How much can we afford?

Yes, this is off-topic, but it's important:

WASHINGTON - The Democratic-controlled Senate on Saturday cleared away a Republican filibuster of a huge end-of-year spending bill that rewards most federal agencies with generous budget boosts.

The $1.1 trillion measure combines much of the year's unfinished budget work — only a $626 billion Pentagon spending measure would remain — into a 1,000-plus-page spending bill that would give the Education Department, the State Department, the Department of Health and Human Services and others increases far exceeding inflation.

The 60-34 vote met the minimum threshold to end the GOP filibuster. A final vote was set for Sunday afternoon to send the measure to President Barack Obama.

[...]

Just the $626 billion defense bill would remain. That's being held back to serve as a vehicle to advance must-pass legislation such as a plan to allow the government's debt to swell by nearly $2 trillion. The government's total debt has nearly doubled in the past seven years and is expected to exceed the current ceiling of $12.1 trillion before Jan. 1.

Republicans said the measure — on top of February's $787 billion economic stimulus bill and a generous omnibus measure for the 2009 budget year — spends too much money in a time when the government is running astronomical deficits.

$12.1 trillion in debt and no end in sight. Does anyone realize the disaster that is brewing? Write your representatives and senators.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

A quotation sometimes attributed to Scottish lawyer and historian Alexander Tytler (1790).

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.

A quotation often linked with the one above, but actually taken from a 1943 speech "Industrial Management in a Republic" by H. W. Prentis, president of the Armstrong Cork Company and former president of the National Association of Manufacturers.
 

Healing the Fault Lines in Christianity - Some Initial Responses

"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me." (John 17:20-21)

At this point I had intended to move on and talk about methodology--some possible means by which the fault lines in Christianity can be healed. However, there have been a few responses to my first post that call for some discussion first.

It has been suggested that I am being idealistic. Yes, I am talking about achieving an ideal that exists in the mind of God for his Church and which Jesus prayed might be realized. I am being idealistic! But that is not to say that I am being unrealistic, since I am speaking about something Scripture explicitly says God wants to see happen.

I wrote that "Orthodox Anglicans, possessing as we do a comprehensive grasp of the Church—ancient and modern, east and west, catholic and reformed—are uniquely positioned to be the focal point of Christian unity." But I then went on to cite a partial list of things about which Anglicans hold varying opinions:

The nature of justification,

the nature of sanctification,

grace and works,

the nature of a sacrament,

the nature and effects of Baptism,

the nature of Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper,

the role of the Virgin Mary,

the authority of the Scriptures in relation to Tradition,

Apostolic Succession,

the nature of the Priesthood (Presbyterate), etc.

Referring to this list, Fr. Al Kimel commented on Stand Firm that, "It would appear that Anglicanism does NOT in fact possess a comprehensive grasp of the Church." Well, yes, it does. First, you have to note that the differences among Anglicans on many of these issues are matters of nuance, not fundamental disagreement--which is all the more reason why we should engage in discussions to resolve them. Secondly, where there is fundamental disagreement, we have both the freedom and the obligation to work out those differences. Within the range of interpretation on each of these subjects lies the truth. Like Michelangelo, we need to chisel away the marble to liberate the statue that is trapped inside. Thirdly, I believe it is better to be in an ecclesial environment where one can honestly work out differences than to be in one that may have authoritatively resolved these questions incorrectly.

Again, referring to my idealism, someone commented: "Archbishop Williams and Dean Munday appear to share one characteristic--DENIAL." Rowan Williams (alas) bears much of the responsibility for what the Anglican Communion has become (at least during his tenure). I am speaking of what Anglicanism can be!

What is more, I am not speaking of the Anglican Communion, I am speaking of the Anglican Way. The institutions of the Anglican Communion may fall to dust, yet it will remain that the Anglican Way of being a Christian contains much that is of great value that we can and must contribute to the universal Church and to the future of what Christianity is becoming.

I realize that for those who need the reassurance of a strong visible expression of the Church, dealing in ideals may not be enough. But I would submit that while the whole company of believers in Jesus Christ—baptized into Christ's body, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, from Pentecost until our Lord's return, and existing in heaven and on earth—may not at times be keenly visible, nevertheless, it is a reality. And our work for the Church must have that reality as our focus and our aspiration, more than any earthly expression of the Church (no matter how venerable) that represents only a portion of those believers at one moment in time.

I realize that my proposals may hold no attraction for former Anglicans who have now become Roman Catholics. That is understandable. If you are someone who believes that the answer to Christian unity is for everyone to become united in communion with the See of Rome, without any prior discussion of the ways in which Rome has erred—that there need be no discussion of Christian doctrine into which Rome in humility needs to enter—then, naturally, we are going to disagree.

My starting point is a fundamentally Anglican premise:

Article XIX. Of the Church.
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith. (emphasis added)

If you do not believe that last statement—if you believe that the Church of Rome has not erred, or through Papal Infallibility and the Magisterium cannot err—then you have already become a Roman Catholic. A discussion of how Anglicans can work for the unity of the Church (or any discussion of the unity of the Church that consists of a solution other than everyone coming under the Papacy) probably holds nothing for you.

My present calling and my purpose in writing this series of blog posts is to call orthodox Anglicans to see what they have in common in the catholic faith of the Church, to reconcile our differences where they exist, and to work for unity in the faith among Christians worldwide. Furthermore, I am not so much concerned whether Christians ever come under the same institutional structure as whether they find unity in the truth.

It is not my intention to comment here on the Apostolic Constitution presented by the Vatican in recent weeks, other than to say this: I recognize that there are many Anglicans (including close friends of mine) who have already entered into full communion with the Holy See or who will choose to do so as a response to the Vatican's offer. Even though I believe I am called to work for Christian unity on different terms and by other means, please do not take my arguing for those other means as showing any disrespect for you and your decision. Even though our paths my be different, they run along parallel lines; and our journeys are motivated by the same intention. Let us strive to outdo one another in humility, forbearance, and Christian charity. And let us work and pray that we may someday be one.
 

Healing the Fault Lines in Christianity - Introduction

It has been my conviction (indeed, my passion) for quite some time that those of us who are serious about the unity of the Church for which our Lord prayed in John 17, and who are concerned for the contribution that a renewed, orthodox Anglicanism can make to the future of the universal Church, need to take the lead in healing the "fault lines" that have separated Christians for most of the past 1000 years.

Orthodox Anglicans, possessing as we do a comprehensive grasp of the Church—ancient and modern, east and west, catholic and reformed—are uniquely positioned to be the focal point of Christian unity. But to be truly effective as an instrument for uniting the rest of Christianity, we must get our own house in order.

While various jurisdictions in Anglicanism have conducted ecumenical dialogues with Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Methodists, Moravians, etc. the great theological divide between Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical Anglicans has been left untended (ostensibly with a sort of benign neglect) and even occasionally displayed as a sign of Anglicanism's amazing comprehensiveness. The problem is that the neglect in healing such a gaping wound in the Body of Christ is anything but benign.

Why do I consider this to be a gaping wound instead of simply a healthy sign of diversity? For one thing, there is the attitude of suspicion and even hostility with which Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals sometimes regard each other. I have lived among Anglo-Catholics who use the term "Evangelical" as an epithet. And I have lived among Evangelicals who regard Anglo-Catholics as near pagans in need of conversion. I am not referring merely to fringe movements or isolated incidents--the problem exists among church leaders, theological colleges, and church societies associated with Anglo-Catholicism and Anglican Evangelicalism on every continent where there is an Anglican presence. These attitudes (and sometimes actions) are not healthy displays of diversity, they are a reproach to an institution that exists to manifest God's grace and love.

A second reason this division is a gaping wound and not a healthy display of diversity is the magnitude of the theological issues that remain unresolved. I am not going to argue any of these issues for the time being, but merely list some of them.

The nature of justification,

the nature of sanctification,

grace and works,

the nature of a sacrament,

the nature and effects of Baptism,

the nature of Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper,

the role of the Virgin Mary,

the authority of the Scriptures in relation to Tradition,

Apostolic Succession,

the nature of the Priesthood (Presbyterate), etc.

Knowledgeable Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals will immediately recognize the point of controversy in each of these issues and also recognize that this is far from a complete list. Just as obvious is the fact that these are not trivial issues.

One might well ask, given the magnitude of the issues, whether reconciliation of the differing viewpoints is possible. But are we willing to say that something for which our Lord prayed is impossible?

I have long maintained that what unites Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals is far greater than that which separates them. The simple tenets of the Apostles and Nicene Creeds are more than sufficient grounds for a very formidable unity:

belief in and worship of the triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,

the Incarnation of the Son in the Person of Jesus Christ,

His virgin birth, atoning death, and resurrection,

the Holy Spirit and His work in the life and ministry of the Church,

belief that there is one holy catholic and apostolic Church,

that there is a resurrection of the body and everlasting life for all who believe these things

This much (and more) we have in common already, and it is of major consequence in establishing both our unity and the basis for our proclamation to the world.

The third reason I believe that orthodox Anglicans must take the lead in overcoming our divisions and manifesting the unity of the Church is that our disunity impairs our witness. It is only a united witness to the truth of the Gospel that can reach a world that is slipping into post-Christianity precisely through the compromise of the message of the Gospel by the western Church in the face of challenges from materialism and secularism on the one hand, and militant Islam and other world religions on the other hand.

To accomplish unity for the sake of the Gospel will entail a healing in our spirits, a working out of theological differences, and a renewed commitment to the integrity of our witness.

To achieve this unity will mean laying aside much of the baggage that characterizes the various parties in Anglicanism. It will require a methodology that enables us to recognize and hold fast to what is essentially Christian. It will call for passions of equal intensity for unity and truth. And it will demand a greater love for God and our brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ.

This is a beginning of my thoughts along these lines. I will have more to say in future installments.
 

Former [abortion] clinic director: "Church chilly to my pro-life turn"

Former clinic director: Church chilly to my pro-life turn
Now feels unwelcome among Episcopalians

Abby Johnson, the former Planned Parenthood clinic director whose about-face on abortion prompted her to resign her job, says she's gotten flack for her decision from an unexpected quarter: her own church.

Read it all.
 

Episcopal News Service article on Sweden's lesbian bishop

Very positive reporting from Episcopal News Service:

SWEDEN: Lesbian priest ordained as Lutheran bishop of Stockholm

The (Lutheran) Church of Sweden on Nov. 8 ordained a female pastor as Christianity's first openly gay female bishop.

Eva Brunne, 55, was elected in late May to be bishop of the Diocese of Stockholm by a vote of 413-365 over Hans Ulfvebrand in the second round of voting. A first round of voting by clergy of the diocese and an equal number of elected lay people was held in April. There are 13 dioceses in the Church of Sweden.

Then, later in the article, follows this section in which various denominations try outdoing each other to claim "first!"—

The AP reported that while Brunne's consecration is a first, the Rev. J. Bennett Guess, a spokesman for the United Church of Christ, said that the UCC has several openly gay and lesbian "conference ministers." That designation is similar to that of bishop.

In 2003, the Episcopal Church consecrated its first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.

Finally, the celebration: "Hey, we can get jiggy wi' deese folks!"

The Episcopal Church is about to enter into a dialogue with the Church of Sweden that could lead to a full communion agreement similar to the one the church has had with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America since January 2001. The July 8-17 meeting of the Episcopal Church’s General Convention called for that dialogue, via Resolution A076.

Full communion?  Why not?  Sounds like "birds of a feather" to me.

Read it all.
 

World leaders line up to mark fall of Berlin Wall

Guess which "world leader" won't be there.

BERLIN (Reuters) - World leaders past and present will join German crowds on Monday to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall -- a stark symbol of the Cold War that divided a city and a continent.

Recollections of November 9, 1989 dominated German newspaper headlines over the weekend, and television stations ran program after program of documentary footage, eyewitness accounts and discussion panels about the event that changed the face of Europe.

"There has scarcely been an historical watershed so radical and so immediately visible as November 9, 1989," the Koelnische Rundschau daily wrote in an editorial.

[...]

Pivotal figures from the era that ushered in the collapse of communism in eastern Europe, such as ex-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and Lech Walesa, who led anti-communist protests in Poland at the head of the Solidarity trade union, will take part in commemorative events around the once-divided capital on Monday.

Joining them will be the leaders of the nations which occupied postwar Germany, apart from the United States, which will be represented by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev are all due to attend the celebrations hosted by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, amid a series of bilateral meetings.

Read it all.
 

For All the Saints Who From Their Labours Rest

 

MSNBC: "U.S. churches pave way for Catholic switch"

MSNBC, has this piece regarding the Vatican's announcement of a soon to be issued Apostolic Constitution, providing new and expanded provisions for receiving orthodox Anglicans (including married priests) who wish to convert to the Roman Catholic Church.

I have yet to comment publicly on this development and may wait until the Apostolic Constitution is issued before doing so. But the Vatican's announcement has already attracted a great deal of media attention and become a hot topic in Anglo-Catholic circles. The MSNBC piece reflects on this development, as seen from the standpoint of a Texas parish that has already converted under the Roman Catholic Church's existing Pastoral Provision for Anglican clergy and congregations.
 

Opinion: Reid’s health care scam may be still-born.

People (and there are a few who have e-mailed me recently—well, okay, it was only one, but I was trying to make him feel better) who think my blog is sometimes too political need to realize that blogs are all about the free expression of ideas. Read that last part again slowly: FREE. EXPRESSION. OF. IDEAS.

Those one or two people That one person won't like this piece that I received via e-mail either. But, in the immortal words of that great philosopher Alfred E. Neuman, "What? Me, worry?"

Opinion:
Reid’s health care scam may be still-born.

Some are almost feeling sorry for the hapless Harry Reid – perhaps the dumbest person to ever hold the position of Senate Majority Leader. Harry just never quite gets it right.

He humiliated the entire Democrat Senate membership by getting them each to sign his letter demanding the firing of conservative talk show host, Rush Limbaugh. It was a stupid act, of course, and Limbaugh deftly turned it around and left poor Harry with egg all over his face and splattering every Democrat Senator as well.

Of course, poor old Harry unilaterally surrendered to the radical Islamic terrorists in Iraq – declaring on his own that “this war is lost”. Subsequent events proved Harry totally wrong and demonstrated what most observers had guessed – Harry is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, brightest bulb in the lamp, or whatever other disparaging comparison you care to make.

Harry is not only truly dumb, he works hard proving it.

His latest fiasco is a health care “reform” bill that seems to be going nowhere. When he called a news conference to announce his bill, he stood alone at the mike, no other senator joined him. We should have read the obvious signs. Harry took that occasion to “compound his felony” by contending the GOP had no health care reform bill if its own. The claim was an out and out lie, of course, but it also overlooked the fact that on Capitol Hill, sometimes the very best answer to bad legislation is a resounding “No”. This is especially true when liberals hold the majority, and is particularly accurate in the case of liberal efforts to steal health care from real Americans. Liberals such as Reid, want to gain government-run care – a plot that would lead to single payer healthcare – the euphemistic description of the very flawed Canadian version of socialized medicine.

If Reid and other liberals have their way, kiss quality health care goodbye. Government is an eternal enemy of quality and that is particularly true in the case of healthcare. Socialized medicine is notably void of a most important element of care: compassion!

Sound health care requires honest concern and empathy – elements bureaucrats have absolutely no time for. At all.

Reid’s announcement received a resounding “thud”. This coming as it did, only days after news outlets ran over and over a video of Reid and Pelosi emerging from a White House huddle in which Pelosi makes no attempt to hide or disguise disgust and revulsion when Reid put his hand on her shoulder as a collegial signal they were on the same song sheet. Clearly they are not and just as clearly, even Pelosi has little regard for Reid.

Reid’s health care reform scheme included the dreaded “public option”. Such inclusion meant automatic rejection by any and all Senate Republicans – even Olympia Snowe and her partner from Maine – the only two really liberal Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Reid had hoped to have Snowe’s support, but has made it very clear that with NO GOP vote on the issue, he is fully prepared to impose his bill on America without GOP support and without any honest debate. He has the votes – or had them until Joe Lieberman stepped to the plate and hit a home run for normal America by announcing he would join Republicans in a filibuster of Reid’s bill. Liberman’s courageous move was a catastrophe for Reid’s bill and probably seals its fate.

Lieberman is quite unique, of course. Despite having been a Democrat Vice Presidential candidate, he jumped switch in the last election because of his opposition to Obama’s weak or non-existent strategy for our wars in the Middle East. Lieberman knew the reality and knew no responsible leader could accept the non-strategy promoted by Obama. He was unwilling to do what was politically the thing to do, and eschew party loyalty in order to stand for what is right.

That support for our effort and our troops in combat earned Lieberman ouster from the Democrat party. He now serves officially as an “Independent” but caucuses with Democrats. After all, when all is said and done, Lieberman is a liberal on social issues, Yet he is clearly a man of honor and conviction. He chooses to do what is right when “going along” with his Democrat friends would be easier.

Lieberman was so moved regarding support for our troops, he even campaigned extensively for McCain. Now he goes a step farther.

Lieberman’s defection robs Reid of his 60 votes – and amount necessary to act without fear of filibuster by Republicans. Lieberman says he will join any such filibuster on this particular issue.

“Hapless Harry” said in a TV sound bite: “Joe Lieberman is the least of my concerns”. If this is one of the rare moments in which Harry knows his subject, then he has a lot of very serious problems of which we are unaware. With Lieberman opposed, Reid’s bill is probably as dead as his letter demanding Rush Limbaugh be fired.

Surely the voters of Nevada will relieve this nation from the troublesome and embarrassing wart that is Harry Reid.

Buddy

I couldn't have said it better myself.
 

Of Red Queens and Hornets' Nests

All the people who didn't like the now-changed title of my last post need to head on over to Lark News, where you will find items like this one:

Presb. Church USA launches ambitious plan to lose only 5% of members

LOUISVILLE — The Presbyterian Church (USA) has launched a campaign to slow the rate of decline to 5 percent, according to the denomination.

"People at the grass roots need hope and motivation," says a spokesman. "This is a positive goal we can all get behind."

The Minus 5 Campaign aims to lower the attrition rate in spite of the denomination's continued struggle with moral issues, which has led to even greater exodus of members. Instead of losing 12 to 15 percent of members every decade, the group will now "work in great unity and joy to lose only five percent."

"This is the rallying cry we've been needing," says a pastor in Pittsburgh, Pa. "It's heartening to people at the local level to know we're determined not to shrink as rapidly."

Of course this article is satirical (with a definite element of truth in it), as was the title and now-deleted quotation from Alice in Wonderland in my previous post. But both items are probably sufficient to demonstrate that church bureaucrats have VERY THIN SKINS and ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE OF HUMOR!!!
 

Bishop Ackerman, the Presiding Bishop, and the Canons

[A number of people have commented that my original title and introductory satirical quotation were a distraction from some very valid observations regarding the Presiding Bishop's actions toward Bishop Ackerman, hence this updated version.]

Today, a very godly and humble Bishop, the Rt. Rev. Keith Keith L. Ackerman, received communications from the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, accepting his "renunciation of ordained ministry." There is only one problem: Bishop Ackerman never had any intention of renouncing his ministry.

I know from speaking with Bishop Ackerman that he sent the Presiding Bishop a handwritten letter merely asking to have his credentials transferred to the Diocese of Bolivia. He said that he had no intention of renouncing his orders and that, while he intends to assist Bishop Lyons in work in Bolivia, he also wished to remain available to assist bishops in the United States, as requested.

The Presiding Bishop says that “...there is no provision for transferring a bishop to another province.” But that is not true. Title III, Canon 10, Sec. 2, provides for the reception of “Clergy Ordained by Bishops of Churches in Communion with This Church” by means of Letters Dimissory and states:

(3) The provisions of this Section 1 shall be fully applicable to all Members of the Clergy (emphasis mine) ordained in any Church in the process of entering the historic episcopal succession with which The Episcopal Church is in full communion as specified in Canon I.20, subject to the covenant of the two Churches as adopted by the General Convention.

And a subsection states that the churches from which such a clergy may be received includes:

(i) those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces, and regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury,

So if the Episcopal Church can receive clergy (and bishops are included when it says “all Members of the Clergy”) from other provinces of the Anglican Communion by means of Letters Dimmisory, then it can issue those same letters when a bishop or other member of the clergy transfers to another province of the Anglican Communion.

And, of course, the Episcopal Church has transferred clergy to other provinces of the Anglican Communion throughout its history. If one reviews the clergy list in The Episcopal Church Annual in most years one will find a section listing “Clergy Transferred to Other Churches” with the country or province to which the clergy have transferred given in parentheses. For instance, if you look in the 2003 Annual you find the name of the late Peter Toon followed by (England), because the Rev. Dr. Peter Toon, who continued to live and minister in the United States until his death earlier this year, transferred his canonical residence back to England in 2002.

Further, it is not even necessary for the Presiding Bishop to be involved in transferring a bishop to another province or diocese elsewhere in the Anglican Communion.

CANON III.10.2(a)(2) provides only that Letters Dimissory be issued by “the hand and seal of the Bishop with whose Diocese the person has been last connected.”

That a resigned bishop (such as Bishop Ackerman) may transfer to another diocese is indicated in CANON III.12.8(i) which states:

A resigned Bishop may, at the discretion of the Bishop of the Diocese in which the resigned Bishop resides, and upon presentation of Letters Dimissory from the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese in which the resigned Bishop has had canonical residence most recently, be enrolled among the Clergy of the new Diocese, and become subject to its Constitution and Canons including being given a seat and vote in the Diocesan Convention, in accordance with its canonical provisions for qualification of clergy members.

This Canon demonstrates that Bishops are considered to have canonical residence in a diocese and that this canonical residence can be transferred by means of Letters Dimissory. Consequently, the “Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese in which the resigned Bishop has had canonical residence most recently” (presumably the “Provisional Bishop” of Quincy) could have transferred Bishop Ackerman to Bishop Lyons in Bolivia by means of Letters Dimissory and his transfer have been recorded without any recourse to the Presiding Bishop or the purported “renunciation” which the PB is now asserting.

It will be remembered that the Presiding Bishop also erroneously asserted that Bishop Henry Scriven renounced his orders when he returned to England. (See 1, 2, and 3.) If the Presiding Bishop would only have bothered to check for precedents in how such tranfers were handled, she could have avoided the scandal of, once again, misinterpreting the canons.
 

It's an ancient/future thing.

This week at Nashotah House, we have had our annual retreat. The leader for our retreat has been the Rt. Rev. Donald J. Parsons, Professor Emeritus of New Testament and former Dean and President of Nashotah House, who went on to serve as Bishop of Quincy from 1974-88. Now 87 years old, he is as active and as keen of mind as men 30 years his junior—and full of wisdom and wit. It is always a delight when Bishop Parsons is with us!

The theme of Bishop Parsons' retreat meditations was Christ's Ascension—the event that a few Christians actually go to church and celebrate on the Thursday before Pentecost Sunday, but that is overlooked and undervalued by many. The other night, Bishop Parsons talked about the significance of the Ascension—how it demonstrates the reality of Christ's Incarnation. If God entered the world by taking on flesh in the Incarnation, and if he was crucified, died, was buried, and rose again on the third day; then, unless he was to begin his earthly reign at that point, his earthly existence had to have an end. And that end was his Ascension back to heaven, where he sits at the right hand of the Father.

Of course some, including certain liberal bishops, have mocked the idea of a literal Ascension, just as they disparage the necessity of a bodily Resurrection. One such bishop has gone so far as to say that, if Jesus went up into the sky, and even if he traveled at the speed of light, then he would still have a long way to go even to leave our galaxy, so he can't be in heaven (wherever that is.)

But if Jesus was going to return to the Father in heaven, how should he have gone? Should he have simply disappeared? No, that might have signified that he was an illusion or a ghost? Should he have gone down into the earth? What would that have signified to those who were present? No, he ascends, which his disciples would have known signified going to a higher, better place. Similarly, in saying that Christ is now seated at the right hand of the Father, the aim isn't to tell us about the arrangement of the furniture in heaven; it is to tell us that Jesus, who has ascended, now reigns with the Father's favor and authority.

The Ascension demonstrates the reality and the physicality of the Resurrection. If Jesus' body still remained in a tomb outside Jerusalem, then the Resurrection is merely a metaphor for the immortality of the soul. But if Jesus rose bodily then he had to ascend if he was to leave this world. But, of course, Christ did ascend and 10 days later sends the Holy Spirit to indwell and empower his Church.

Sitting there listening to Bishop Parsons' meditation, I had a sense of what it must have been like to listen to the Apostle Paul teach one of the New Testament churches about the meaning of Christ's Ascension for the very first time. It was a blessed moment. It transcended time and space. And during that moment it didn't matter whether we were in the first century or the twenty-first century—we were simply Christians.

We're doing a new/old thing—an ancient/future thing—at Nashotah House. It is called Christianity. And it feels great!
"Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you.
Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."
(Hebrews 13:7-8)
 

In the Footsteps of (St.) Tikhon and (Bp.) Grafton

L: Bp. Charles Grafton (1830-1912), R: St. Tikhon of Moscow (1865-1925)    
Nashotah House is hosting a conference on Anglican-Orthodox relations on October 8-10. Entitled, "In the Footsteps of Tikhon and Grafton," the conference will include presentations by scholars associated with Nashotah House and St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary. The conference will conclude with the signing of a Concordat between the two seminaries, like the covenant partnership that Nashotah House has had for several decades with Sacred Heart (Roman Catholic) Seminary. The Concordat commits the two seminaries to pray for each other, to further ecumenical relationships between members of the Anglican and Orthodox traditions, and to continue to work for the reunion of all faithful Christians.

I call your attention to a wonderful address by Fr. Chad Hatfield, who is now Chancellor of St. Vladimir's seminary gave a paper, entitled "Nashotah House, Bishop Grafton, and Saint Tikhon of Moscow" given at the Sesquicentennial Convocation of Nashotah House, in November 1992, when Fr. Hatfield was dean of St. Herman's Seminary, in Alaska.

You can read the paper (10 pages, PDF file) here: http://anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/hatfield.pdf.   It provides a wonderful background to what we will be doing on October 8-10, as we continue "In the Footsteps of Tikhon and Grafton."

You can call Mrs. Sandy Mills (262) 646-6508 for more information on the Conference.
 

Thousands pack D.C. to protest spending, taxes

WASHINGTON - Tens of thousands of protesters fed up with government spending marched to the U.S. Capitol on Saturday, showing their disdain for the president's health care plan with slogans such as "Obamacare makes me sick" and "I'm not your ATM."

The line of protesters clogged several blocks near the Capitol, according to the D.C. Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency. Demonstrators chanted "enough, enough" and "We the People." Others yelled "You lie, you lie!" and "Pelosi has to go," referring to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Throngs of people waved U.S. flags and held signs reading "Go Green Recycle Congress" and "Obama Bin Lyin.'" Men wore colonial costumes as they listened to speakers who warned of "judgment day" — Election Day 2010.

Read it all.
 

AP sources: $2 trillion higher deficit projected

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration expects the federal deficit over the next decade to be $2 trillion bigger than previously estimated, White House officials said Friday, a setback for a president already facing a Congress and public wary over spending.

Read it all.

At first, it puzzled me that the Obama administration would issue a report so potentially damaging to their own spending plans. Then I read the final paragraph:

Such deficits have always prompted Congress and the White House to take politically painful steps to curb them, such as former President Bill Clinton's tax-heavy 1993 deficit reduction plan. A companion effort by Obama could force him to break his promise to not raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 a year.

Then I understood: It is an excuse to go back on a promise not to raise taxes on the middle middle class, without which Obama might not have been elected. So Obama's answer to increased deficits isn't to curb outrageous government spending like a phony stimulus plan, "billions for clunkers," and socialized medicine. Instead, his solution is to loot the middle class.

2012 can't get here soon enough.
 

Losers spell it 'looser.'

I don't know if the internet is making us stupid or simply affording more opportunities for us to see how many people don't know how to spell.

Lose (rhymes with blues) and losing (rhymes with cruising) are the opposite of win and winning.
Loose (rhymes with moose) is the opposite of tight.

It isn't rocket science. Learn it.
 

Top Ten Reasons Obamacare Is Wrong for America

Human Events, with the help of the Heritage Foundation, lists the top ten reasons Obamacare is wrong for America:

1. Millions Will Lose Their Current Insurance: President Obama wants Americans to believe they can keep their insurance if they like. Proposed economic incentives, plus a government-run health plan would cause 88.1 million people to see their current employer-sponsored health plan disappear.

Read the other nine reasons.
 

Woman in trouser case banned from travel

Another wonderful example of the "Religion of Peace" in action:

KHARTOUM (Reuters) - Sudan has barred Lubna Hussein, a woman who faces 40 lashes for wearing trousers in violation of decency laws, from traveling abroad, she said Tuesday.

Hussein said she tried to leave for Lebanon Tuesday after a television channel asked her to appear in a program there.

"It emerged when I tried to get an exit visa that my name was on a blacklist," she told Reuters. "There is no way to get out of Sudan."

Hussein was arrested at a party in July and, with 12 other women, charged with being indecently dressed. A former reporter, Hussein has publicized her case, posing in loose trousers for photos and calling journalists to support her.

Read it all.
 

On a lighter note: Garage Doors Gone Wild

My personal favorite:

Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

WASHINGTON (AP) - Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue.

Federal funds for abortions are now restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. Abortion opponents say those restrictions should carry over to any health insurance sold through a new marketplace envisioned under the legislation, an exchange where people would choose private coverage or the public plan.

Abortion rights supporters say that would have the effect of denying coverage for abortion to millions of women who now have it through workplace insurance and are expected to join the exchange.

Read it all.

Apart from the article's emphasis on the abortion issue, notice the incidental fact that is revealed in that last sentence: "millions of women who now have it [abortion coverage] through workplace insurance and are expected to join the exchange." This is a direct admission that government insurance will replace private insurance for millions of people, leading to the demise of private healthcare insurance and the establishment of a single-payer, government-controlled healthcare system.

Write or call your senators and representatives today and urge their opposition to this legislation.