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

From Episcopal Life Online:

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

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

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

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

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

My advice: Don't hold your breath.
 

Barack Obama, Jewish-Americans, and Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

Read the whole article.

 

A Faith's Dwindling Following

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

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

Read it all.

Diocese of Michigan Seeking Plan for Revitalization

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

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

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

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

War on God

New York election mixup: 'Osama' on ballot

Hundreds in upstate county get absentee ballots with ‘Barack Osama’

TROY, New York - Who is running for president? In an upstate New York county, hundreds of voters have been sent absentee ballots in which they could vote for “Barack Osama.”

The absentee ballots sent to voters in Rensselaer County identified the two presidential candidates as “Barack Osama” and “John McCain.” In the United States, the best-known individual named Osama is Osama bin Laden, leader of the al Qaida terrorist group behind the 2001 attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center in New York City.

The typographical terror error was first reported by the Times Union of Albany.

Read it all.

My good friend Bubba says, "That's not mistake, that's a prophecy!"

Should I Stay or Should I Go?

The question a lot of folks are asking:

Slam Dunk!

As predicted:

Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh Changes Constitution, Joins Anglican Province.

191 laity voted. 119 voted in favor (62.3%). 69 voted against (36.1%), 3 abstained.

160 clergy voted. 121 voted in favor (75.6%). 33 voted no (20.6%). 3 abstained. 2 invalid ballots were cast.

Postcard from Pittsburgh

The other night I had the joy of attending the installation of the Very Rev. Dr. Justyn Terry as Dean and President of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry. The preacher for the service, Canon Michael Green, prefaced his sermon by paying tribute to Bishop Robert Duncan, whose recent deposition by the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church has been the subject of controversy.

Canon Green could scarcely finish his remarks before a resounding standing ovation for Bishop Duncan (who was seated in the chancel) erupted from the congregation which lasted for at least five minutes. Bishop Duncan's wife, Nara, was escorted from her seat in the congregation to the front to stand with her husband while the ovation continued.

There can be no mistake: Bishop Duncan is much loved by the people of Pittsburgh--the group calling itself the Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh (PEP) not withstanding.

As London Times religion columnist Ruth Gledhill has written:

It has crossed my mind recently that Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori is secretly one of the "orthodox". That can surely be the only reason that she has created a martyr who is now being venerated by evangelicals worldwide, and who is poised to become the sanctified leader of an orthodox movement that is demanding, and might well get, its own province.

Gledhill goes on to mention the new website that has been created to catalogue all the expressions of support from around the world for Bishop Duncan.

One thing is sure: the PB's actions have only strengthened support for Bishop Duncan both inside and outside the Diocese of Pittsburgh and virtually guarantee that the Diocese's vote to leave the Episcopal Church (scheduled to take place tomorrow) will be a "slam dunk."

There is another sports expression that applies here as well: "own goal," and the PB has most certainly scored one just as phenomenal as any of these.

The most underreported story of the past week...

A.S. Haley, an attorney from California who blogs under the name, the Anglican Curmudgeon, has posted a most interesting column in which he demonstrates that at the same time the Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor were telling the House of Bishops meeting in Salt Lake City that “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote" means a majority of those present and entitled to vote, David Booth Beers’ firm submitted a brief on behalf of the Presiding Bishop in the Virginia property case asserting that the virtually identical language in the Virginia statute (“a majority of the whole number entitled to vote”) meant a majority of the members of a congregation who are entitled to vote, whether or not they were present.

Anyone, including the media (hint) can check the facts for themselves. But it appears to me that the House of Bishops has, at the very least, been misled; and an injustice has been committed against the three bishops (Duncan, Cox, and Schofield) who have been deposed under this (intentionally???) erroneous interpretation of the Canons.

Read the whole thing and decide for yourself.

Bishop Michael Nazir Ali: Duncan deposition shows need for "structural solution" and "immediate relief"

Ruth Gledhill's latest column in the Times (London) on the reaction from British bishops to the deposition of Bishop Robert Duncan is a 'must read.'

The second part of that column is particularly significant--a transcript from an interview with the Bishop of Rochester, Dr. Michael Nazir-Ali on the growing demand for a new Anglican Province in North America and the potential for the division that has been worsened by the deposition of Bishop Duncan to affect the Church of England.

Here is an excerpt of what Bishop Nazir-Ali had to say:

'The first thing is to express huge admiration for Bishop Bob, because for so many years he has borne the brunt of the anger of those who want to make changes in The Episcopal Church. He has stayed loyally within that Church.

'I have quite often watched him in the American house of bishops or general convention, taking flak. So given all of that, I am very sad and very shocked that he's been treated in this way.

'Quite a few American bishops had come to Lambeth, knowing that nothing would change afterwards. I do not think we can take seriously what they agreed at Lambeth. This is of a piece with other meetings where they have beehn present, have agreed things and where nothing has happened afterwards.

'This does show that a structural solution is needed for the orthodox in the American church. There must be immediate relief. No talk about panels doing things in the future. We need, they need more importantly, immediate relief from this kind of action taken against them. I hope that a province in due course of the orthodox in America will be recognised in the Anglican Communion.

'Here are loyal Anglicans whose only fault is not wanting to change what they have received.

Ruth Gledhill continues:

But a robust statement this evening from Bishop Wallace Benn of Lewes and others at Anglican Mainstream gives some indication of how serious the problems remain on the home front.

They said: 'The Jerusalem statement from almost 1200 confessing Anglican leaders urged the Archbishops of Nigeria, Kenya, Southern Cone, Tanzania, Uganda, West Africa and Rwanda to recognise a new Anglican province for North America.

'This has now become more urgent due to the aggressive liberal and unprincipled behaviour of The Episcopal Church house of bishops towards the Bishop of Pittsburgh whose currently moderator of the orthodox Common Cause Partnership.

'The behaviour of The Episcopal Church house of bishops shows that the promised moratorium at Lambeth is dead and their integrity in wishing to bring peace must now be questioned.'

Read it all.

Worthy to Suffer

For all who follow Christ, but especially for my friends in Pittsburgh—

²⁷Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel ²⁸without being frightened in any way by those who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed, but that you will be saved—and that by God. ²⁹For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him, ³⁰since you are going through the same struggle you saw I had, and now hear that I still have.

worthy of the gospel (vs. 27). Here the Apostle Paul is exhorting his readers to live lives that are in keeping with the standards and character of the Gospel—the good news of Jesus Christ. That standard, as we read elsewhere in the Scriptures, entails the characteristics of holiness and righteousness—two words we Christians like to throw around a lot without ever stopping to define them. The result is that many people don't know exactly what they mean, or sometimes view them as interchangeable or synonymous. They are complementary, but they are not synonymous.

Holiness means "set apart," and there is a two-fold connotation: set apart from the world by our integrity and purity, and set apart for God by our complete and total dedication—thoroughly and unreservedly belonging to God.

1 John 2:15-16 says,

"Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever."

This is the essence of holiness, not loving those things that our fallen nature (our flesh) craves, nor those things that are alluring to our eyes, nor those things that appeal to our egos (the pride of life) but instead having our hearts totally fixed on God.

Righteousness (vs. 27) is related to "rightness"— letting God's priorities and values be our thoughts and values, and letting His Word and His will direct our thoughts and actions to the exclusion of all else.

in one spirit... (vs. 27). Having a common disposition and purpose with other members of the Body of Christ so that we are one, even as Christ and the Father are one (John 17:20-22).

contending as one man... (vs. 27). Particularly where the Gospel is being attacked, Christians need each other. They must stand together and let their unity in the Truth be a witness to the world.

without being frightened in any way by those who oppose you (vs 28).   "...for greater is He that is in you than he that is in the world" (1 John 4:4).

This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed... (vs. 28). Persistent opposition to the Gospel is a sure sign of eventual destruction because it is a rejection of the way of salvation. By the same token, when Christians are persecuted for their faith, it is a sign of the genuineness of their faith.

¹⁰Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
¹¹"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
¹²Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matthew 5:10-12)

granted... to suffer (vs. 29). Given as a gift or privilege, suffering identifies the Christian with Christ, who suffered for our salvation, and with the prophets and saints who have suffered for the Truth of God's Word in every age.

same struggle... (vs. 30). The Philippian believers (and all who suffer today) are undergoing the same opposition Paul faced in his ministry.

Finally, from 2 Thessalonians 1:3-12,

³We ought always to thank God for you, and rightly so, because your faith is growing more and more, and the love every one of you has for each other is increasing. ⁴Therefore, among God's churches we boast about your perseverance and faith in all the persecutions and trials you are enduring.
⁵All this is evidence that God's judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. ⁶God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you ⁷and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. ⁸He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. ⁹They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power ¹⁰on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.

¹¹With this in mind, we constantly pray for you, that our God may count you worthy of his calling, and that by his power he may fulfill every good purpose of yours and every act prompted by your faith. ¹²We pray this so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Cost of Not Following the Canons

Over at Stand Firm Sarah Hey has a great piece on this week's vote by the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops to depose Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, entitled: Why It’s A Great Day To Be A Traditional Anglican.

Here's just a sample:

No, there are two other reasons why an Episcopal bishop would not want to support the deposition of Bishop Duncan. First, some bishops -- obviously 30% of the House -- care about following the canons, not convenience or political advantage. And second . . . and make no mistake about this . . . some bishops know just how very bad this looks to the rest of the Communion: to the bishops that they sat in indaba with, to fair-minded liberals, to Rowan Williams, and to moderates everywhere who have tried to be fair-minded with TEC.

Katherine Jefferts Schori and her advisors had two choices. They could violate the canons flagrantly and hang 'em high now, further shattering TEC's global reputation . . . or they could attempt to follow the canons scrupulously. They chose the former -- and I think they knew the cost within the Communion.

The cost is TEC's further distancing from the rest of the Communion. And Bishop Jefferts Schori was willing to pay that cost.

Read it all.

General Convention adopts Ubuntu as 2009 Theme

I think I have figured out the problem with this General Convention thing: Part of us are spinning to the left, while part of us are spinning to the right.

Saturday night pause that refreshes:

AARRRRGHHHH!!! The things that come into your mind when you are trying to work on a sermon...

I Choose to Trust

From the work of author James MacDonald:

"Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my righteous right hand." Isaiah 41:10

Trust is the antidote to anxiety; it's the resolution of worry and the destruction of fear. Trust is the act of my will to give my burdens to God. It's like a muscle--as you exercise it, trust gets stronger.

Trust is walking forward moment by moment, having rolled your burden onto God. You've no doubt said, "I gave it to God once, but here it is again in my grip." When you sense that you've taken it back again, get back on your knees, get the burden back on God, get on your feet again, and continue to trust.

When you off-load your burden on God, you can pick up a promise from His Word. Second Peter 1:4 tells us that "he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world." There are literally hundreds of promises that apply to your specific burden. God's Word is filled with treasure.

I'm claiming Isaiah 41:10 right now for a burden I leaving at God's feet. "Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my righteous right hand." There it is! God is doing this whole thing with one hand tied behind His back. He's not stressed or strained. He's not worried about what to do. He has absolutely no capacity limits!

Isaiah continues, "Behold, all who are incensed against you shall be put to shame and confounded; those who strive against you shall be as nothing and shall perish. You shall seek those who contend with you, but you shall not find them; those who war against you shall be as nothing at all. For I, the Lord your God, hold your right hand; it is I who say to you, ‘Fear not, I am the one who helps you'" (vv. 11-13).

Take a moment to read that awesome promise again. Trust means you anchor your heart in the reality of God's awareness of your situation. He sees more than you can ever see. God, who loves you and is committed to you, will not disappoint you now or in the future if you put your weight fully on Him.

For more information on MacDonald's book, 10 Choices, visit 10Choices.org to engage in one of the ten choices with book excerpts, questions, and comments.

Seen on a Church sign this morning:

"We don't change the message.

The message changes us."

Now can you imagine what would happen if more churches said that and really meant it!

The Pointy Hat Club

Once upon a time in a far away place called Dar Es Salaam there was a party attended by boys and girls who liked to wear pointy hats, including one girl who liked to wear a pointy hat, but who sometimes wore a rainbow-colored oven mitt on her head instead. The other boys and girls were very polite and never used the words "oven mitt" in front of the one girl because they knew it would make her very cross.

Some of the folks at the party weren't having a very good time. It seems that in some places there were boys who wanted to live with other boys (the way Mommy and Daddy live together) who had been allowed to join the Pointy Hat Club. The people at the party murmured as how this wasn't a good thing, and agreed that boys who wanted to live with other boys and girls who wanted to live with other girls (the way Mommy and Daddy live together) shouldn't be allowed to join the Pointy Hat Club. The girl who sometimes liked to wear an oven mitt nodded her head and said that was all right with her too.

When all the boys and girls got home from the party, the girl who sometimes wore an oven mitt said that she had not nodded her head along with the others who wore pointy hats and that, furthermore, she thought there ought to be more boys who lived with other boys and girls who lived with other girls (the way Mommy and Daddy live together) in the Pointy Hat Club.

When the other folks who had been at the party heard this, they were very cross. Other boys and girls who were neighbors of the girl who sometimes wore an oven mitt said that they would go elsewhere to play. The girl who sometimes wore an oven mitt said that that was okay with her, but that they had to leave behind their balls, bats, gloves, hockey sticks, tennis rackets, croquet mallets, badmitton rackets, shuttlecocks and nets, and any other game equipment, because it all belonged to her.

When some far away members of the Pointy Hat Club heard what happened to all the boys and girls who refused to play with the girl who sometimes wore an oven mitt, they were sad. They said to those boys and girls, "It's okay, we will still play with you. And, even though we are poor and do not have many toys or games, we will still be your friends and treat you as loyal members of the Pointy Hat Club."

The next time the Pointy Hat Club met, it was a Grand Party. Members from all over the world were there--except that nearly one third of the members of the Pointy Hat Club refused to come, because they said that the girl who sometimes wore an oven mitt and her friends refused to play according to the rules and could not be trusted.

When the Grand High Poobah of the Pointy Hat Club saw and heard what was going on, he held his head in his hands and wondered why he had ever become Grand High Poobah. When the Grand Party commenced, he got a group of his friends to propose new rules. The rules went like this: The girl who sometimes wore an oven mitt and her friends had to give a really, really solemn promise ("cross your heart and hope to die") that they would not let any more boys who lived with other boys and girls who lived with other girls (the way Mommy and Daddy live together) join the Pointy Hat Club.

The rules also said that those who had refused to play with the girl who sometimes wore an oven mitt had to stand in a corner until someone let them out. Those who had become friends of the ones who refused to play with the girl who sometimes wore an oven mitt could not let any of the members of the first group out of the corner in which they were forced to stand; and they had to agree to stay home and play in their own yards.

When the boys and girls who had refused to play with the girl who sometimes wore an oven mitt heard the new rules, they were quite upset and murmured as to how it was the girl who sometimes wore an oven mitt and her friends who had broken the rules in the first place and asked how they could play with someone who could not possibly be trusted. Their friends from far away said that they had only tried to be friends in order to give these boys and girls someone to play with and asked why they should have to give up their new friends.

But the Grand High Poobah averred as to how the new rules were good rules, and how they had taken a lot of hard working boys and girls a long time to come up with, and since every club had to have rules, they might as well use these. The girl who sometimes wore an oven mitt and her friends disliked the new rules, but finally agreed to give a solemn promise ("cross your heart and hope to die")--and only those who looked closely could see the twinkle in their eyes as they promised and the fingers of their other hands crossed behind their backs.

So in the end, the girl who sometimes wore an oven mitt and her friends played according to one set of rules. The boys and girls who had refused to play with the girl who sometimes wore an oven mitt said that if the Grand High Poobah was going to talk about rules, then they really preferred The Old Rules best of all, and they would continue to play according to them. But the Pointy Hat Club was never, ever the same again.

Tash is Aslan: Aslan is Tash

From The Last Battle, by C.S. Lewis (Book 7 in The Chronicles of Narnia):

"Please, please," said the high voice of a wooly lamb, who was so young that everyone was surprised he dared to speak at all.

"What is it now? said the Ape, "Be quick."

"Please," said the Lamb. "I can't understand. What have we to do with the Calormenes? We belong to Aslan. They belong to Tash. They have a god called Tash. They say he has four arms and the head of a vulture. They kill Men on his altar. I don't believe there's any such person as Tash. But if there was, how could Aslan be friends with him?"

All the animals cocked their heads sideways and all their bright eyes flashed toward the Ape. They knew it was the best question anyone had asked yet.

The Ape jumped up and spat at the Lamb.

"Baby!" he hissed. "Silly little bleater! Go home to your mother and drink milk. What do you understand of such things? But you others listen. Tash is only another name for Aslan. All that old idea of us being right and the Calormenes wrong is silly. We know better now. The Calormenes use different words but we all mean the same thing. Tash and Aslan are only two different names for you know Who. That's why there can never be any quarrel between them. Get that into your heads, you stupid brutes. Tash is Aslan: Aslan is Tash."

You know how sad your own dog's face can look sometimes. Think of that and then think of the faces of all those Talking Beasts--all those honest, humble, bewildered birds, bears, badgers, rabbits, moles, and mice--all far sadder than that. Every tail was down, every whisker drooped. It would have broken your heart to see their faces.

[...]

Up till now the King and Jewel had said nothing. They were waiting until the Ape should bid them speak, for they thought it was no use interrupting. But now, as Tirian looked round on the miserable faces of the Narnians, and thought how they would all believe that Aslan and Tash were one and the same, he could bear it no longer.

"Ape," he cried, "You lie. You lie damnably. You lie like a Calormene. You lie like an Ape"

He meant to go on and ask how the terrible god Tash who fed on the blood of his people could be the same as the good Lion by whose blood all Narnia was saved. If he had been allowed to speak, the rule of the Ape might have ended that day; the Beasts might have seen the truth and thrown the Ape down. But before he could say another word two Calormenes struck him in the mouth with all their force, and a third, from behind, kicked his feet from under him. And as he fell, the Ape squealed in rage and terror:

"Take him away. Take him away. Take him where he cannot hear us, nor we hear him. There tie him to a tree. I will--I mean, Aslan will--do justice to him later.

From an NPR interview, by Robin Young, with Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori:

RY: TIME Magazine asked you an interesting question, we thought, "Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven?" And your answer, equally interesting, you said "We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box." And I read that and I said "What are you: a Unitarian?!?" [laughs] What are you-- that is another concern for people, because, they say Scripture says that Jesus says he was The Light and The Way and the only way to God the Father.

KJS: Christians understand that Jesus is the route to God. Umm-- that is not to say that Muslims, or Sikhs, or Jains, come to God in a radically different way. They come to God through... human experience... through human experience of the divine. Christians talk about that in terms of Jesus.

RY: So you're saying there are other ways to God.

KJS: Uhh... human communities have always searched for relationship that which is beyond them.. with the ultimate.. with the divine. For Christians, we say that our route to God is through Jesus. Uhh.. uh..that doesn't mean that a Hindu.. uh.. doesn't experience God except through Jesus. It-it-it says that Hindus and people of other faith traditions approach God through their.. own cultural contexts; they relate to God, they experience God in human relationships, as well as ones that transcend human relationships; and Christians would say those are our experiences of Jesus; of God through the experience of Jesus.

RY: It sounds like you're saying it's a parallel reality, but in another culture and language.

KJS: I think that's accurate.. I think that's accurate.

Here is what I wish the Presiding Bishop had said.

I really never thought it would come to this...

I first attended an Episcopal Church a little over 30 years ago. I joined the Episcopal Church 22 years ago, and I was ordained 19 years ago. Looking at the developments that have occurred over this period, someone might draw the analogy that I was a newly commissioned officer who sailed out in a fast speedboat to catch my ship that had already left port; and I took my place as a crew member on the Titanic just moments before it hit the iceberg.

George Conger has written a piece today in which he asks the question: "Is this the end of the Communion?":

The long foretold crack up of the Anglican Communion appears to be at hand, as political wrangling and media posturing mark the final days before the start of the 14th Lambeth Conference. Though the programme of the 20 day conference in Canterbury is designed to avoid position statements or divisive outcomes—the agendas brought to the conference by the 600 some bishops present will likely push the Communion farther apart, effectively ending the Anglican project. [Please read the whole article.]

While I may wish that this were not true, I fear that Dr. Conger may be right.

Certainly, the Episcopal Church has been in a state of declining membership and increasing departures from historic, biblical Christianity for virtually the whole time I have been a member. But I always thought that the Anglican Communion would be the Episcopal Church's salvation, not that the Episcopal Church would be the cause of the Anglican Communion's destruction. I really never thought it would come to this.

Why did I think it would never come to this? Here are four reasons:

(1) I thought that efforts to renew the Episcopal Church from within, combined with the missionary imperative of the worldwide Communion, would overcome the pernicious influence of liberal theology and western decadence. Thirty years later, the missionary imperative still exists in the Anglican Communion, but only in the Global South and among a few constituencies in North America and Great Britain that are committed to world mission. But the overwhelming tendency has been for those in the liberal church structures of the Global North to subvert any parts of the Global South that they can win, seduce, or buy. I have seen countless times what 30 pieces of silver can pay for when measured in rice, maize, potatoes, clinics, schools, episcopal preferments, project grants, opportunities to study abroad, appointment to international commissions, etc.

I spoke just today with a candidate for bishop in a Global South diocese. I mentioned that it was odd that none of the bishops from dioceses in his province had attended GAFCON, when only a few years ago, his province was looked on as soundly orthodox. He said sadly that his was a poor province and its bishops were "easily bought." In the months prior to GAFCON, each of the dioceses in his province "had been visited." (It was clear he was referring to visits by representatives of the western churches eager to see that bishops there distanced themselves from GAFCON.)

The missionary imperative in the Anglican Communion remains strong. But that is chiefly the case in those dioceses and provinces that are associated with GAFCON, and these are being driven out of the Communion by an agenda with which they realize, for the sake of their souls, they cannot compromise.

(2) I believed that the leadership of the Anglican Communion, most particularly the Arcbishop of Canterbury, would resist and even rebuke the western churches for their departures from historic Christian norms in faith and morals. Why did I believe the ABC would do this?

(a) Because common sense demands it. When the bonds of fellowship have been strained to the breaking point, it is only logical that the one who has strained them should be restrained, disciplined, rebuked, etc. It is not logical that the well being of the whole should be sacrificed in order to indulge the misbehaviors of a few.

(b) Because it is expected. While liberal activists in the west would protest, no one could seriously claim to be shocked that the leadership of a Christian body would hold its members to the standards that Christians have always held.

(c) Because it is easy. The Archbishop of Canterbury only needed to have issued the mildest of rebukes to the western churches in his rhetoric over the past three years and to have disinvited those bishops who were responsible for the consecration of the present bishop of New Hampshire to have made sure that the Global South participated fully in the Lambeth Conference. If Rowan had disinvited a couple of dozen American bishops and the Bishop of New Westminster, Canada, the nearly 300 bishops who have stayed away from Lambeth would have come. A show of strength and conviction on the part of the Archbishop of Canterbury, while unpleasant for the moment, would have insured that American and Canadian churches were a great deal more respectful of the consensus of the Communion in the decades ahead. It would have been an exchange of short term pain for long term gain. It should have been a no-brainer.

(3) I believed that the leadership of the Anglican Communion would be sufficiently concerned for the survival of the Communion not to allow the advance of a controversial agenda that can only divide and weaken it. The (London) Times ran an article this week, which Stand Firm excerpted under the humorous title, "Perhaps the Bishops Are Eating Their Parishioners," which contrasted the decline of active attendance in the Church of England over the last 150 years with the increase in the number of bishops. A conclusion not emphasized by the article (but one that should be obvious) is that, if the current rate of decline continues, there should not be a single practicing Anglican left in England in another 50 years. (Although the signs are not yet as apparent, the situation in the American Church is not much better.)

While, for various reasons, there may still be some practicing members of the C of E in 50 years, it is nevertheless undeniable that the decline in membership and attendance has turned into a nose dive. Divisions within the Church of England over the lack of adequate episcopal oversight for traditionalists will only hasten the Church of England's demise.

Faced with such a graphic reminder of the tenuousness of the Church of England's existence, one might think that the Archbishop of Canterbury would make a greater effort to secure the survival of the Communion as a whole. Instead the same lack of leadership which has hastened the Church of England's demise is now threatening the survival of the Anglican Communion as a unified body.

(4) I thought that the Archbishop of Canterbury's role as the occupant of a historic see would have compelled him to act more strongly for the preservation of the catholic and apostolic faith in his own Church and the preservation of ecumenical ties with the other historic sees of the Christian Church. Instead the apparent sympathies of the present Archbishop of Canterbury have so weakened his loyalty to catholic teaching and practice that he refuses to utilize the instruments open to him (even that of the "bully pulpit") to secure the adherence of the Communion to the same catholic teaching and practice.

It remains to be seen what will come from this Lambeth Conference. But all indications so far are that the Archbishop of Canterbury will do nothing; the assembled bishops will decide nothing; the American Church's publicity steamroller will roll on; and the various churches of the Communion will follow the American Church's slide into apostasy--as, indeed, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales already seem poised to do. Somehow, I really never thought it would come to this.

Moshing for Jesus at "Christian Woodstock"

MOUNT UNION, Pa (Reuters) - A music festival with heavy metal, punk, hip-hop and pop music might seem like an unusual place to get baptized, but Creation is a festival with strict rules: no alcohol, no drugs and no sex before marriage.

"It's like the Christian version of Woodstock, basically, except it's neat and clean," said Victor Gibson, 37, from Manheim, Pennsylvania, who brought his wife and five children aged from five to 14 to the four-day festival.

"Take a look back at the crowd," he said, as thousands of fans held their arms in the air, pounding out the beat of a song by Christian band Kutless, whose sound Gibson likened to Metallica. "No rioting, no fighting, nobody getting beat up."

And from another report:

Dozens of young people at Creation, a Christian music festival in Pennsylvania, wore green T-shirts with the slogan "Young Single Available."

They weren't looking for a date. They were proclaiming their willingness to spend a year as a missionary in Asia.

Read the articles here and here.

Church Times: "Has GAFCON changed the Communion for the better?"

The Church Times (UK) has an overview article on GAFCON with a poll asking the question: "Has GAFCON changed the Communion for the better?" Read the article, then vote here.

Jesus in China: Important Television [Updated]

A massive wave of Christianity has been sweeping across China in recent years, and the ruling Chinese party, officially atheist, has been struggling to figure out how to control it. In "Jesus in China," a joint project of PBS' Frontline/World and the Chicago Tribune, reporter Evan Osnos investigates one of the fastest growing Christian populations in the world, and how it could possibly transform China at this explosive moment in the country's history.

While I am always somewhat cautious about the coverage of Christian subjects by secular reporters, this program offered a very objective and revealing look into a powerful movement of God in the world's most populous nation.

This program, which originally aired on Tuesday, June 24, 2008, can be seen in its entirety on the website, here. The reporter's video diary, an interview with a Chinese pastor, and other background material can be found here.

Confessional or Conciliar: the GAFCON dilemma

If you read GAFCON's "The Way, the Truth, the Life" (484kb PDF) and Bishop Duncan's opening address, "Anglicanism Come of Age: A Post-Colonial and Global Communion for the 21st Century" (100kb PDF), you will encounter what can be regarded as one very significant contradiction: The writers of "The Way, the Truth, the Life" state, "The Anglican Church has always been a confessional institution..." whereas Bp. Duncan says, "Anglicanism is neither papal, nor confessional, it is rather apostolic and conciliar."

GAFCON's detractors may well see this contradiction as an opportunity to allege that those who are busily involved in crafting a new global Anglican future cannot even agree on the nature of Anglicanism's past and present identity. And, of course, there are those, from both the liberal and Anglo-Catholic camps, who have never liked the idea of Anglicans being a confessional people. It was considered a virtual article of faith in the Confirmation class I attended that the Articles of Religion (the 39 Articles) were in no way to be viewed as a confession of faith, such as the Augsburg Confession is for Lutherans or the Westminster Confession is for Presbyterians.

Such a view denies the obvious role that the Articles of Religion have played in both defining and describing the nature of a Reformed Catholicism that was no longer Roman. The fact that assent to the Articles is still required of those being ordained in the Church of England, and that, until 1824, assent was even a requirement for holding civil office in England, makes the Articles the nearest thing to a confession of faith possessed by the Anglican tradition.

But what about the future? Is the future of orthodox Anglicanism to be seen as confessional (as suggested by the authors of "The Way, the Truth, and the Life") or should it be viewed as conciliar, as articulated by Bishop Duncan in his plenary address?

I would argue that this apparent contradiction need not be an actual one. There is a strong case to be made that the two views can be reconciled, and the future identity of orthodox Anglicanism will be stronger and more complete if this happens.

Anglicanism should be seen as confessional in this sense: Can anyone imagine an orthodox Anglican future that is not grounded in the 39 Articles? If a movement is to be recognizably Anglican, it must stand in the theological tradition of historic Anglican norms. Those norms should then be expected to form the boundaries that determine who may participate in the councils of Anglicanism and what subjects may be considered.

To draw an analogy from history: Can anyone imagine that someone who did not subscribe to the doctrinal outcomes of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils (Nicea [325] and Constantinople [381]) would have been invited to the Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus [431])? Would those who failed to assent to the previously established consubstantiality of the Son with the Father have been permitted to engage in further discussions of the nature of Christ, the Holy Spirit and the Trinity? Neither were later councils free to reopen these decisions or go beyond the boundaries (in the sense of straying from the confessional declarations) set by the earlier councils.

Thus, the two models of being both confessional and conciliar worked together in a complementary fashion as godly leaders, united in the confession of one Faith, led the Church in its Gospel mission.

China needs our help (again)

My very first post on this blog was on December 10, 2004; and it was entitled, China needs our help. Three and a half years later, we have come full circle as a new report has emerged indicating that, in advance of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, the Chinese Government is cracking down on unregistered Christians, including funding of a campaign to eradicate house churches throughout China. A full report from Christian Solidarity Worldwide can be found here. A related story from Voice of the Martyrs can be found here.

What can Christians do? CanaAnglican, commenting on the Stand Firm blog had this to say:

The May issue of National Geographic is completely dedicated to China. It states that Christians comprise 8.4% of the population, roughly the same proportion as Buddhists at 8.5%.

That amounts to over 109,000,000 Christians in China !!
[...]
If a million in the U.S. would pray for our Chinese brothers each day for 110 days, we would have prayed for each of them once.

Actually, as I said in my December 2004 post, there are three things Christians can do:

Pray. Chinese Christians need our prayers for spiritual growth, the raising up of leaders for the Church, the growth of their witness to Christ in spite of persecution, and protection from persecution and temptations that would lead people away from the faith. "The earnest prayer of a righteous person has great power and wonderful results" (James 5:16b NLT). OMF International provides two guides entitled, How to Pray for China and China 30 Day Prayer Guide.  The Voice of the Martyrs also provides information that is useful in praying for the Church in China.

Write. While carrying out a crackdown with one hand, China has been reaching out to form new trade alliances with the other. Write your elected officials to insist that concern over human rights violations are a part of all trade and diplomatic negotiations with China.

• The White House


• U.S. Senate


• U.S. House of Representatives


• Canadian Parliament (--not the official Canadian Parliament site, but a convenient site with lots of information on contacting your MP.)

Go. There are many ways to meet and support the Chinese people. Below are just a few organizations that can help.

• Youth With A Mission


• Educational Resources and Referrals-China (ERRC)


• OMF International

Gay Anglican U.S. bishop enters into civil union [with commentary]

The openly gay U.S. Episcopal bishop at the center of the Anglican church's global battle over homosexuality, has entered into a civil union with his longtime partner at a private ceremony. [I usually think of a private ceremony being the bride, the groom, the minister, and two witnesses, not 120 guests.]

About 120 guests gathered at St. Paul's Church in [Concord,] New Hampshire for Saturday's ceremony for Bishop Gene Robinson and his partner of more than 19 years, Mark Andrews. The event was kept private out of respect for next month's worldwide Anglican conference, Robinson's spokesman, Mike Barwell, said on Sunday. [Oh, yeah, right, which is why this "private" event has been one of the top stories of the day in world news. If he really had "respect for next month's worldwide Anglican conference" he could have waited until after it was over. And if he had any respect for the decisions of the Lambeth Conference (Resolution 1.10, 1998) he wouldn't have done this at all.]

"It was absolutely joyful," Barwell said by telephone. "A lot of his supporters and friends were there, including many members of the gay and lesbian community." [But, again, it was just a simple, private ceremony--just like Gene merely wants to be a simple country bishop.]

The 77 million-member Anglican Communion, a global federation of national churches, has been in upheaval since 2003 when the Episcopal Church consecrated Robinson as the first bishop known to be in an openly homosexual relationship in more than four centuries of church history. [Yup, and if +++Rowan doesn't do more than hold Indaba groups and pray that this will somehow, magically go away, the Anglican Communion is toast!]

The Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion. [--Along with missionary districts established by the Anglican Churches of Rwanda, South East Asia, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, and the Province of the Southern Cone. Hey, this is getting to be some party!]

Disputes over scriptural authority, the blessing of gay unions and other matters have become a worldwide issue and threaten turmoil this summer when Anglicans gather for their once-a-decade Lambeth Conference in Britain. [Well, 280 bishops aren't even coming to Lambeth because +++Rowan hasn't done a bloody thing to deal with this mess, so that should lessen the turmoil somewhat--at least long enough to let the Indaba groups drink the Kool-Aid and sing Kumbaya.]

Robinson has in the past received death threats and wore a bulletproof vest under his vestments at his consecration in 2003. Two uniformed police officers stood guard at Saturday's ceremony in the state capital Concord, said Barwell. [Am I the only one who is sick of gay activists conjuring up imaginary death threats to get sympathy? 1, 2]

Robinson and Andrews held two ceremonies -- a non-religious one in which they became legal partners followed by a formal church service to give blessings to God for their relationship. ["These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me." (Matthew 15:8, Isaiah 29:13)]

Robinson, 61, a divorced father of two [but, of course, homosexuality isn't a choice, he was born that way], praised New Hampshire's lawmakers when they passed legislation last year to make the state the fourth in the country where same-sex civil unions are legal. The law took effect January 1. [But if he and his partner had gotten "married" then, it would have been old news by the time Lambeth rolled around.]

Robinson has suggested states go further and follow Massachusetts, which in 2003 became the first U.S. state to legalize gay marriage.

Robinson has said he wanted to enter into the civil union before leaving for England to ensure Andrew and his two daughters had legal protections given the threats to his life. [1. Just in case no one caught the previous reference to "death threats," let's whine about it some more, even if there is no proof any such threats actually existed. 2. Can anyone tell me what sort of legal protection this gives to his daughters, both of whom are now grown and were already his daughters from his actual marriage, not this weekend's bogus media event?]

Civil unions grant largely the same state rights as married couples -- from insurance coverage to tax benefits and hospital visiting rights -- but lack the full, federal legal protections of marriage.

Robinson has been excluded from the Anglican Communion's Lambeth Conference but plans to attend as an outside observer. [--Where he will give more interviews and be the subject of more news stories than anyone else at Lambeth. But, of course, he just wants to be a simple country bishop.]

Michael Reagan asks, "Is This Our Future?"

Two Christian preachers were stopped from handing out Bible tracts by police officers because they were in a Muslim neighborhood in England.

According to British news reports, the preachers were told by a Muslim community support police officer in Birmingham that attempting to convert Muslims to Christianity is a hate crime.

They were warned that if they came back and were beaten up, it would be their fault, not that of the thugs who beat them.

"He said we were in a Muslim area and were not allowed to spread our Christian message," one of the preachers said. "He said we were committing a hate crime by telling the youths to leave Islam and said that he was going to take us to the police station." The officer threatened, “If you come back here and get beaten up, well you have been warned."

Remember, this was not in the Middle East. It was a neighborhood in Birmingham, England, a nation whose official church is the Church of England, a Christian denomination.

Read it all.

Brigitte Bardot fined over "racial hatred"

A French court has fined former film star Brigitte Bardot 15,000 euros (£12,000) for inciting racial hatred.

She was prosecuted over a letter published on her website that complained Muslims were "destroying our country by imposing their ways".

It is the fifth time Ms Bardot been convicted over her controversial remarks about Islam and its followers. This is her heaviest fine so far.

The French film idol, who is 73, was not in court to hear the ruling.

The fine - equivalent to $23,000 - related to a letter she wrote in December 2006 to the then Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, which was published on her website, in which she deplored the slaughter of animals for the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha.

She demanded that the animals be stunned before being killed.

She said she was "tired of being led by the nose by this population that is destroying us, destroying our country by imposing its acts".

In a letter to the court Ms Bardot, who is a prominent animal rights campaigner, insisted she had a right to speak up for animal welfare.

The prosecutor said she was weary of charging Ms Bardot with offences relating to racial hatred and xenophobia.

[Original article, with photo, here.]

So let me get this straight: A letter to a public official, expressing a political opinion, can be cause for criminal indictment because the author chose to make it public on her website? Obviously, in France, liberty isn't what it used to be.

[Off-topic] Gas price and station locator

This is pretty nifty. Just go to the site below and enter your zip code. It will show you which gas stations have the cheapest prices (and the highest) on gas in your zip code area. It's updated every evening.

http://autos.msn.com/everyday/gasstations.aspx?zip=&src=Netx

[Off topic] US Government Immorality Will Lead to Bankruptcy

The Comptroller General of the United States proclaims that our current standard of living is unsustainable unless drastic action is taken. He warns that funding shortfalls for the Medicare program is five times worse than Social Security, and it will take $8 TRILLION to pay for what is promised today to beneficiaries, of which we have ZERO!

Protestant or Catholic? Anglicans must decide

Ruth Gledhill, of the London Times, reports:

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

---

A response:

It was the fifth century saint, Vincent of Lerins, who expressed the meaning of Catholic in what has become known as The Vincentian Canon:

Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.

Recovering the faith that was held universally, from antiquity, and by all, is what many of the Reformers believed they were doing in protesting against the medieval innovations and errors of the Roman Church. While the Radical Reformers did not care whether they rejected Rome and catholicity as well, our Anglican forebears were careful to demonstrate that their teaching was in accord with both Holy Scripture as it was understood and interpreted by the early Church Fathers and Councils of the undivided (Catholic) Church. So are Anglicans Protestant? Yes, in that our forebears protested against Rome's departure from true catholicity. Are Anglicans Catholic? Yes, in that our forebears always sought to maintain the Catholic Faith--as Vincent of Lerins would have recognized.

So, while, in one sense, Cardinal Walter Kasper seems to be presenting a false dichotomy, what he really means is this: Are Anglicans going to follow the Protestant Churches of the sixteenth century, the modern, "mainline" expressions of which are (almost without exception) departing into heresy, apostasy, and immorality? Or are we going to remain true to the teaching of the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? That is not a difficult choice at all for orthodox Anglicans. But it remains to be seen whether the various national Churches that make up the Anglican Communion, particularly the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada, even have any desire to try to be Catholic Churches. In that sense, Cardinal Kasper's words are a welcome and needed challenge.

I would simply add that Anglicans who think of themselves as Protestants don't need to be afraid of the word "Catholic." It means that we are true to the Faith of the undivided Church; it doesn't mean we are Papists. And Anglicans who consider themselves Catholics shouldn't be afraid of the term "Protestant;" because protest is what you have to do sometimes when the Church departs from catholicity at an official level, be it in the controversies of the sixteenth century or the controversies of the twenty first century.

Gene Appel: Saul - Standing Tall, Falling Hard

A few weeks ago, in a post entitled, "My Love/Hate Relationship with Megachurches, I wrote about Gene Appel, a teaching pastor who recently left the staff at Willow Creek Community Church. Gene's insightful and anointed ministry of teaching and preaching has blessed me very greatly over the past few years.

Gene's last message at Willow Creek was just posted to Digg this past week, and you can listen to it or download it here. From the life of Saul, Israel's first king who stood tall but fell hard, Gene teaches a lesson every believer needs to hear:

Partial obedience equals disobedience. Partial faithfulness equals unfaithfulness.

I hope you find this sermon as moving as I did.

Mark Steyn on Anglicanism and Post-Christianity

I recently ran across Mark Steyn's new book, America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It. Although it is not always obvious whether he sees it as a cause or an effect of "the end of the world as we know it," Steyn has some biting observations about the decline (one might even say the "self-destruction") of mainline Christianity.

If ever there were a time for a strong voice from the heart of Christianity, this would be it. And yet most mainline Protestant churches are as wedded to the platitiudes du jour as the laziest politician. These days, if it weren't for homosexuality, the "mainstream" Christian churches would get barely any press at all. In 2005, the big story in America was the Episcopal Church's first openly gay bishop; in Britain, the nomination of a celibate gay bishop; in Canada, New Westminster's decision to become the first diocese in the Anglican communion to perform same-sex ceremonies. In Nigeria, where on any Sunday the Anglicans in the pews outnumber those in America, Britain, and Canada combined, the archbishop is understandably miffed that the only news he gets from head office revolves around various permutations of gayness. Getting a reputation as a cult for upscale Western sodomites and a few attendant fetishists doesn't help when half your country's in the grip of sharia and the local Islamoheavies are just itching to torch your churches (98-99).

Most mainline Protestant churches are, to one degree or another, post-Christian. If they no longer seem disposed to converting the unbelieving to Christ, they can at least convert them to the boggiest of soft-left political cliches, on the grounds that if Jesus were alive today he'd most likely be a gay Anglican bishop in a committed relationship driving around in an environmentally friendly car with an "Arms Are for Hugging" sticker on the way to an interfaith dialogue with a Wiccan and a couple of Wahhabi imams.

...The United States has a strain of evangelical Protestantism strong enough to grow in the years ahead. Unfortunately, there is no such surging evangelicalism in Europe. In search of the guiding hand of God, some Europeans will return to Pope Benedict's church, some will accept Islam, but there will be no takers for the archbishop of Canterbury's watery obsolescent soft-left pap (101-102).

Okay, who wants to join me in being a "strong voice from the heart of Christianity?"

"My church went to the heretics, and all I got was a lousy T-shirt."

By now, anyone who reads Episcopal news, and especially the blogs (see: 1, 2, and 3) knows that the judge in the Virginia church property disputes handed down a decision that was a setback for TEC and a first round victory for the departing Anglican District of Virginia (ADV) in what, alas, promises to be a protracted legal battle.

In his written opinion, which centered on whether the difference between the two sides constitutes a "division" over a matter of religious opinion (as required by the Virginia statute at issue in the case), Judge Randy Bellows stated that "it blinks at reality to characterize the ongoing division within the Diocese, ECUSA, and the Anglican Communion as anything but a division of the first magnitude."

This language echoed a phrase contained in the Episcopal Church's brief in the case, which had asserted that the ADV's position on the Virginia statute "blinks at reality." Both uses of the phrase were intended as euphemisms for the much harsher accusation of lying.

Then the fun began:

"AnnieCOA," commenting on Stand Firm, wrote:

"TEC: Blinking at Reality"
Somebody better be making the T-Shirts! Profits could go to the ADV Defense Fund.

A mere sixteen minutes later, blogger Billy Ockham replied

AnnieCOA, Check ‘em out! Any profits will go to the ADV fund.

The link Billy Ockham had provided went to this Cafe Press page where you can buy T-shirts, boxer shorts, mugs, magnets, and stickers, all bearing the line:

"The Episcopal Church: Blinking at reality since 1976."

Don't you just love cyberspace sometimes?

Billy Ockham, writing on his own blog, explained:

Why 1976 you ask? Well, that's the year the Right Reverend John Shelby Spong was ordained bishop. It marks the beginning of an era.

Indeed it does!

But as Billy, who comments on Stand Firm under the name "mousestalker" remarked:

"My church went to the heretics and all I got was a lousy t-shirt!"

Well, Billy, thanks for the laugh and for designing this very timely merchandise.

Personally, I am going to buy a pair of those boxer shorts. Then, when someone asks me what I think of The Episcopal Church's lawsuits, I am going to unbuckle my belt, drop my trousers, and show 'em!

My love / hate relationship with megachurches

For nine years before I became an Episcopal priest, I was a Baptist minister, serving part of that time on the staff of Bellevue Baptist Church, in Memphis, Tennessee, which was then one of the largest congregations in the United States. The late Dr. Adrian Rogers was the senior pastor under whose ministry I was licensed and ordained. Adrian Rogers died a little over two years ago, but you can still hear his broadcasts on Christian radio stations in many cities; and his ministry continues at Love Worth Finding. I will always be indebted for what I learned during those years at Bellevue.

Many people I know today speak derisively of "megachurches" and attribute their tremendous growth to gimmics and shallow preaching. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truly great megachurches have reached their present size through: (1) articulate, relevant, biblically faithful preaching; (2) effective ministries for children and youth; (3) small groups to help men and women grow in personal discipleship. Congregations of any size could benefit from doing these things.

It is not that megachurches are perfect. Far from it. Being relatively close to the Chicago area, it has been easy to follow developments at one of the best known megachurches in America: Willow Creek, where, occasionally, I have benefitted greatly from the exceptional preaching of two teaching pastors: Gene Appel and Mike Breaux. In November 2007, Willow Creek announced that Mike Breaux would be leaving to become a teaching pastor at Heartland Community Church, which has two campuses in Rockford, Illinois, and one in Madison, Wisconsin. This was a natural and logical step, since Mike Breaux had been close to the folks at Heartland for quite some time.

In January 2008, Willow Creek announced that Gene Appel and Randy Frazee would be leaving Willow Creek to pursue other opportunities. Randy Frazee, who had only been at Willow Creek for 2 years, is becoming Senior Pastor at Oak Hills Church in San Antonio, where Max Lucado has had a remarkable ministry for many years. Gene Appel resigned from Willow Creek without indicating where he would move next. The announcement of their departure should have been made by Senior Pastor Bill Hybels; instead it was made (as another commentator noted) by a relatively little known and seldom seen elder. This past Wednesday night, I was at Willow Creek for Gene Appel's last time to teach there. Again, a group of elders prayed for Gene and said farewell. Bill Hybels was nowhere to be seen.

Another megachurch pastor I know had a showdown with his elders last year and barely survived a vote by his congregation to remove the entire pastoral leadership of the church. He spoke about sitting with his wife in a quiet corner of a restaurant for a long time one afternoon, trying to work through the pain of ministering in "this thing called the church."

One very large thing for which I would fault megachurches is their tendency to treat people--expecially pastoral staff and their gifts--as mere commodities to be used when they are helpful and discarded when they cease to be so.

While still living in Memphis, my wife and I were drawn to Calvary Episcopal Church. It was a startling and intriguing contrast to see the way they valued people. This was a historic, prestigious, "old-money" kind of parish, yet their loving outreach and genuine inclusion made everyone feel welcome. A farm family from the outskirts of Memphis was as much a part of the congregation as some of Memphis' wealthiest families. A child with Down's Syndrome was loved and embraced by the whole congregation. The parish welcomed street people who would have been escorted off the premises by security guards at the Baptist church where I had served.

But guess what: this church wasn't perfect either. A radical view of inclusion led some to condone the sin along with loving the sinner. A cultural experience of Christianity supplanted a serious pursuit of true discipleship and personal holiness.

So, amidst all this imperfection, where is the Church to be found? Some think the answer is in Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy. While there is much that I respect in both of these traditions, there are problems also that are too numerous to deal with here.

In a sense, the Church is to be found in all these imperfect places: in megachurches that preach the Word but value numbers more highly than individuals, in parishes that love people but fail to obey Scripture, in churches that struggle with the Leaven of the Pharisees (dead ritualism), in churches that struggle with the Leaven of the Sadducees (unbelief and liberalism), and in churches that display none of these traits but are the victims of the collective imperfections of their all-too-human members. In all these places, the Church is imperfect because it is composed of imperfect people. If I had a congregation of 10,000 people, and they were all just like me, it would still be an imperfect church (wow--would it ever!), because I am imperfect!

But in the midst of all these imperfect places filled with imperfect people, the Holy Spirit indwells a people who are Christ's body on earth. And, despite our feet of clay, he calls us, and loves us, and bids us to serve him. What a glorious mystery!

"I am my beloved's and my beloved is mine, He who pastures his flock among the lilies." (Song of Solomon 6:3)

"To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen. (Revelation 1:5-6)

A hierarchical church?

In light of my recent posts speaking up for Bishops William Cox and Edward MacBurney, someone wrote asking if I was perhaps putting myself and the seminary I represent in the crosshairs of the liberal establishment.  Specifically he asked if The Episcopal Church had any control over Nashotah House's property?  Does the Dennis Canon apply to seminaries?

No, I replied, the Dennis Canon only applies to the real and personal property of "any Parish, Mission, or Congregation."  But that started me thinking.  What if, at some future General Convention, someone introduced a new canon stating that the property of all seminaries that had historically served the Episcopal Church would, from that time forward, be held in trust for the Episcopal Church.  Would that make it so?  Could the Episcopal Church do that?

No, it could not.   In the first place, the seminaries have been founded, chartered, and incorporated as free-standing institutions.  The Episcopal Church has never asserted ownership of the seminaries.

Let's take another example: There are Elks' Clubs all over the United States.  They own club houses, often with facilities for dining and dancing.  Some local clubs own golf courses and other extensive facilities.  Suppose, at a national convention of Elks, they introduced a constitutional change stating that, henceforth, all of the properties of the local Elks' lodges would be owned by and held in trust for the national organization.  Would that fly legally?   I don't think so!

Why does the Episcopal Church assert control over local church properties?  First of all, in many cases local parishes have not incorporated as separate entities.  They have operated under the corporate status, tax exempt status, etc. of the diocese in which they reside and the larger Episcopal Church.

Secondly, and more importantly, in court arguments, the Episcopal Church has asserted that it is a "hierarchical church."   Presbyteries of the PCUSA have also been known to assert the same argument, though not always successfully. 

More specifically, with regard to property issues, some national church bodies, such as the Episcopal Church, have asserted that they are hierarchical churches, like the Roman Catholic Church.

Oh, really?  When did you ever see a Roman Catholic diocese hold a convention and elect a bishop?  Do Roman Catholic dioceses elect deputies and send them to a convention every three years where they can vote to do anything from changing the shape of the liturgy to approving same sex marriages?  The General Convention of the Episcopal Church could even change the Creed if they so desired.   I can envision someone responding that there are some things about the Episcopal Church that would never change; but they are speaking out of mere sentimentality, not with a view to legal or constitutional reality.  The fact is that there is nothing that inheres in the nature of the Episcopal Church, and there is no hierarchical authority (as in the Papacy) to see that it does.

Parenthetically, this is why there is all the fuss about the prospect of an Anglican Covenant.  For the first time in the history of the Anglican Communion, there might actually come into being a document with the authority to bind Communion members to standards of Anglican doctrine and identity.  And the very same people who are resisting the idea of an Anglican Covenant are the same ones who want to claim that the Episcopal Church is a hierarchical church!

No, what you have in the case of the Episcopal Church is a representative democracy, where every aspect of its constitutional and canonical structure comes from the consent of the membership and can be changed if the membership so chooses.

It is argued that "The Dennis Canon codifies the existing trust relationship the Episcopal Church has long had regarding property held by its parishes."   Try telling that to the members of King's Chapel, Boston (and other colonial churches), or Mariner's Church, Detroit; or St. Mary's Church, Los Angeles.  (There are other examples, but you get the point.)

The reality is that the Episcopal Church and its various dioceses enjoyed a maternal relationship with its parishes that had the appearance of ownership because no one in the parishes ever wanted it to be otherwise.  And just about the time the Episcopal Church was beginning to make changes that would alienate a portion of its members, some clever canonical lawyers, with the acquiescence of members who trusted their church, exercised the power of a majority to expropriate the property of congregations.

It is worth considering the technical definitions of two terms I have just used:

Acquiescence is the term used to describe an act of a person in knowingly standing by without raising any objection to infringement of his rights, when someone else is unknowingly and honestly putting in his resources under the impression that the said rights actually belong to him. Consequently, the person whose rights are infringed cannot anymore make a claim against the infringer or succeed in an injunction suit due to his conduct.

Expropriation is the act of taking possession of an item of property from its owner in exchange for little or no compensation and irrespective of the wishes of the original owner. The term is used to both refer to acts by a government or by any group of people.

Now what is my point?  Am I stating that congregations should violate the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church?  No.  My view is that the Dennis Canon is a legally enacted injustice and ought to be changed by legal or democratic means, or overruled by the courts acting on the basis of neutral principles.  What are neutral principles?  "Neutral principles" means that the trust laws of a particular state ought to apply to churches the same as any other entity.  That is to say, a church is not exempt from the trust laws that apply to other corporate entities just because it is a church.  To do otherwise, it seems to me, is to give preferential treatment on the basis of religion--to "establish a religion," in violation of the First Amendment.

In other words, to refer again to my analogy of the Elks' clubs, if it would violate the trust laws of a given state for the Elks' clubs to expropriate the properties of its local chapters by an article adopted by a national convention, then, under neutral principles, a national church organization should not be able to get away with it either.

Further, it seems to me, in the interest of fairness, that a church that claims the freedom to change something as fundamentally Christian as the definition of marriage ought to admit that it is sailing off into a Brave New World and have the grace and humility to release amicably those congregations and dioceses that cannot, in all Christian conscience, go there.  And church leaders who are so fundamentally anarchic as to throw off the constraint of historic Christian teaching ought to drop the pretense that they have an authority that is, in any sense, hierarchical.

On being joyful

Robroy made a comment about this blog on Stand Firm: "I love Dean Munday. If you read his blog regularly, one can tell that despite all the troubles and travails, he remains joyful."

Thank you, Robroy, for your kind words. As the title, "To All the World," and the tag line from Mark 16:15, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation," indicate, I started this blog to deal with the mission of the Church in the world. Occasionally, the purpose of this blog has been overshadowed by events in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. Those interruptions have not been entirely off-topic, since these developments have an effect on the mission of the Church in the world. For instance, consider this news from last week, "815 Ends Missionary Stipends, Travel Reimbursement." Matt Kennedy, writing on the Stand Firm blog, rightly characterized this development in his title, "All is Well™…or…"Let’s Cut back on Outreach so we Can File More Lawsuits." I couldn't have said it better myself.

In the midst of the turmoil last week over the deposition of Bps. John David Schofield and William J. Cox and the threatened deposition of Bishop Robert Duncan, the news could have been overlooked regarding the Presiding Litigator's intention to depose Bishop Edward MacBurney. I wrote these words to the House of Bishops/House of Deputies listserv in response to another Deputy who said that he believed the words of the PB calling for compassion toward Bps. Cox and Schofield were sincere:

You wrote, "I believe that the call of our Presiding Bishop to be compassionate toward these two bishops is genuine..." Let me state emphatically that I do not believe this to be the case. Bishop Cox had already been received into another province. He should have been spared this action. The PB was informed that Betty Cox is suffering from Alzheimer's disease and that the action against Bishop Cox was causing her severe mental distress. The PB was informed of this publicly by Kendall Harmon at the clergy day during her trip to the Diocese of South Carolina. [You can watch the video of Kendall Harmon speaking to the Presiding Bishop about Bishop Cox here. It is approximately 7:00 minutes into Part 5 of the series.] Bishop Cox has said that the PB never contacted him except for the letters pertaining to his deposition. If she did not show compassion toward Bishop Cox prior to his deposition, what reason is there to believe that she will do so now?

Today [3/13/08] it became public that charges are being brought against the Rt. Rev. Edward MacBurney for his visit to a non-Episcopal church in San Diego. (Bishop MacBurney is the bishop who ordained me to the diaconate and priesthood.) The Diocese of Quincy informed 815 some time ago that the MacBurneys are dealing with a son who is in hospice care with terminal cancer. If the PB wanted to demonstrate compassion, she could have waited until later to deal with this (if it had to be done at all).

What is going on right now is a cold, calculated show of force; and no amount of dressing it up with language about compassion is going to change that reality. Those who for decades spoke of tolerance, compassion, and inclusion are now running the Episcopal Church; and it is turning out just like George Orwell's Animal Farm.

I didn't sound very joyful when I wrote those words, though, in a very real sense, I still have joy, even when I contemplate all that is going on in the Episcopal Church right now.

Imagine what will happen when, as a result of depositions, there are about a dozen "former Episcopal" bishops in the United States. I predict that, if this keeps up, there are a number of retired bishops (who I could name, but won't) who will be moved to throw in their lot and join the bishops who are being deposed. I think it will have the effect of bringing into existence precisely the alternative Anglican jurisdiction in the United States the Presiding Bishop would like to avoid. There is a term for this: It is known as "the Law of Unintended Consequences."

The Law of Unintended Consequences states that the unintended consequences of an action will overwhelm the intended ones. That part of the Church's history that is summed up by the famous adage, "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church" is a prime example of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Why does that happen? Why does persecution bring about the very thing the persecutors are seeking to destroy? Because there lives in every true Christian a joy that cannot be overwhelmed by circumstances, that sees in those circumstances the predicted opposition of "the world" to God's truth and God's people, and that knows that, whatever may befall us, God reigns and God will triumph!

Remember Jesus' words, "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you" (Matthew 5:11-12).

In the midst of the crisis in Anglicanism right now, on January 21, 2008, I began another blog: Anglican Revivalist. Just as this blog, To All the World, was started to promote world missions, Anglican Revivalist was started to concentrate on those resources that will promote revival in the Church.

Regarding the beginnings of an alternative Anglican presence in North America, I, along with many others, have tried to advise various Episcopal leaders to follow the advice given by Gamaliel, regarding the early Christians, in Acts 5:38-39, "'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.'" They haven't listened.

Persecution cannot stop the Church. The immorality, heresy, and apostasy of those who do not really know Christ cannot stop the Church. Only sin, lethargy, discouragement, and unfaithfulness in the lives of God's people can retard the mission of the Church. That is why revival through the power of God's Holy Spirit is the essential, continual need of the Church.

What was the response of the Apostles after the outcome of their trial (in which Gamaliel had spoken)? "The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ" (Acts 5:41-42).

And so it should be with us.