Probably my last post about General Convention--ever!

Between 1991 and 2009, I attended seven General Conventions of the Episcopal Church, five of those Conventions as a Deputy.  However, I was very glad not to have attended this most recent General Convention in Salt Lake City.  And I am especially glad not to have been there when the Supreme Court's decision legalizing homosexual marriage was announced.  It simply would have been too heartbreaking to watch the revelry as Episcopal bishops and deputies celebrated the nation's highest court giving validation to their degeneracy--Church, State, and Culture marching in lockstep on their relentless descent.  All that is missing is a handbasket.

Not all those present were celebrating:  Twenty-six bishops (vs. 129 in favor and 5 abstentions) went on record in the roll call vote as opposing the adoption of same-sex marriage.  Among those was Bp. William Love of Albany, who stated, "As we contemplate changing the understanding of marriage we must remember our Lord’s words in Matthew (19:5), 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’.”  Love continued,

If our Lord is the son of God … God incarnate, he is quite aware of the nature of marriage and could have offered alternatives but did not,” Bishop Love said.  The argument has been based on all sorts of things.  But it is not an issue that men and women can love each other... that is not the issue.  God has told us that is not appropriate to use the gift of sexual intimacy outside of the marriage of one man and one woman.

Bishop Love stated the church should ask partnered gay and lesbian couples, “Do you love your partner enough not to engage in sexual intimacy?  The issue before us is not about relationships but sexual intimacy.”

Writing from General Convention following the decision, Bishop Dan Martins of Springfield blogged that:

Nonetheless, the Episcopal Church has, today, effectively redefined marriage--a universal and timeless human social institution that Christians have believed is, in fact, not merely a human social institution, but a gift from God that is literally prehistoric, participating in the order of creation.  We have done so, moreover, without even a pretense of consultation with the other provinces of the Anglican Communion, to say nothing of the rest of the Christian world.  It is an act of breathtaking hubris, an abuse of common sense truly worthy of the descriptor Orwellian.

But then, Bp. Martins makes two distinctions that I am inclined to question.  His first questionable distinction has to do with the definition of heresy:

Is it heresy?  This is the question I will continue to ponder.  I don't use that term loosely.  It has a high bar.  Mere false teaching (which this manifestly is) is not necessarily, or even often, heresy.  Heresy must ultimately be traceable to the denial of one of the articles of the creeds.  The creeds don't talk about marriage.  The creeds do, however, talk about creation.  They name God as the creator of heaven and earth.  If marriage was indeed established by God in creation, we are denying the character of that creation when we trivialize the sheer given-ness of "make and female created He them."  These are some preliminary thoughts, at least.

His second questionable distinction follows:

One of my ecclesiological taproots is that one is obligated to remain in communion with a church that engages in false teaching as long as it continues to be a church.  When such a church progresses from mere false teaching into formal heresy--not just de facto heresy, but heresy enshrined in its liturgies and canons--and then persists in that heresy over more than one generation--and I would suggest forty years as a benchmark for "more than one generation"--then it ceases to be a church, and a faithful Christian is obligated to not be in communion with it.  We've certainly been winding the forty-year clock. Is it now ticking? 

Here is why I say the distinctions are questionable:  The New Testament makes no such distinction between false teaching and heresy.  When the Apostle Paul tells his disciple Timothy and the various churches to which he wrote not to tolerate false teachers, he did not make a distinction as to whether their false teaching concerned a matter that would someday be included in the Nicene Creed.  In fact, the admonition was often to separate from false teachers who promoted immorality (1 Corinthians 5:11, 1 Corinthians 10:8, 2 Corinthians 6:17, Ephesians 5:3).  The same is true for other apostles (2 Peter 2:1-10, Jude 3-7).

Heresy has also been defined as any departure from the faith of the Catholic Church, which Vincent of Lerins identified as that which has been believed by the whole church throughout the world, from the beginning, and by all (universality, antiquity, and the consensus of the faithful).  Who can disagree that the Episcopal Church has seriously departed from the received faith of the universal and ancient church--and on a matter of ultimate importance: God's stated will for humankind in the matter of sexual relations and God's ordained sacrament of Holy Matrimony?

And as to remaining in communion, the New Testament makes no such stipulation.  The Apostle Paul does not say, if the body with which you are associated continues in false teaching for a generation, then you (or, more likely, your children) are obliged to separate from it.  No, the admonition is that those who are serious about following the way of Christ are either to expel or to separate from false teachers immediately.

Further, as Attorney Allan Haley writes, the Episcopal Church has not only committed heresy but blasphemy:  "It was God Himself who defined marriage as between a male and a female in Genesis 2:24, and thus to invoke the name of that same God in blessing (or celebrating) a pairing that is not one that he made provision for in Holy Scripture is a blasphemy on His name."

Commenting on the proposals for same-sex marriage prior to General Convention, Mr. Haley had already written, 

What hope is there for the Episcopal Church if any of these Resolutions passes its General Convention?  At that point, the Church will be on record as promoting and encouraging its ordained clergy to speak blasphemously of the relationship between Christ and his church every time they perform a same-sex marriage.  And so at that point, the Church will most definitely no longer be a church, let alone a part of the "one true, catholic and apostolic church" instituted by our Lord.  Instead, it will be at war with our Lord's church.

Can anyone seriously disagree that the Episcopal Church, which has chosen the way of the world, the flesh, and the devil (1 John 2:15-16), has put itself in the position of being "at war with our Lord's Church?"

Bishop Martins has now issued "A Word on Holy Matrimony" in which he states the following policies for his diocese:

• The new marriage liturgies will not be authorized in the Diocese of Springfield.
• No member of the clergy who is either canonically resident in the diocese or resident elsewhere while licensed in the diocese may preside or officiate at any service in which the recently-adopted rites are used, either in whole or in part. This restriction applies both within the bounds of the diocese and beyond them.
• No resident or licensed cleric may sign the civil marriage certificate for a union between persons of the same sex.
• No resident or licensed cleric may preside or officiate at the Blessing of a Civil Marriage for persons of the same sex.
• Failure to abide by these expectations will be understood as a breach of an ordained person’s canonical vow of obedience to the Bishop, and dealt with accordingly.
• No church building of the diocese, nor any other venue owned by or associated with a church of the diocese, may be used for such a ceremony.
• No such ceremony may be recorded either in the Service Register or the Marriage Register of any church in this diocese.

In giving these directives, Bishop Martins has taken the path of a faithful, catholic Christian.  God bless him!  How long he and his fellow dissenting bishops can remain on that path in the Episcopal Church remains to be seen.
  

Where is the Outrage?

Kathryn Steinle, 32

I am reprinting this story (below) that I posted in July 2013 for an obvious reason.  A a 32-year-old San Francisco woman, Kathryn Steinle, was shot to death last week while taking a picturesque walk with her father down Pier 14 in San Francisco, a popular tourist area.  Police have arrested, Francisco Sanchez, 45, an illegal immigrant and a repeat felon who had already been deported five times, for the crime. 

This heinous murder points to (1) the the utter failure of this administration to secure our borders, (2) the general attitude that the President's executive amnesty is encouraging throughout our law enforcement community of looking the other way when it comes to illegal immigrants, (3) the stupidity of San Francisco and other cities who have made themselves "sanctuary cities" by refusing to cooperate with federal authorities to enforce immigration laws, and (4) the fallacy of thinking that gun control laws (which only affect law-abiding citizens) have anything to do with preventing situations like this.

Louise Sollowin, 93

At the time of my earlier article (July 2013), the Trayvon Martin story was attracting all the media coverage, while a 93-year-old Omaha woman was sexually assaulted and beaten to death by a 19-year-old illegal alien.  I predicted then that, apart from a local Omaha newspaper and television station, the national media are going to bury this story.  And they did.  No one outside Omaha heard about Louise Sollowin.  While President Obama called for a "national conversation about race" over the death of Trayvon Martin, there was no outcry for a "national conversation" about illegal immigration.

The murder of Louise Sollowin two years ago and the murder of Kathryn Steinle last week are not isolated incidents.  You can Google "illegal alien crimes" and read about hundreds and even thousands of similar incidents.

A lot has changed in the two years between these two murders: (1) the President has openly defied Congress and the will of the American people with his executive amnesty orders, and (2) more than a million more illegal immigrants have entered the US.

But a lot has also not changed: (1) nothing has been done to secure the borders, and (2) no one in Congress seems to have the political will to tackle this issue.  The voters gave Republicans a majority in the Senate and increased their majority in the House of Representatives with a clear mandate:  Securing the borders was a principal part of that mandate.  Now, establishment Republicans are acting like Democrats on this issue.  Meanwhile American jobs, American cities, and American lives are being lost as a consequence.

Here's the article from July 2013:

Where Is the Outrage?

Yo!  Trayvon Martin supporters!  How about saving a little of your outrage for this:

Church remembers longtime south Omaha matriarch

OMAHA, Neb. — A church and community are in mourning following the senseless death of a 93-year-old south Omaha woman.

A crowd is expected to turn out Friday night and Saturday to pay respects to Louise Sollowin, who lived most of her life in the home where police said she was beaten and sexually assaulted Sunday.

Sollowin died of her injuries Wednesday.

Her alleged attacker, Sergio Martinez-Perez, 19, returned to court Friday to face a first-degree murder charge in connection with Sollowin's death.

Those who knew Sollowin are now preparing to say goodbye.

"I can tell you at mass when we announced it, there were definitely tears," said Rev. James Buckley, of St. Francis Cabrini.  "I mean, we still have people in the parish who were raised with Louise, so they knew her, they remember her.  It's just a difficult time for the whole parish."

Buckley understands how difficult it is to process the unimaginable way Sollowin died.  He spent the last moments of her life at her hospital bedside praying with her and her family.  Buckley said he still can't shake the image of Sollowin's battered face or the severity of the crime.

In court Friday, prosecutors said Martinez-Perez admitted to looking for a victim because he was "mad at women."  He randomly picked Sollowin's house, prosecutors allege.

Read more (with video).

Police: Elderly woman who was beaten, raped dies

Sergio Martinez-Perez faces murder charge

OMAHA, Neb. —A 19-year-old accused of beating and raping an elderly woman who later died will now face a murder charge.

Prosecutors said Sergio Martinez-Perez beat and sexually assaulted 93-year-old Louise Sollowin in her home Sunday.  Sollowin died Wednesday.

Martinez-Perez is charged with first-degree murder.  Charges were dropped for first-degree sexual assault and first-degree assault and burglary.

A judge denied him bond on Friday.

Autopsy results showed that Sollowin's cause of death was blunt force trauma.

Sollowin's family remembers her as a strong woman with many stories and talents.

“She loved her family and her family loved her,” said Teresa Hartzell, the victim’s granddaughter.  “She was all about family.”

“(She was) a wonderful seamstress.  We all got pajamas from her for Christmas, all the grandkids.  She made her children’s clothes,” Hartzell said.

Sollowin's daughter found her suffering in her home Sunday morning.

“She heard my grandmother, and she went in the bedroom, her grandmother called, ‘Help me. Help me,'” Hartzell said.

Hartzell said her mother pushed Martinez-Perez away from her and was going to help her grandmother and saw that it was serious, ran into the other room and called police.

Hartzell and her husband arrived moments later, seeing the man police arrested.

“I was there when the police took him out and he just glared,” she said. “I don’t think there’s any words for it. I just can’t understand why someone would do that. Doesn’t make any sense.”

Prosecutors said Martinez-Perez admitted to the assault and rape, saying he was mad at women after a night of drinking.

Joe Sollowin, Louise's son, said Perez stole precious years from his mother, and the family is demanding justice.

“I want him to get the electric chair. That's what I want. Of course that can't bring my mother back, but he doesn't deserve anything,” he said.

Joe said he is haunted by the pain his mother suffered.  "I still can't get the thought of seeing what happened -- beating her up.   That's not how you want her to go and that's not right,” he said.

Martinez-Perez, who had been working as a roofer, has no ties to Omaha and no known relatives in the metro.

Investigators said Martinez-Perez is not a legal resident of the United States, and that his country of origin is not yet clear.

The victim’s family said a detective told them Perez has been in the country for about four months.  [Emphasis added.]
Read more (with video).
(with video)

Hello! White House?  Hello! Justice Department?  If the killing of Trayvon Martin is enough to merit the personal involvement of the President of the United States and the Attorney General, and if it is cause to open a national conversation about race, then shouldn't the brutal murder of Louise Sollowin by an illegal alien be sufficient to make us rethink the immigration proposals that are currently before Congress? 

Of course it is.  But the main reason it probably won't happen is because, apart from a local Omaha newspaper and television station, the national media are going to bury this story.

How many more lives will we lose before our political leaders act?