of people (yes, Episcopalians, it is possible for a pew to be filled with people... work with me here). The people are arranged, from left to right, in roughly the order of where they fall on the theological spectrum.

Twenty five years ago, someone on the far right of the pew happened to be in possession of a crystal ball. In the swirl of events surrounding women's ordination and a revised Book of Common Prayer, he looked into the crystal ball and saw the future of the Episcopal Church: Five, perhaps ten years down the road. Perhaps he saw the influx of radical feminists using ordination as just another hill to be taken in their secular war on the church. Perhaps it was a BCP that watered down the confession of sin - indeed, made it optional. Perhaps it was a vision of the proliferation of Spongs and Pikes and Borgs, men who not only deny the basic tenets of the Christian faith, but who have risen to its highest offices and levels of celebrity because of their (un)beliefs.

He voiced his objections to what he saw happening to his church, and some in the pew turned and scowled at him. They couldn't help but notice one thing - that of all the people in the pew, he was the farthest to the right. For more than a few, this became the only thing they noticed about him. For those who didn't know his name, and even for a few who did, he was labeled "the fundamentalist," or "the troublemaker."

Whatever he saw - in the crystal ball, down the pew - it was enough to make him want to get up and leave. The decision was difficult. His family had been Episcopalian for five generations, his great-grandparents had been charter members of the grand old church where he grew up, where both of his children were married. He became Presbyterian, or Methodist, or perhaps Roman Catholic, or joined a fledgling Anglical splinter church. He may have stopped going to church altogether. But before he left, he handed the crystal ball to the lady on his immediate left.

She was sad to see him go. She shared many of his misgivings about the direction in which the church was headed, but she preferred sitting tight to rocking the boat. She hoped that the spasms of radicalism in her beloved church were temporary, and would eventually pass like a fad. . .

Read it all.

*Updated* Greg Griffith predicts what might happen at GC09

Update: For another considered point of view, I've added a comment from young joe at old oc below Greg's predictions.

Original: From the Stand Firm comments, Greg Griffith outlines what he thinks might happen at General Convention 2009 [boldface mine]:

. . . It may not be a foregone conclusion, but it is far likelier than not that at GC09, three major pieces of legislation will be passed:

The first will be a significant expansion of C051. The exact scope of that expansion obviously we won’t know until we get much closer to convention, but rest assured it will fall somewhere between a nationally comprehensive authorization that reflects Susan Russell’s “full inclusion, including holy matrimony” goal at a minimum, and perhaps a proposal for inclusion in a new Book of Common Prayer, whether as a separate rite, or as a modification of the existing Rite of Holy Matrimony and the accompanying rubric; which strikes gender-specific language and adds some predictably stomach-turning treacle.

The second will be some kind of clampdown on dissenting clergy and lay people. I won’t venture a guess as to details, but suffice it to say it will probably make life for outspoken orthodox priests anywhere from much more interesting to crazy interesting, and for loudmouth lay people anywhere from somewhat interesting to much more interesting. I half-expect to be summoned by my bishop or some of the resident Eddie Haskels at Allin House at some point by summer of 2010 at the latest.

The third will be a jaw-dropping clampdown on property issues. Schori and Beers will not leave Anaheim without something that relieves them of the pain being administered to them in Virginia right now.

Then here’s what will happen as news filters out on the blogs and such:

Lay people to the immediate left of us - those “moderate conservatives” who didn’t see any reason to get worked up about what happened in 2003, because it was “way off in New Hampshire” - will be informed that gay marriage is the law of the land in TEC, that it is no longer something that’s confined to a few wacko fringe dioceses like San Francisco and D.C. Think women’s ordination in 1997 - the way it was changed from “local option” in the 70’s, to mandatory in ‘97. I don’t rule out the possibility of goon squads being sent around much like they were in 97, “encouraging” bishops and standing committees to get in line.

Lay people will then realize what the form these rites will take in that of an “amended” and soon-to-be-revised prayer book, and they will stop in their tracks. They will look around for options, and begin planning how they will take their parishes out of the Episcopal Church.

It’s then they’ll be horrified to learn that, according to 815, they don’t actually own the property into which they have poured their time and fortune all these years. There will be outrage, disbelief, and chaos.

Many of them will come here, looking for a detailed plan on how to save their church. Not finding one, some of them will take us to task for being nothing but a bunch of loudmouths who have done nothing to help them, and they can’t believe we’ve let them down this way.

Some will stay and pledge to fight. Others will storm out of the church, and stand on the sidelines berating those who chose to leave.

Then things will get interesting.

So make a copy of this, pull it out next summer, and see if Greg is right!

And an update from young joe in old oc [boldface mine]:

Greg is extremely smart and capable, but I disagree with his approach on this as I do with most of the bloggers and editors on Stand Firm. They don't realize how their attitude has created, to some degree, a profusion of self-fulfilling prophecy.

There are many very traditional/conservative folks who always see us on a slippery slope to death and destruction (I was one of them back in the late '90's as we had just embraced the liturgical/sacramental vision of the Faith and tried to get involved in a handful of different episcopal parishes in the Pasadena area - after that short tour, we ended up rejecting ecusa). Unlike Greg and his staff however, they are not generally fully engaged at parish, diocesan, or church-wide levels, nor do they really know how to be, and that lack of engagement has been the acceptable sub-culture in episcopal parishes, progressive, mainstream or traditionalist, for at least 70 years. However, these average, often very committed lay churchmen and women will take what they read on blogs like Stand Firm as confirmation of the rightness of their perspective, and give up on the possibility of making serious breakthroughs as individuals on any level (We saw this happen at the parish in Glendale). They will take comfort in their para-church groups like Forward in Faith or the AAC (nothing wrong with these groups at all - they just don't know how to break people of their americanized habit patterns), or ecumenical ministries they're involved with, and further separate themselves from the political aspects of parish life, except where the para-church provides the tools to make some specific challenge. As this has occurred all across TEC over the last 25 years, we now see the "prophecies" being fulfilled, and the only place then for many orthodox folks to go is the exits.

I probably have the same turn of the stomach Greg does when I read about the false teaching and apostasy that is becoming the norm in may parts of episcopalianism. But I will not allow myself to become so deeply cynical and always convinced that the end is near. I am sick to death of what the PB and her henchmen at 815 are trying to form in their own image with their ersatz inclusiveness and twisted, secularized (false) gospel. My bags are packed and I am ready to leave ecusa the moment that a consensus forms at the parish about where we should go. And I have been pushing for the parish to begin the process. However, I'm not going to let myself believe that all the orthodox traditionalist folks who remain and don't have the same perspective I do are simply sheep that will go right to the door of the slaughterhouse.

Greg may be right in 80 percent of what he is predicting in this article, but if he is only 80 or 90 percent correct, he does not possess prophetic gifts and so shouldn't be writing as if he is indeed a prophet.

Two approaches to the same issues - some will agree strongly with one, some with other, and many fall somewhere in between, so how do we remain focused on what is best for the church?

Anglican Communion sits on keg of gun-powder

From Tope Olukole at the Saturday Tribune (Nigeria) [boldface mine]:

ANGLICAN Communion worldwide has been on this journey for ten long years. It has been costly and debilitating for all concerned as most recently demonstrated by the tepid response to the invitations to the proposed Lambeth Conference 2008.

At a time when the church should be able to gather together and celebrate remarkable stories of growth there is little enthusiasm towards the meeting.

There are continual cries for patience and understanding; and yet the record shows that those who hold to the “faith once and for all delivered to the saints” have shown remarkable forebearance while their pleas have been ignored, leaders have been demonised, and advocates marginalised.

In 1998, the Anglican Communion made a deliberate decision with regard to matters of human sexuality; it was supported by an overwhelming majority of the Bishops of the Communion. It reflected traditional teaching interpreted with pastoral sensitivity.

And yet it has been ignored and those who uphold it were derided for their stubbornness. However, the church continued to meet and pray and struggle to find ways to maintain the spirit of unity.

The journey started in February 1997 in Kuala Lumpur. It was there, during the 2nd Encounter of the Global South Anglican Communion, that a statement was issued in which concern was expressed about the apparent setting aside of the Biblical teaching by some Provinces and Dioceses. The statement pleaded for dialogue in a spirit of true unity before any part of the communion embarks on radical changes to church discipline and moral teachings.

Sadly, this plea and several similar warnings have been ignored and ten years later, in February, 2007, the Primates of the Anglican Communion met in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and experienced an agonising time trying to repair the communion that has been so badly broken. Their earlier prediction at the Primates’ Meeting at Lambeth palace in 2003, that rejection of the faith committed to the church would tear “the fabric of our communion at its deepest level,” has proven to be accurate.

In Dar es Salaam, the Primates proposed, as one last attempt to restore unity, a period of seven months for those who have brought the communion to the brink of destruction to reconsider their actions and put a stop to the harmful actions that have so polarised the church. . .

Read it all.
H/t to Anglicans United.

Tactics explained at Fr. Jake's

I always get tactics and strategy confused, so I may be using the wrong term in the headline. But whichever it is, it's happening now!

From the Rev. Susan Russell over at Fr. Jake's on justifying All Saints move to start performing same-sex weddings [boldface mine]:

Although it's certainly debatable, reading Canon 17:5 in conversation with Canon 18:1 we believe that the spirit of those canons transcends the letter of the language describing marriage as a union between a man and a woman in Canon 18:2b. And we'll be suggesting fixing that in Anaheim.

It's arguable that the 1976 approval of the ordination of women wouldn't have happened without 1974 and Philadelpia pushing the church to amend the canons to reflect the reality there WERE women who were priests. I'll argue it's the same here ... and that the church needs to amend the canons to reflect the reality that there are same-sex couples who are MARRRIED.

But remember, Bishop Bruno knows nothing about any of this! But Susan Russell+ has that covered as well:

+Jon's letter to the clergy said ...

I remind you that pastoral acts are personal decisions between clergy and members of your congregation.

... which is why we don't have to ask for "permission" for blessings -- which have been happening at All Saints Church for over 15 years -- and where we'll stand when we start marrying gay couples on June 16th.

Compare and contrast: An exercise in futility

Here’s an interesting exercise. In light of the recent California Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, let’s take a look at what God tells us through Holy Scripture about the sacrament of marriage and its purpose in His plan for us.

One Old Testament source from Genesis 2:18,21-22,24:

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.". . . So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. . . For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

And one New Testament source from Matthew 19:4-6:

"Haven't you read," [Jesus] replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Now, let’s do a “Compare & Contrast” between the reaction of Roman Catholic clergy and the reaction of some California bishops of the Episcopal Church (I would have liked to include an Anglican response as well, but so far I have not seen one) [all boldface is mine].

First, we have a Reuters report on Pope Benedict XVI’s restatement of the RC’s understanding of marriage:

Pope Benedict, speaking a day after a California court ruled in favour of same-sex marriage, firmly restated on Friday the Roman Catholic Church's position that only unions between a man and a woman are moral. . .

"The union of love, based on matrimony between a man and a woman, which makes up the family, represents a good for all society that can not be substituted by, confused with, or compared to other types of unions," he said.

The pope also spoke of the inalienable rights of the traditional family, "founded on matrimony between a man and a woman, to be the natural cradle of human life".

But I don’t think Bishop J. Jon Bruno of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles would agree with him:

Today's Supreme Court decision on same-gender relationships is important because it reflects our baptismal vow to "strive for justice and peace among all people and respect the dignity of every human being" and our commitment to justice and mercy for all people.

The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles has been a leader in working for the rights of all people in the State of California, and that work is honored in today's ruling. The canons of our church, under "Rights of the Laity" (Canon 1:17.5), forbid discrimination on the basis of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, disabilities or age. We affirm equal rights for all.

We will continue to advocate for equality in the future and will do so at the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, which will meet in Anaheim in 2009.

I celebrate and give thanks for this decision of the court and look forward with joy and excitement to a future of justice and mercy for all people in the State of California and the Episcopal Church.

To paraphrase St. Paul, there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, gay nor straight in Jesus Christ our Lord.

Very different understandings in play here.

Let’s move on to another statement, this one by the California Roman Catholic Conference of Bishops:

The California Catholic Conference of Bishops must express its disappointment in the California Supreme Court decision to declare Proposition 22 unconstitutional.

Proposition 22, which states, ‘Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid and recognized in California,’ passed eight years ago by a vote of 61.2 to 38.8 percent. That statute reflected the wisdom of the voters of California in retaining the traditional definition of marriage as a biological reality and a societal good. Unfortunately, today, the Court saw fit to disregard the will of the majority of people of California.

Catholic teaching maintains that marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman joined in an intimate partnership of life and love—a union instituted by God for the mutual fulfillment of the husband and wife as well as for the procreation and education of children. . .

Today’s decision of California’s high court opens the door for policymakers to deconstruct traditional marriage and create another institution under the guise of equal protection.

Of course, Bishop Marc Handley of the Episcopal Diocese of California disagrees:

I welcome the ruling of the California Supreme Court affirming the fundamental right of all people to marry and establish a family. All children of God should be afforded the same rights under the law, and this decision recognizes that all Californians, regardless of sexual orientation, have equal access to one of our fundamental human institutions. This decision gives our church another opportunity to partner with our state to ensure that all families have the support they need to build relationships that strengthen our communities, state and country. Jesus tried to free his disciples from a narrow definition of what it means to be his follower. In Matthew 10:42, Jesus says “whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple—truly I tell you, none of these will lose their reward.” God affirms the good in the world outside the boundaries of religious creeds and dogmas. In this spirit, we also affirm and rejoice in this decision by the California Supreme Court precisely because we are Christians. Clearly, this momentous decision will have ecclesial implications for the Episcopal Diocese of California. I intend to be in prayerful consultation with the people of our diocese to see how we can use this decision to strengthen our support of our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers, and our witness to God’s inclusive love. The Diocese of California will issue an appropriate statement in due course.

But the Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco George Niederauer continues to hold to the biblical definition of marriage:

In regard to this decision of the court, the Catholic Bishops of California have said that "Catholic teaching maintains that marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman joined in an intimate partnership of life and love-a union instituted by God for the mutual fulfillment of the husband and wife as well as for the procreation and education of children."

This teaching of the Church follows forth from the teaching of Jesus Christ: "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?" (Matthew 19: 4-5)

At a moment in our society when we need to reinforce the strength of marriage and family this decision of the Supreme Court takes California in the opposite direction. This action challenges those in society who believe in the importance of the traditional understanding of marriage to deepen their witness to the unique and essential role that marriage between a man and a woman has in the life of society.

Bishop James Mathes of the Episcopal Diocese of San Diego, now that the secular court has passed judgment, has the confidence to say:

I support the Supreme Court's decision and oppose the likely effort to amend the constitution. . . While supporting the rights of gays and lesbians, I am mindful that our church has not yet made the decision to bless same-sex unions. We are in the midst of a challenging but vital conversation about holy relationships in this diocese and indeed across the communion. . . Let us be good stewards of these solidarities and teach each other, and the wider community, how to listen and learn from each other as we accept the Court's decision to allow equal access to the institution of marriage.

So, which statements more closely try to reflect how God describes the act and purpose of marriage? Which statements seem to reflect the spirit of the age? Which statements hold up Holy Scripture?

From Bishop Bruno of Los Angeles to the clergy and laity in his diocese

From Susan Russell's blog [boldface mine]:

Dear Clergy and Laity of the Diocese of Los Angeles,

I trust by now you have had the opportunity to read my statement in response to the recent California Supreme Court decision.

Some clergy and lay leaders have contacted my office requesting information or clarification of how this decision affects what we can do, or will do, as well as what our policy on this issue will be. As publicized in the press, the State of California expects the decision to become effective 30 days after its issuance. In addition I remain on sabbatical and am scheduled to resume my regular work schedule the week of June 3.

There are canonical, prayer book, and pastoral questions which are raised and must be addressed. I have been in contact with the bishops of the Dioceses of California and San Diego and we will be working together with other bishops of California to meet and discuss how we proceed. I will keep you informed and will act with all possible dispatch while attending to the canonical and pastoral issues the decision affect.

I remind you that pastoral acts are personal decisions between clergy and members of your congregation. In the meantime please remain patient and prayerful. Thank you.

Yours in Christ,
J. Jon Bruno, Bishop
Diocese of Los Angeles

H/t to Stand Firm.

A response to the statement by Bishop James Mathes of San Diego

I've had a few days to consider the statement issued by Bishop James Mathes of San Diego on the recent California Supreme Court decision and I have a few comments. I've pasted the bishop's letter below in italic and all boldfacing is mine.

While visiting the Diocese of El Salvador, I learned of yesterday's ruling by the California Supreme Court that it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to receive a California marriage license. With efforts already underway to place a constitutional amendment on November's ballot banning such marriages, it is clear that this issue will continue to permeate our political life.

A statement of the obvious, but note how the issue “will continue to permeate our political life” only – what about our communal, family, religious, and spiritual life?

I support the Supreme Court's decision and oppose the likely effort to amend the constitution. At a federal level, the constitution has only been successfully amended to expand rights, not remove them, and it follows that California would maintain a similar posture.

So by supporting the Supreme Court’s decision and opposing the effort to amend the California state constitution, he is discounting the popular vote of the people. Now, I agree that a popular vote on a particular issue is not the end-all and be-all, but I certainly think as bishop, he should acknowledge that this is part of our political process and not discredit it because he happens to agree with this court decision.

He is also very wrong in his statement that “At a federal level, the constitution has only been successfully amended to expand rights, not remove them. . .” As articulated by Ireaneus in the comments at Stand Firm:

“Wrong and wrong.

--- The Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution curtailed the right of an individual to sue a state in federal court---a right the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793).

--- The Fourteenth Amendment precluded certain Confederate traitors from ever holding federal office, notwithstanding President Andrew Johnson’s pardon of them.

--- During the 1970s, as the U.S. Supreme Court curtailed Fourth Amendment (searches and seizures) and Fifth Amendment (self-incrimination) doctrine, the California Supreme Court held that the state constitution provided broader protections. California voters overturned those rulings during the early 1980s.”

And from The_Archer_of_the_Forest at TitusOneNine:

Well, as a political science major and amateur poly-sci scholar and as someone who has spent time in law school, that is a somewhat flawed understanding of constitutional law. Granted that the first ten amendments are the Bill of Rights, I can give the examples of prohibition (though ultimately repealed), most of the amendments stemming from the civil war (which gave freedom to ex-slaves, but took rights away from slave owners), and the amendment to limit the term of office for a president to 2 elected terms or a maximum of 10 years limits power. Not to mention the 16th amendment which established the federal governments right to extend its power over the individual in the form of an income tax.”

One wonders if +Mathes even researched this sentence, is making assumptions, or just repeating what someone else told him. And given that the entire letter rests on this assumption “the constitution has only been successfully amended to expand rights, not remove them,” the fact that the assumption is incorrect means that the entire letter is based on nothing, nothing other than +Mathes’s own thoughts and feelings and on nothing else – nothing scriptural, nothing legal, nothing moral, nothing political, nothing constitutional.

While supporting the rights of gays and lesbians, I am mindful that our church has not yet made the decision to bless same-sex unions. We are in the midst of a challenging but vital conversation about holy relationships in this diocese and indeed across the communion.

First off, what “rights” has he as a bishop been supporting? If he is referring to treating all, Christian or not, as creatures of God with the love and respect Jesus calls us to, then I would have to say I hope he has supported the rights of all people, not just one particular group. And we have been in “the midst of a challenging but vital conversation” about this for forty years.

To even call these “holy relationships” when that has not been determined by the greater Church is an indication that +Mathes is committed to a particular “rights” agenda. Of course, at this past February’s diocesan convention, San Diego passed this resolution:

Resolution 08-09

Be It Resolved that the Bishop of the Diocese of San Diego is urged to appoint a theologically diverse Task Force of clergy and lay people reflective of the Diocese, to study Holiness in Relationships and Blessings in Churches of this Diocese from the perspectives of holy scripture, church history and tradition; practical, pastoral and sacramental theology; and the movement of the Holy Spirit; and then prepare an academic paper on the subject to be presented to the 2009 Convention of the Diocese of San Diego, with additional recommendations as that Task Force might deem appropriate.

Be it Further Resolved, in advance of the presentation at convention, workshops be promoted throughout the diocese to engage congregations in this work and mission.

EXPLANATION OF RESOLUTION:

Whereas much of the conflict in the Episcopal Church concerns the issue of holiness in relationships, and
Whereas the Order for Marriage found in the Book of Common Prayer states that Christian marriage is between a man and a woman, and
Whereas, there are persons in the Episcopal Church (gay and lesbian, seniors and others constrained by financial concerns) who are in committed, monogamous relationships who wish to have their relationships blessed in the church by a clergy person, and
Whereas there are persons in the church, who because of their understanding of scripture and what constitutes a faithful life are opposed to such blessings occurring in the church, and
Whereas liturgical practices surrounding the blessing of unions are not consistent throughout the greater church, and
Whereas the House of Bishops in their September 25, 2007 response to “questions and concerns raised by our Anglican Communion partners,” noted that the 1998 Lambeth Conference called on provinces of the Anglican Communion to engage in a “listening process” designed to bring all Anglicans fully into the Church’s conversation about human sexuality and holy relationships, and
Whereas engaging in such a listening process is a fundamental step before engaging in any action on the matter.

At the time, we were told that “there is no hidden agenda here, we want to have an open-ended conversation and see where it takes us.” I agree that the agenda wasn’t hidden at all, it was blatant – just read through the “Whereas’s” in the Explanation.

I ask all people of the diocese to hold the court's decision gently.

I ask, seriously, what does that mean? I’m not trying to be obtuse or sarcastic – I really don’t think anyone knows what that means. Does it mean don’t get too upset if you disagree with the decision? Does it mean acknowledge that this decision might be upsetting to some? Please, tell me, because to me it sounds like psychobabble.

Prayerfully remember that God has placed his children, who share different perspectives on same-sex relationships, next to each other in church every Sunday.

And God has placed us in church so that we can learn from His Word, through the life and resurrection of Jesus and the Holy Scripture. “Different perspectives” mean very little against God’s Eternal Word.

As Archbishop Rowan Williams said, "our baptism puts us in solidarities not of our own choosing." Let us be good stewards of these solidarities and teach each other, and the wider community, how to listen and learn from each other as we accept the Court's decision to allow equal access to the institution of marriage.

Solidarity, singularity, it sounds like a Star Trek script.

+Mathes is telling us here that we are to accept the Court’s decision (because remember, he opposes amending the California constitution) and we are to “listen and learn from each other.” What he’s saying is that the Diocese of San Diego, once the initial reaction from this decision is over, will push hard to allow same-sex blessing and marriage sacraments in the Episcopal Church.

If one believes that the court decision is correct, then what is the point of listening and learning, other than to convince those who disagree with the court decision that we must abide by it. +Mathes accepts and supports the court’s decision, therefore +Mathes accepts and supports same-sex blessings and marriage.

And as we have learned from the Episcopal Church’s shameful affiliation with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, that which the courts have deemed legal, the Episcopal Church will soon call not only moral, but mandatory and holy.

San Diego speaks on the California Supreme Court ruling

From Bishop James Mathes, Diocese of San Diego, on the recent California Supreme Court ruling [boldface mine]:

May 17, 2008

While visiting the Diocese of El Salvador, I learned of yesterday's ruling by the California Supreme Court that it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to receive a California marriage license. With efforts already underway to place a constitutional amendment on November's ballot banning such marriages, it is clear that this issue will continue to permeate our political life.

I support the Supreme Court's decision and oppose the likely effort to amend the constitution. At a federal level, the constitution has only been successfully amended to expand rights, not remove them, and it follows that California would maintain a similar posture.

While supporting the rights of gays and lesbians, I am mindful that our church has not yet made the decision to bless same-sex unions. We are in the midst of a challenging but vital conversation about holy relationships in this diocese and indeed across the communion. I ask all people of the diocese to hold the court's decision gently. Prayerfully remember that God has placed his children, who share different perspectives on same-sex relationships, next to each other in church every Sunday.

As Archbishop Rowan Williams said, "our baptism puts us in solidarities not of our own choosing." Let us be good stewards of these solidarities and teach each other, and the wider community, how to listen and learn from each other as we accept the Court's decision to allow equal access to the institution of marriage.

The Right Reverend James R. Mathes
Bishop of San Diego

I don't feel like taking this apart right now to illustrate the illogic and bending to the culture that this statement displays (although I might do that later), so I have one word, and one word only, to say to the Episcopal Church: Good-bye.

H/t to Walking with Integrity.

"Mere accommodation of the orthodox. . . is no longer an option"

From the Midwest Conservative Journal, thoughts on Lambeth and the future of the Anglican Communion:

. . . Might Dr. Williams cut his losses and recognize Donald Harvey and Bob Duncan as co-primates of Canada and the United States regardless of how loudly TEO and the AOiC scream? It might be his only way to keep the Communion in one piece. Will such a move keep people like me in the Anglican tradition?

No. Mere accomodation of the orthodox within a heterodox "church," a so-called "safe haven," is no longer an option. I might just as easily "accomodate" myself to the Unitarians. When the issue concerns my soul and the souls of those around me, "you believe what you want and we'll believe what we want" is not an attractive philosophy.

I don't know why, but it makes me a little nervous that Christopher Johnson is channeling my thoughts! But he is so right - "mere accommodation of the orthodox. . . is no longer an option."
Read it all.

Judaism’s sexual revolution: Why Judaism rejected homosexuality

From Stand Firm, an excellent post by Sarah Hey that she got from the Catholic Education Resource Center. You have to read it all yourself, so I'm not even posting excerpts here. So check it out!

. . . like sheep without a shepherd

The same event - Archbishop Orombi's visit to this country, including a stop at Christ Church Savannah and a men's retreat in southern California

Two different perspectives -

• Reasserter

Stand Firm
TitusOneNine

• Revisionist

Father Jake Stops the World

And while the websites themselves offer two different perspectives, it's the comments that really show the ideology of each side.

Now, I definitely fall on the reasserter side and agree with a lot of the comments I read at Stand Firm and TitusOneNine, but it is very interesting to see how both sides create mini-echo chambers as those of the same persuasion comment on "their side's" website. Not much overlap, although some (and give credit where credit is due, Phil Synder valiantly plugs on at Jake's - I would have been long gone).

I don't see any way around this (of course people congregate with others they agree with) and it's not necessarily a bad thing, but every once and a while, I realize how polar opposite these views are and how that creates such personal animosity and frustration.

We really are sheep in need of a Shepherd.

AAC weekly message from Bishop David Anderson

Via email, the weekly message from Bishop David Anderson with the American Anglican Council [boldface mine]:

Beloved in Christ,

This week, a good portion of my time has been invested in an Executive Committee meeting of the Common Cause Partners Federation. If this organization is, hopefully, to be more than just a gathering of orthodox judicatory and mission organizations' leaders, work has to be commenced on some difficult issues. The good news is that such work is being addressed. After the many disappointments of the past five to eight years, I am reluctant to pronounce when something will happen and what it will look like, but I do have a great deal of optimism about the future for the Common Cause participants. I see a willingness to look the hard issues in the face and begin trying to work on them. Is the task formidable? Absolutely! But the important thing is that the leaders I am sitting beside are willing to begin the process, and this willingness will continue to be reflected when the same bishops are gathered for GAFCON. I also have a good deal of hope and optimism for GAFCON, that it will bring forth what will unfold into the future of Anglicanism.

When the American Anglican Council writes to those overseas about the troubles on the spiritual landscape in North America, it is often the case that our listeners or readers will default to the easiest understanding - sex. I have explained to journalists at length that the sexuality issues in North America are derivative of the theological errors of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. The orthodox Anglicans in North America fervently believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and none come unto the Father except through him. Jesus gave us this doctrine himself, and it becomes a litmus test for the theological deviation that has occurred and is progressing at an alarming rate. Additionally, the orthodox Anglicans believe the Holy Scripture to be "God breathed," as II Timothy 3:16 phrases it. We believe that Holy Scripture has the authority to speak into both our spiritual and our "secular" lives, and to provide not only the words of eternal life, but also the proper ordering of our behavior and discipline.

The great divide we face is that the liberal revisionists no longer believe this, and it is a very significant departure from historic Christianity. In their view, Jesus is a way to the Father, but you can pick the path that works best for you. Likewise, scripture is written by the church and can be rewritten and reinterpreted by the church to mean different things than it has for the past two millennia. In reality, if Bishop Gene Robinson were to resign tomorrow, very little would change in North America. Sexuality issues are the presenting symptom that indicates a visit to the doctor's office is needed, but they are not the disease. Departure from the historic Christian faith is the disease, and sexual perversions, dealings in witchcraft and the occult, and other manifestations are the consequent result. If you are not here to witness it, it is hard to comprehend how wacko the Episcopal Church scene is getting. We couldn't make this stuff up if we tried, so we will just report it to you to underline our point: as bad as the homosexuality issues are in the church, the bizzare theology is even worse.

David Kalvelage, the Executive Editor of The Living Church, a respected orthodox weekly publication centered on the life and events within the Episcopal Church, has written an excellent article that goes to the point of my remarks above. David has given us permission to reprint the entirety of his article which appears in the May 11 edition of The Living Church. Read the article below, and bear in mind that no one made this up, and this is the very sad and dangerous state of much of the Episcopal Church. People's eternal life is being put at risk because teaching such as this is disseminated by diocesan sources, and those who believe and act on it are at peril.

Speaking of Gene Robinson, he is again claiming that his life is being threatened, but this has all of the narcissistic credibility of the young Nigerian gay man who keeps claiming that he was attacked in Nigeria because of his sexual orientation, but he can't seem to keep straight the details of the alleged event(s). Is it dangerous to be publicly gay? In some locations and at some times, undoubtedly so. It is also dangerous in many European and North American settings to be public and verbal about being ex-gay. The entire concept of being ex-gay undermines the mantra of "they are born that way and it is immutable," and thereby seems to somehow threaten the very identity of being gay. Consequently, verbal and physical attacks have been visited on those who have had healing and restoration from God brought into their life. Those whose lives were disordered have been re-ordered, or if you will, re-oriented, into what is the intention of the Creator - thanks be to God.

This Sunday is a double Holy Day in the US: first the feast of Pentecost, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the church, accompanied by supernatural events. This is still happening in the churches where the members both believe and expect it. Secondly, it is Mother's Day in the United States, and anyone who hasn't sent Mom a card and some flowers is in trouble. And even if you have, phone Mom and thank her for all that she has done for you.

Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President & CEO of the AAC

Heretical Friday: Nestorianism

Nestorianism

Named after Nestorius, a monk who became the bishop of Constantinople. He was deposed as bishop by the Council of Ephesus and sent to Antioch, then Arabia, and then Egypt. He died in 451. Nestorianism survived until around 1300.

Nestorianism holds that Mary bore only Christ’s human nature in her womb, but not his divine nature. Nestorius denied Mary the title of Theotokos (Greek: God-bearer” or less literally, “Mother of God”). Nestorius’s theory would divide Christ into two distinct persons (one human, one divine), only one of whom was borne by Mary.

In 431, at the Council of Ephesus, the Church defined that Mary can be properly referred to as the Mother of God, not in the sense that she is older than God or the source of God, but in the sense that the person she carried in her womb was, in fact, God incarnate ("in the flesh").

Nestorianism presented a threat to the atonement. If Jesus was two persons, then which one died on the cross? If it was the "human person" then the atonement is not of divine quality and thereby insufficient to cleanse us of our sins.

As a follow-up, there is some doubt whether Nestorius himself held the heresy his statements imply. In 1895, a handwritten 16th-century book containing a copy of a text written by Nestorius was discovered by American missionaries in the library of the Nestorian patriarch in the mountains at Kotchanes. This book had suffered damage during Moslem raids, but was substantially intact, and copies were taken secretly. The Syriac translation had the title of the Bazaar of Heracleides. The original 16th-century manuscript was destroyed in 1915 during the Turkish massacres of Nestorian Christians.

The Bazaar was written towards the end of Nestorius’s life, and in it he explicitly denies the heresy for which he was condemned. Instead he affirms of Christ "the same one is twofold" — an expression that some consider similar to the formulation of the Council of Chalcedon. In the 20th century, the Assyrian Church of the East, historically regarded as a Nestorian church, has signed a fully orthodox joint declaration on Christology with the Roman Catholic Church and rejects Nestorianism. It is now in the process of coming into full ecclesial communion with the Catholic Church.

Sources:
Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry (CARM)
Catholic Answers
Wikipedia

Previous heresy posts:
Modalism
Albigenses
Donatism
Manichaeism
Gnosticism
Pelagianism

Protestant or Catholic: Anglicans must decide

Hey, I'm working on it. . . but the jury's still out in my house. We'll get there, we're just not sure where yet. (But we're leaning heavily towards looking at the fruit of the Holy Spirit to help us discern - and we ain't seein' it in ECUSA.)

From Ruth Gledhill:

Hard words for Anglicans from the head of the Council for Christian Unity in Rome. Cardinal Walter Kasper has told the Catholic Herald that now, with Lambeth approaching, is the time for Anglicans to decide whether they are Catholic or Protestant. 'Ultimately, it is a question of the identity of the Anglican Church. Where does it belong?' he said. 'Does it belong more to the churches of the first millennium -Catholic and Orthodox - or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century? At the moment it is somewhere in between, but it must clarify its identity now and that will not be possible without certain difficult decisions.' The genius of Anglicanism has always been its ability to straddle the divide, but maybe the Cardinal is right and the Communion's present difficulties reflect the impossibility of continuing to do this. . .

I wonder how much the Catholics understand, however, that the Anglo-Catholics who might be the ones most naturally tempted towards Catholicism are not really where the present dissent stems from. Most of those who were going to go over have already gone, over women priests. . .

I don't necessarily agree with Ruth on this (about those tempted towards Catholicism having already left), since so many of us (myself included) had not really had a reason to think through much of what we grew up with until we realized that our church was no longer on a biblical path, but read it all.
H/t to Stand Firm.

AnglicanTV: +Venables in San Joaquin

From AnglicanTV, two videos with Archbishop Gregory Venables, one his teaching on Anglicanism and one his sermon to the Diocese of San Joaquin.

Watch them both!

Why I left the Episcopal Church by Dr Moheb Ghali

From Anglican Mainstream [boldface mine]:

WHY I LEFT THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Dr. Moheb Ghali

Occasionally I am asked why I found it necessary, after four decades of committed service, to leave the Episcopal Church. My answer is: I had to choose whom to believe. On many issues central to my faith what Jesus and the Apostles say and what the leaders of the Episcopal Church say are incompatible. I chose to believe in what Jesus and the Apostles say, and that made it necessary to leave the Episcopal Church.

What more needs to be said? I agree with Dr. Ghali completely.

The Bishops of the Church, who are the Ecclesiastical Authorities in their dioceses, the successors to the Apostles and the guardians of faith, speak for the Church on matters of faith and doctrine (see: examination of Bishop-elect at Consecration on authority to interpret the Gospel; Canon 12.3(b) on authority to issue pastoral letters on points of doctrine, discipline or worship; Lambeth 1948 on the locus of the dispersed authority being the episcopate; and Archbishop of Canterbury’s October 14, 2007 letter to Bishop Howe on the organ of union with the wider Church being the Bishop and the Diocese). Their public statements interpreting the Gospel and doctrine, unless repudiated by Church councils, may be taken as representing the Church’s positions. In what follows I compare examples of the positions expressed by Episcopal Bishops, theologians and other Church leaders on ten issues, positions that have not been repudiated by councils of the Episcopal Church, with the positions found in Scripture. I use statements by Presiding Bishops, both current and former, with greater frequency as I consider the public views of the presiding officer of the House of Bishops to be representatives of views of the majority of its members. . .

Read it all and read it well.

The MCJ: Prattling

From the Midwest Conservative Journal:

"That’s still one of our central tenets," Jefferts Schori said. "We see sexual issues in the same light but the particular context may require a different focus."

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the single most dishonest words Katharine Jefferts Schori has ever uttered. No, Kate. We don't. . .

Please, READ IT ALL!