Silencing the Watchmen

Columnist Jan Markell, Human Events magazine, and the National Religious Broadcasters are warning that the Obama administration may be preparing an assault on religious broadcasting through a return to the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."

Markell had this to say in a recent column:

America is changing at break-neck speed and many of the changes are not helpful! While Americans were eager for "change," it is doubtful they anticipated the loss of free speech.

So let me explain the unfair "Fairness Doctrine." My radio program, Understanding the Times, is in the target range.

The National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) met last weekend in Memphis and according to President Frank Wright, experienced an ominous shroud cast by the issue of the "Fairness Doctrine." They intend to fight this issue as much as that is possible. However, they may not even be given the opportunity to fight it as they would wish.

In an article posted online by Human Events on February 6, "Christian broadcasters say they will be targeted once President Obama's appointees gain control of the Federal Communications Commission."

Warren Kelley, president of Point of View, the first Christian talk show to go on the air via satellite 37 years ago, states, "The Left Wing will immediately start filing complaints, and it will in short order shut Christian broadcasting down." He concludes, "I think it will so limit what they say that, in essence, they will cease to be Christian broadcasters."

NRB President Wright says that he expects Christian broadcasters to be hit hard because of the doctrine's requirement for so-called "balance."

Human Events has information that the Christian talk giant of Salem Communications may be the first targeted. Please note that I air on many Salem stations including Minneapolis/St. Paul, Seattle, and Portland. Salem's national talk show host Janet Parshall states, "What we want to do is tell the message of Jesus. What the 'Fairness Doctrine' would have us do is give equal time to Buddha, Allah and (Scientologist) L. Ron Hubbard." NRB President Wright backs that up by saying, "If an opposing view must be found for every matter of controversy, Christian broadcasters could find themselves in the unenviable and untenable position of seeking out other religious viewpoints - Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, or atheist - to counter what ministers of the gospel say on air."

Read the whole article.

"Faith... whole and undefiled"

Further words for our time from C.S. Lewis' introduction to a translation of St. Athanasius' On the Incarnation:

St. Athanasius has suffered in popular estimation from a certain sentence in the "Athanasian Creed."  I will not labour the point that that work is not exactly a creed and was not by St. Athanasius, for I think it is a very fine piece of writing.  The words "Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly" are the offence.  They are commonly misunderstood.  The operative word is keep; not acquire, or even believe, but keep.  The author, in fact, is not talking about unbelievers, but about deserters, not about those who have never heard of Christ, nor even those who have misunderstood and refused to accept Him, but of those who having really understood and really believed, then allow themselves, under the sway of sloth or of fashion or any other invited confusion to be drawn away into sub-Christian modes of thought.  They are a warning against the curious modern assumption that all changes of belief, however brought about, are necessarily exempt from blame. [Emphasis added]  But this is not my immediate concern.  I mention "the creed (commonly called) of St. Athanasius" only to get out of the reader's way what may have been a bogey and to put the true Athanasius in its place. His epitaph is Athanasius contra mundum, "Athanasius against the world."  We are proud that our own country has more than once stood against the world.  Athanasius did the same.  He stood for the Trinitarian doctrine, "whole and undefiled," when it looked as if all the civilised world was slipping back from Christianity into the religion of Arius — into one of those "sensible" synthetic religions which are so strongly recommended to-day and which, then as now, included among their devotees many highly cultivated clergymen.* [Emphasis added]  It is his glory that he did not move with the times; it is his reward that he now remains when those times, as all times do, have moved away.

* For an example of what Lewis is talking about, note the Episcopal clergyman who regularly appears on Oprah Winfrey's program dealing with "spirituality."

Anyone who is interested in reading Lewis' introduction in its entirety will find it here, (however, it does not have the italics that are in the original, and it has a few typographical errors).

I began re-reading Athanasius' On the Incarnation on an airplane the other day and was struck, once again, by its impressive clarity and classical simplicity (which caused Lewis to express his admiration for the work and its author) but also for its freshness and relevance to many of the situations in which Christians find themselves today.  Having quoted Lewis' introduction in my last post and this one, I think I will post a few reflections and excerpts from On the Incarnation itself in the next few days, as time permits.

Why I am a "mere Christian"

From C.S. Lewis' introduction to a translation of St. Athanasius' On the Incarnation:

Measured against the ages "mere Christianity" turns out to be no insipid interdenominational transparency, but something positive, self-consistent, and inexhaustible.  I know it, indeed, to my cost.  In the days when I still hated Christianity, I learned to recognise, like some all too familiar smell, that almost unvarying something which met me, now in Puritan Bunyan, now in Anglican Hooker, now in Thomist Dante.  It was there (honeyed and floral) in Francois de Sales; it was there (grave and homely) in Spenser and Walton; it was there (grim but manful) in Pascal and Johnson; there again, with a mild, frightening, Paradisial flavour, in Vaughan and Boehme and Traherne.  In the urban sobriety of the eighteenth century one was not safe—Law and Butler were two lions in the path.  The supposed "Paganism" of the Elizabethans could not keep it out; it lay in wait where a man might have supposed himself safest, in the very centre of The Faerie Queene and the Arcadia.  It was, of course, varied; and yet-after all-so unmistakably the same; recognisable, not to be evaded, the odour which is death to us until we allow it to become life:
... an air that kills
From yon far country blows.

We are all rightly distressed, and ashamed also, at the divisions of Christendom.  But those who have always lived within the Christian fold may be too easily dispirited by them.  They are bad, but such people do not know what it looks like from without.  Seen from there, what is left intact despite all the divisions, still appears (as it truly is) an immensely formidable unity.  I know, for I saw it; and well our enemies know it.  That unity any of us can find by going out of his own age [by reading the classics of Christian literature].  It is not enough, but it is more than you had thought till then.  Once you are well soaked in it, if you then venture to speak, you will have an amusing experience.  You will be thought a Papist when you are actually reproducing Bunyan, a Pantheist when you are quoting Aquinas, and so forth.  For you have now got on to the great level viaduct which crosses the ages and which looks so high from the valleys, so low from the mountains, so narrow compared with the swamps, and so broad compared with the sheep-tracks.

An Unworkable Theology

A commenter on Stand Firm called my attention to this excellent article by the Very Rev. Dr. Philip Turner on "the working theology of TEC" that appeared in the journal First Things in 2005. I have to confess I had missed it when it appeared; but it is the best, most concise, and well-written explanation of the problem the Episcopal Church faces that I have seen.

Read it here.

Divine Impulses: Katharine Jefferts Schori

From a video interview on washingtonpost.com: "The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church talks about homosexuality as a gift and the future stability of her church."



(Golly! And to think I could have been watching Lessons and Carols from King's College, Cambridge instead.)

What is Jesus Doing?

WWJD?

Unless you have been living on another planet for the past few years, you know that these letters mean: "What Would Jesus Do?"

WWJB?

I saw these letters a few weeks ago on a website. It was Christian gift shop website asking its customers to ask the question, "What Would Jesus Buy? (I looked at the kitsch they were selling, and I thought, "I don't think Jesus would buy any of that stuff!)

As Christians we are in the season of Advent—a time when we prepare our hearts to celebrate once again the first coming of Jesus, when the Second Person of the Trinity, the eternal Son, became incarnate and was born in Bethlehem, lived as one of us, but without sin… died on the Cross for the sins of the world and rose bodily from the grave, "the firstfruits of them that sleep." That is the GOOD NEWS: because if Jesus is the "firstfruits," we will someday be raised in a resurrection body just as Jesus was raised.

We also prepare ourselves for that time when Jesus will come again in power and great glory, and so we get ready—-we "red up" (Bishop Duncan reminded us of that Pittsburgh colloquialism in his sermon in Wheaton the other night. We "red up," we get ready for that time when Jesus will come again. It is not just ourselves we get ready; we are to get the Church ready as a bride to receive her bridegroom. And if we are going to do that, there is another question we need to ask:

WIJD?

What Is Jesus Doing?

"What Would Jesus Do?" is a question to ask when we are confronted with choices, especially of a moral or ethical nature? "What Is Jesus Doing?" is a question to ask when we are concerned about mission priorities. Because if we know what Jesus is doing, we can perhaps get an idea of what we ought to be doing.

"What Is Jesus Doing?" is a challenging question to answer: Jesus is fully human and fully God, so he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent—-that carries “multitasking” to a whole new level! He can do everything, know everything, and be everywhere—all at the same time!

But if we looked in Jesus’ DayTimer, or Outlook, or Blackberry for Tuesday, December 9, 9:00 a.m., Jesus’ "To Do List," would not say: "DO EVERYTHING." I believe Scripture gives us two things that would be at the top of Jesus’ To Do List:

Hebrews 7:23 [contrasting the priestly ministry of Jesus with the ministry of the priests his Jewish readers would have known, he says:] "The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he [Jesus] holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them." Jesus, now in heaven, seated at the right hand of the Father intercedes for us, His people and for His Church.

In 1 Thessalonians 5:16, Paul says, "Be joyful always; pray continually; give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus."

In these closing instructions to the Thessalonian believers, Paul is here simply laying on them the same ministry he says he has for them in his opening greeting:

1 Thessalonians 1:2 -- "We always thank God for all of you, mentioning you in our prayers. We continually remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ." Paul is telling them of his ministry of intercession for them.

Later this week, I am going to spend a few days at the International House of Prayer, in Kansas City. In case you aren’t familiar with IHOP, it arose out of a community of believers who began praying around the clock 24/7 in September of 1999—and they have been doing it continuously ever since. There are churches I know who have done something similar. I think of Bishop John Guernsey’s parish in Virginia—offering prayers around the clock, interceding for the Church and the world—and giving back to God the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving that is rightly his.

In the nine years since the IHOP was formed, IHOPs have been formed in other major cities around the world. They have formed a school of ministry—a seminary. They are really doing what religious communities and religious orders have always done: perpetual adoration and devotion—and intercession. Religious communities have always been formed when the Church whole church ceased to do all that it should in a given area. A group of individuals, called by God, would form a community to do what needed to be done—preaching (Franciscans, Dominicans) missions (Jesuits) acts of mercy (done by many orders) contemplation and devotion (Cistercians and others). They are doing what the whole church ought to be doing but isn’t.

One of the things I believe God is doing among Anglicans who have been forced through circumstances to form closer ties with overseas provinces is that He is making the Communion what it ought to be. I believe that these circumstances have given us new insight into what the body of Christ is meant to be internationally. We have been given a fresh opportunity to take seriously the need to intercede and pray for our overseas brothers and sisters and to enjoy the life of the body as Christ meant it to be.

Now, if we were to look on Jesus’ calendar again and ask: "What Is Jesus Doing?" we would see a second thing. And we find it in a passage of Scripture that is familiar to us:

Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (NIV) The second thing Jesus does is to be with His people, always, to the very end of this age in which we are living, empowering His Church for mission.

Another reason why I am studying the IHOP is that I am a student of revival. Numerous great movements of God have occurred throughout church history, when individuals were called out of society to follow God in devotion and service. The religious orders I have mentioned are examples. Celtic monks took Gospel across northern Europe. Benedictines planted the Church many places, including the See of Canterbury. Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits—their founding was just as much a God-sent revival as the First and Second Great Awakenings were among churches in America and the British Isles. As Archbishop Henry Orombi has stated on numerous occasions, the strength of Anglicanism in East Africa is largely due to the East African Revival, as missionaries who were themselves a product of earlier revivals in England and Australia came to East Africa, and revival broke out there that transformed entire nations such as Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania—and now, through these churches, the revival is coming full circle back to us in the West.

Many of us who are orthodox Anglicans are here because of a renewal movement that began in the Episcopal Church in the 1960’s. That was a genuine revival. How do I know that? Because it resulted in a flowering of interest in mission that led to the founding of Episcopal/Anglican mission societies in the 1970’s and 1980’s—agencies that are now part of the Anglican Global Mission Partners.

Every revival—every movement of God that was true and genuine—has resulted in an outpouring of interest in missions. Why is that? Because when the Church is truly renewed and revived, God’s priorities become the Church’s priorities.

When we ask the question "What Is Jesus Doing?" we see his burden for his people and for the world, and we begin to intercede, just as he ever lives to make intercession for us. When we ask, "What Is Jesus Doing?" we see his burden for the lost, both in our neighborhoods and cities and those around the world who have no way to hear the Gospel, and we go, and we give, and we send, and we pray.

As Bishop Duncan said last week, what better time for a new Anglican province to be born than the first week of Advent? It is time for us to get ready, to be the body of Christ in a new way—-a body that floods Heaven with our intercessions, even as Jesus intercedes for us—-and a church that hurts for the lost, as Jesus hurts for the lost, and reaches out in missions, according to Christ’s Great Commission, to wherever the Gospel needs to be heard. When our hearts connect with Jesus’ heart and his burdens and priorities become our burdens and priorities, then the Church will get ready for that day when Jesus will return and gather those who have come from every nation tribe and tongue to be a kingdom of priests for our God--to whom be glory and honor, majesty and dominion, now and forever. AMEN.

Falling numbers

Over at Stand Firm, they are having fun on two threads [one] [two] regarding the latest statistics released by the Episcopal Church showing declines in membership and average Sunday attendance. Here is my take on the situation:

In 2001, the Rev. Charles Fulton, the evangelism officer for TEC, wrote an article in which he mentioned that the average age of an Episcopalian was 57 years of age.

Specifically, he said:

The average age of a person in the United States is estimated to be 34.6 years old. The average age of an Episcopalian is estimated to be 57 years old. In twenty years many of the “average Episcopalians” won’t be around to know if “2020, A Clear Vision” succeeded. The gap between 34.6 and 57 is often our own children. A big part of the real high-risk challenge is to reach out and negotiate how we worship with other generations who aren’t going to grow up to be like us.

If the average life expectancy is just over 77 years, then the average Episcopalian living at the time Fr. Fulton wrote his article will be dead 20 years later. In other words, roughly 50% of the members of the Episcopal Church will die in that 20 year period; and, to the extent that TEC has not replaced these members through evangelism and retention of its own children, TEC will decline by that same percentage.

Given that families of childbearing age are only a portion of TEC’s membership, and that those families that do have children have a birthrate of 1.3 children per couple, even if TEC succeeded in retaining 100% of its own children, it would still decline substantially. Coupled with the lack of evangelism among Episcopal congregations, one is left with looking at a patient who is quickly becoming terminal.

The latest set of statistics from TEC merely illustrate this demographic decline. It is not so much that the numbers reflect an exodus from the Episcopal Church (although that is the case where individuals and congregations have, in fact, left), the numbers primarily reflect the inability of TEC to replace its members who are dying by retaining its own future generations and evangelizing the unchurched so that they become members.

Thus, the decline is greatest in the North and Midwestern US, where younger generations have moved away. It is not the case, for instance, that Episcopalians left TEC in Springfield or Quincy (to cite two dioceses with which I am most familiar); the children of Episcopalians in Springfield or Quincy either did not remain Episcopalians or else moved away, and the congregations were not capable of evangelizing to the extent necessary to reverse the demographic decline as the older remaining members have died. “2020, A Clear Vision” was intended to promote strategies what would result in growth. But (in a nutshell) the whole program was diverted from evangelism to “inclusion,” and the result is becoming obvious.

Given the trajectory away from a theology that believes that all people need to be converted to faith in Christ, and the lack of a compelling message that will retain young people, it is difficult to see the trend toward decline being reversed.
But you and I, we’ve been through all that,
and this is not our fate.
So let us not talk falsely now,
the hour is getting late.
~~ Bob Dylan, All Along the Watchtower
(Just thought I’d toss in a fitting Dylan quote to make Baby Blue happy.)

Surging shoppers kill New York Wal-Mart worker

Now I know why they call it "Black Friday!"

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A man working for Wal-Mart was killed on Friday when a throng of shoppers surged into a Long Island, New York, store and physically broke down the doors, a police spokesman said.

The 34-year-old man was at the entrance of the Valley Stream Walmart store just after it opened at 5 a.m. local time and was knocked to the ground, the police report said.

The exact cause of death was still to be determined by a medical examiner.

Four shoppers, including a 28-year-old pregnant woman, were also taken to local hospitals for injuries sustained in the incident, police said.

[...]

The Friday after America's Thanksgiving holiday is known Black Friday and marks what is traditionally the busiest retail day of the year, kicking off the Christmas shopping season.

Then [Jesus] said to them, "Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions." (Luke 12:15)

A Response to Ephraim Radner's piece on "A New 'Province'"

The Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner has written a piece entitled, A New "Province" in North America: Neither the Only Nor the Right Answer for the Communion, in which, as the title suggests, he gives six reasons why he does not believe an alternative, orthodox province of Anglicans in North America is a good idea.

Let me be clear about my own position at the outset: I am still a priest in TEC, but I have many friends who are now in one of the entities that will comprise a new Anglican Province. And, as I read Dr. Radner's remarks, I could not help but put myself in the position of my Common Cause friends, who I believe will regard his comments as both unfair and unhelpful.

So I would like to make a few comments (in bold, below) on Dr. Radner's six points, as I imagine someone who is a part of Common Cause might respond to them:

1. The new grouping will not, contrary to the stated claims of some of its proponents, embrace all or even most traditional Anglicans in North America. For instance, the Communion Partners group within TEC, comprises 13 dioceses as a whole, and a host of parishes and their rectors, whose total Sunday membership is upwards of 300,000. It is unlikely that these will wish to be a part of the new grouping, for some of the reasons stated below.

True, a new Province will not, for various reasons, be able to include all traditional Anglicans in North America, but how does that constitute a reason not to do it? A great many orthodox Anglicans, including overwhelming majorities in four former TEC dioceses, attest that, due to conscience over the growing departures from orthodoxy and the political pressures being brought upon them, they cannot remain in TEC. Why should these who are determined to remain faithful Anglicans not constitute an Anglican Province that seeks to be in Communion with as many other Anglican provinces as will recognize them?

God willing, this new Province may well come to embrace all or most orthodox Anglicans if it proves to be a preferable alternative. It will also be of tremendous benefit and a fulfillment of Christ's high-priestly prayer if this new Province can succeed in uniting the members of an Anglican diaspora that stretches back to the separation of the Reformed Episcopal Church in 1873. How is this not a good thing?

2. The new grouping, through some of its founding members, will continue in litigation within the secular courts for many years. This continues to constitute a sad spectacle, and is, in any case, practically and morally unfeasible for most traditional Anglicans.

I agree that litigation is a sad spectacle. But we need to remember who started the litigation and who continues to pursue it. The martyrdoms in the reign of Bloody Mary were a sad spectacle too. But this is like blaming the Reformers for that spectacle.

No one who has ever left TEC desired to be involved in a lawsuit. The lawsuits are a regrettable consequence of their following their consciences. Many Episcopalians, either because they are too intimidated or because they do not see leaving as the correct solution, may not leave. But if you are going to make a case that those who have left TEC should not have done so, you are going to have to demonstrate how their consciences could have been assuaged in remaining, and not merely claim that they should not have left because it resulted in lawsuits.

3. The new grouping is, in the eyes of many, representative of diverse bodies whose theology and ecclesiology is, taken together, incoherent, and perhaps in some cases even incompatible. The argument can be made that this is no different than historic Anglican comprehensiveness as a whole; but under the circumstances of a new structural distinction and the challenges this brings, the incoherence constitutes a burden that not all traditionalists believes is prudent to assume. This warning bell has been sounded repeatedly by traditionalists.

As you anticipated, it must be pointed out that the diversity of theology and ecclesiology is no greater than that which already exists in the Anglican Communion. And, in some important respects, the diversity in theology is notably less than that which has brought the Anglican Communion into crisis. If Anglicanism has held together for nearly five hundred years, a Province united in its commitment to the authority of Scripture and Gospel-centered mission and ministry will have even less trouble doing so; and it may, in fact, succeed in healing some of the theological divisions that have troubled Anglicanism in the past.

If GAFCON can embrace Sydney evangelicals and Society of the Holy Cross Anglo-Catholics, the diversity among those who are included in the proposed North American Province is far less than that. To see this situation as "incoherence" and "a burden [that it is not] prudent to assume" strikes me as being either phenomenally nearsighted or timid to the point of paralysis.

It could be argued (and is being argued by those forming a new Province) that this is an opportunity to begin a remarkable new chapter in Anglican history--one in which an orthodox Anglicanism that shares the commitments I have mentioned above can move forward in mission, unshackled from many of the elements that have impeded its mission in the past.

In any event, the challenges you mention may be a reason why some Anglicans may choose not to join a new Province. They do not constitute a reason for those who embrace the challenges and the opportunity willingly not to proceed.

4. There is a host of irregularities regarding ordination, representation, consent, and so on that is included among the members of this new grouping. Some of these are both understandable and inevitable under the circumstances. But they nonetheless constitute barriers for future reconciliation with other Anglican churches.

The same could be said (and was said) regarding the ratification of Called to Common Mission (CCM) (providing reciprocal sharing of ministries between The Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America). An even greater degree of "irregularities" had to be embraced in the formation of the Church of South India and the Church of North India. This is almost inevitable whenever breaches are healed through ecumenical union. The irregularities make things messy for one generation, but are usually resolved by the second generation of ordained clergy. Compared with the opportunity of fulfilling the call to unity for which Christ prayed, many Christians have found it to be worth the price.

5. Will the new grouping actually be a formal “province” within the Anglican Communion, whatever name it assumes? Surely, it will be recognized by some of the GAFCON Primates. However, it will probably not be recognized at the Primates’ meeting as a whole or even by a majority of its members, and will be yet another cause for division there. Nor will it be recognized at the ACC. Thus it threatens to be yet another wedge in the breakup of the Communion, even while there have been signs of coalescing efforts to restore the integrity of our common witness.

It can be argued that the establishment of an orthodox North American Province (even if it is initially recognized only by some of the GAFCON primates) is the best way to deal with the crisis in the Communion. (a.) The orthodox will be able to look after themselves, so "border crossing" for episcopal oversight by overseas bishops and primates can cease. (b.) Instead of being a beleaguered minority within TEC, the orthodox can be treated as equals in a dialogue intended to resolve the crisis of authority in Anglicanism. (c.) TEC will have greater incentive to respond to the calls of the rest of the Communion to return to Anglican norms, lest they lose credibility compared with the new Province. TEC's leadership fears the realization of this last point, which is the main reason why they are working so hard to prevent establishment and recognition of a new Province.

6. Such division on this matter among the Primates and the ACC will likely strengthen the position of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada. They will move forward as continuing and undisciplined members of the Communion. All of this will merely hasten the demise of our common life, even among Global South churches themselves.

While some may argue that the best way to preserve the unity of the Anglican Communion is to preserve the unity of the American Church (or, failing that, not to recognize any group that splits off from the American Church), I would argue the exact opposite. The best way to preserve the unity of the Anglican Communion is to allow the American church to divide (which is happening anyway, whether anyone likes it or not) and to recognize two North American provinces. Some overseas provinces will relate to one of the North American provinces more than the other. But there will not be the present level of vigorous advocacy (and border crossing) that now threatens to divide the Communion. And there will not be any reason why the other provinces of the Communion should be impaired in their relationships with each other or with Canterbury. However, if the present situation continues, and Canterbury does not recognize the new North American Province, it will eventually (and sooner rather than later) force some Global South provinces to end their relationship with Canterbury, and the Communion will be lost.

Finally, on a personal note: I am very appreciative of the work of the Anglican Communion Institute and especially the work being done with the Communion Partner dioceses and rectors. I have not criticized and would not want to see anyone criticize the work the ACI is doing on an "inside strategy" to the same degree that they apparently feel obliged to criticize those who are working on an "outside strategy." I can imagine the frustration that members of the ACI feel with those who are leaving existing Anglican structures while they are trying to save them. But I believe the ACI's efforts would win the support of a greater number of people if they spent more time telling us how they propose to save the ship and less time knocking holes in other people's lifeboats. It remains to be seen whether the ACI's strategy can be successful; and, if not, there may come a day when we are glad the lifeboats are there.

What can we learn from Mars Hill?

No, not the Mars Hill in Athens, in the Book of Acts--Mars Hill Church in Seattle, WA USA.

History

Early Days
Mars Hill Church began in 1996. At the age of twenty-five, Mark Driscoll gathered a core group of twelve people in the living room of the Wallingford rental house where he and his wife, Grace, lived. For the next seven years, Mars Hill met in various locations throughout the city until, in 2003, the church (one thousand strong) (emphasis added) moved into a renovated hardware store between Fremont and Ballard. Within three years, however, the church had outgrown its new home.

Multi Campus
In early 2006, Mars Hill became a multi-campus church with the opening of the Shoreline Campus. The concept of meeting in separate locations was nothing new. Throughout its history, size and other factors compelled Mars Hill to hold services in various places throughout Seattle [That's not in the church-friendly Bible Belt, but in the unchurched Northwest]. And hundreds of Community Groups (small Bible studies) gather weekly throughout the entire Puget Sound region. As a people, Mars Hill Church was used to spreading out.

Video Venue
The difference this time around, however, was the implementation of video sermons and other resources that made the strategy more efficient and sustainable. Later in 2006, Mars Hill acquired two new properties, in West Seattle and Lake City, further facilitating a growth that has yet to stop—including the more recent expansion to Bellevue, Downtown Seattle, and Olympia.

Sundays
On Sundays, Mars Hill gathers in several locations and multiple times, and during the week they meet in homes all over the regions surrounding each campus. Mars Hill Church lives for Jesus as a city within the city—knowing culture, loving people, and seeing lives transformed to live for Jesus.

Here's proof you don't have to compromise biblical truth (in fact, the more you teach it, the better). You can be relevant—even hip, cool, whatever—without selling out to the culture.

Anglicans might want to learn from this. Liberals might want to look at this and repent.

A brief response to the Diocese of Sydney's consideration of "lay presidency"

David Ould has posted a piece over at Stand Firm entitled, "Anglicanism Upside Down Down Under? - Understanding Lay Administration," dealing with the Diocese of Sydney’s consideration of lay presidency. I am very thankful to David for posting this piece, given the seriousness of the issue as it pertains to the present and future unity of orthodox Anglicans, and I wish I had time to write a more comprehensive response.

However, I did make some comments on Stand Firm regarding that piece, and I will offer those same thoughts here, beginning with the Articles of Religion and the 1662 and 1552 Ordinals.

Article XXIII. Of Ministering in the Congregation.

It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.

The article is wonderfully Elizabethan in its use of language, and perhaps not as direct (or written with a view toward the possibility of misinterpretation) as a confessional statement, church canon, or policy would be today. However, the article is saying that only those who are lawfully called and sent may engage in preaching or ministering the sacraments in a congregation, and that only those who have public authority to call and send Ministers into the Lord’s vineyard can do this calling and sending.

In other words, this is talking about ordination. How can we be sure it is talking about ordination? Because of the way those who wrote the Articles applied them. The uniform practice of the Church from that time to the present was that the Ministers (clergy) did the preaching and the administration of the sacraments. (See “Article XXXVI Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers” where the context demonstrates that here and in every instance in which the term “Ministers” is used in the Articles, it means the clergy, functioning in such manner as pertains to their order.)

Regarding the application of these Articles, we notice this language from the 1662 ordination service from the Deacon:

The Bishop says:
IT appertaineth to the Office of a Deacon, in the Church where he shall be appointed to serve, to assist the Priest in Divine Service, and specially when he [i.e., the Priest] ministereth the holy Communion, and to help him in the distribution thereof; and to read Holy Scriptures and Homilies in the Church; and to instruct the youth in the Catechism; in the absence of the Priest to baptize infants; and to preach, if he be admitted thereto by the Bishop. And furthermore, it is his Office, where provision is so made, to search for the sick, poor, and impotent people of the Parish, to intimate their estates, names, and places where they dwell, unto the Curate, that by his exhortation they may be relieved with the alms of the Parishioners, or others. Will you do this gladly and willingly?
Answer. I will so do, by the help of God.

Further, note these differences in the services of ordination for a deacon and a priest:

(From the Ordination of a Deacon)
Then shall the Bishop deliver to every one of them the New Testament, saying,
TAKE thou Authority to read the Gospel in the Church of God, and to preach the same, if thou be thereto licensed by the Bishop himself.

(From the Ordination of a Priest)
Then the Bishop shall deliver to every one of them kneeling the Bible into his hand, saying,
TAKE thou Authority to preach the Word of God, and to minister the holy Sacraments in the Congregation, where thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereunto.

(These words are virtually unchanged from the earlier 1552 book, favored by many evangelicals.)

Most significantly, perhaps, in the Preface to the Ordinal we read:

IT is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles’ time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Which Offices were evermore had in such reverend Estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as are requisite for the same; and also by publick Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, were approved and admitted thereunto by lawful Authority. And therefore, to the intent that these Orders may be continued, and reverently used and esteemed in the Church of England, no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, in the Church of England, or suffered to execute any of the said Functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the Form hereafter following, or hath had Episcopal Consecration, or Ordination.

Finally,

Article XXVI. Of the unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments.

ALTHOUGH in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometime the evil have chief authority in the ministration of the word and sacraments; yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by His commission and authority, we may use their ministry both in hearing the word of God and in the receiving of the sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the sacraments ministered unto them, which be effectual because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.

Nevertheless it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church that inquiry be made of evil ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty by just judgement, be deposed.

From this Article we see three things:
1. the Sacraments have an effect;
2. unworthiness of the ministers does not diminish or hinder that effect, and
3. the sacraments are administered by the ministers.

Another thread on Stand Firm dealing with this issue is entitled: Dan Martins on the Sydney Stance: Evangelicals to Liberals: “Psst! Meet Me in Back of the Barn”. There is one sense in which I fear this comparison of Sydney Evangelicals with western Liberals is apt: Both seem to be saying (1.) “we know more about how the church should function than our Anglican forebears did” and (2.) “we believe that what we are doing (be it lay presidency or same sex blessings) is a ‘Gospel imperative’.”

While the Diocese of Sydney asserts that its position is based on a Gospel imperative,” it does not actually or convincingly demonstrate how that is so. There is also a tendency in the Sydney position to attribute too much to the bogeyman of Anglo-Catholicism and a supposed sacerdotal conception of the priesthood, when all we are really talking about is Church order as it has been traditionally understood by Anglicans and as reflected in the 1552 and 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

If we wish to remain consistent with the 39 Articles as an expression of our Anglican identity, the burden of proof must fall on those who wish to implement lay presidency to show that laity or even deacons were ever authorized to administer the Lord’s Supper. And, if the language I quoted from the Preface to the 1662 Ordinal is correct, it cannot be shown from the Scriptures or the whole history of the Christian Church that this was ever the case.

Presiding Bishop Issues Statement On Diocese Of Quincy Departure

Proposition 8 and anti-religious bigotry

It it appalling to think that, in the days prior to the vote in California on Proposition 8, opponents ran ads that depicted religious people in false and hateful ways. But it happened.

Here is a very well done response by Professor Michael Barber of John Paul the Great Catholic University to the public media attacks by "gay rights activists" against Mormons. As Professor Barber says, Roman Catholics and members of the Mormon faith have longstanding theological disagreements. Nevertheless, it is heartening to see this expression of support.

Reflections on the morning after

As an update to my previous election eve post, I heartily recommend Sarah Hey's article over at Stand Firm on where we go from here.

Sometimes we get the leadership we deserve

I don't claim to be a prophet, so I cannot be certain who will be the President-elect of the United States when I wake up in the morning. But, driving home from the polling place a few moments ago, I was overcome by a feeling of great sadness--not merely because of how this election might turn out, but because of how God's people have wasted the past eight years.

From the perspective of a conservative Christian, we have had good Supreme Court Justices appointed. In virtually every state where same sex "marriage" has been placed on the ballot, it has been defeated. The situation has been marginally better, compared with the previous 20 years, for those who believe that life is a sacred gift from God to be protected from conception until natural death.

And yet: over a million babies still die from abortion each year. Same sex "marriages" are legal in three states and gaining ground in several others. Same-sex "marriages" are not recognized by federal law due to the Defense of Marriage Act. However, since this is merely an act of Congress, and not a Constitutional amendment, it can be overturned just as easily as it was passed. After today's election, we may find ourselves with a Congress and a President who are committed to doing exactly that and to passing and enacting the Freedom of Choice Act, overturning restrictions on abortion in all 50 states.

Sometime in the past 30 years we should have extended Constitutional protection to all living humans, born and in utero. When something as basic as the definition of marriage came into question, it should have been protected by Constitutional amendment also, but it was not.

While it is perhaps easy to blame secularists and liberals for what is happening to our society, the real blame lies with those who should have known better and who should have done more—Christians who have been content with the status quo, complacent in the face of threats to all that they should have held dear, and seduced by materialism into thinking that, as long as they have an adequate "quality of life," nothing else really matters all that much. It is these who will have to give account for opportunities lost and time squandered. For if they did not work while it was day, what will they do now that night has come?

KJS : No Anglican Covenant--not now, not bloody ever!

From Episcopal Life Online:

If a proposed Anglican covenant is released in mid-May for adoption by the Anglican Communion's provinces, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori will "strongly discourage" any effort to bring that request to the 76th General Convention in July.

Jefferts Schori briefly discussed the covenant process during her remarks to the opening plenary session October 21 on the second of the Executive Council's four-day meeting in Helena, the seat of the Diocese of Montana.

Anglican Communion provinces have until the end of March 2009 to respond to the current version of the proposed covenant, known as the St. Andrew's Draft. The Covenant Design Group meets in London in April 2009 and may issue another draft of a covenant. That draft is expected to be reviewed by the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) during its May 1-12, 2009 meeting. The ACC could decide to release that version to the provinces for their adoption.

If the ACC decides to do that, "my sense is that the time is far too short before our General Convention for us to have a thorough discussion of it as a church and I'm therefore going to strongly discourage any move to bring it to General Convention," Jefferts Schori told the Executive Council. "I just think it's inappropriate to make a decision that weighty that quickly," she added.

Of course, since the Episcopal Church continues to maintain that no interim meeting by either the Executive Council or the House of Bishops can speak for the whole Church, any action will have to wait until the next General Convention meets. So that means, if they don't consider it in 2009, it will be at least 2012 before the Episcopal Church could respond to the Anglican Covenant.

My advice: Don't hold your breath.
 

Barack Obama, Jewish-Americans, and Israel

Have you noticed the interesting thing about Barack Obama's speeches? He has a way of speaking about "hope, change, progress," etc. in platitudes--yes, platitudes--that make people believe he has said exactly what they want to hear. Yet, if you look and listen closely, and ask yourself what he has actually committed to do, you will find that he has said virtually nothing.

What exactly, would Barack Obama do regarding Israel? A lot of American Jews (and Christian and secular supporteres of Israel as well) have been led to think that this son of a Kenyan Muslim father would be Israel's loyal friend. But would he?

From the Philadelphia Bulletin comes this piece on Barack Obama and the only indication we have of Obama's real attitude toward Israel.

Barack Obama, Jewish-Americans And Israel
By David Bedein, The Bulletin
10/15/2008

From a personal and professional perspective, this is the sixth American Presidential campaign that I have covered from Israel, concentrating on the "Israel aspect" of the story.

This time I not only have covered the campaign from Israel - This time, I was assigned by The Bulletin to fly over and cover the Obama campaign at the time of the Pennsylvania primary in April.

My observation of the "Jewish American view of Sen. Obama" was that there was an atmosphere of unreality surrounding Jewish advocacy and Jewish opposition to Sen. Barack Obama.

Both pro-Obama and anti-Obama forces in the Jewish world related to the senator with an attitude of superficiality, paying more attention paid to the company that he keeps than to the policies that he stands for.

Yet here is the rub: None one has really heard where Sen. Obama stands on Middle East issues.

When I interviewed three of Sen. Obama's staffers who specialize in Middle East issues, I presented them with 18 questions. Besides the issue of Palestinian incitement, which his staffers said that he abhors, they could not provide any answers whatsover to basic questions put forward by The Bulletin last April.

With the multi-billion dollar arms package to Saudi Arabia about to reach the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of which Sen. Obama is a member, his staffers could not even say what his position was on arms to Saudi Arabia, which remains in a state of active war with Israel.

Indeed, Saudi Arabia currently funds Hamas, the Popular Front For The Liberation of Palestine (PLFP) and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), all of which are Palestinian terror organizations that actively engaged in planning operations against the Jewish state

After Sen. Obama's formal nomination as democratic candidate for president in late August, The Bulletin resubmitted these 18 basic questions.

Sen. Obama's staffers promised answers this time. None were forthcoming.

Yet there is a way to gain insight into Sen. Obama's policies towards Israel. Not by tabulating votes on the Senate floor and not by counting how many superlatives that he uses on Israel.

Instead, by paying attention to the three high ranking former U.S. State Department officials whom the Senator has hired: Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross and Daniel Kurtzer. The policy which characterizes all three of them is their consistent promotion of the PLO as a supposed peace partner with Israel for the past 20 years, no matter what the reality was.

This is the threesome that defined the PLO as a peace partner even after the PLO would not ratify the Oslo "declaration of principles" in October 1993.

This is the threeesome that attested to the fact that, in 1996, the PLO had cancelled its covenant to destroy Israel, when it had not done so.

This is the threesome who insisted on arming the PLO to fight Hamas even though the PLO made it clear from the outset that it would never engage Hamas in any full-scale war. And this is the threesome who promote a PLO state, come what may.

And this is the threesome who main committed to mobilizing Jewish Americans to support a PLO state, come what may.

From Sen. Obama's appointment of Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross and Daniel Kurtzer, it is easy to discern where the Senator stands - for the renewal of the Oslo process once again, this time with the teeth of an American administration that would impose a Palestinian state, even though it remains at war with the State of Israel.

[...]

Read the whole article.

 

A Faith's Dwindling Following

More than 20 years ago I remarked that if I could choose to be anyone other than who I am, I would be George Will. His insightfulness, penetrating logic, and command of the English language are among the greatest of this age in which we live. This column, in the Washington Post, is not a display of his finest talent, by any means—the subject matter does not lend itself to that. But he has turned his attention to the current crisis in the Episcopal Church, and his conclusions, as I have always found them to be, are irrefutable.

The Episcopal Church once was America's upper crust at prayer. Today it is "progressive" politics cloaked -- very thinly -- in piety. Episcopalians' discontents tell a cautionary tale for political as well as religious associations. As the church's doctrines have become more elastic, the church has contracted. It celebrates an "inclusiveness" that includes fewer and fewer members.

Read it all.

Diocese of Michigan Seeking Plan for Revitalization

Stand Firm posted this piece about the Episcopal Diocese of Michigan's efforts to come up with a plan for revitalization of the Diocese in the face of "declining church attendance and dwindling income."

Here's a plan I read somewhere. It is definitely not original with me. But I have heard (and observed) that it has worked everywhere it has been sincerely tried:

1. "Go into all the world" (every town, street, house)
2. "Make disciples" (of everyone, even those of other religions or no religion at all).
3. "Baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" (not the creator, redeemer, and sanctifier, or some politically correct idol created by the culture, but God as He has revealed Himself in Holy Scripture. Oh, and do this BEFORE you admit them to Holy Communion, so they understand the difference between their life before Christ and their life after they came to know Him whose atoning death is celebrated at the Altar.)
4. "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you..." (ALL THINGS, like the power of prayer, life in the Holy Spirit, evangelism, biblical morality, etc.)
5. Where do we get the resources to do this? "And, lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

Cost in dollars: minimal. Cost in commitment: total.

War on God