Railroaded! (updated)

The blogosphere is buzzing with stories and comments indicating that the deposition of the Rt. Rev. John David Schofield and the Rt. Rev. William J. Cox (about whom I wrote in my last post) may have been out of order; that is, the vote did not actually comply with the requirements of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church.

I am going to reproduce the most salient comments I have run across because this story needs to be documented as many places as possible. The most thoughtful thread on the subject is the one at Stand Firm entitled, Let’s Get to the Procedural Bottom of This.

Canon IV.9. states that there are requirements that must be met before one even gets to the point of a vote on deposition of a bishop. The first of these requirements is that a Review Committee of the House of Bishops must conclude that there are grounds for the deposition. Next, the Presiding Bishop must get the consent of the three most senior bishops with jurisdiction (i.e., active diocesan bishops). According to a report in The Living Church, "One of the three senior bishops with jurisdiction confirmed to The Living Church that his consent to inhibit Bishop Cox was never sought."

This, by itself, is sufficient to indicate that the deposition of Bishop Cox is null and void. I do not know whether the consent of the three most senior bishops was sought in the case of Bishop Schofield; but I have seen no reports to indicate that it was; and such a request of the three most senior bishops would have been a newsworthy event if it occurred.

The question as to whether the vote to depose Bishops Cox and Schofield was legal hinges on Article 1(2) of the Constitution, Canon I.2.4(4), Canon III.12.8(d), and Canon IV.9.

Section 1 of Canon IV.9 states that once the three senior bishops have given consent, the Presiding Bishop shall inhibit the bishop in question “…until such time as the House of Bishops shall investigate the matter and act thereon.” Section 2 contains the requirements for the actual deposition. If the inhibited bishop does not recant, “…it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to present the matter to the House of Bishops at the next regular or special meeting of the House. If the House, by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give its consent, the Presiding Bishop shall depose the Bishop from the Ministry.”

Section 2 of IV.9 also sets forth what constitutes consent by the House of Bishops. Specifically it declares that the consent must be “…by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote.” What does this phrase mean? Some have suggested that it means simply a majority of bishops at the meeting in question. However, Canon III.12.8(d) makes clear what language is employed when a simple majority of those present is required, and that language is “by a majority of those present.” Article 1(2) of the Constitution specifies what “the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” means when it states:

Each Bishop of this Church having jurisdiction, every Bishop Coadjutor, every Suffragan Bishop, every Assistant Bishop, and every Bishop who by reason of advanced age or bodily infirmity, or who, under an election to an office created by the General Convention, or for reasons of mission strategy determined by action of the General Convention or the House of Bishops, has resigned a jurisdiction, shall have a seat and a vote in the House of Bishops.

Article 1(2) also specifies the quorum necessary for House of Bishops meetings as “[a] majority of all Bishops entitled to vote, exclusive of Bishops who have resigned their jurisdiction or positions, shall be necessary to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.”

Commenter "jamesw," writing on the Stand Firm blog, cites these same portions of the Constitutions and Canons and then does some very helpful math to show that "it would take 148 votes of consent for a valid deposition. This number was clearly NOT achieved if the Living Church’s figure of 131 attendees [present at the time the vote was taken] is correct."

Then on the Stand Firm thread Commenter "Chancellor" adds this very helpful history of the applicable Canon:

A little history may be helpful here. From White and Dykman (1981 ed.), Vol. II, pp. 1079-80 (with emphases added):

The first canonical enactment on the subject of the “Abandonment of the Communion of the Church by a Bishop” was Canon 1 of 1853, which read as follows:

In all cases where a Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon of this Church . . . has abandoned her Communion . . . either by an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of this Church, or by a formal admission into any religious body not in Communion with the same: such Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon . . . shall thereupon be pronounced deposed; . . . and if a Bishop, by the Presiding Bishop, with the consent of the majority of the Members of the House of Bishops . . . .

This canon was enacted to meet the case of Bishop Ives of North Carolina, who, on December 22, 1852, renounced the communion of the Protestant Episcopal Church and submitted himself to the authority of the Church of Rome. No canon on this subject had before been enacted, as there had been no need thereof . . . .

It was recognized that the canon, hastily enacted to meet an emergency, was far from perfect . . . . In the revision of the canons by [the] Convention [of 1859], Canon 1 of 1853 was made Title II, Canon 8, and amended to read as follows:

If any Bishop . . . abandon the Communion of this Church, either by an open renunciation of the doctrine, discipline, and worship of this Church, or by formal admission into any religious body not in communion with the same, it shall be the duty of the Standing Committee of the Diocese to make certificate of the fact to the Senior Bishop . . .

Notice shall then be given to said Bishop . . . that unless he shall, within six months, make declaration that the facts alleged in said certificate are false, he will be deposed from the Ministry of this Church.

And if said declaration be not made within six months as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the Senior Bishop with the consent of the majority of the House of Bishops, to depose from the Ministry the Bishop so certified as abandoning . . . .

It has thus been the case ever since the first version of the “abandonment” canon was adopted that a majority of the House of Bishops was required to consent to the deposition of a Bishop.

"Chancellor" continues in another comment:

Continuing with the history of the Abandonment Canon from White and Dykman (1981 ed.), Vol. II, pp. 1080-82 (with emphases added):

[The] Convention [of 1874], confronted by the renunciation of the communion of the Church by another bishop, and realizing certain defects in the canon, amended Title II, Canon 8, to read as follows:

If any Bishop . . . abandon the Communion of this Church, either by an open renunciation of the doctrine, discipline, and worship of this Church, or by a formal admission into any religious body not in communion with the same, or otherwise, it shall be the duty of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of said Bishop to make certificate of the fact to the Presiding Bishop . . .; and the Presiding Bishop with the consent of the three Bishops next in seniority, shall then suspend said Bishop from the exercise of his office and Ministry until such time as the House of Bishops shall consent or refuse to consent to his deposition . . .
Notice shall then be given to said Bishop . . . that unless he shall, within six months, make declaration that the facts alleged in said certificate are false, and shall demand a trial, he will be deposed from the Ministry. And if such declaration be not made within six months, . . . it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to convene the House of Bishops, and if a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled at the time to seats in the House of Bishops, shall at such meeting give their consent, the said Presiding Bishop . . . shall proceed to depose from the Ministry the Bishop so certified as abandoning . . .

On November 10, 1873, Bishop Cummings, Assistant Bishop of Kentucky, addressed a letter to the Presiding Bishop, declaring his renunciation of the ministry of this Church. The Presiding Bishop, without calling a meeting of the House of Bishops, obtained the written consent of a majority of the bishops entitled to seats in the House of Bishops, and then proceeded to depose the said Bishop Cummings on June 24, 1874, and pronounced and recorded said deposition in the presence of two bishops. It was questioned whether the consent of the bishops so obtained was regular . . .
In order to remove any doubt as to the canonical deposition of Bishop Cummings, when the House met in General Convention a few months later, [a resolution was passed] by that house [consenting to, ratifying and confirming the deposition] . . .

Thus the changes made by the 1874 Convention were to remedy the defects in the previous version of 1859 (quoted in my previous post) that were shown up by the case of Bishop Cummings.

The sequence of abandonment---certification---suspension (inhibition)---period to deny abandonment---convening House of Bishops to vote on deposition if no denial, has been followed in the changes to this canon made ever since. Moreover, the requirement for a full majority of those entitled to vote in the House of Bishops to consent to the deposition before it can take effect has been maintained consistently since the first version of the canon was enacted in 1853. In 1904, the 1874 language was changed from “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled at the time to seats in the House of Bishops” to read as it does at present: “a majority of of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote”, and has remained the same ever since.

Thus [Presiding Bishop's Chancellor] David Booth Beers is all wet. An historical analysis of the canons easily puts to rest the meaning of the phrase “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote”: it means a majority of all the Bishops then having seats in the House and entitled to vote on matters coming before it. It has meant that ever since the first version of the canon was adopted in 1853.

Even commenters on the liberal side of the aisle have commented that the vote AND the subsequent of the legality of the vote by the PB's Chancellor David Booth Beers is to be discounted. D.C. Toedt, on his blog, Questioning Christian, had this to say:

I'm sorry, but I don't think Mr. Beers' present-and-voting rationale is at all persuasive. Article I.2 of the Episcopal Church constitution specifies which bishops are "entitled to vote" at meetings of the House of Bishops:

Sec. 2. Each Bishop of this Church having jurisdiction, every Bishop Coadjutor, every Suffragan Bishop, every Assistant Bishop, and every Bishop who by reason of advanced age or bodily infirmity, or who, under an election to an office created by the General Convention, or for reasons of mission strategy determined by action of the General Convention or the House of Bishops, has resigned a jurisdiction, shall have a seat and a vote in the House of Bishops.

A majority of all Bishops entitled to vote, exclusive of Bishops who have resigned their jurisdiction or positions, shall be necessary to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.

This alone suggests pretty strongly that the Schofield deposition could not proceed by a vote of merely a majority of those present at the meeting.

Read the whole thread, including the updates, at Questioning Christian. It is very informative.

One final comment on my part: Accepting the opinion of the Chancellor to the Presiding Bishop, David Booth Beers, as to the validity of this vote is like letting the attorney for the prosecution serve as the judge, jury, and appeals court judge in this matter. Bishops Cox and Schofield are godly men who are more focused on God's mission in their lives than on fighting with bureacrats in a corrupt and dying ecclesiastical structure. They may well choose not to fight this matter, and that is their prerogative. I personally believe that, if they do not fight, others ought to do so as a simple matter of justice (which is why I have taken the time to document the salient points here). Because, as I think of what has been done to these fine men, one term stands out in my mind: "RAILROADED!"

------------

UPDATE: I wholeheartedly endorse Sarah Hey's proposal Episcopal Flagplanters: An Action Idea Regarding the Non-Canonical Actions of the HOB. TEC's leadership will only be accountable if we hold them to accountability.

The Rt. Rev. William J. Cox, a Bishop in Christ's one holy catholic and apostolic Church

When I became Dean of Nashotah House, I learned that it was the custom of the House to have a fall retreat. The Reverend Richard Cornish Martin led the retreat in October of my first academic year, having been invited by my predecessor. Fr. Martin, sometime rector of Advent, Boston, and St. Paul's K Street, Washington, DC, and a Trustee of Nashotah House, led an superb retreat for our seminary community.

As I began to think and pray about who I would invite to lead the first retreat for which I would have responsibility, one name came immediately to mind: Bishop Cox!

The Rt. Rev. William J. Cox was Suffragan Bishop of Maryland from 1972-1980, when he resigned to become Assistant Bishop of Oklahoma, the position in which he served until his retirement in 1988. I first heard Bishop Cox as a Lenten series speaker at Calvary Church, Memphis, nearly 30 years ago. Calvary was a moderate to liberal Episcopal parish—some might say it was an unlikely place for someone as well known as Bishops Cox was in Episcopal "renewal" circles to be preaching. But that was Bishop Cox—he would preach the Gospel wherever he could gain a hearing. Winsome, endearing, compelling—he continues to be much-loved by Episcopalians across the theological spectrum.

While a bishop in both Maryland and Oklahoma, Bishop Cox became a much sought-after speaker, preacher, and conductor of retreats. He and his wife Betty were active in Episcopal Renewal Ministies (now Acts 29), the Order of St. Luke; and Bishop Cox also served as Chaplain to the Brotherhood of St. Andrew.

Stocky, bald, wearing round glasses with his eyes appearing large through lenses as thick as Coke bottle bottoms, it is easy to imagine one is talking with the Apostle Paul when speaking with Bishop Cox. His voice is both warm and rich, and conveys genuine love and appreciation for everyone with whom he speaks. If an article were ever written explaining what it means to be a godly bishop, it would be incomplete if it were not illustrated by the example of Bishop Cox.

Even though technically in retirement, Bishop Cox has continued an active ministry. Now age 87, he has been the Episcopal Church's oldest living bishop. It is so hard to envision him as anything but a bishop that one is surprised to hear of his early military service and that he became a civilian pilot after he was in his sixties.

Today, the Episcopal Church's House of Bishop, acting on the recommendation of Presiding Bishop ☠ Katharine Jefferts Schori, voted to depose Bishop William Cox.

What had Bishop Cox done that led to his deposition? In June 2005, Bishop Cox ordained two priests and a deacon at Christ Church in Overland Park, Kansas, after he was asked to do so by the Primate of Uganda, the Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi. The following month, Bishop Cox returned to Christ Church and led a service of confirmation.

In April 2005, Christ Church agreed to pay the Diocese of Kansas $1 million over the next 10 years as part of a separation agreement which allowed the congregation to retain its property, and for the clergy to be relieved of their canonical obligations to The Episcopal Church. Christ Church and its clergy subsequently affiliated with the Province of Uganda.

It is important to note that Bishop Cox did not perform acts in any congregation of the Diocese of Kansas without the Bishop of Kansas' permission. He minstered to a congregation that had left the Diocese of Kansas and had been received into the Province of Uganda. Bishop Cox, as an Anglican Bishop, ministered at the request of an overseas Anglican bishop (in this case the Archbishop and Primate of Uganda) to a congregation that was under his jurisdiction.

In 2006, two bishops—the Rt. Rev. Dean Wolfe, Bishop of Kansas and the Rt. Rev. Robert Moody, Bishop of Oklahoma—presented then Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold with charges that Bishop Cox had violated the Canons of the Episcopal Church. Bishop Griswold forwarded the charges to the Title IV [disciplinary] Review Committee, which determined that there were sufficient grounds to proceed to trial.

Concerned that his presentment trial would be a financial and public relations disaster for The Episcopal Church, retired Bishop William J. Cox informed Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori on March 29, 2007 that he had left The Episcopal Church and had been received into the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone, by Archbishop Gregory Venables.

“I don’t want a fight amongst Christians,” Bishop Cox told The Living Church on 3/30/07. “I don’t hold a grudge against [Oklahoma] Bishop [Robert] Moody or [Kansas] Bishop [Dean] Wolfe for bringing charges against me.

“At the request of another Anglican primate, I tried to minister to Episcopalians who had been made outcasts by their church,” he said. “This is not the same church in which I was ordained.” [Many of us who have been ordained a lot less longer than Bishop Cox can say "Amen" to that!]

“I would hope this transfer [to the Southern Cone] will enable me to be of service to congregations in this country that have already affiliated with the Southern Cone, but that decision will be up Archbishop [Gregory] Venables."

Bishop Cox is now listed as Acting Provincial Assistant Bishop of the Southern Cone, and he remains a bishop in Christ's one holy catholic and apostolic Church. He has earned the undying love and admiration of many, many of God's people—and our prayers will continue to be with him. God bless you, Bishop Cox!

Video: "The Global Church"

"Could it be that to drink from the cup of western theology is to drink from a poisoned chalice?"

Oscar Muriu, pastor of Nairobi Chapel in Kenya, had this and many other things of interest to say (with particular reference to Anglicans) when he addressed 25,000 students at InterVarsity's Urbana Conference 2006.

Muriu's church has the goal of planting 300 new churches by the year 2020--churches not just in the Global South, but in places like Sydney, London, New York, and Los Angeles. Why? Because it is time to "re-evangelize" the West.
Watch the video.

The Future Lies in the Past

Why evangelicals are connecting with the early church as they move into the 21st century.

Last spring, something was stirring under the white steeple of the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College.

A motley group of young and clean-cut, goateed and pierced, white-haired and bespectacled filled the center's Barrows Auditorium. They joined their voices to sing of "the saints who nobly fought of old" and "mystic communion with those whose rest is won." A speaker walked an attentive crowd through prayers from the 5th-century Gelasian Sacramentary, recommending its forms as templates for worship in today's Protestant churches. Another speaker highlighted the pastoral strengths of the medieval fourfold hermeneutic. Yet another gleefully passed on the news that Liberty University had observed the liturgical season of Lent. The t-word—that old Protestant nemesis, tradition—echoed through the halls.

Just what was going on in this veritable shrine to pragmatic evangelistic methods and no-nonsense, back-to-the-Bible Protestant conservatism? Had Catholics taken over?

No, this was the 2007 Wheaton Theology Conference, whose theme was "The Ancient Faith for the Church's Future." Here, the words spoken 15 years ago by Drew University theologian and CT senior editor Thomas Oden rang true: "The sons and daughters of modernity are rediscovering the neglected beauty of classical Christian teaching. It is a moment of joy, of beholding anew what had been nearly forgotten, of hugging a lost child."

[Read the entire story here.]

Videos by David Short and J.I. Packer on Anglican Realignment

To continue the thread begun yesterday about the Rev. Dr. J.I. Packer being threatened with suspension from the ministry by the ersatz bishop of New Westminster, Michael Ingham, I ran across this series of videos created by the Church of St. John's, Shaunessey, featuring the rector, the Rev. David Short, and Dr. Packer giving a very thorough overview of the issues involved in the decision by St. John's parish to seek oversight from another Anglican province. Needless to say, both gentlemen put their case in eloquent and compelling terms.

Due to the fact that YouTube currently limits videos to 10 minutes, the original presentation is divided into 10 parts. The index to all 10 parts is here. To watch the videos in sequence you'll need to begin with section 1/10 in the lower right hand corner.

BREAKING NEWS: Gnostics Excommunicate Athanasius!

J.I. Packer threatened with suspension

As evidence of the escalating crisis in the global Anglican Communion, today one of the of the world’s most esteemed Christian theologians, Dr. J.I. Packer, received a letter threatening suspension from ministry by the controversial Bishop of New Westminster, Michael Ingham. Bishop Ingham accused Dr. Packer, hailed by Time Magazine as the “doctrinal Solomon” of Christian thinkers, “to have abandoned the exercise of ministry” after the church where he is a member voted to separate from the diocese and join the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone under the oversight of Anglican Archbishop Gregory Venables. Dr. Packer, who was ordained in the Church of England, is the author of the Christian classic, “Knowing God,” and joined Billy Graham and Richard John Neuhaus as one of Time Magazine’s 25 most influential evangelicals in 2005.

Read the whole story here.

A follow-up story gives the following information:

Dr. Packer together with the other clergy at St. John’s have been served with a Notice of Presumption of Abandonment of the Exercise of the Ministry under Canon XIX. According to Bishop Michael Ingham of the Diocese of New Westminster, the notice is based on the following “facts”:

1. that he has publicly renounced the doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Church of Canada; and
2. that you have sought or intend to seek admission into another religious body outside the Anglican Church of Canada.

The notice also states that if Dr. Packer does not take advantage of provisions under the Canons to dispute the facts stated above, Dr. Packer’s spiritual authority as a minister of Word and Sacraments conferred in ordination will be revoked on April 21, 2008.

I hope the English bishops and other Evangelicals who are urging all the Global South bishops to come to the Lambeth conference and have tea (and Holy Communion!) with the likes of Michael Ingham are taking notice of what he has done to one of their own.

On a personal note: I must add that I would not be an Anglican today, much less the Dean and President of an Anglican/Episcopal seminary, if it were not for the influence J. I. Packer had on me when I was a Baptist seminarian thirty years ago. If Packer had not written anything beyond his preface to a modern edition of John Owen's, "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" he would still rank as a great theologian. But he has written a great deal more than that; and, in his long ministry, he has inspired several generations of Christians, clergy, and scholars.

Packer's great devotion to the theology and spirituality of John Owen is seen in this tribute to Owen, written by the well known pastor and author, John Piper.

This quotation from Owen seems particularly appropriate to the situation that Dr. Packer and many of us now find ourselves.

When the heart is cast indeed into the mould of the doctrine that the mind embraceth,—when the evidence and necessity of the truth abides in us,—when not the sense of the words only is in our heads, but the sense of the thing abides in our hearts—when we have communion with God in the doctrine we contend for—then shall we be garrisoned by the grace of God against all the assaults of men. (John Owen, Works, I, p. lxiii-lxiv.)

Survey: US Religious Landscape in Flux

By ERIC GORSKI (AP)– 7 hours ago

The U.S. religious marketplace is extremely volatile, with nearly half of American adults leaving the faith tradition of their upbringing to either switch allegiances or abandon religious affiliation altogether, a new survey finds.

The study released Monday by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life is unusual for it sheer scope, relying on interviews with more than 35,000 adults to document a diverse and dynamic U.S. religious population.

While much of the study confirms earlier findings — mainline Protestant churches are in decline, non-denominational churches are gaining and the ranks of the unaffiliated are growing — it also provides a deeper look behind those trends, and of smaller religious groups.

[Read the whole story here.]

Archbishop Peter Jensen: There’s power in our ‘product’

It is refreshing to see an Anglican bishop with such confidence in Holy Scripture and evangelism. It is also worth checking out the link for the Connect 09 program mentioned in the article. —RSM+

There’s power in our ‘product’
by Archbishop Peter Jensen
I love starting the year by going to CMS [Church Mission Society - Australia] Summer Schools. This year Christine and I had the privilege of attending the South Australian School as well as the NSW [New South Wales] one.

At Katoomba we had the joy of hearing John Woodhouse (principal of Moore College in Sydney) speaking to us from 1 Samuel on the life of Saul. Once more we were reminded of the power of God’s word, as John simply but effectively drew out and applied the meaning of the text so that we could be built up in Christ. We ought to be so grateful that our theological college principal can do this so well. He models the authority and power of the Bible to our future ministers.

In South Australia, what struck me were the stories told by our missionaries about the capacity of the Scriptures to cross boundaries and to make new Christians. Some unbelievers even put it about that Christians have put a curse on the Bible to fascinate the unwary! We know that this ‘curse’ is actually the work of the Holy Spirit in inspiring Scripture and then illumining us as we read it.

The theory of Connect 09 is that we contact and connect with our community in a way which we have not done for many years. No doubt this will require planning, skill, imagination, training and perseverance. We live in a fragmented world, where the very idea of community and relationship is hard to sustain. When we think of this challenge, it is easy to be overwhelmed at the magnitude of the work – so many people, so few resources, so much apathy.

But if the word of God can cross the cultural barriers and speak with a converting power in the sort of places where missionaries find themselves, it can certainly also do so here. It is encouraging to hear so frequently of people coming to know Christ as a result of reading the Bible. We ought not to be surprised, of course. God is already at work when we use his word. It may be judgement which is being confirmed when people are hard-hearted. It may be the blessing of salvation. He will do his work in his way.

In any case, it is vitally important that we do all we can to make God’s word available and known in the community. There was a time when the stories and sayings of the Bible were familiar to all. They were simply the stock of imagination and of speech, even if people did not act on them. But every year that passes sees fewer and fewer people familiar with ‘the classics’, including the Bible. Modern technology suits our own individual tastes. As a result, fewer people have a shared ‘language’ in which to communicate – no stories, songs, experiences in common. All this makes for fragmentation and aloneness.

No one else is responsible for making sure that people at least know the Bible. That is our job as Christians. It is our message, which we are obliged to make known. The very technological advances which create division can also be used to communicate the truth. We live in one of the most amazing times in human history and the opportunities are as vast as the disadvantages. Mind you, there is still a powerful effect in a parent or grandparent simply telling the stories of the Bible at bedtime to young children. They remain engrossing tales, given by God to teach us how he relates to the world.

I would also like to underline once again the importance of Scripture in schools. Here at least we have children who will not be totally ignorant of what God has said to and about the world. I know that Scripture in schools can be hard work. But, if you are a Scripture teacher, let me encourage you to keep at it and to do so with individual prayer for the children wherever possible. God is at work in our schools.

Even at a basic level, then, I believe that Connect 09 is capable of doing much good. We want to make sure that God’s word is widely available and to do it in such a way as to encourage people to read it – or listen to it or watch it, depending on what we give them. We can trust our ‘product’ – it would be really good if we accompanied our gifts with prayer and friendship too.

Ash Wednesday (2008) -- 2 Corinthians 5:20-6:10

We know from history that the Roman Emperors liked to think of themselves (and to have others think of them) as being divine. Many of our Christian forebears suffered martyrdom rather than acquiesce to that absurdity—just as Christians will always encounter persecution for not being willing to yield to the popular delusions and cultural captivity of their age.

It is paradoxical, then, that when a Roman Emperor or General was honored with a Triumph—awarded after he had led Rome to victory over her enemies—the Emperor or General would ride in procession through the streets, dressed in regal robes with a wreath of honor held above his head, to the great accolades of the public. But just behind him would be a slave, whispering repeatedly in his ear, “Remember that you are mortal… Remember that you are mortal.”

(So now you will understand that scene in Mel Brooks’ History of the World, Part I, where the Roman Emperor, played by Dom DeLuise, is so irritated with the servant for telling him what he doesn’t want to hear.)

Ash Wednesday comes around annually, and like that servant, tells us what we do not want to hear. It whispers to each of us: “Remember that you are mortal;” or, more precisely, in the words of our service, “Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return”—hearkening back to Genesis 2, “the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being” (Gen. 2:7), but also hearkening back to the curse on fallen mankind in Genesis 3: “By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return" (Gen. 3:19).

So in the quiet of Ash Wednesday, when we reflect on many things, the first thing we need to do is to:

I. Remember our mortality

In the Burial office we pray the following words:

You only are immortal, the creator and maker of mankind; and we are mortal, formed of the earth, and to earth shall we return. For so did you ordain when you created me, saying, “You are dust, and to dust you shall return.” All of us go down to the dust; yet even at the grave we make our song: Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia.

Now why have I just quoted the Burial Office and used the forbidden “A” word (Alleluia) in Lent? Because at the same time as we remember our mortality, we need to remember that death is not the end. We need to remember our immortality.

II. Remember our immortality. Not the immortality that only belongs to God, who is from everlasting to everlasting, but the life eternal that is the destiny of our immortal souls.

Some of you who were at Nashotah House last year will remember Dr. Jerry Root, who taught in our course on C.S. Lewis last spring. Jerry was one of the featured speakers at the Mere Anglicanism conference from which I have just returned. Drawing on the writing of C.S. Lewis, he made the point, “When a child asks you, ‘Do I have a soul?’ You should respond, ‘You ARE a soul; you HAVE a body.’” Our bodies will someday return to the dust; but we will continue to live on.

To further illustrate the point: Fr. Doug McGlynn had hip surgery a few weeks ago. In that operation, the surgeon scraped away some tissue, and cut away some bone, and replaced it with synthetic, man-made material. And, yet, Fr. McGlynn is no less Fr. McGlynn.

We all know of people who have had transplants of hearts, lungs, kidneys, and livers. Part of what was once them was disposed of as medical waste, unless it was interesting enough for a laboratory to keep and study. Yet, those individuals, with new parts taken from another human being, continue to be the same individual. We are realizing increasingly that our bodies are vehicles that carry us through life; and, like the cars we drive, how we take care of them has something to do with how long they will serve us before they begin to wear out and break down.

If you have my appetite and don’t get enough exercise, you may look like I do at age 53. If you are more careful and have good genes, you may be blessed to be as active as Bishop Parsons at 85. Most of us need to treat our bodies better than we do in what we feed them and how we exercise them.

Now let me say parenthetically that the loss of our bodies in death is only temporary. When we speak of Resurrection, we are not merely speaking of the immortality of the soul. If that were the case, we would not need Christ. Socrates and many other philosophers have believed and taught the immortality of the soul. In Christ, we are promised Resurrection, when, as the Apostle Paul says in I Corinthians 15, our perishable, corruptible, mortal bodies will, after the manner of Jesus’ resurrection, be raised imperishable, incorruptible, immortal. God is not merely the God of disembodied souls and spirits. We will not, as Paul says, remain “unclothed.” We will someday have resurrection bodies that will carry our souls for all eternity.

But what about that part of us that will live on after our mortal bodies have been buried? What about our souls? How well are we feeding them? And with what are we feeding them? What kind of exercise are we giving our souls? And so, on this day when we reflect on many things, we need to remember our immorality.

III. Remember our redemption
In our Epistle lesson we read, “We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (II Cor. 5:20-21). There are many verses that encapsulate the Gospel in a few words. This is one of the most powerful and most direct. Don’t let anyone tell you the Atonement is not substitutionary; this verse clearly states otherwise.

God so cared for us in our mortal state, lost in our sins, that he gave his only Son to be the sin bearer, who took upon himself our sins so that he became sin FOR US—so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God. By a marvelous exchange, he has made it possible for us to receive his righteousness and thereby to be reconciled to God. Our standing and our acceptance before God are solely in Him and are freely available to us because of the initiative of divine grace. And so, on this day, I urge us to remember our redemption.

Our lesson continues in 2 Corinthians 6: “As God's fellow workers we urge you not to receive God's grace in vain.” Has it occurred to us that it is possible to receive God’s grace in vain? Saint Paul says that it is. How could we possibly receive God’s grace in vain? What does that mean?

The key is found in what Paul has just said, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” We are accounted righteous; we are made righteous positionally if we are in Christ. But how are we doing in becoming righteous? Remember that to be righteous is defined as to have God’s perspective in all things—to value what God values and to reflect God’s character in the way we live. So how are we doing?

The key is also found in the verses that follow. Paul quotes God’s words from Isaiah 49:8 when he says, “‘In the time of my favor I heard you, and in the day of salvation I helped you.’ I tell you, now is the time of God's favor, now is the day of salvation.”

God has heard our cry of lostness, and in the Atonement of his Son, has found and redeemed us. So how are we doing in becoming what he died to make us? On this day when we reflect on many things, let us remember our mortality, our immortality, and finally, our redemption.

Last Sunday night I was privileged to be a part of a beautiful service of Sung Compline at Christ Church, Savannah, GA. (If you are ever in Savannah on a Sunday night, I strongly encourage you to go.) That historic church is where John Wesley and George Whitfield served as rector. And sitting in the dim light of that awesome service, I was reminded of the Great Awakening that came about through the preaching of those two great Anglican spiritual giants.

Every revival or awakening that has happened in history came about when God’s people began to confess their sins. Who can deny that our Church and our society today need such an awakening? Who can deny the we need such an Awakening? And so I invite us to begin this Ash Wednesday with the words of confession from the office for the Reconciliation of a Penitent (that I have adapted in plural form):

Holy God, heavenly Father, you formed us from the dust in your image and likeness, and redeemed us from sin and death by the cross of your Son Jesus Christ. Through the water of baptism you clothed us with the shining garment of his righteousness, and established us among your children in your kingdom. But we have squandered the inheritance of your saints, and have wandered far in a land that is waste.

Therefore, O Lord, let us confess those sins that are known to us and from these and all other sins we cannot now remember, let us turn to you in sorrow and repentance. Receive us again into the arms of your mercy, and restore us to the blessed company of your faithful people; through him in whom you have redeemed the world, your Son our Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.

Anglican Revivalist

I began this blog, To All the World, in December 2004 with the aim of discussing news and issues pertaining to the Christian world mission. However, since I am an Anglican—more specifically a member of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America—it has been easy to be distracted by the controversies that are affecting the Anglican Communion. In a sense, these controversies also affect world mission, or at least the part that Anglicans play in world mission. But they have been a distraction, nonetheless.

Minneapolis pastor and author John Piper, in his book, Let the Nations Be Glad! has written:

Missions is not the ultimate goal of the church. Worship is. Mission exists because worship doesn’t. Worship is ultimate, not missions, because God is ultimate, not man. When this age is over, and the countless millions of the redeemed fall on their faces before the throne of God, missions will be no more. It is a temporary necessity. But worship abides forever.

But until the worship due to God resounds among people of every nation, tribe and tongue, missions must be the pre-eminent work of the Church. The love that we are to give to God and to our neighbor is incomplete until every one who draws breath has been given the chance to own and express that love.

Increasingly, the western Church is being distracted from its most important task. Inroads of immorality and unbelief have reduced many once-vibrant Christian traditions to a position of being semi-Christian or pseudo-Christian on the way to becoming post-Christian. The news (and the blogs) are replete with illustrations. The energy that ought to go into the Church's mission instead goes into merely trying to keep it sound.

Bishops of the Church were charged, historically, with the responsibility to drive out error and false doctrine (as Scripture admonishes us to do in several places), so it is not surprising that countering error within the Church should be just as much a part of the work of the faithful as engaging in apologetics to win the unconverted. However, countering error should not occupy the entire attention of the Church any more than patching holes in the hull should occupy the entire attention of a ship's crew. Ships don't exist to be repaired, they exist to sail and to accomplish their mission.

This illustration carries an inherent warning: When a the hull of a ship becomes too riddled with holes; it is fit for nothing else but to be scrapped or scuttled. So various expressions of the Christian tradition have departed from the Faith; and the Church in various countries through the ages has waned, until God, through the working of his Holy Spirit has brought it to vibrant life again.

I will digress for a moment to answer the objection of some of my catholic-minded brethren who might point to the apparent stability and longevity of the Church of Rome as evidence that the Church has no need of revival. One need only point to the examples of the Borgia Popes, the sadistic excesses of the Inquisition, and the incidences of pedophile priests today to demonstrate that no expression of the Church, comprised as it is of fallen sinners, is immune to this trend.

Indeed, if one thinks of the examples of Benedict, Francis, Dominic, and Ignatius Loyola (to name only a few), it might be said that the foundation of every religious order was an effort to bring renewal and revival to the Church. And what has been the most recent response by Pope Benedict to the problem of pedophile priests? —a movement of prayer to cleanse the Church of pedophile priests. The Pope realizes that a spiritual problem can only ultimately be solved with a spiritual answer. Prayer that the Holy Spirit would come in and cleanse the Church of sin has been the key to virtually every revival in Christian history.

Not only can the Church not accomplish its mission without the Holy Spirit's cleansing, it cannot accomplish its mission without the Holy Spirit's power. Jesus made this clear at the beginning: "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8). The disciples were powerless to leave Jerusalem (and were commanded not to) until they had received power from the Holy Spirit.

So just as the greatest work of the Church is Christ's Great Commission to carry the Gospel to all people, so the greatest need of the Church is continually to be renewed and empowered by the Holy Spirit. The need is always for revival.

With a view toward presenting resources and stimulating prayer and discussion for revival, I have created a sister blog to this one: Anglican Revivalist. One of the first resources I have posted is a video address by the late Professor J. Edwin Orr on what God has done in the great revivals in history (and what we should pray God does again in our day). I hope you will take a look.

Martin Luther on the Relevant and Prophetic Use of Scripture

If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point. (Luther's Works. Weimar Edition. Briefwechsel [Correspondence], vol. 3, pp. 81f.)

Martin Luther on the Relationship between Scripture and the Church

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)

[It] is an accursed lie that the pope is the arbiter of Scripture or that the church has authority over Scripture. This is what the canonists and commentators on the Sentences have wickedly declared, on the following basis: "The church has approved only four gospels, and therefore there are only four. For if it had approved more, there would have been more. Since the church has the right to accept and approve as many gospels as it wishes, it follows that the church is superior to the gospels." What a splendid argument! I approve Scripture. Therefore I am superior to Scripture. John the Baptist acknowledges and confesses Christ. He points to Him with his finger. Therefore he is superior to Christ. The church approves Christian faith and doctrine. Therefore the church is superior to them. To refute this wicked and blasphemous doctrine of theirs you have here a clear text and a thunderbolt. Here Paul subordinates himself, an angel from heaven, teachers on earth, and any other masters at all to Sacred Scripture. This queen must rule, and everyone must obey, and be subject to her. The pope, Luther, Augustine, Paul, an angel from heaven — these should not be masters, judges or arbiters, but only witnesses, disciples, and confessors of Scripture. Nor should any doctrine be taught or heard in the church except the pure Word of God. Otherwise, let the teachers and the hearers be accursed along with their doctrine. (Luther, "Lectures on Galatians," in Luther's Works, vol. 26, translated by Jaroslav Pelikan [St. Louis: Concordia, 1963], pp. 57-8.)

Sanctus fortis, sanctus Deus

Many thanks to a fellow Anglican blogger in Georgia for his gracious mention of Nashotah House, and in particular, the Nashotah House Seminary Hymn on his blog.

I found this blog to be well worth checking out also (and not merely because he says good things about "The House").

A Blessed Epiphany!

I gave myself a Christmas present this year and took a vacation from blogging for the entire Christmas season.

Now that it is after Epiphany, I'm back with almost nothing to say about two events in December that most Anglican bloggers found noteworthy: (1) the Archbishop of Canterbury's Advent letter, and (2) the vote by the Diocese of San Joaquin to disassociate from the Episcopal Church and to affiliate with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone (of South America). I didn't feel compelled to write about either of these events for one main reason: Both "events" are merely words.

The Archbishop of Canterbury's Advent letter contained the strongest language to date that the Episcopal Church violated Anglican Communion norms in consecrating a non-celibate homosexual bishop. These words from Abp. Williams were cheered by conservatives and decried by liberals. Yet the reality is that the situation in the Anglican Communion has progressed (or one could say deterioriated) to the point that no words, even those of the Archbishop of Canterbury are of any real significance. What will happen to those who have violated Anglican Communion (not to say Christian) norms? Will there be a Covenant that defines membership in the Anglican Communion in terms of adherence to a common understanding of Christian faith and morality? Will there even be an Anglican Communion after Lambeth 2008? And, if so, what will it look like?

Oh, sure, one could make guesses about the answers to those questions by saying that the two "events" of December portend one thing or another. But as far as I am concerned, there is a lot of "sound and fury, signifying nothing" going on these days. And until something actually happens that gives clear enough answers to my questions to be worth writing about, I am going to keep my digital ink in the bottle (with a few inevitable exceptions, of course).

Meanwhile, the news that really matters:

"The Lord has shown forth his glory: Come let us adore him."
(BCP, 1979, p. 81)

Merry Tossmas!

Perplexed by the title? Watch the video to see what it means.

Feliz Navitoss!

International Anglican group initiates 'strategy of inclusion'

Posted without comment; because if I started, I don't know where I would quit.

Chicago Consultation celebrates contributions of gay Christians, calls homophobia 'a sin whose end time is now'

Read it all.

Weekend Palate Cleanser: Fridgie Tales

Before I became Dean of Nashotah House, I used to be on the faculty of another very fine seminary, where two of my friends, David Sadd and Steve Brown, did some wonderfully creative stuff. They would harness some computers together in a model of distributed computing to come up with a system that would make Pixar Studios jeal... (well, okay, it wouldn't actually make Pixar Studios jealous, but it was still pretty cool).

The following clip is the first in a series of videos David and Steve made, in a takeoff on the popular Veggie Tales series.

Further Thoughts on Christians Asking Muslims for Forgiveness

The piece I posted yesterday has received a number of comments on the Stand Firm website. I want to make it clear that my piece was not intended to dismiss or denigrate either A Common Word Between Us and You (the Muslim document) or Loving God and Our Neighbor Together: A Christian Response to 'A Common Word Between Us and You' in their entirety. I merely said "this whole affair raises at least six questions in my mind." My concerns fall into two groups: (1) while attempting to draw on Judeo-Christian teaching regarding love of one's neighbor in "A Common Word," the Muslim authors fail to acknowledge any of the ways in which Muslims have failed egregiously in loving their Christian neighbors or even fellow Muslims (Sunnis vs. Shiites) for centuries and the many atrocities that still occur in any country where Islam is dominant. That is to say, this statement fails to take into account the realities of the religion it purports to represent.

(2) The signatories of Christian response seem (a) to have a case of amnesia with regard to this same history and (b) are insufficiently attentive (to put it mildly) to the real distinctiveness of the Christian Gospel. The list of signatories includes some of the most respected Christian leaders of our time, liberal as well as conservative. However, my contention is that many Christian scholars, in their eagerness to promote peace with Muslims, have paid inadequate attention to the question of whether the deity of Islam is someone whom a Christian can acknowledge as God.

As I said in my original article, when A Common Word cites the two testimonies of faith or Shahadahsi: "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is the messenger of God" Christians need to realize that, to a Muslim, this statement of the unity of the Allah of Islam absolutely precludes any notion that God could have a Son or that God could consist of a Trinity of Persons.

Similarly, the Shema of Judaism, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength" Deuteronomy (6:4-5), as traditionally understood by Jews, also precludes the idea that God could have a Son or exist in a Trinity of Persons. Without trying to cover the whole subject of the nature of Jewish expectations regarding the Messiah, it is sufficient to say that the Christian understanding that Jesus is the Messiah, and that the Messiah was not simply a messenger from God, but was God Incarnate—and that the Holy Spirit also exists as a third Person in the Godhead—was not a part of Jewish understanding, even though the Apostolic writers repeatedly used the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) to proclaim the good news concerning Jesus (see the Book of Acts).

So, then, while Jews may disagree with the Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures, Christians understand the God of the Old Testament to be the same God who is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

But what about the deity who is represented in the Koran? Is this the God of Judaism and Christianity? Consider the article written by Jon D. Levenson, professor of Jewish studies at Harvard University, entitled, "Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?" The article is enlightening in several respects. Among the points Levinson makes is the following: "Although the Qur'an speaks respectfully and appreciatively of Jesus (and Mary as well), it insists that he is only a man, and not God or the son of God: "They are unbelievers who say, 'God is the Messiah, Mary's son.'"

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all monotheistic religions. But does it necessarily follow that that the singular gods of all monotheistic religions are the same god? Levinson comments on this and goes on to conclude:

To the extent that God is characterized by attributes such as uniqueness, omnipotence, foreknowledge, justice, mercy and the revelation of his will in prophecy and scripture, then Jews, Christians and Muslims can easily detect the selfsame God in the LORD of Judaism, in the triune God of the church, and in Allah (which is simply the word for "God" used by Arabic speakers in all three traditions). There is a problem with such reliance on attributes, however, for it actually describes a Supreme Being who is closer to the God of the philosophers than to the God of Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob. To state the point differently, to the extent that the one God of the universe is rendered through narratives such as those in the scriptures and not through abstract attributes, the claim that Christians and Muslims worship the same God cannot but appear, if not false, then certainly simplistic and one-sided.

Just as Christianity sees itself in many ways to be the completion of Judaism, Islam considers itself to be the completion of Christianity. But is it?

Although Islam claims roots going back to Abraham, historically, as a religion, it comes after Christianity. It makes use of much of the same data as Christianity in that it refers to Old Testament personages such as Abraham, and New Testament personages such as Jesus and Mary. However, as mentioned briefly above, it comes to radically different conclusions concerning, in particular, Jesus, his nature and his relation to deity. So did Marcionism. So did most of the expressions of Gnosticism, to cite only a couple of movements identified as Christian heresies.

The Roman Catholic writer, Hilaire Belloc, wrote a book entitled, The Great Heresies, chapter four of which is entitled, "The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed." Belloc cited the many common points of reference that Islam shares with Christianity and goes on to identify it as a heresy, in that it makes use of the material and personages of Christianity (as any heresy does) but decisively diverges from Christianity in rejecting the God and Christ taught by Christianity.

Those of us who have grown up in the modern and postmodern West have, for so long, used the term "God" to refer to that which is the highest and best we can conceive, that we believe that the term may be applied to the highest and best that others can conceive, and that our differences are only a matter of perspective.

We often hear the analogy of the blind men, standing under an elephant, feeling the legs and calling them trees, feeling the trunk and thinking they have found a snake—but really it is all the same elephant. So we think we really all believe in the same god, we just perceive differently.

But, if we are going to get a handle on the crux of this issue, we must first realize that "God" is not simply a human construct for the "ultimate Being," however one may conceive of that Being. The God of the Bible, the God of Christianity, is the God Who IS—self-defining and self-revelatory, not merely a human construct or projection. That God has revealed himself in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as having a precise nature and character and, in the New Testament, is fully revealed as the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Further, it is only on the basis of our being "in Christ" that we truly know God, and that his Father becomes our Father. (See my piece on "The Fatherhood of God.")

There is much that is commendable in interfaith dialogue. But if it is to have any real significance for Christian believers, those who engage in it must start with what Scripture teaches regarding the essential nature of the Gospel. Many of those who claim to represent Christianity in interfaith dialogue have already succumbed to a relativism that lacks such a foundation. And, increasingly, Christian respondents are so eager to find common ground, in light of the terrors that have occurred and fears regarding the future, that they are taking the course of appeasement in the face of Islam, eager to find "Peace for our time"—peace at any cost. It will not serve Christians well if they underestimate the true distinctiveness of the Gospel. And it will not serve anyone well if we underestimate the challenges that the world faces from the religion known as Islam.

Episcopalians, Other Christians Ask Muslims for Forgiveness

The following piece, from The Living Church refers to a letter, titled “A Common Word Between Us,” signed by 138 Muslim scholars, clerics and intellectuals, seeking common ground between Islam and Christianity, and a full page ad in the New York Times signed by Christian leaders in a conciliatory gesture.

This whole affair raises at least six questions in my mind:

1. While not seeking to excuse any atrocities committed during the Crusades—including crimes committed by Crusaders against the inhabitants of Christian lands on their way to the Holy Land (the Crusaders were often a sorry lot—no argument there), do the Christian signers of the full page ad recognize that the Crusades were, nevertheless, a response to the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem?

2. Do the Christian signers of this full page ad recognize that Europe had to withstand repeated Muslim invasions for over 800 years; and that, without victories over Muslim forces by the Duke of Aquitaine, at the Battle of Toulouse (721) Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours (732); and, later, the defeat of the Ottoman Turks at Belgrade (1456) and the gates of Vienna (1529), Europe would have been conquered and subjugated by Muslims?

It would seem that, if Christian priests, pastors, and theologians are going to apologize for the Crusades, Muslims ought to apologize for the conquests of Spain and southern Italy, and 800 years of attempts to conquer the rest of Europe. But I am still waiting to see that in print.

3. Would the Muslim signers of "A Common Word Between Us" care to apologize for the continued persecution of Christians in virtually every country and territory where Islam is dominant, from Sub-Saharan Africa to Indonesia and the southern Philippines?

4. What have the Muslim signers of the letter done to end violence between Sunnis and Shiites?

5. Most importantly, do the Christian signers of the full page ad recognise that, to a Muslim, the chief statement of Faith in Islam, "There is no god but God (Allah)," excludes the possibility that God could have a Son and that Jesus Christ is God? That, therefore, when we talk about the deity of Islam and the God of Christianity, we are talking about different gods?

"Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also." (I John 1:22-23)

6. And, finally, do the Christian signers of this response know the meaning of Dhimmitude? If their approach is not tempered by a strong dose of reality, people in the West may soon learn the meaning of the word, much to our regret.

Episcopalians, Other Christians Ask Muslims for Forgiveness
Posted on: November 29, 2007

Seven bishops and other Episcopal leaders joined with a number of influential Christian leaders in signing a letter asking Muslims to forgive Christians. The letter with signatures recently appeared as a full-page advertisement in The New York Times.

“Muslims and Christians have not always shaken hands in friendship; their relations have sometimes been tense, even characterized by outright hostility,” the authors said. “Since Jesus Christ says, ‘First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye’ (Matthew 7:5), we want to begin by acknowledging that in the past (e.g. in the Crusades) and in the present (e.g. in excesses of the 'war on terror’) many Christians have been guilty of sinning against our Muslim neighbors. Before we ‘shake your hand’ in responding to your letter, we ask forgiveness of the All Merciful One and of the Muslim community around the world.”

Last month 138 Muslim scholars, clerics and intellectuals sent a letter titled “A Common Word Between Us,” seeking common ground between the two faiths. The letter was hand delivered to many Christian leaders including Pope Benedict XVI, the Orthodox Church’s Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew 1 and all the other Orthodox patriarchs, and to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the leaders of protestant churches worldwide. Archbishop Rowan Williams has already responded to the letter in a joint communiqué written with several prominent Jewish rabbis.

Episcopal bishops signing the letter include: Barry Beisner of Northern California, Joseph Burnett of Nebraska, Edwin F. Gulick Jr., of Kentucky, Shannon Johnston, coadjutor of Virginia, David C. Jones, suffragan of Virginia, Peter James Lee of Virginia and George E. Packard, Bishop Suffragan for Chaplaincies. Other Episcopalians signing the letter include the Very Rev. Joseph Britton, dean, Berkeley Divinity School at Yale; the Very Rev. Sam Candler, dean of St. Philip’s Cathedral, Atlanta, and the Very Rev. James Kowalski, dean of the Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine, New York City.

The letter also includes the endorsement of several prominent evangelicals, among them the Rev. Rick Warren, founder and pastor of Saddleback Community Church and author of The Purpose Driven Life; the Rev. John Stott, rector emeritus, All Souls’ Church, London; the Rev. Bill Hybels, founder and senior pastor, Willow Creek Community Church, and Robert E. Cooley, president emeritus, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Among those launching the letter in the United Kingdom last month was David Ford, Regius Professor of Divinity and fellow of Selwyn College, Cambridge University.

In a news conference on Nov. 26 at the Cultural Foundation of Abu Dhabi, Muslim scholars invited Prof. Miroslav Volf of Yale’s Center for Faith and Culture in order to thank him and his colleagues for their embrace of “A Common Word.” Both Muslim and Christian leaders have expressed interest in meeting together as a next step toward mutual understanding and peaceful coexistence.

Read it all.

Wash. School Calendar Forgets Christmas

The most telling statement in this article is the following: "It was absolutely an error of omission," district spokeswoman Terren Roloff said. "In our efforts to be inclusive, we missed the obvious."

Well, at least this story helped me to learn a new word. I reasoned that if a xenophobe was "a person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples," then there had to be a word (an antonym—like xenophile, if such a word existed) to describe those who rush headlong to embrace every new influence and cultural extreme, even at the expense of their own culture.

And sure enough, a visit to the The Free Dictionary led me to:
xen·o·phile (zn-fl, zn-)n. A person attracted to that which is foreign, especially to foreign peoples, manners, or cultures.
This obsession with other cultures, even those that do not exist within a community or that have to be invented (How many devotees of Kwanzaa were there before someone fabricated this "holiday" out of whole cloth?), has become such an obsession that it causes people to forget reality. I mean, forgetting Christmas? C'mon.

Of course this could have been simply a case of a school secretary having a bad day. But this sort of thing is emblematic of what is happening to much of western culture—a reckless abandonment of our own cultural foundations while mindlessly chanting the mantra of "inclusion."

Wash. School Calendar Forgets Christmas
SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) - They made a list, but they should have checked it twice.

In a December newsletter to the families of elementary school students, Spokane Public Schools' list of "important dates" didn't include Christmas.

Hanukkah, Human Rights Day, winter break, the Islamic holy day Eid al-Adha, first day of winter and Kwanzaa all made the list. But no Christmas.

"It was absolutely an error of omission," district spokeswoman Terren Roloff said. "In our efforts to be inclusive, we missed the obvious."

The omission drew complaints from some parents that Christians are being overlooked in favor of other cultures and beliefs.

Greater Spokane Association of Evangelicals Executive Director John Tusant said the error surprised him.

"The stores have been decorated for the last month. How do you overlook that?" Tusant asked.

Hutton School parent Jane Harper noted the absence of Christmas but didn't think the omission was meant as a message to Christians.

"Christmas is so dominant in our society. I don't know that anyone should feel slighted," Harper said.

Roloff said the district would not have included Hanukkah and Eid al-Adha if it had intended to avoid religious celebrations. She said her office has been fielding calls about the newsletter from concerned parents, and that most have been understanding about the mix-up.

Christmas had been added to the "important dates" section of the online version of the school district's newsletter by Thursday afternoon.

How the BSA Nets Piracy Suspects

This article from the conputer industry might seem a bit off topic, but it isn't really. Look at the lengths that one business organization is willing to go to to avoid lawsuits over the issue of software copyright infringement.

Cannot the Episcopal Church go to similar lengths in the current dispute over parish property.

How the BSA Nets Piracy Suspects
Nov 25, 1:44 PM (ET)

By BRIAN BERGSTEIN

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Business Software Alliance collects tens of millions of dollars in settlements from companies it accuses of software piracy, but it doesn't have to file lawsuits to do it....

The BSA generally begins investigating businesses after a tip from an employee. Software vendors can also initiate or lend credence to a complaint if they tell the BSA that an organization has, for example, bought suspiciously fewer software licenses than it has employees.

Next, a law firm representing the alliance will send a company a letter informing its management that it is suspected of violating software copyrights, a crime that carries penalties of up to $150,000 per infringed work.

The letters will then state that the BSA is willing to avoid court and settle amicably - if the company audits its computers to see whether they contain unlicensed copies of software made by the group's members.

That turns out to be the key step. Usually, companies go along, and report to the BSA's attorneys what they've found. With that information, the BSA will demand payments, plus penalties and attorneys' fees, for the unlicensed software.

At that point, it's mainly a matter of settling on the amount and negotiating whether BSA can publicize the crackdown in a news release.

[...]

[Some attorneys] advise companies to have their lawyers conduct software audits and issue directions on which software licenses they need. Depending on the situation, findings from this kind of audit can be shielded by attorney-client privilege. BSA could still try to file a lawsuit in hopes of proving past infringement, but it is unlikely to go that expensive route, [one attorney] said.

It's not necessarily simple: The BSA in some cases will file complaints under court seal and win a judge's approval to raid companies so it can gather evidence on its own.

The group's enforcement director, Jenny Blank, said her group resorts to raids only when it suspects that a company might try to destroy evidence of its copyright infringement.

Even then, however, the case doesn't end in a courtroom.

"The parties don't litigate," Blank said. "They settle on dollar amounts."

I have excerpted the relevant parts, but you can read the whole story here.

Note the parts I have highlighted in bold. Even with the possibility of recovering hundreds of thousands of dollars in a case that is relatively simple to prove and unlikely to be appealed, the business association would rather settle than taking the "expensive route" of filing lawsuits. And even when they raid a company that is infringing on copyrights, "the parties don't litigate," they "settle on dollar amounts."

Why is it that these companies, who have no biblical injunction to love one another, or to stay out of the secular courts, are behaving better than the Church?

What would Gamaliel do?

I have had conversations this week with several TEC insiders who have objected to my post on A Church out of Control and even more strongly to my satirical piece Location, Location, Location, both of which address, one seriously, the other satirically, the litigious tendencies of the Episcopal Church's Presiding Bishop, as seen in a spate of highly publicized lawsuits over the past year.

The expression that was repeatedly used to defend the Presiding Bishop's multiple lawsuits was "fiduciary responsibility"—that the PB had a "fiduciary responsibility" to protect assets (supposedly) belonging to the Episcopal Church. Therefore, so the logic goes, she was only doing her duty in insisting that bishops and dioceses sue departing congregation over the property.

But, does not a settlement for the property, negotiated between dioceses and departing congregations, constitute a means of diocesan officers fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility? It seems that Bishop Peter Lee of Virginia thought so when he engaged in a lengthy process of negotiation with 11 departing parishes.

It seems that other bishops thought so when they negotiated settlements with departing parishes in such places as Plano, Texas; El Paso, Texas; and Overland Park, Kansas—to mention just three examples among many. Did these bishops violate their "fiduciary responsibility" by settling out of court? No one seems to have thought so at the time; and no presiding bishop prior to the present one sued anyone for it.

But as the Washington Times reported,

According to prior testimony, Virginia Bishop Peter J. Lee was ready to accept buyouts from the 11 departing churches, several of which sat on historic pieces of property in Fairfax and Falls Church. That changed after he met with the new presiding bishop soon after her Nov. 4, 2006, installation.

"I told Bishop Lee I could not support negotiations for sale if the congregations intended to set up as other parts of the Anglican Communion," Bishop Jefferts Schori said, referring to the 77 million-member worldwide body of which the Episcopal Church is a part.

What particularly angered her, she said, was the presence of the Nigerian-controlled Convocation of Anglicans in North America, then headquartered in Fairfax. An American bishop for CANA, the Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns, had been consecrated that August.

CANA's presence "violates the ancient principle of the church that two bishops do not have jurisdiction in the same area," said the presiding bishop, whose face appeared on three screens positioned around the courtroom.

Under further questioning by attorneys for CANA, she said that had the property been sold to a Methodist or Baptist congregation, she would not have objected.

But, "the Episcopal Church, for matters of its own integrity, cannot encourage other parts of the Anglican Communion to set up shop within its jurisdiction," she said in her deposition.

It then fell to Bishop Lee to break the news to the dissenting congregations, Falls Church rector the Rev. John Yates said in prior testimony. His church was one of the 11 that was negotiating amicably with the diocese until Dec. 7. That is when, he said, Bishop Lee told them things had changed.

"[Bishop Lee] said, 'There's a new sheriff in town. The situation is different'" Mr. Yates said.

Since the PB is reported as saying that she wouldn't object if the property were sold to a Baptist or Methodist congregation, she obviously believes that a settlement to sell the property does not violate anyone's fiduciary responsibility. Her real objection is to seeing property sold to Anglicans who would rather come under an alternative Anglican jurisdiction than to stick around for the new improved version of Christianity that has become her stock and trade. Her objections to property settlements, then, are based on differences of religious opinion and her desire to act punitively toward those who disagree with her. How wonderfully tolerant these liberals are!

There just might be a precedent for all this in Christian history. In Acts, chapter 5, the disciples, while under arrest, have proclaimed the message of Jesus Christ to the Jewish Sanhedrin--there was obvously a division over matters of religious opinion then, too:

When [the Sanhedrin] heard this, they were furious and wanted to put [Peter and the other disciples] to death. But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. Then he addressed them: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God." (emphasis added) (Acts 5:33-39)

Bp. Schori has elsewhere expressed the view (also reported here) that, "if all sides in the current debate over sexuality and Scripture could 'hold their truths more lightly,' they might yet find a way forward."

Well, okay, if you want to try holding your "truths more lightly," here's a place to start. Let's assume that Gamaliel is right (and he certainly has been proven right about the beginning of Christianity). These Anglicans are as much a division in the Episcopal Church over a difference in religious views as the early Christians were from the Jews. How about applying Gamaliel's test to our present situation? How about dispensing with all the lawsuits and, instead, start negotiating settlements with departing Anglican congregations? "For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."

Or am I being too biblical?

Presiding Bishop: “I Ordered U-Turn on Deal.”

George Conger reports on PB Kathatine Jefferts Schori's testimony in the lawsuit over parish properties in Virginia:

In testimony before a Virginia court last week, US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori stated she had directed the Diocese of Virginia to sue the clergy and lay leaders of 11 congregations after they had quit the Episcopal Church for the Churches of Nigerian and Uganda.

In video taped testimony presented to the Fairfax County Circuit Court, Bishop Schori said she ordered Virginia Bishop Peter Lee to break a verbal agreement allowing the 11 parishes to withdraw from the diocese so as to prevent “incursions by foreign bishops.”

Bishop Schori’s testimony during the four hour deposition, recorded on Oct 30 and presented in evidence on Nob 15, did little to engender the sympathy of the court, as observers noted she carefully parsed her words, and at one point was directed by the court to answer a question.

Testimony in the week long trial, revealed that shortly after her installation as Presiding Bishop in November [2006], Bishop Schori met with Bishop Lee, telling him she “could not support negotiations for sale if the congregations intended to set up as other parts of the Anglican Communion.”

In December [2006] the diocese broke off negotiations with the congregations, and filed suit in January [2007] to recover the assets of the congregation.

Read it all.

A poem for a sermon: The Lamb

The Lamb

The Shepherd loved His little lamb,
And gave it His tender care
And followed it with His loving eyes
As it wandered here and there.

And as He sat by His grazing flock
Who so meekly His voice obeyed,
He pondered sadly His little lamb
As again it strayed.

The little lamb had a loving heart,
And adored His Shepherd, true,
But would turn aside and seek his own way
As lambs so often do.

With his gentle voice the Shepherd called,
To His loved and straying lamb,
"Come back, little one, for you are not safe
Unless you are where I am."

But still the lamb would soon forget
And unthinkingly wander away,
And not really noticing what he did,
From the Shepherd's side would stray.

Until one day, the Shepherd kind
Took His rod in His gentle hand,
And what He then did seemed so cruel
That the lamb could not understand.

For with one sharp and well-aimed blow
Down the rod so swiftly came
That it broke the leg of the little lamb
And left it crippled, and lame.

Then the little lamb, with a cry of pain,
Fell down upon his knees...
And looked up at his Shepherd, as though to say,
"Won't you explain this, please?"

Then he saw the love in the Shepherd's eyes
As the tears ran down His face,
As He tenderly set the broken bone,
And bound it back in it's place.

Now he was utterly helpless,
He could not even stand!
He must trust himself completely
To his Shepherd's loving hand.

Then day by day, 'till the lamb was healed
From the flock he was kept apart...
And carried about in the Shepherd's arms
And cradled near to His heart.

And the Shepherd would whisper gentle words
Into his now listening ear...
Thus he heard sweet words of love
That the other sheep could not hear.

He felt the warmth of the Shepherd's arms.
And the beat of His faithful heart...
Until it came a blessing to seem,
By his weakness to be set apart.

Every need of the little lamb
By his Shepherd so fully was met
That through his brokenness he learned
What he never again would forget.

And as the broken bone was healed,
And once more became whole and strong...
Wherever the Shepherd's path would lead,
The lamb would follow along.

Thus at the Shepherd's side he walked
So closely, day by day,
For once a lamb has a broken leg
It will never again go astray.

For the cords of love had bound it so
In its hour of weakness and need...
That is had no desire to wander away,
When once again it was freed.

Could it be you are broken today,
And you cannot understand
The painful blow of the Shepherd's rod
Nor believe it came from His Hand?

He only seeks, by this painful thing,
For a time to call you apart...
To cradle you close in His loving arms,
And draw you near to His heart.

So look up into your Shepherd's eyes,
And earnestly seek His face...
And prove in the hour of your weakness and need
The sufficiency of His grace.

For as you are borne in His loving arms,
And carried there, day by day...
He will bind you so close with the cords of His love
That never again will you stray!

—— Author Unknown

From Anglicans Ablaze: "The Cost of Unfaithfulness"

Robin Jordan of the blog Anglicans Ablaze makes some important points in todays commentary and does it very well.

Monday, November 19, 2007

The Cost of Unfaithfulness
Commentary by Robin G. Jordan

What does Presiding Katherine Schori hope to gain from the costly and lengthy litigation in which she is involving the national church and a number of dioceses? It will not stop the Episcopal Church from hemorrhaging members. It will not help Episcopal parishes and churches to retain existing members and to attract new members. It will not prevent clergy, congregations, and dioceses from leaving the Episcopal Church. It will not keep other provinces from assuming jurisdiction over the departing congregations and dioceses. What it will do is strain the resources of the dioceses involved in the lawsuits. It will use monies that might have been put to better use in a shrinking denomination for evangelistic outreach, new church development, and congregational revitalization.

Read it all.

Passionate but not serious

"A person starts to live when he can live outside himself." — Albert Einstein

LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION

Gary Drier, a General Convention Deputy from the Diocese of Fond du Lac, shared this satirical missive with the Bishops/Deputies listserv today. I reprint it with his permission.

The Rt. Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
815
NY, NY

Dear Bishop Schori:

We heard about your interest in real estate, especially old church buildings. On the chance you are looking not just at just high end properties, you may want to investigate a gothic fix up.

It needs a little work: roof (some slate shingles slid off); walls (gaps in tuckpointing here and there); doors (main doors stick); heating (some radiators leak); floors (terrazzo has lost its seal) and plumbing (urinal bowl will not fully evacuate).

On the bright side, the property is home to some entertaining bats.

Our vestry recently passed a resolution to affiliate with the Anglican Conference of Mediocre Edifices (ACME). ACME is not in communion with The Episcopal Church.

Could you PLEASE hire some lawyers to take over this building and fix it up?

Sincerely,

Eddie Fuss

A short time later, this response also found its way to the Bishops/Deputies list:

Mr. Eddie Fuss
% St. Swithin's Episcopal Church
Smallville, WI 53850

Dear Mr. Fuss,

I am in receipt of your letter regarding the disposition of your church building. As you are no doubt aware, congregations can leave the Episcopal Church, but buildings cannot.

My extensive legal team and I have considered the matter you have placed before us, and we must state that your property does not have sufficient value for us to be interested. In suing various congregations around the US, we have primarily selected those properties whose sale can net a considerable return, given that any effort to maintain a ministry in them will likely not result in a congregation capable of paying the utility bills, much less the other costs associated with the upkeep of the building.

I need to inform you that since your congregation has chosen to affiliate with the Anglican Conference of Mediocre Edifices (ACME), we have empowered the sexton (as the only remaining person whom we recognize as having any interest in the building) to sell the building as a restaurant, tavern, night club or any enterprise that does not involve its use as a place of Anglican worship. It sounds as though the St. Swithin's building has excellent potential as a Halloween House of Horrors.

You will soon be hearing from my attorneys who will, unless we change our minds, sue you in your own person for your leadership role in affiliating with the Anglican Conference of Mediocre Edifices (ACME). I also need to state that if your bishop attempts to negotiate any sort of settlement contrary to our expressed wishes, we will sue him also.

Love and Peace,

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori


(posted and possibly even written by
Robert Munday, Deputy from Quincy)

A Church Out Of Control

Anyone who lives in the Episcopal Church these days has probably already recognized himself (or herself) to be a victim of the (purported) old Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times!" However, the last two weeks have seen the times get even more interesting than usual.

First, there was the news item: "Presiding Bishop reaches out to bishops attempting to withdraw dioceses"—such a compassionate sounding title for an article conveying that the PB had sent letters threatening disciplinary action against the bishops in question! As one commentator put it, "The Episcopal Church is probably the only place where 'being reached out to' means being threatened, deposed, and sued." These threats against bishops of dioceses come on top of the numerous places around the country where the Episcopal Church is involved in legal action against departing parishes.

A concurrent development with the escalating legal tensions over the past year has been the repudiation of the General Convention 2006 resolution (B033) urging restraint in giving consent to the election of a bishop "whose manner of life might present a challenge to the larger Communion"—in other words, a gay bishop. This call for restraint has now been repudiated by various dioceses, a partial list of which includes: Los Angeles, New Jersey, California, Rochester, and (just this past weekend) Chicago.

Chicago held its election for a new bishop this past weekend also. While, Tracey Lind, the partnered lesbian candidate (and Dean of the cathedral in Cleveland) was not elected, the Chicago Tribune reported the successful candidate, Jeff Lee, from the Seattle area, as saying:

"I am overwhelmed and grateful to God for the opportunity to come to such a great diocese," Lee said by telephone. "In many ways, I believe Chicago reflects the face of the Episcopal Church in all its diversity. Rich and poor, urban and suburban, black and white, gay and straight ... and I believe I've been called to be a bridge-builder and a reconciler."

The election marked the most recent flash point in the conflict over homosexuality in the Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion. The 2003 consecration of Gene Robinson, the Episcopal Church's first openly gay bishop, began a shift in the church and some thought there would be further divisions if Lind were elected bishop.

When asked about his stance on gays in the church, Lee said he supported full inclusion.

"I believe God is calling us to full inclusion of gays and lesbians in ministry of this church. ... There is a place for everyone in the church, and the church has to catch up with God's vision," he said.

In case anyone doesn't remember, this is simply a repeat of the Diocese of California's election of a bishop, where they also did not elect the lesbian candidate, but elected a "straight, white, male" bishop who was just as strongly committed to advancing the blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals.

This past weekend also brought news that the Diocese of Northern California has voted to support gay couples.

All of this means that, despite the Windsor Report and the Dar Es Salaam Communique, despite the General Convention's passage of B033, and regardless of what the House of Bishops said at its meeting in New Orleans, the blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals will continue unhindered.

There was also this rather bizarre news item that the Episcopal Church is taking disciplinary action against three retired bishops. The three retired bishops: Fairfield, Bena, and Cox have, since their retirement, been received into, respectively, the Anglican provinces of Uganda, Nigeria, and the Southern Cone. Their "crime" is, apparently, that they have, under the direction of their new provinces, ministered to Anglicans in North America who are also affiliated with those overseas provinces. The substance of the complaint is that the bishops failed to "resign" in a way that was approved by the House of Bishops. I am sure the bishops thought their resignation was taken care of when they retired. To all but the most bellicose among us, pursuing these bishops in retirement must seem like an egregious example of legal overkill. But, hey, welcome to the Episcopal Church!

Then there is the news that the Province of the Southern Cone has passed a resolution opening its doors to any US diocese that desired to transfer into that province. This is a move obviously aimed at the bishops and dioceses who are "being reached out to" by the Episcopal Church's litigious Presiding Bishop. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out.

In all this, the silence from Lambeth Palace has been deafening!

Ealier in the week, there was a report from London Times religion writer, Ruth Gledhill, that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, "described the plan of [Southern Cone] Archishop Greg Venables [to take dissenting US dioceses under his wing] as a 'sensible way forward.'" I am willing to bet that this is the last talk of that sort anyone hears from the ABC.

There seems to be a pattern emerging here. This isn't the first time Rowan Williams has made a comment that seemed to support orthodox Anglicans in the US, only to have the comment nullified several days later in an official "clarification" issued from Lambeth Palace.

It appears that, if someone can actually talk with Rowan Williams, the fellow isn't really a bad chap. But then his Wormtongue managers at Lambeth Palace and the heavily US-funded Anglican Communion Office regain their control over him, and he becomes once again entranced to do nothing while evil prospers.

Actually, the ABC seems to be acting under the assumption that the best way to keep the Anglican Communion together is to keep the Episcopal Church together. Thus, he is remaining silent while the litigious (did I mention that already?) Presiding Bishop crushes all dissent. American Conservatives are apparently supposed to reconcile themselves to being casualties in a war Rowan would like to pretend doesn't exist.

In reality, the only way to save the Anglican Communion is to discipline the Episcopal Church for its departure from Anglican Communion norms. The Archbishop of Canterbury can accomplish this discipline through his prerogative of invitations to the Lambeth Conference. The Primates can accomplish this discipline by censuring the American Church and limiting TEC's participation in the instruments of unity. If this does not happen, not only the Episcopal Church, but the Anglican Communion will fly apart under the centrifugal forces of the orbit into which the anarchic deviations of the American Church have cast it—and it will happen sooner rather than later.

Are you listening, Rowan?

Weekend Palate Cleanser—The Trunk Monkey

Talk about off topic! This video is apropos of absolutely nothing; but it had me in stitches.


 

What Do We Leave Them?

From an anonymous essay by a young clergyperson in the Diocese of Pittsburgh:

The Episcopal Church with our liturgy gives young people, Gen-X’ers a sense of belonging and ritual that so many of us desire. With our sense of Tradition, the Episcopal Church (like the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches) gives otherwise disconnected X’ers a sense of place in a long chain of believers stretching back to the dawn of time. This is immensely valuable, a rare and precious gift. It is a gift which can be a tool to attract people my age to the Christian faith. It is a gift that can combat the surface Christianity which so repelled me, even at the age of eighteen. It is a gift which so many in the world at large are seeking. Yet it is a gift which we have utterly failed to pass on to at least two generations of our children....

Read it all.

The Next Twenty Years for Anglican Christians - Archbishop Peter Jensen

Dr Peter Jensen is the Archbishop of Sydney

‘Crisis’, ‘schism’, ‘division’, ‘break-up’ – this has been the language of the last five years in the Anglican Communion. Again and again we have reached ‘defining moments’, ‘crucial meetings’ and ‘turning points’, only to discover that they simply lead into another period of uncertainty.

Uncertainty is now over. The decisive moments have passed. Irreversible actions have occurred. The time has come for sustained thought about a different future. The Anglican Communion will never be the same again. The Windsor process has failed, largely because it refused to grapple with the key issue of the truth. A new and more biblical vision is required to help biblically faithful Anglican churches survive and grow in the contemporary world. [...]

Read it all @ Global South Anglican.

US Marine Corps Silent Drill Team

Off topic? Perhaps; but what the heck! Semper Fi!

Do you feel blessed? You may be more than you realize.

If you woke up this morning
with more health than illness,
you are more blessed than the
million who won't survive the week.

If you have never experienced
the danger of battle,
the loneliness of imprisonment,
the agony of torture or
the pangs of starvation,
you are ahead of 50 million people
around the world.

If you attend a church meeting
without fear of harassment,
arrest, torture, or death,
you are more blessed than almost
three billion people in the world.

If you have food in your refrigerator,
clothes on your back, a roof over
your head and a place to sleep,
you are richer than 75% of this world.

If you have money in the bank,
in your wallet, and spare change
in a dish someplace, you are among
the top 8% of the world's wealthy.

If your parents are still married and alive,
you are very rare, especially in the United States.

If you hold up your head with a smile
on your face and are truly thankful,
you are blessed because the majority can,
but most do not.

If you can hold someone's hand, hug them
or even touch them on the shoulder,
you are blessed because you can
offer God's healing touch.

If you can read this message,
you are more blessed than over
two billion people in the world
that cannot read anything at all.

You are so blessed in ways
you may never even know.

If you are feeling blessed, repay the blessings bestowed unto you and do something for others.

A blessing cannot be kept. If it stops with you, then the blessing will disappear. The blessing will only keep working if it is continuously passed around. If you are a recipient of a blessing, keep the blessing working by being the source of blessing to other people.

— source unknown